Since the beginning of the revolution in 2011, Syria has witnessed a state of political and military turmoil, marked by the fragmentation and division of the forces opposing the Assad regime. This fragmentation, which encompassed both military factions and political bodies, contributed to weakening the opposition’s ability to achieve the goals of the revolution and confronted it with significant challenges on various fronts. Over time, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) emerged as the dominant force in northwestern Syria, where it was able to develop militarily and politically despite its terrorist designation.
As events escalated, the Syrian conflict became more complex, with strategic shifts emerging in HTS’s position, which adopted a pragmatic approach to building a state or quasi-state in the areas it controlled. Within this transformation, Operation Deterrence of Aggression marked a turning point in the opposition’s development, ushering in a new phase of military and political coordination among factions, overcoming previous divisions. HTS’s efforts focused on restoring stability to liberated areas and establishing a cohesive governance model.
As the course of the conflict shifted, the liberation of Damascus was one of the most significant events that marked a pivotal turning point. The regime collapsed after its basic defenses were destroyed, opening the way for a new phase of challenges facing the opposition in governing the new Syrian state. This context represents a real test in state-building through its control of government institutions and its ability to provide basic services to the population, amid the humanitarian and economic crises the Syrian people are suffering from.
Syrian Opposition Factions: Fragmentation and Division
The main problem facing the opposition forces over the past 13 years has been the lack of effective coordination, whether between armed factions or between political bodies. This has resulted in weak joint performance and a failure to achieve the goals of the revolution.
Initially, this fragmentation manifested in the multiplicity of armed groups and the lack of a unified leadership capable of coordinating the efforts of the various factions. This fragmentation rendered the Syrian opposition chaotic, with each group operating separately, without an effective mechanism for coherence or coordination among them.
The widespread fragmentation led to escalating disagreements and divisions among the factions. This is particularly true given that these groups embraced diverse ideological orientations, which contributed to the growth of internal conflicts rather than a unified approach to confronting the Assad regime. Not to mention the overlapping regional and international interests that played a significant role in deepening this fragmentation, as some factions were linked to external backers with divergent interests, further fragmenting the opposition ranks.
The affiliation of some factions with regional and international regimes posed an ideological and political threat to each other, along with the emergence of complex foreign interventions, most notably the Russian intervention, which marked a decisive turning point in the Syrian war. This gave the Assad regime strategic superiority on the ground, at the expense of the military control of the Syrian opposition forces, who lost approximately 70% of the areas under their control.
The loss of vital cities and areas, such as eastern Aleppo in 2016 and eastern Ghouta in 2018, dealt a severe blow to the opposition’s credibility and the extent of its military strength. These losses revealed the weakness of military and political coordination, which contributed to strengthening the political position of the regime and its allies. The spread of extremist groups such as ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra in some areas also contributed to distorting the opposition’s image at home and abroad, causing it to lose some of its popular and international support.
In addition to the military aspect, the Syrian opposition’s failure to build a unified political entity was one of the most prominent factors contributing to its decline, as all attempts to unify the opposition’s ranks under a comprehensive political body failed. Despite the international community’s efforts to establish entities such as the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces and the Negotiations Committee, these attempts failed due to multiple political and ideological divisions and the disconnect between them and local actors.
The opposition’s inability to develop a unified political vision also contributed to its declining role in international forums, rendering it unable to influence the course of events. This came at a time when major powers, particularly the United States, had begun to redirect their priorities away from supporting the Syrian opposition.
The most notable international shift was the Trump administration’s decision in 2017 to halt the program to arm the moderate opposition, weakening its ability to resist the regime. This reality was reinforced by the fact that international conferences such as Astana and Sochi worked to establish de-escalation zones, which translated into a freeze in the conflict in favor of the Assad regime. In addition, the shifts in the regional positions of some countries supporting the opposition, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, contributed to their political isolation and made their position on the international stage more difficult.
Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s Transformations: Building Institutional Strength and Challenges of Independence
In this turbulent environment, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) has emerged as a major player in northwestern Syria. Despite its origins in al-Qaeda, it has gradually built itself up militarily and politically.
Despite its designation as a terrorist organization, HTS has been able to make strategic shifts that have established itself as a dominant force in the areas it controls. The most significant of these shifts has been its adoption of a pragmatic approach based on building a state or quasi-state in the areas it controls. It established the “Syrian Salvation Government” in 2017, which worked to establish an organized civil administration that includes government institutions, courts, and a robust financial system, in addition to maintaining high-level internal security.
Although this move was sometimes considered symbolic, it granted the group a degree of local legitimacy and improved its ability to control civilian and community life in the areas under its control.
Militarily, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) strengthened its capabilities by modernizing its forces. It restructured its army based on strict military discipline, including the formation of a military college and a police college. It adopted modern technologies, including drones, which significantly altered the balance of military power and improved HTS’s tactics in battles with regime forces and their allies. This military development enabled HTS to impose its hegemony in some areas and enhanced its image as a field force capable of changing the course of the war in its favor.
Economically, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham faced significant challenges due to the scarcity of resources in the region. However, it was able to overcome these obstacles by imposing control over the border crossing with Turkey and establishing a border crossing with the Ghosn al-Yazitun area to collect taxes and customs duties. This, in addition to its extensive monopolies, enabled it to finance its military and administrative operations independently, strengthen its financial strength, and enable it to consolidate its authority in the areas under its control.
In its final stages, popular unrest against Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, organized by Hizb ut-Tahrir, nearly completely changed the local landscape in Idlib. Protests in some areas of Idlib and the western Aleppo countryside were linked to local and regional factors, such as the marginalization of the city of Atarib, which prompted demonstrations against al-Julani after the launch of the “No to the Marginalization of Atarib” campaign.
The distribution of activists and the population density played a role in the spread of the protests. While they spread widely in Idlib, they were absent from the Jabal al-Zawiya areas due to the small population and lack of activists. In contrast, demonstrations were absent from areas such as Al-Dana, Harem, and Salqin, due to the increased security presence of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) or the weakness of the civil movement.
Al-Julani was able to strengthen his ability to control the internal situation of HTS and the areas under its control after the killing of its leader, Abu Maria al-Qahtani. His death marked a turning point in resolving some internal tensions within HTS, allowing al-Julani to consolidate his authority and increase his security grip over areas that had witnessed some chaos and protests.
Al-Julani was able to capitalize on this period to increase his influence by implementing strict security measures against any opposition movements within his areas of influence. HTS also strengthened its intelligence and surveillance operations, making it difficult to organize large-scale demonstrations or protests against HTS’s policies, thus reducing the chances of any opposition movement escalating.
HTS was able to unify local forces under its leadership, working to limit the influence of rival factions and strengthen its role as a central force in the region. Despite continuing to face political and military pressure, the group has managed to present itself as a key player in the Syrian war, one with the power to reshape the field and political landscape in northern Syria.
Deterrence of Aggression and the Disengagement Phase
Operation Deterrence of Aggression represented a major turning point in the Syrian conflict, demonstrating the armed opposition’s ability to combine military decisiveness with political management to achieve strategic objectives beyond battlefield gains.
On the military front, the operation demonstrated a high degree of organization and coordination. The joint operations room, led by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), headed by Abu Muhammad al-Julani, achieved unprecedented factional discipline.
This operations room brought together several factions, such as Ahrar al-Sham and the National Liberation Front, helping to overcome the divisions that had previously hindered combat effectiveness. The recent battles on the Idlib, Aleppo, and Hama fronts demonstrated that field cooperation can create an effective tactical force capable of confronting the Assad regime’s forces, backed by its regional and international allies.
One of the most prominent factors that enhanced the operation’s success was the innovative use of drones, operated by the Shahin Battalion. These drones were not merely reconnaissance tools; they had become a primary means of carrying out precision strikes. against regime targets, enabling the factions to achieve a significant tactical advantage.
In addition, the military forces relied on other advanced technologies, such as night vision goggles and guided weapons, to expand their field capabilities. This contributed to improving their performance in night operations and protracted conflicts. Furthermore, military discipline played a pivotal role in the success of the operation. Fighters within the factions demonstrated high military discipline during the battles, adhering to organizational laws and military instructions.
Discipline within the “Deterrence of Aggression” forces was reflected in the orderly execution of operations, which helped enhance coordination between the various forces and the proper distribution of tasks across the fronts. This discipline was the cornerstone of smooth coordination between the various military blocs and enabled fighters to conduct complex maneuvers and execute precise strikes against regime forces.
The immersion fighters, who formed an essential part of the combat operations, demonstrated exceptional ability to strike enemy lines with surprise and effectiveness, especially on the Aleppo and Hama fronts, through rapid assault tactics and surprise strikes. These fighters were able to confuse regime forces, creating gaps in the regime’s defenses and disrupting supply and communication lines. These operations required a high level of training and discipline, as the immersion fighters took great risks to have a direct impact on the regime’s advance.
Politically, the objectives of Operation Deterrence of Aggression were not limited to winning battles. They also sought to establish a model of institutional governance in the newly liberated areas by orderly reactivating government institutions without excluding former regime employees. The leadership chose a tolerant approach aimed at building trust among the local population. This approach was part of a broader strategy for long-term stability, avoiding retaliatory actions that could spark societal unrest.
The success in capturing Syria’s second-largest city was a symbolic attempt to re-establish national sovereignty, but it was accompanied by practical steps to strengthen the leadership’s legitimacy, including adherence to the principle of “service legitimacy.” By providing basic services to the population, such as bread and fuel, and by maintaining internal security, the leadership succeeded in gaining popular support, strengthening the opposition’s position as an acceptable alternative to the Syrian regime.
