Introduction:
Over the past two decades, Syria has been a central arena for complex regional and international conflicts, where the Russian and Iranian projects have intertwined with the calculations of the United States, Turkey, Israel, and numerous Arab states.
With the rapid transformations in the region and the ongoing war against Iran, the need arises to redefine Syria’s position and role, starting from a national perspective that rejects reducing the country to a mere pawn in the great power struggle. Instead, it envisions Syria as an independent, unified state with a buffer and stabilizing role in regional affairs, not as a platform for threats or blackmail.
Syria in Russian and Iranian Strategies:
Syria has occupied a pivotal position in the geopolitical doctrines of both Russia and Iran.
For Russia, the military bases on the Syrian coast represent the link between its influence in the Black Sea and its ability to maintain constant access to the Mediterranean, and from there to other theaters of operation in the Middle East and North Africa.
Iran, for its part, treated Syria as a crucial linchpin in an “axis” stretching from Tehran to Baghdad, Damascus, and Beirut, and considered consolidating its military and security influence there a prerequisite for the continuation of its regional project.
As a result, Syrian territory became a testing ground for Russian and Iranian military capabilities and a platform for employing transnational militias, at the expense of state sovereignty and social cohesion.
Therefore, any future settlement that leaves Syria as a “corridor” or “platform” within the doctrine of any external power is unacceptable from a Syrian national perspective.
The Ongoing War Against Iran:
The ongoing war against Iran is altering the balance of power in the region and gradually weakening Tehran’s ability to finance and manage its military and security networks spread across several countries, including Syria.
This development has two contradictory dimensions for Syrians:
On the one hand, it presents a historic opportunity to exert pressure to end the Iranian military and security presence in Syria permanently and to rebuild state institutions free from the hegemony and influence of the Revolutionary Guard and its affiliated militias.
On the other hand, it threatens to transform Syria once again into an open arena for settling scores if a national actor capable of formulating a clear vision for managing the post-Iran era is absent, preventing the vacuum from being filled by another foreign influence or by recycling old networks of tyranny.
Therefore, what is needed is a proactive Syrian vision that links ending Iranian influence with preventing the re-establishment of Russian or any other form of tutelage, and that prioritizes national interest above the calculations of regional axes. Syrian unity amidst regional power competition:
- The past years have produced overlapping spheres of influence for several regional powers within Syria, most notably Turkey and Israel.
- In northern Syria, Turkey maintains a significant military, political, and economic presence, linked to its border security, the refugee crisis, and national security.
- Conversely, Israel views any arrangements in southern and eastern Syria from the perspective of preventing the repositioning of hostile forces along its direct lines of contact. If the de facto partition or rigid federalization is established, Syria will become an open arena for competition among these powers, with a high probability of replicating the patterns of “buffer zones” and “security belts” that erode state sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Therefore, the required national approach stems from:
- Adherence to the unity of Syrian territory and rejection of any partition projects or formulas that use the protection of minorities or the national security needs of neighboring countries as a pretext for establishing permanent sub-entities.
- Openness to balanced security arrangements with neighboring countries that acknowledge their legitimate concerns, but at the same time ensure that Syria is a negotiating party and not merely the subject of bilateral agreements made behind its back. The Russian presence: between reality and the requirements of sovereignty:
- Despite changing international circumstances and the limitations on Russian capabilities on other fronts, Russia still maintains a significant military and political presence in Syria, manifested in military bases on the Mediterranean and networks of influence within some state institutions.
Dealing with this reality should be based on two complementary principles:
- Recognizing that ending any foreign military presence requires a gradual approach, linked to rebuilding national institutions capable of assuming security and defense functions, and to regional and international guarantees for the security of the Mediterranean and neighboring countries.
- Rejecting the consecration of any foreign power as the “sole guarantor” of security in specific areas (such as the Sahel) under the guise of protecting minorities, because this logic contributes to legitimizing political and military tutelage and simultaneously fuels the fears of other groups.
- In other words, the goal is a transition from the reality of a “forced partner” to that of a sovereign state whose foreign relations are managed according to a clear doctrine of national interest, not through the dichotomy of dependency or estrangement. From a major power approach to a Syrian national strategy:
- Many international analyses view Syria today as a testing ground for the major powers’ ability to manage their conflicts in a world increasingly leaning towards multipolarity.
- From a Syrian perspective, this international interest can be leveraged, provided the focus is shifted:
- Instead of asking, “How is Syria being used to weaken this or that power?”, the question should be, “How can the contradictions of external powers be harnessed to serve the project of a unified, democratic, and fully sovereign Syrian state?”
This vision necessitates:
A conditional alignment with the policies of certain countries when those policies aim to end foreign occupations and prevent the return of a security-based authoritarian model.
A clear independence from alignment with any open axes, ensuring that Syrian national forces do not become proxies for conflicting external agendas. Principles and Recommendations for a Future Syrian Policy:
Based on the above, we recommend the Syrian Future Movement adopting a set of practical principles and approaches for formulating a Syrian foreign and security policy in the coming phase, including:
The principle of ending the foreign military and security presence, through:
Working on a realistic timetable for the withdrawal of all illegitimate foreign forces and militias, linked to the rebuilding of the army and security institutions on national foundations, and the integration of
International and regional considerations.
Rejecting the exchange of one external influence for another, and emphasizing that the criterion for acceptance or rejection is the extent to which the state’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are respected.
Rebuilding the state on the basis of citizenship and the rights of all its components includes:
Developing a constitutional and legal framework that guarantees the political and cultural rights of all components, thus preventing the exploitation of the minority issue for foreign intervention.
Linking any security arrangements or administrative decentralization to a system of equal citizenship rights, and not to the logic of sectarian or ethnic quotas.
A balanced policy towards neighboring countries through:
Building a partnership based on mutual interests with neighboring countries, especially Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon, addressing security, refugee, energy, and trade issues in an integrated manner.
Reassuring neighboring countries that the future Syria will not be a launching pad for threatening the security of any state, in exchange for clear recognition of Syria’s sovereignty over all its territory and rejection of any permanent spheres of influence.
Linking Reconstruction to Sovereignty and Transparency through:
Adopting a reconstruction model that guarantees transparency and oversight, and prevents major economic projects from becoming tools for subordinating national decision-making to external powers.
Involving Syrians inside and outside the country in formulating reconstruction priorities, thereby strengthening national identity and curbing the brain drain and loss of human capital.
Conclusion:
The ongoing transformations in the region and the world, including the war against Iran and the shifting international balance of power, place Syria at a new historical crossroads.
It can either remain an arena for settling scores between major and regional powers, or it can seize this moment to rebuild a modern nation-state, ending decades of tyranny and foreign control, and establishing an active Syrian role in its Arab and regional environment.
Achieving the second option requires an independent Syrian political will and a strategic vision capable of managing external contradictions, not being beholden to them, and of transforming Syria’s geographical location from a burden into a source of strength for the benefit of its people and the future of its generations.
