Beyond the dramatic and security-oriented field developments surrounding the operation referred to as “Deterrence of Aggression,” many questions arise about the true objectives of this attack, the regional and international players behind it, and its intended outcomes. Most importantly, what role does it play in shaping the future of Syria?
Some analysts believe that Turkey is orchestrating these events to achieve several goals, chief among them forcing Damascus to concede through military pressure after failing to do so via political and diplomatic means. Turkey appears to have seized a golden opportunity to align itself with the new U.S. administration under Donald Trump by playing a functional role in curbing Iranian influence in Syria and the region, in line with the strategic interests of both the U.S. and Israel. This raises further questions: Is Turkey acting alone, or are major international powers also involved? When considering global powers, attention inevitably turns to Washington and Moscow, each with its own strategic priorities.
Before the Aleppo offensive, Turkey shifted its rhetoric about normalizing relations with Damascus, making political demands. It argued that the Syrian regime was unwilling to engage in dialogue or reconciliation with the “Syrian opposition,” a narrative echoed in subsequent U.S. statements that blamed Damascus for evading UN Resolution 2254 and aligning closely with Iran and Russia. This narrative suggests the attack’s primary aim may be to stir stagnant waters in Syria’s difficult reality, forcing the regime into a corner and pushing it toward political compromise, leaning towards engaging with political solution efforts. Such speculation also brings Moscow’s role into focus: what stance is Russia taking, and where does it fit in this unfolding scenario?
Although Moscow defended its ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, observers noted that Russia’s response on the ground during the Aleppo offensive was less forceful compared to previous confrontations. Politically, Moscow appeared to adopt a wait-and-see approach rather than engaging in aggressive diplomatic or military maneuvers. This has led some to speculate whether Russia had some alignment with the goals of this offensive, especially following its failed attempts to mediate reconciliation between Erdogan and Assad and the stagnation of the Astana-Sochi process, including the deadlocked constitutional committee. Simultaneously, Russia may have sought gains elsewhere, particularly in its confrontation with NATO over Ukraine.
From this perspective, some argue that the Aleppo offensive was not about toppling the Syrian regime but breaking the status quo in preparation for a political settlement already being discussed between Washington and Moscow as Trump assumed office. Turkey’s role in this context is seen as functional, potentially even sacrificing Syrian armed factions, especially al-Nusra Front, after using them to deliver a blow to Kurdish ambitions west of the Euphrates. Turkey has long marketed its opposition to Kurdish aspirations of reaching the Mediterranean.
If this scenario suggests the offensive aimed to unsettle entrenched positions and pave the way for a political solution, another scenario cannot be dismissed: escalation leading to a broader conflict. This scenario is closely tied to Iran. The recent visit of Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to Damascus and Ankara conveyed a dual message: first, to reassure Damascus of strong Iranian support against the Aleppo offensive; second, to signal to the U.S. and Israel that Iran would not withdraw from Syria under military pressure. Attempting in Araghchi’s visit to Ankara to seek possible understandings regarding the Astana framework, it is clear that the disagreements and differences were significant and evident in the positions of both Ankara and Tehran regarding what is happening in Syria and what is desired for it in the future. If Iran translates its policies into military actions, the region could witness a major confrontation, with areas between Aleppo and Hama becoming a bloody battleground. Such a conflict could escalate into a fierce struggle on Aleppo’s outskirts, especially given the Syrian regime’s declared intent to launch a counteroffensive to eradicate terrorism and its supporters, a clear reference to Erdogan’s government.
This scenario might also draw other countries into Syria’s crisis. Israel, for instance, is unlikely to tolerate further Iranian military entrenchment in Syria. Similarly, Iraq could find itself embroiled in the conflict, not only due to its ties with Tehran but also as a neighboring state that may feel the repercussions of ideological and strategic clashes spilling over its borders.
In all cases, the Aleppo offensive and its potential expansion into other areas have marked a new phase in the Syrian crisis. While a political solution remains conceivable—awaiting Trump’s full assumption of power—the specter of a major escalation looms ominously over Syria’s bleeding population and uncertain future.