Tensions between the Syrian army and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in the Syrian northwestern province of Idlib have intensified in recent days as a result of escalation by the extremist group, raising the prospect of a wide-scale confrontation between the two sides, including in the so-called de-escalation zone. The renewed escalation by HTS against Syrian forces raises several questions about the group's motives, the stance of international and regional actors, and the potential consequences and scenarios resulting from the military operations.

Motives Behind Escalation

Multiple reasons are behind Hayat Tahrir al-Sham's decision to ramp up hostilities against the Syrian army, with the most notable being:

1. Strengthening the group's standing inside Syria:

One of the key reasons that may have driven Hayat Tahrir al-Sham to resume operations against Syrian forces is its desire to reinforce its position among opposition factions in northwestern Syria. Despite being the dominant force in this area, the group is facing internal challenges, including the rise of other factions, in addition to public pressure over the worsening economic and humanitarian situation. The military escalation seems to offer the group an opportunity to reassert itself as a strong and influential military power. Moreover, this renewed escalation might be part of a broader strategy by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham to pressure international forces into granting it concessions or recognition of its political status. Through such actions, the group might be attempting to position itself as a crucial player in the Syrian equation, making it difficult to exclude it from future international talks or agreements concerning Syria's future.

2. Exploiting global and regional chaos:

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham's recent escalation coincides with significant changes on the international and regional stage, including the ongoing war in Ukraine and rising tensions in the Middle East. This global turmoil could provide the group with a window of opportunity to escalate its operations, taking advantage of the major powers' preoccupation with other crises. This would allow the group more freedom of movement without immediate fear of international intervention.

3. Tensions with Russian and Iranian forces:

It is noteworthy that Syrian forces are not the only target of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham's escalations. The group also has Russian and Iranian forces in the area in its crosshairs. Growing tensions with these foreign forces could be pushing the group to launch military operations to pressure them—either to reduce their presence in northwestern Syria or to achieve military gains on the ground.

External Reactions

International and regional actors adopt varying stances on the escalation between Syrian forces and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, as follows:

1. The United States:

Washington is one of the international players closely monitoring the developments in Syria, with its policy toward the country seeking to achieve several geopolitical objectives, particularly limiting Iranian influence. The US position on Hayat Tahrir al-Sham's escalation is somewhat contradictory. While it designates the group as a terrorist organization, it avoids direct escalation or taking strong actions against its operations. The US might see this escalation as an opportunity to complicate Russia's objectives in Syria. Washington perceives any developments that hinder Moscow's efforts in Syria—especially in the northwest—as potentially advantageous to its broader global struggle with Russia, particularly regarding the conflict in Ukraine.

2. Russia:

Syria is a strategic stronghold for Moscow, which has supported Syrian forces through its military intervention in 2015 to regain control of most of the country. Russia's stance on the group's escalation is firm, as it considers Hayat Tahrir al-Sham a significant threat to the stability of the Syrian government. However, Moscow also recognizes the importance of pressuring Turkey, since any escalation by the group could embarrass Ankara, which has a presence in northwestern Syria and is responsible for controlling armed factions there. Russia could exploit this escalation to press Ankara into reassessing its position, curbing the influence of the armed factions, or facilitating Syrian army operations in the area.

3. Turkey:

Turkey, too, is a key player in northwestern Syria, particularly in Idlib, where it wields influence through its support of factions opposing the Syrian government. Although Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is not a direct ally of Ankara, Turkey is compelled to balance its approach toward these factions to prevent widespread escalation that could lead to new waves of refugees crossing into Turkish territory. Thus, Turkey seeks to contain the escalation in Idlib, avoiding direct confrontations with the group or encouraging it to escalate against Damascus. Ankara is aware that such an escalation could jeopardize the ceasefire agreements it reached with Russia, putting Turkey in a difficult position and possibly forcing it to intervene more extensively to stabilize its border areas. 

4. Iran:

Tehran's stance on Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is clear: it considers the group a terrorist organization seeking to destabilize Syria. For this reason, Iran fully supports Syrian military operations against the group, whether through direct military backing or via the proxy militias it controls in the region. Iran views the group's recent escalation through the lens of its unwavering support for the Syrian government and its desire to eliminate any armed threats that could undermine the state's stability. However, Iran's involvement on the Syrian front may currently be limited, given its ongoing confrontations with Israel across multiple regional fronts.

Negative Consequences

The escalation by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham against Syrian forces could result in several negative repercussions, including:

1. Complicating political solutions:

The renewed military escalation diminishes the chances of reaching a political resolution in Syria. Fresh battles only deepen divisions among the warring parties, especially within the armed Syrian opposition in the northwest. With international negotiations over Syria's future already deadlocked, this escalation could delay any potential political solutions and further complicate efforts to resolve the conflict that has raged since 2011. The resumption of hostilities might also prompt greater international involvement, particularly from the US and Russia. Additionally, regional powers such as Turkey and Iran could increase their interventions in the Syrian conflict to advance their strategic interests.

2. Re-delineating lines of control:

The escalation by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham could alter control of territories. If the group achieves military successes, it might reclaim areas it previously lost or expand its influence, thus impacting the military dynamics between various factions and the Syrian government. This could result in a redrawing of territorial control in northwestern Syria. Furthermore, this escalation could weaken security agreements in the region, especially since the northwest had experienced a period of relative calm due to agreements between various parties, including the 2020 ceasefire deal between Turkey and Russia. The group's military actions could undermine these agreements and plunge the region back into military chaos, exacerbating the fragile security situation and making future de-escalations or ceasefires even more difficult to achieve.

3. Straining Turkish-Russian relations:

Turkey plays a crucial role in northwestern Syria, where it maintains a military presence. Therefore, the escalation between Syrian forces and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham could strain Turkish-Russian relations, particularly if Moscow intensifies its support for the Syrian army. Understandings reached previously between Turkey and Russia regarding the situation in Idlib could be jeopardized by the new escalation. Additionally, the hostilities could have ripple effects on other armed factions, some of which might be forced to either align with or oppose Hayaat Tahrir al-Sham, depending on their interests and alliances. This could lead to the breakdown of existing alliances or the formation of new ones, thereby shifting the balance of power in the area.

4. Obstructing the restoration of relations between Damascus and Ankara:

Syrian armed opposition factions are apprehensive about any rapprochement between Turkey and Syria, particularly in light of ongoing efforts to restore relations between the two countries. These factions fear that such a development could lead to the end of their influence in areas under their control in northern Syria. As a result, Hayaat Tahrir al-Sham might view its renewed escalation against the Syrian army as a means of derailing the "stalled" efforts to restore relations between Damascus and Ankara. This is especially the case given that President Bashar al-Assad has conditioned any reconciliation on Turkey's withdrawal from northern Syria and its cessation of support for armed groups there.

Possible Scenarios

Given the local and international dynamics surrounding the Syrian conflict, several potential scenarios can be outlined regarding the escalation between the Syrian army and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham:

1. Continued military escalation:

One of the more likely scenarios is the continuation of military escalation between Syrian forces and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. The latter might intensify its operations in an effort to inflict greater losses on government forces. Meanwhile, Syrian forces, with support from their Russian and Iranian allies, will likely continue operations to regain control of more areas in Idlib. A key consequence of this continued military escalation could be the strain it places on Turkish-Russian relations, complicating de-escalation efforts and opening the door to greater military interventions by external actors.

2. International intervention to enforce a ceasefire:

As the escalation worsens and pressure on civilians in conflict zones increases, international momentum may build to push the warring parties toward a new ceasefire. This scenario could come about through Turkish-Russian mediation or UN efforts to prevent a complete collapse of security in Idlib. While a ceasefire might temporarily ease the conflict, it is unlikely to be sustainable, given the deep divisions between the parties. Should a new agreement be reached, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham may try to exploit it to consolidate its control, while Syrian forces might use the pause to prepare for larger operations once the truce ends. If the military stalemate continues, there might be an opportunity for political negotiations between Damascus and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, mediated internationally—a possibility that could arise in the context of geopolitical shifts, such as improved relations between Turkey and Russia or international pressure to end the conflict.

3. Expansion of the conflict:

If the military escalation persists without effective international intervention to stop it, the conflict could expand with new regional and international actors becoming more involved. For example, Turkey might find itself forced to increase its military intervention in northern Syria to protect its security and economic interests. Conversely, Iran and Russia may seek to strengthen their military presence to counter any attempts by Turkey to expand its influence. This escalation would likely make a political solution more difficult and increase the cost of the conflict for all parties involved.

Conclusion

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham's escalation against Syrian forces in the northwest of Syria appears to be driven by a combination of political, military, and economic factors. While the group seeks to solidify its position and expand its influence, the repercussions of this escalation could be catastrophic, particularly by complicating the prospects of a political solution to the Syrian crisis. As a result, the future implications of the group's escalation remain complex and convoluted, casting a shadow of uncertainty over the stability and future of the de-escalation zone.