Just as Middle East observers exhaled in relief following the announcement of a ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel, Syria’s war reignited with startling intensity on 27 November.
Syrian opposition groups launched a military offensive that delivered striking results, capturing hundreds of kilometres of territory across the governorates of Aleppo, Idlib, and Hama in a matter of days – reclaiming some areas and seizing others for the first time.
The timing and rapid progress of the offensive caught many observers off guard. But this escalation is a predictable outcome of the international community’s consistent failure to prioritize conflict resolution over conflict management.
Diplomacy has repeatedly failed to deliver security in northwest Syria, or accountability for violations by the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. In the absence of a political process, opposition forces turned to military means to address their grievances and safeguard their communities.
The collapse of regime defences
In 2020 a ceasefire brokered by Russia and Turkey established the frontlines in northwest Syria and de-escalated the intensity of fighting. Since then the war in Syria has often been labelled a ‘frozen conflict’. Interest has waned, and the international community has largely shifted its focus to the easier option of managing the conflict rather than resolving it. Some governments have diverted their attention to other crises, while others have pursued normalization with Assad, hoping to mitigate his destabilizing role in the region and facilitate the return of Syrian refugees.
However, this approach had a critical flaw: it overlooked Assad’s continued attacks on civilians in northwest Syria, which have perpetuated instability, displaced thousands, and undermined livelihoods.
Opposition groups in these areas have come to see armed resistance as their only viable means of protecting themselves, improving their conditions, and drawing renewed international attention to Syria.
Their new military operation, named ‘Deterring Aggression’, was launched to counter escalating regime attacks and establish expanded safe zones, enabling displaced Syrians to return under improved security conditions. However, what started as a limited effort to secure residential areas has evolved into one of the most significant campaigns of Syria’s prolonged conflict.
The Assad regime’s forces in northwest Syria collapsed with unprecedented speed, surprising even the opposition leadership. After the initial lines were breached, the defenders struggled to regroup, leaving vast, strategically critical areas vulnerable to the opposition’s multi-pronged strategy. Simultaneous attacks were launched on several fronts, towards western Aleppo and rural Idlib.
In just a few days, opposition forces reclaimed the entire western countryside of Aleppo, gained total control over the city of Aleppo and Idlib province, and pushed further south into Hama. Their improved organization and tactics played a key role in these advances, but the regime’s vulnerabilities were also exacerbated by limited support from its allies.
Weakened support for Assad
The timing of the offensive, coinciding with the ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel, may not have been accidental.
Years of Israeli airstrikes targeting Hezbollah and Iranian forces and infrastructure inside Syria have steadily eroded their capabilities. Many Hezbollah fighters who previously bolstered Assad’s forces have been redeployed to Lebanon to defend against Israeli attacks, leaving regime defences stretched thin in northwest Syria.
Russian support for Assad has also weakened, as Moscow focuses on the war in Ukraine. The deployment of Russian airpower during the recent offensive was of a significantly smaller scale to the intensive bombardments of the pre-ceasefire period. This lack of aerial support was a decisive factor in the regime’s rapid collapse across key positions.
A political solution
Despite the opposition’s significant gains, their ability to maintain momentum remains uncertain. The Assad regime is reportedly redirecting reinforcements from other parts of Syria to bolster its defences in Hama. Meanwhile, Iran has mobilized its allied militias, including Iraqi factions, to support regime forces. Russia, too, appears to be increasing its military aid to Damascus, signalling that a coordinated counteroffensive may be imminent.
Regardless of which side emerges stronger in this latest round of fighting, it is unlikely to end Syria’s protracted war. Ceasefires and tactical agreements cannot resolve the deeper issues fuelling the conflict. Without a comprehensive political solution, the cycle of violence is bound to continue.
The stakes could not be higher. Each new offensive further scars Syrian society and risks further destabilizing the region. The critical question is not if violence will erupt again, but how long the world can afford to delay meaningful action.
To prevent deterioration, the international community must act decisively to revitalize the long-stalled United Nations-led political process. This requires sustained pressure on all parties to engage in good-faith negotiations focussed on achieving lasting stability. Prioritizing inclusive governance, accountability, and reconciliation is essential to breaking Syria’s entrenched cycles of violence.
