Syrian rebels’ offensive aligns with US interests—at least for now

The recent gains by Syrian opposition groups, including Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), have once again brought the complexities of the Syrian conflict to the fore. While Washington has long condemned the Assad regime, recent actions suggest the United States is seeking to maintain a delicate balance: no support for the outright collapse of the Assad regime but allowing dynamics that strengthen militant forces to a controlled degree. This strategy aims to weaken Iranian influence in Syria without enabling them to dominate the situation entirely.

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan addressed the duality of the U.S. position while acknowledging the longstanding terrorist designation of HTS, he also highlighted the strategic value of the Assad regime facing heightened pressure. “We have real concerns about the designs and objectives of HTS,” Sullivan said on Monday, “but at the same time, we’re not mourning the difficulties faced by the Assad government, supported by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.”

Weakened Assad, weakened Iran: Making sense of US position

The rise of militant factions like HTS is an opportunity and challenge for the U.S. as these groups serve as both a destabilizing force for America and crucial counterweights to Iranian and Assad-backed forces. The recent U.S. airstrikes on Iraqi Shia militia attempting to cross into Syria reflect this approach of disrupting Iran’s supply lines and influence in the region.

Timothy Ash, associate fellow in the Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House, told Türkiye Today, “The Americans bombed an Iraqi Shia militia group crossing the border, presuming to help Assad. Maybe the Americans were happy with the situation. For the Biden Administration, in its final weeks in power, removing Assad isn’t the priority—weakening Iran and its proxies is. Cutting Iranian supply lines could be key to that.

Preventing the entry of militias not only disrupts Assad’s military plans but also demonstrates the U.S.’ ability to shape battlefield outcomes without direct engagement.

The fact that Western media has avoided fully branding HTS as a terrorist organization, opting instead to describe them as “rebels,” has also reflected this strategic balancing act. The coverage and wording of the titles highlight a subtle but significant alignment between media narratives and U.S. strategic interests.

By framing HTS in less extreme terms, the portrayal enables a broader acceptance of their role in opposing the Assad regime. The United States’ approach also leaves room for narrative ambiguity; for instance, while Iran-aligned accounts on social media attempt to portray HTS as extremist, no single narrative has managed to dominate the discourse.

Observers argue that this framing and ambivalence align with broader Atlantic interests, especially in countering Assad and his Russian and Iranian backers, without presenting an overly positive image.

Focusing on their opposition to Assad rather than their extremist roots, the portrayal of HTS also reduces the stigma surrounding groups allied with Türkiye, a key NATO member. Long condemned and subjected to sanctions for its actions, Türkiye has now become one of the first stakeholders Secretary of State Antony Blinken reached out to. Instead of directly criticizing Ankara’s role in the conflict, Blinken opted for collaboration.

Joshua Landis, head of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, noted a significant consensus against regime change. “Nobody wants Assad to go,” he told Türkiye Today.

Regardless of how promising their potential may appear, Syrian opposition groups pose a threat to the alliances the United States has established in the Middle East. For this reason, the fall of the Assad regime—despite its complete disregard for human rights—serves no one’s interests.

Dror Doron, a former senior analyst in the Office of the Prime Minister of Israel, explains this dynamic from Israel’s perspective: “It is a rare case in which the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.”

One thing for certain, however, is that the weakening of Assad’s backers, particularly Russia, aligns with U.S. interests in Ukraine by further straining Moscow’s resources and focus. Moscow, a staunch ally of Assad, has ramped up its aerial campaign in response to “rebel” advances.

Analysts like Ash suggest, “It would certainly help the Ukrainians in negotiations, as all of these puts (Russia’s President Vladimir) Putin on the back foot, weakening his position in Ukraine talks—and that’s helpful in general.”

What’s next?

In a joint statement, the U.S., France, Germany, and the U.K. called for de-escalation in Syria following significant opposition gains. This coordinated appeal for calm, issued after key opposition victories, aligns with the West’s broader strategic goals in the region, particularly given the timing of the statement.

With tacit approval of developments that weaken Assad’s regime, attention has now shifted to the Syrian front of the “Iranian Crescent,” a term referring to the Shiite-dominated arc of influence extending from Iran through Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

Reports suggest that the U.S. is nearing a decision to empower the Free Syrian Army (FSA) at the Tanf base to sever the Iranian corridor along the Iraq-Syria border, including the Deir-ez-Zor region.

At the one-week mark of the operation, Arab factions within the Democratic Union Party (PYD) launched an assault on Iranian-controlled villages east of the Euphrates, capturing several villages. The group is expected to move southward. If the U.S.-backed FSA advances northeast from Tanf, it will effectively close the line, disrupting the corridor Iran has invested in for decades.

Such a maneuver would have been unthinkable before, but the recent offensive by opposition groups, which has brought them to the outer perimeter of Hama, now makes other plans feasible and realistic. If successful, the move could enable the U.S. to have a broader impact across the Middle East.

The U.S.’ measured response and strategic signals during the recent Syrian rebel offensive appear to be a carefully calculated move rather than a sign of power shifts during the last months of the Biden presidency.

By restricting militia movements, framing HTS in a nuanced light, and maintaining diplomatic ties with Türkiye, Washington has demonstrated a calculated approach to advancing its geopolitical objectives in the region.

As the situation evolves, these developments could pave the way for a recalibrated balance of power in Syria, aligning with U.S. strategic goals.