Idlib battle a climactic end to Syria war?
Turkey stands to lose the most as Syrian and Russian forces prepare for major offensive
The Syrian regime’s army, backed by Iran and Russia, is preparing for a military offensive to retake the country’s last major rebel stronghold — the province of Idlib.
The battle could bring an end to a seven-year-old uprisingturned-civil war, but at the cost of a humanitarian disaster on a scale yet unseen in the bloody conflict. Some three million civilians are trapped in Idlib, along with tens of thousands of opposition fighters, including hardcore militants.
In recent days, Syrian and Russian warplanes stepped up bombings, targeting the southern edge of the province and signalling a slow start to the campaign. Here’s a look at the issues involved:
Who is in Idlib?
Idlib is located in the northwestern corner of Syria. It is ringed by Turkey to the northwest, the Turkish-controlled Afrin region to the northeast and regime-controlled territory to the southwest and southeast. A vital highway linking the cities of Aleppo and Damascus, known as the M5, cuts through Idlib’s eastern flank.
The province fell into rebel hands in early 2015. An alliance known as Hay’at Tahrir Al Sham, spearheaded by Al Qaida affiliates formerly known as the Nusra Front, dominates the province. Another rebel umbrella group called the National Front for Liberation is backed by Turkey.
An estimated 50,000 rebels, including more than 10,000 hardcore militants and Al Qaidalinked fighters, are cornered in Idlib. With nowhere left to go, some might opt to fight till death rather than surrender.
Turkey also maintains a troop presence — hundreds of soldiers deployed at 12 observation posts in Idlib. Syrian regime forces have massed to the south and southwest of the province.
Why is it a potential catastrophe?
An estimated three million people live in Idlib, nearly half of them having arrived there after being displaced by fighting elsewhere in Syria. Among the civilians are close to a million children, according to rights groups. A full-scale air and ground offensive is likely to send waves of refugees surging towards the sealed Turkey border, coinciding with the onset of winter. A top UN official has warned that an attack on Idlib could lead to this century’s worst loss of life.
What happens if chemical weapons are used?
UN investigators have previously attributed several chemical attacks in Syria to regime forces, including one attack using the nerve agent Sarin gas against the Idlib town of Khan Sheikhoun in April 2017.
The US says it will retaliate harshly to any chemical weapons attack by Bashar Al Assad’s forces and has suggested such internationally prohibited weapons are being readied for the battlefield.
Twice before, the US has resorted to missile strikes in response to chemical weapons attacks, only to see them used again.
Can bloodshed be averted? The presidents of Russia, Iran and Turkey met last week in Tehran to consider alternatives, but failed to reach a consensus. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani back military action, despite a ceasefire call by their Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Proposals include urging Hay’at Tahrir Al Sham to dissolve itself or join the Turkeybacked rebels. This would supposedly bring the group more under Turkish control and make it easier to deal with. But there are thousands of foreign jihadis among Idlib’s fighters, including Chechens and Chinese.
Another proposal is to open humanitarian corridors through which civilians could leave to regime-controlled areas, although that suggestion has yet to gain any traction.
What is the US role?
The Trump administration has little leverage to stop Russia, Iran and Syria from pressing ahead with the Idlib offensive. Washington has threatened military action in case of a chemical weapons attack but its mixed messaging on retaining a US presence in Syria and a cut in aid has diminished its already limited influence over the conflict.
Another tool in the US arsenal is economic pressure, but sanctions have been ineffectual since they first began to be applied during the Obama administration.