A Puzzle Called Syria
A Puzzle Called Syria
In recent days, with the renewed assault of the terrorist groups Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham on the city of Aleppo and the recapture of parts of this city by these groups, nearly seven years after the end of the Syrian civil war, the issue has come back into the spotlight. Why do global and mainly regional policies tend to lead to a constant state of insecurity in Syria? Which countries benefit the most from the insecurity in Syria?
1. The Tourism Issue
At first glance, this section may seem insignificant, but it should be noted that before 2012, Syria was a tourist country. In addition to religious tourism, which attracted Shia Muslims from around the world, its coastal tourism, due to its pleasant Mediterranean climate, annually welcomed thousands of visitors from across the globe. It should also be mentioned that before 2012, Syria’s GDP, a part of which was generated through tourism, exceeded $50 billion annually. However, after the onset of insecurity, Syria’s GDP fell to less than $8 billion in 2021. Now, the question arises: which regions with a Mediterranean climate have replaced Syria’s tourism industry in its surrounding environment? The answer is quite simple: some of these tourists have turned to the occupied territories, while others head to Turkey.
2. Energy Corridors
A significant number of analysts who examine Syrian issues from the perspective of international political economy argue that energy corridors are a major factor prompting countries to try to influence Syria’s security developments. They attempt to dominate Syria or at least maintain a degree of insecurity there through their proxy groups.
It should be noted that Syria is one of the best routes for transferring energy resources towards the Mediterranean Sea and from there to other parts of the world. It is evident that the commodity of security in Syria may not necessarily be beneficial for the national interests of other countries and regions in the Middle East seeking to become an energy hub, including Turkey.
Additionally, for some regions looking to export their energy resources, the export of Iranian energy resources via Syria could serve as a competitor in the energy markets. This includes the occupied territories, which have recently started extracting energy resources from the Karish field.
Moreover, Qatar would benefit from insecurity in Syria because, in the event of instability, countries would be compelled to accept Turkey as an energy hub. On the other hand, exports of Iranian energy resources, especially gas, through Syrian soil would be limited, forcing Iran to export through Turkish soil as one of NATO’s members. Consequently, from this perspective, Turkey, some Arab countries, and the occupied territories benefit from the continuation of insecurity in Syria, which would limit Iran’s energy routes or lead them through Turkish soil.
3. Goods Transport Corridors
Although Syria is currently absent from any mapped routes for goods transport in China’s new Silk Road corridors and possibly in the future Indian Cotton Road corridor, it should be noted that, similar to energy resources, Syria, due to its long Mediterranean coastline, could secure a part of these goods transport corridors in the future if it becomes a secure country.
This could reduce Turkey’s dominance over potential new Silk Road corridors and Israel’s control over the IMEC corridor.
This means that Syria could partially, though not entirely, claim a share of the transit, which could reduce the traffic on other corridors. In this matter, the U.S. could also benefit because, in practice, China’s new Silk Road would pass through a NATO member country, Turkey, instead of Syria.
4. The Importance of Syria as a Gateway for Goods to the Middle East
It should be noted that just as Syria could act as a port for exporting goods and energy from the Middle East and even East Asia to the European Union and other parts of the world if it were secure and had the infrastructure, it could also serve as a port for importing goods from Europe, parts of Africa, and South America to the Middle East. From this perspective, it could put Turkey and Israel at a disadvantage and redirect some of their future tariff revenues towards Syria.
As a result, if insecurity continues in Syria, other countries will try to export their desired goods to the Middle East and Asia through Turkey or the occupied territories.
5. Syria’s Water Issues with Turkey and the Kurdish Issue
During Hafez al-Assad’s era, Syria also had problems with Turkey over the Euphrates River. However, at that time, Syria could use the leverage of supporting the Kurds to obtain its water rights from Turkey. Currently, with the insecurity in Syria, reduced revenues, dwindling foreign reserves, and the Syrian government’s lack of control over Kurdish areas, this issue has created an advantage for Turkey from a security perspective and strengthened Turkey’s position on the Euphrates water issue to the extent that Turkey can negotiate with regional countries, including Syria, regarding the Euphrates water in exchange for exporting goods and services to this country. However, from this perspective, it should be acknowledged that for the first time in the history of Turkey-Syria relations, Syria has used terrorist groups as a tool to exert pressure against Turkey.
6. Syria’s Energy Resources
Although Syria’s oil and gas resources are much less than those of other Middle Eastern countries, it still possesses some oil and gas resources, mainly located in the northern and Kurdish regions, where American bases are currently stationed around these resources. It is evident that, if national sovereignty is strengthened, Syria would ultimately seek to reclaim its energy resources, whether through legal means and international courts or by exerting force, which in turn leads to a sort of American green light for the continuation of Syria’s security developments to other regional players.
7. Ensuring Israel’s Security
Since its inception, Syria has always been considered an enemy of Israel. The existence of a unified and powerful Syria, which is also an ally of Iran, could impact the security issues of the occupied territories. As a result, continued insecurity in Syria is somewhat beneficial for Israel because it diverts the Syrian army’s focus and energy.
8. The Golan Heights Issue
The Golan Heights, which were separated from this land during the Arab-Israeli war, are of great security importance to Israel because they overlook Israel. It is not far-fetched that if the security puzzle in Syria is solved and its army can regain its strength, Syria might seek to reclaim the Golan Heights, whether legally and through international means or by force. Therefore, the existence of scattered insecurity in Syria serves as an advantage for Israel by diverting the Syrian army’s focus and energy, effectively providing Israel with a security commodity.
9. Capital Flight from Syria
It should be noted that during the Syrian civil war, a significant portion of the country’s economic capital and human resources left the country. To this day, Syria has become a consumer country, importing even the simplest consumer goods from other countries. However, the question arises: which country was the closest destination for Syria’s human resources and economic capital during the civil war? The answer is quite simple: the closest country that Syrian investors, workers, and traders chose, while also being geographically closer, was Turkey. Although Turkey hosted five million Syrian refugees during the Syrian crisis, it also managed to attract some of Syria’s cheap labor force and capital.
10. Using Armed Groups as a Political Pressure Tool
Even if these armed groups cannot fully control all of Syria, their supporters can use them as a political pressure tool to gain geopolitical, economic, and security concessions in exchange for withdrawing support or even using them as a bargaining chip. This has happened repeatedly throughout the history of the Middle East, similar to what Hafez al-Assad did with the Kurds against Turkey.
Conclusion
It should be noted that the two main players in Syria’s security developments, Turkey and Israel, have tried to turn Syria into a geopolitical environment to secure their economic, national, and security interests. It must be acknowledged that these two players have succeeded in this regard and, so far, have been able to advance their economic and security goals concerning Syria. Although they have not been able to dominate Syrian soil, and Iran, Russia, and Syria have played a more powerful role on the battlefield, even this limited insecurity in Syria has brought them closer to some of their geopolitical objectives. For instance, currently, no tourists go to Syria, no energy pipelines pass through Syrian soil, and no investor prefers Syria over Turkey.
Currently, the Syrian army lacks the power to play a role in security developments related to the occupied territories. Syria, as in the past, cannot support Kurdish groups. Regarding Turkey, which could have had a win-win game by turning Syria and the region into a geoeconomic environment, it appears that Turkey is seeking to achieve a win for itself alone by turning the region into a geopolitical area, driving the region towards a situation where there is only one winner. Future researchers should pay attention to the potential effects of strengthening armed groups on Turkey’s security. According to the Copenhagen School’s regional security theory, insecurity from one region can spread to neighboring areas. It is also worth noting that Turkey’s actions may be based on the idea that these groups grow large enough to maintain a constant state of neither peace nor war in a geopolitical environment in Syria, allowing Turkey to achieve its national interests.
