On Israel’s timing: Turkey turns against the “de-escalation” agreement as armed groups overrun northern Syria and advance southward

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has described the recent sweeping offensive involving formerly rival factions as a meticulously coordinated and long-prepared operation. This multi-faceted campaign, coinciding with the Lebanese ceasefire agreement and the U.S. presidential transition from Biden to Trump, demonstrates deliberate timing, likely intended to exploit geopolitical uncertainties.

Aleppo falls, Hama becomes the next strategic target

Within days of seizing Aleppo and its surrounding countryside, armed groups under the leadership of Abu Mohammed al-Golani, the leader of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group (HTS) also known as the Syrian Islamist rebel group Nusra Front, advanced rapidly toward Hama, a critical transportation hub in central Syria. Unlike in Aleppo, where the Syrian Army withdrew to avoid urban warfare and consolidate its forces, the battle for Hama involved intense clashes. The fall of Hama has raised serious questions about undisclosed arrangements and potential shifts in the Syrian conflict’s strategic landscape.

The city’s strategic importance

Hama is a major intersection in Syria that links the country’s center with the north as well as the east and west.

It is about 200 kilometers (125 miles) north of the capital, Damascus, Assad’s seat of power. Hama province also borders the coastal province of Latakia, a main base of popular support for Assad.

The region is predominantly Sunni Muslim but also has a minority from the Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shi’a Islam, to which Assad’s family belongs.

Syrian Defense Minister Ali Mahmoud Abbas addressed these concerns by emphasizing that the army’s withdrawal from Hama was tactical, aimed at minimizing civilian casualties and regrouping for counteroffensives. However, the rapid territorial losses, despite Syrian military resistance bolstered by Russian airstrikes, have drawn scrutiny over the military’s capacity to repel such coordinated assaults.

Armed factions’ leadership and goals

Abu Mohammed al-Golani announced via a video statement the capture of Hama following the full seizure of Idlib and Aleppo provinces. The operation, dubbed “Deter the Aggression”, marked a significant milestone for HTS and its allied factions as they moved further south toward Homs. Golani’s leadership of this coalition, which includes both Islamist and opposition groups, signifies a rare moment of unity among factions typically divided by ideology and strategy.

The Syrian Army issued a statement confirming that its units had conducted a tactical withdrawal from Hama, citing the need to “preserve civilian lives” after armed groups breached multiple fronts in the city. The statement also highlighted the “massive losses” inflicted on the attacking forces, despite their eventual success in entering the city.

In a broadcast by Syrian State Television on Thursday, Abbas detailed the army’s measures to defend the strategic city of Hama.

He affirmed that Syrian forces are still positioned in the vicinity of Hama and are fully prepared to carry out their national and constitutional duties.

He vowed that the army would not hesitate to restore security to areas occupied by terrorists.

The roles of Turkey and Israel: Coordinated or opportunistic?

Damascus has directly accused Turkey and Israel of facilitating the rapid advances of armed groups across northern and central Syria. According to the Syrian government, Turkey’s betrayal of a de-escalation agreement under the Astana Process, co-guaranteed by Russia and Iran, allowed these groups to regroup and mount a coordinated offensive. Ankara, which maintains control over significant portions of northern Syria, is accused of providing logistical and military support to the oppositions.

Simultaneously, Israel’s role has been described as part of a broader strategy to weaken Hezbollah and disrupt Iranian influence in the region. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, deeply involved in monitoring the Syrian conflict, has prioritized undermining Hezbollah’s presence while exploiting the fragile ceasefire agreement with Lebanon. Reports from Israeli security sources suggest that Israel anticipates a shift in Hezbollah’s focus to defending the Assad regime in Syria, which could indirectly stabilize the ceasefire along the Lebanese border.

Turkish ambitions and diverging interests

While Turkey officially portrays the offensive as an independent initiative by Syrian opposition factions, multiple reports indicate direct Turkish involvement. French news agency Agence France-Presse (AFP) cited opposition sources tied to Turkish intelligence, claiming that Ankara gave the “green light” for the offensive operation. AFP reporters on the ground witnessed tank battles involving Turkey-backed fighters near Aleppo, with orders reportedly coming directly from a Turkish-led operations center.

Observers suggest Turkey’s backing of this large-scale offensive reflects frustration with Assad’s refusal to engage in dialogue unless Turkish forces withdraw entirely from Syrian territory. Turkey’s actions, while aligned with its regional ambitions, appear at odds with Israeli priorities, as highlighted by the Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post, which criticized Ankara for diverting resources toward Kurdish targets in Tel Rifaat instead of focusing on the Syrian government.

United Nations and regional responses

During a U.N. Security Council session, Syria’s permanent representative Qusay al-Dahhak condemned the offensive as a coordinated Turkish-Israeli operation, facilitated by repeated Israeli airstrikes on Syrian territory. Al-Dahhak warned that the scale and scope of the attack indicate extensive international backing, with advanced weaponry, drones and logistical support funneled to the armed groups.

U.N. Special Envoy to Syria Geir Pedersen expressed concern over the deteriorating situation, urging a rapid move toward a political process that includes all Syrian parties and key international players. Pedersen emphasized that there is no military solution to the Syrian conflict and warned that failure to de-escalate could plunge Syria into deeper instability.

Iran, Russia and Turkey: Strained cooperation

Regional powers involved in the Astana Process — Iran, Russia and Turkey — have expressed alarm over the escalating violence. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, during visits to Damascus and Ankara, called for preserving the achievements of the Astana Process, which aimed to establish de-escalation zones in Syria. Araghchi criticized external interventions, particularly by Turkey and Israel, as destabilizing the region.

Meanwhile, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan denied allegations of foreign interference, claiming that Ankara supports efforts to reduce violence and prevent the conflict from escalating further. However, observers noted that Turkey’s focus on targeting Kurdish forces in northern Syria reflects broader ambitions inconsistent with Astana’s goals.

Broader geopolitical implications

The coordinated and large-scale offensive has significantly shifted the dynamics of the Syrian conflict. While Israel appears to view the developments as beneficial for its northern security in the short term, concerns remain about the long-term impact, including increased Iranian influence or the emergence of transnational extremist groups along Syria’s borders.

In Damascus, the government faces the dual challenge of defending its territory while navigating the complex interplay of regional and international interests. As the armed factions advance further south, the Syrian military’s ability to mount a robust counteroffensive will be closely watched, particularly given the strategic importance of Homs as a potential next target.