Syria in the Middle East Geopolitical Philosophy

Abstract

           In the context of international relations, the Middle East has traditionally been one of the key centers where processes originate and develop that are not limited to local-territorial frameworks but are capable of influencing the political situation on a global scale. In modern conditions, the region remains an area where different cultures and civilizations come into contact, and the interests of not only regional but also global players collide. The consequences of their actions are highly contradictory and ambiguous for the peoples living in the region. The situation is currently deteriorating. As a result, there is reason to believe that the Middle East, both in previous periods of history and at present, has a very unique status. At the same time, one of the sore points of the region for a number of years now has been the Syrian Arab Republic, the situation in which cannot be thought of in isolation, outside of geographical boundaries. The key problems of the Middle East are currently concentrated on its territory, as a result, it is here that the fate of the entire region is being decided. The complex nature of the existing international relations, in which modern Syria conducts its foreign policy, has a number of consequences, including - it orients the state leadership to the development and implementation of certain priorities. Their definition presupposes a special structure of foreign policy activities, concentration of efforts. The armed confrontation, which initially arose between the official authorities of the SAR headed by President Bashar al-Assad and the camp of his opponents, attracted the close attention of a number of regional and international actors, which contributed to both the complication of the structure of the Syrian conflict and its internationalization. The evolution of the conflict occurred under the influence of many diverse factors, including the terrorist threat brought in by radical Islamist groups, which then began to spread beyond Syria and further - the entire Arab world. Over the past decade, the broader regional security environment of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) has been shaped by a cycle of insecurity and instability. Structural transformation in MENA has unleashed forces that have destabilized the region through multifaceted conflicts that have involved many local, regional, and global actors. The security risks and challenges posed by the wave of instability and conflict have significantly reshaped the MENA region’s international relations. The decade of upheaval was driven largely by demands for political transformation observed in several countries. Broader transitions in the international order have also significantly accelerated the pace and direction of regional restructuring. The transformation of the regional order was driven by a wave of popular uprisings referred to as the Arab Spring. While the promise of democratic change heralded by the initial phase of the Arab Spring generated optimism, its second phase increasingly saw regional transformation in pessimistic terms. Initial projections of democratization generated mixed feelings about the future direction of regional transformation. However, no single actor’s efforts were sufficient to support the political transformation agenda, and divergent positions taken by different international actors led to a stalling of political reform. Increasingly, the region was drawn into a cycle of violence, as seen in Libya, Syria, or Iraq, creating a host of security challenges that threaten local actors as well as creating security spillovers for the international system as a whole. This new security environment ultimately changed regional and extra-regional attitudes toward the issue of political transformation, narrowing the scope for the reform agenda. For more than half a century, the Assad dynasty seemed to have an unbreakable grip on Syria. Backed by a formidable security apparatus, brutal force, and powerful allies like Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, it survived multiple uprisings and even a horrific civil war that killed hundreds of thousands and, for a time, saw the regime lose control of much of the country. In recent years, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose government had been sanctioned and ostracized by regional and international diplomacy since 2011, even regained some of his footing when the Arab League rebuilt Syria and there was talk of easing sanctions. But the regime ultimately proved a house of cards. To the world’s surprise, it was crushed by Islamist rebels from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham – the Syrian Liberation Group – in a matter of days, with little resistance. On Sunday, as rebels quickly took control of Damascus, Russia announced that Assad had taken refuge in Moscow and his former prime minister had been escorted to the Four Seasons Hotel in the Syrian capital to formally hand over power. It all took less than two weeks, with little bloodshed, in contrast to the huge number of people who have lost their lives in the war. Meanwhile, Israel, which initially welcomed the overthrow of the Assad regime, used the situation to launch massive airstrikes on military targets in Syria. As reported by Israeli officials, this is being done to prevent the arsenal of the fallen regime from falling into the hands of its opponents. Israel also moved tanks across the border into the demilitarized buffer zone. We believe that Israel has acquired new territories and expanded the borders of its state, I think this is just the beginning, Israeli geopoliticians have grandiose plans in their arsenal, we will not be surprised if a war begins for Iran, Israel certainly has its own interests here. Syria will probably no longer be the Syria that it was for the past 50 years, while the Assad family ruled this country. The Assad regime fell under the onslaught of Islamists, a kind of reincarnation of ISIS. Therefore, Israel has a very clear understanding of the need to protect its interests, its security first and foremost, even if this happens at the expense of violating international treaties, as in the case of the 1974 Israel-Syria Separation Line Agreement, which was essentially violated by Israel when the army went beyond the separation line into the so-called buffer zone.”