On Thursday, the Syrian rebel group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), labeled a terrorist organization by the United States, launched a surprise offensive in Idlib province, prompting swift airstrikes from the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and its Russian allies. However, contrary to Assad’s expectations, the insurgents successfully breached Aleppo, Syria’s second-most important city. Turkish media captured footage of HTS fighters entering Aleppo alongside armored vehicles, indicating a significant escalation in conflict. Local residents reported the sound of missiles hitting the outskirts, and civilian casualties were soon confirmed, including the deaths of four individuals, among them students, attributed to HTS artillery by state media. The offensive commenced with two car bombings and quickly escalated into intense skirmishes, leading to conflicting claims from both sides about the success and control of the city.
The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported that the Syrian government’s warplanes had conducted over 125 airstrikes across Idlib and western Aleppo since the onset of the HTS offensive. These airstrikes resulted in civilian casualties—at least 12 killed and 46 injured—and forced around 14,000 individuals to flee their homes. As the fighting progressed, HTS claimed control of numerous towns in the region and managed to recapture areas lost to Assad’s forces nearly nine years prior. Analysts noted the surprising effectiveness of the offensive, with some attributing the rebels’ success to the weakened state of the Assad regime and a lack of support from its key allies due to their engagements elsewhere, particularly Russia’s involvement in Ukraine, which has diverted military resources.
Experts pointed to the rapid advancement of the HTS campaign, which not only highlighted the fragility of the Assad regime’s defenses but also underscored a significant shift in the regional power dynamics. The distraction of Russian military resources away from Syria due to the Ukraine conflict and the recent counteroffensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon were cited as pivotal in emboldening the rebels. Dareen Khalifa from the International Crisis Group remarked on the unexpected resilience and initiative shown by HTS, signaling a potential rebalancing of power which may allow insurgents to assert more territorial control. The consequences of this rapid military evolution remain unclear, but there is a strong sense among the rebels that they may have an opportunity to exploit the perceived vulnerabilities of their adversaries.
HTS engaged directly with Iranian forces supporting the Assad regime, claiming responsibility for the death of an officer in the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Rebel leaders described the offensive as a retaliatory measure against regime aggression, dubbing it “Operation Response to the Aggression.” Lt. Col. Hassan Abdul Ghani affirmed that HTS was targeting key military bases utilized by Assad and Iranian forces to mount attacks against civilian areas. Reports suggested involvement from the Syrian National Army (SNA)—a Turkey-backed militia—with implications that the fledgling offensive might be supported or at least tacitly approved by Turkey. Turkish officials expressed their intent to deescalate the situation but acknowledged the rebels’ determination when faced with minimal resistance from Assad’s troops.
As the situation unfolded, both Iran and Russia voiced their support for Assad, calling for a restoration of order and national sovereignty. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reiterated Tehran’s commitment to the Assad regime while characterizing the Aleppo offensive as “Takfiri terrorism.” Meanwhile, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov offered his government’s backing but did not elaborate on the level of military assistance that could be expected. Observers noted a possible consultation between Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin, raising concerns about the regime’s stability amid ongoing threats from rebel forces. This turmoil illustrates the complexity of the Syrian conflict, suggesting that while outside actors like Iran and Russia attempt to stabilize their ally, they may face significant hurdles.
Former U.S. intelligence official Rebekah Koffler posited that the escalation in Aleppo might have been a calculated move by Putin in response to perceived threats from the West, particularly following the U.S. granting Ukraine access to long-range missiles. Her analysis suggested that the escalation by Russia into rebel-controlled regions might be an effort to counterbalance U.S. influence while simultaneously testing the limits of the Assad regime’s capabilities. Speculation about the possible use of chemical weapons by Assad drew further concern, indicating a potential regression to more brutal and indiscriminate tactics as the conflict continued to unfold.
The developments in Aleppo reflect the increasing volatility and unpredictability of the Syrian conflict amidst broader geopolitical shifts. The interplay of regional power dynamics—particularly the impact of Russia’s military focus in Ukraine and Iran’s support for the Assad regime—creates an evolving battlefield where the HTS and its allies demonstrate newfound aggression. While the immediate outcome of this offensive remains uncertain, the implications for the future of Syria, its leadership under Assad, and the role of foreign powers will continue to shape the region’s intricate landscape, influencing both domestic and international responses as the conflict progresses.
