Both mainstream media and alt-media portray the Syrian conflict as a monolithic struggle between superpowers vying for control over the Arab Republic, but in reality, each state party to the conflict has divergent interests, goals and approaches to a conflict where the Takfiri terrorists have clearly lost but where the various state parties to the conflict continue to complete for different ultimate goals. The following is a summary of what each state party to the conflict is after:
Syria’s goal is the most straightforward for obvious reasons. In the words of the country’s President Bashar al-Assad, Damascus seeks to liberate “every inch” of illegally occupied Syrian territory from both terrorist factions and the armed forces of states that are not direct partners of Damascus. This means that in addition to continually liberating the remaining pockets of terrorist activity, Syria also wants the US and European troops to entirely vacate the country, while Damascus also seeks the evacuation of Turkish troops. Finally, while the illegal occupation of Syria’s Golan Heights by the “Israeli” regime dates back to 1967, liberating this occupied territory is also a long term goal for Syria and one that has re-entered national consciousness in a big way since the tide of the present conflict turned in Syria’s favour.
Russia’s goals for entering the conflict are two-fold. First of all, Russia realised that if Syria fell to terrorists, its only Mediterranean base in Tartus could be threatened. Secondly, Russia heeded the call of a long time partner in distress when Syria’s President asked Russia to contribute to the war against international terrorism that since 2011 was being fought on Syrian soil. Russia’s motivation for entering the conflict is incredibly simple and thus far, Russia has attained most of its goals while attaining the added benefit of becoming a closer partner to Turkey than at any time in history, arguably even more so than when Lenin and Ataturk signed a friendship pact in the 1920s.
Because of this and because Russia is keen not to spoil its ‘victory’ by allowing the war to continue endlessly (even if Syria were to keep up its winning streak), Moscow seeks to shift from a military process to a political process as soon as possible. This would involve Damascus solidifying its military gains against terrorism while also pushing Damascus to gradually re-establish relations with Turkey, once and for all address the Kurdish question over which Russia remains mostly neutral and working though political rather than military processes to eventually end the illegal US presence in the country. Crucially, Russia discourages any Syrian military engagement with the US, Turkey and “Israel” equally, though Russia admits it is not in a position to keep Syria from doing what it seeks to do in its sovereign territory.
“Israel’s” initial goal was to use its American, Saudi and Qatari allies to force Bashar al-Assad’s Arab Socialist Ba’ath party from power and replace it by a weakened and likely de-facto Zionist friendly theocratic regime or a failed state aspiring to be a theocratic regime. This goal failed and consequently, “Israel” has pivoted its Syria strategy from one of quietly helping regime change to overtly targeting and threatening to target actual and alleged Iranian targets within the Syrian Arab Republic. In this sense, “Israel” is fighting a proxy war with Iran by aiding remaining Takfiri terrorists while also conducting increasingly frequent airstrikes on so-called Iranian targets in Syria.
Ultimately Tel Aviv seeks to force Iran to abandon its Syrian ally and remove its men and resources from the country.
While many in alt-media refuse to believe it, Turkey’s goals are more similar to those of Russia than of any other party to the conflict. Turkey is keen to see the military phase of the conflict transform into a political settlement. This would likely involve multilateral guarantees that Syria will not be used as a base for anti-Turkish terror groups like the PKK, while Turkey would also expect some concessions from Damascus regarding an orderly and gradual withdrawal of Turkish forces from the country rather than a rapid one which could be perceived as an embarrassment for Ankara.
Furthermore, just as Russia continues to aid Syria in fighting what remains of Takfiri terrorists, Turkey wants guarantees from the wider world that no one will seek to impede its anti-PKK/YPG Operation Olive Branch in the north of the country until such a time that Ankara has done to PKK aligned terrorists what Syria wants to do to Takfiri terrorists: neutralise them in totality.
Crucially, Turkey wants to assure itself a position in a peace process that is ultimately more influential than that of the US or any EU state. Turkey is actually well on its way to achieve all of its goals.
Iran shares Syria’s goal of prioritising a military process over a political process in respect of liberating “every inch” of the country. Furthermore, Iran seeks to play a prominent role in Syria’s re-construction and future security arrangements. As Syria and Iran are allies, Iran has every intention to retain whatever military presence in the country that Damascus seeks in the future, which in all likelihood would be a rather prominent one.
Furthermore, Iran has used its influence over the conflict to make sure that Syrians are aware of “Israel’s” connections to Takfiri terrorism and that therefore is subliminally pushing Syria to incorporate a would-eb liberation of the occupied Golan Heights with present anti-Takfiri operations. Iran also is trying to position itself as Syria’s most important ally in spite of Russia having a more powerful military.
The United States
The United States wants to maintain a presence in north-eastern Syria in order to steel Syria’s oil in the region and to geographically retard a strong pro-Iran alliance forming between Syria and Iraq. In order to justify this, the US claims (falsely according to Syria, Russia, Iran and often Turkey too) it is there to fight Daesh (aka ISIS), while in reality, the US is using proxy Kurdish terrorists fighting under the SDF flag in order to create a buffer zone between uniformed US soldiers on the one hand and both Syria and its allies and Turkey on the other.
Because the US has failed in its initial goal of regime change, the US is likely looking to divide the country or otherwise set up a permanent zone of influence in YPG occupied regions of Syria. This is considered unacceptable to Syria and Iran for reasons of both pride and international law while Russia has also voiced its opposition to these US moves based on Russia’s commitment to the normal adherence of international law. Turkey objects to the US presence because of the continued US funding and arming of radical Kurdish terrorists, while Turkey has also adamantly opposed the would-be creation of a PKK dominated Kurdish statelet created by the US on legal Syrian soil.
While Turkey’s Operation Olive Branch threatens to ebb the expansion of US influence in north-central and north-western Syria, pro-Damascus Arab rebels in Raqqa are in the midst of a growing conflict against the US and their Kurdish terrorist proxies who have effectively annexed the property, cities and villages of Arabs and minority groups including Assyrians and Armenians.
The EU powers
At this point the EU powers can do little other than bolster the US troop presence in parts of Syria already occupied by America and in so doing, certain EU powers, particularly France hope to enrich themselves materially and in terms of creating a stronger partnership with the US in the name of future economic and trade relations.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar
While the Saudis and Qatar continue to support various Takfiri factions still operating in Syria, both Riyadh and Doha realise that their dreams of overthrowing the Syrian government and installing a Takfiri/Salafist/Wahhabi theocracy have failed. Because of this, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are inevitably scaling back both their funding and interest in terror operations in Syria while Riyadh has entertaining the possibility of joining French troops in bolstering the US occupation of north-east Syria.Riyadh has further threatened Qatar with military consiquences if Doha does not send its troops to Syria. This typically hyperbolic Gulfi sabre rattling was predictably rebuffed by a Qatari regime that remains at odds with Riyadh over a regional power struggle and a competition for influence in the wider theocratic and pseudo-theocratic Sunni world.