Syria’s fragile ceasefire

The Syrian ceasefire agreement between the government and armed opposition groups is the first widespread armistice in the nearly Six-year-old Syrian conflict. The UN-backed agreement allows fighting to continue against terrorist groups, including Daesh and the al-Nusra Front.

Although the ceasefire initiative is a result of a US-Russian secret deal and that it can improve Syria’s unstable situation to some extent, its continuation will be faced with some challenges and problems in the long-term run. In fact, a ceasefire cannot take hold in Syria for the following reasons:

1) No common definition of terrorism

From the time when international players expressed willingness to settle the Syrian crisis via a political solution, their different understanding of terrorism have always been an obstacle in the way of achieving a comprehensive solution to the crisis. While the US and Russia have agreed military efforts against Daesh terrorists and the al-Nusra Front group continue and other groups are excluded, from Moscow’s perspective many of other opposition groups are still need to be counted among the terrorist groups. Additionally, Washington has divided the militant groups into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ terrorists. Therefore, US and Russia’s lack of having a single definition of terrorism and terrorist groups is one of the reason which make the Syrian crisis fragile.

2) Disagreements among opposition groups

Although some players like Turkey and Saudi Arabia in the Syrian opposition front are backing the US stances compulsorily, they hold differing views with Washington in terms of their interests and goals. They have disagreements with the US over definition of terrorism and Syria’s future. For instance, Ankara and Riyadh, as two main backers of Daesh and al-Nusra Front, are seeking an end to military operation against the terrorist groups. In addition, Turkey for some reasons wants to recognize the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) in northern Syria as a terrorist group. It should be noted here that continuation of shelling Kurdish positions in the area of Azaz can violate the ceasefire agreement. Moreover, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, unlike Washington which says President Assad can stay until the end of a potential transitional government, want the Syrian president ousted from power. Thus, the Syrian opposition groups have different perspectives on the crisis and this will make the warring factions’ commitment to the ceasefire far-fetched.  

3) Disagreement between Russia and other regional players

Approach of Russia, as one of the ceasefire signatory countries, is different from policies and goals of some of regional players involved in the Syrian crisis. For example, Turkey is strongly against any kind of initiatives which Moscow stands on its other side. Saudi Arabia also sees Moscow’s presence in the Syrian equations not beneficial and attempts to challenge Moscow by all means. Therefore, this raises the possibility that some reginal actors such Saudi Arabia and Turkey breach the Syrian ceasefire agreement by provoking the opposition groups.

4) Continuation of terrorist groups’ survival

Presence of terrorist groups as well as continuation of their activities in Syria per se does not allow any kind of ceasefire to takes hold. In fact, one cannot pin high hopes for a stable ceasefire in the Arab country unless all terrorist groups are eliminated. There is also this fear that the terrorist groups which are included in the ceasefire plan will benefit from it and that the truce will help them to revamp their forces and rebuild their logistics capabilities. This issue can further worsen the situation in Syria in the future and boost military capability of the terrorist groups.  


By Dr. Shoaib Bahman a Middle East Affairs expert in Tehran