Dear Deeply Readers,

Welcome to the archives of Syria Deeply. While we paused regular publication of the site on May 15, 2018, and transitioned some of our coverage to Peacebuilding Deeply, we are happy to serve as an ongoing public resource on the Syrian conflict. We hope you’ll enjoy the reporting and analysis that was produced by our dedicated community of editors contributors.

We continue to produce events and special projects while we explore where the on-site journalism goes next. If you’d like to reach us with feedback or ideas for collaboration you can do so at

At What Point Is a Cessation of Hostilities Broken?

Without some form of military pressure on the regime, whether direct or by proxy,” write the Atlantic Council’s Faysal Itani and Hossam Abouzahr, there is no way to force the Assad regime to enter into legitimate negotiations with its opponents.

Written by Faysal Itani & Hossam Abouzahr Published on Read time Approx. 5 minutes
Residents search for bodies in the rubble of damaged buildings hit by government airstrikes in the al-Ansari neighborhood of Aleppo on April 7, 2013. AP Photo/Aleppo Media Center AMC

For several weeks, the cessation of hostilities (COH) in Syria led to a significant and widespread decline in violence. This gave the impression that parties to the Syrian conflict and their foreign sponsors had somehow reached a lasting cease-fire against all odds. In truth, however, and quite apart from the expected sporadic violations, serious fighting in key areas never ceased. The COH has steadily degraded over the past several weeks, and the most recent escalations in Aleppo, Idlib, Damascus and elsewhere beg two questions: Should the COH’s international backers, including the United States, declare the cease-fire officially void? And when should they pursue a different strategy that avoids the cease-fire’s inherent shortcomings?

Some of the recent increase in violence has consisted of regime attacks on parties excluded from the COH, like al-Nusra Front. These attacks would not violate the agreement, but other regime acts of aggression and outbreaks of fighting fall in a gray area, where the regime has targeted the Nusra Front, civilians and opposition groups party to the COH all at once. This highlights a key shortcoming in the COH, which either ignores the Nusra Front or allows the regime to target COH signatories and the Nusra Front simultaneously. However, the regime’s clear targeting of civilians and opposition signatories to the COH — as well as its continued blocking of humanitarian aid to multiple besieged areas — indicate that it is no longer militarily or politically meaningful.

From the start of the COH, Syrian monitoring groups have reported violations across Syria. They are mainly regime-instigated and include areas such as western Homs, where al-Nusra Front has no presence, and the Damascus suburbs, which are dominated by Jaish al-Islam. Even though the COH did reduce the level of overall violence, local activists complain that it allowed international media outlets to ignore Syria as though the war were over — which it clearly is not. Meanwhile, armed groups in Aleppo said things have continued as though the COH did not exist. Many Syrians rightly observe that the COH has enabled and publicly highlighted regime offensives against ISIS that were inevitably well received by some in the West. In summary, while the initial relative calm was a welcome relief for Syrians, continuing violations, reactivated front lines and unfavorable international implications are not.

As the reality of ongoing violence becomes unavoidable to Syrians, it poses grave political risks. The insistence on building a political process centered on a COH that does not exist alienates important Syrian opposition actors from the internationally backed political process. It also cements new military “facts on the ground” while fruitless negotiations continue, hastening a de facto partition of Syria along current front lines. As that happens and fighting continues, the conflict further bolsters the positions of the regime and the Islamist extremists, at the expense of other local actors.

The U.S. position on the COH’s unraveling is still unclear, but Washington will soon come under increasing pressure to act. This week, a group of 10 armed groups in Syria, none of them on the COH’s excluded list, formed a new operation center to launch Operation Radd al-Nizam (Countering the Regime), citing the need to respond to continued regime violations on civilian targets. Interestingly, the signatories include Jaish al-Ezza and the First Coastal Division, both of which receive U.S. support and have signed on to the COH terms. It is unclear whether they joined this group with the U.S.’s blessing or in violation of the near-obsessive U.S. focus on the COH-based political track. If the former, that would indicate a U.S. recognition that the COH track, depending as it does on meaningful regime compliance, was no longer a useful standalone strategy, and that greater military pressure was required. If U.S.-backed rebel groups are “defecting” from the COH, then the United States will find itself trying to catch up to local military realities.

On April 19, Riyad Hijab, head of the opposition’s High Negotiations Committee and someone working closely with the U.S. in the negotiating process, said: “There is no cease-fire on the ground … We call on the fighters to not stop fighting Assad.” His first statement is an objective truth, his second a recognition that he could not as a high-profile opposition figure continue to hold to the COH fiction without undermining his own standing and legitimacy. It is worth noting that he did not say the cease-fire was void, indicating that the opposition would be willing to adhere to it if the regime adhered to it.

When the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) agreed to the COH, it was with the intention of providing “their strongest support to end the Syrian conflict and establish conditions for a successful Syrian-led political transition process.” However, as the violence increases, the COH is becoming political window dressing, showing once again how the international community’s perspective is at odds with the reality of the situation. Bringing these two in line requires that the ISSG review the terms of the COH and consider ways of revising it, enforcing it, or, if it is beyond repair, doing away with it entirely and finding a solution that addresses the reality of the problem.

This crisis presents an opportunity to reevaluate the assumptions of Washington’s current Syria policy. Firstly, the COH and the (initial) decrease in regime and Russian air attacks benefited the rebel signatories, and restrained the regime from capitalizing on its favorable military position. It also hurt ISIS by allowing its regime and rebel opponents to redirect their resources from fighting one another to fighting the Islamist extremist group. Al-Nusra Front was also placed on the defensive, having been made irrelevant in the context of peace. Finally, it likely saved hundreds of innocent Syrian lives. All these outcomes served U.S. interests. Unfortunately, it has proven impossible to sustain them, for the obvious reason that, predictably, the forces that stand to lose from the COH are willing and able to destroy it.

Al-Nusra Front helped unravel the COH in Aleppo, but only by capitalizing on relentless regime violations against civilians and rebel signatories to the agreement. The core of the problem remains, as ever, the regime’s unwillingness to make any meaningful political concessions in a negotiation process that requires the COH to hold. Its strategy has been twofold: To transparently refuse any discussion of substantive political change; and to work to undermine the COH on the ground, improving its military position while making negotiations a welcome but empty distraction from local reality. In other words, the regime has continued its successful-enough strategy of the past five years.

U.S. diplomats have invested almost exclusively in the COH and negotiations, partly because U.S. policy limited their other options. Yet at least some U.S. officials also seemed to believe that, with Russia as a partner, the COH would enable meaningful negotiations between the regime and the opposition. Without some form of military pressure on the regime, whether direct or by proxy, there is simply no way that will happen. Russia is either unwilling to force the regime to respect the COH and negotiate (seeing as the military situation does not compel it), or unable to do so. The policy implication is the same. A cease-fire agreement in which one side feels free to continue fighting, and which contains no mechanisms for enforcement and punishment, becomes a cover for business as usual in Syria.

The views expressed in this article belong to its authors and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Syria Deeply.

This article was originally published by the Atlantic Council and is reprinted here with permission.

Suggest your story or issue.


Share Your Story.

Have a story idea? Interested in adding your voice to our growing community?

Learn more