US-led military strikes on Syria would boost all of the country’s opposition forces, including jihadists, but would not be enough to precipitate the fall of Syiran President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, analysts say.
US President Barack Obama is seeking congressional authorisation for limited military strikes on Syria in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus on Aug. 21.
The strikes are being seen by some an opportunity to decisively shift events in favor of the opposition.
Indeed some US backers of military action say boosting rebels on the battlefield should be a key goal of any US-led strikes.
“Without the provision on reversing the momentum on the battlefield, then conditions are not created for the departure of Bashar al-Assad,” US Senator John McCain, a Republican, said last week.
However, the limited strikes Washington is considering, as well as the nature of the Syrian conflict, will make creating a nationwide momentum for the rebels difficult, experts said.
“Syria consists of countless localized conflict theaters, and the dynamics within each one are unique,” said Charles Lister, an analyst at IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Centre. “Strikes are highly likely to impact localized battlefields ... [but] shifts on a more nationwide level are less likely, although opposition progress in some areas surrounding Damascus and Aleppo is possible.”
Aron Lund, an expert on the Syrian uprising and Islamist movements, was similarly skeptical that strikes would produce a nationwide shift, though he said local reversals were possible.
“Rebels do not coordinate well across the country, but if attacks are focused on a particular area, this could result in a local breakthrough,” Lund said.
The diversity of the forces fighting al-Assad’s regime will also make it difficult for Washington to ensure benefits only accrue to battalions it backs.
“A recent communique about skirmishing between rebels in the Palestinian refugee camp Yarmuk and a neighboring area ... counted 11 different groups involved in that single battle in that single area alone,” Lund said.
In some areas, there are more obvious beneficiaries, including around Damascus, where the Free Syrian Army (FSA)-affiliated Liwa al-Islam group is dominant.
“Several dozen FSA-branded groups operate [there] in loose alliances, but the powerful Liwa al-Islam may have the potential to benefit most,” Lister said.
In other areas, the beneficiaries are less clear, and jihadist groups could stand to gain as much as US-backed fighters. In addition to the FSA — a grouping of battalions answerable to a military command under General Salim Idriss — a number of al-Qaeda affiliates are fighting.
They include the al-Nusra Front, which has pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), the Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda which has recently expanded into Syria.
Speculation remains about what targets the US might choose, with at least some strikes likely to focus on facilities linked to the chemical weapons that prompted the attack.
If the administration wants to help rebel forces, “air bases would be a likely target,” said Jeremy Binnie, a senior security analyst at IHS Jane’s who has examined potential targets.
“However, this would not make too much difference to the conflict, as the Syrian military is more reliant on surface-to-surface weapons,” he wrote in a recent analysis.