Islamic State (ISIS) Editorial: Syrian Conflict Is A Proxy War Between Iran And Turkey; The Interests Of Syrian Factions Coincide With Those Of International Parties, Do Not Constitute Jihad

The following report is now a complimentary offering from MEMRI's Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor (JTTM). For JTTM subscription information, click here. 

On December 5, 2024, the Islamic State (ISIS) released Issue 472 of its weekly newsletter, Al-Naba', which featured an editorial titled, "The Free Syria and Al-Assad's Syria." It argued that the fighting between forces led by Hay'at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) and the Syrian government is essentially a battle of proxies fighting on behalf of secularist Turkey and Shi'ite Iran, noting that the conflict in Syria has always been about political revolution, and does not constitute a jihad. Unlike ISIS, it said, the objectives of the Syrian factions align the agendas and projects of foreign parties.[1]

Fighting Erupted Just As International Interests Sought To Remove Iran From The Syrian Scene

The editorial opened with a hypothetical question about the nature of government system which the "Free Syria" factions seek to implement should the Syrian government fall, noting that an answer to this requires an understanding of the dynamics of "ugly" politics in historical and geographic contexts.

According to Al-Naba', the escalation of the conflict comes soon after the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire agreement, and in tandem with an international inclination to remove Iran from the Syrian scene. In addition, the escalation began after political dialogue between Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan came to a halt, which prompted Erdogan to address Al-Assad and his allies "from behind the curtain" of the Syrian factions, through political statements and hired guns. Geographically, said the editorial, the escalation is tied to Turkey's objective to carve out part of Syria's northern region to establish a buffer zone to protect its border and house refugees.

A Proxy War Between Turkey's Minions And Iran's Arms In Syria

The piece argued that the ongoing fighting is a "proxy war," where Turkey, a key "minion" member of the U.S.-led International Coalition, puppets other minions who present themselves as conquerors and liberators of the Syrian people, and who compete for praise from international sponsors or regional employers.

The Turkey-operated puppets and Iran's arms, it said, are fighting for better gains, beyond what was achieved during the Astana Process in Doha, or any other negotiating table, with the ultimate aim of drawing a map of "Future Syria."

It further discredited the political lingo of the Syrian factions, jihadi and revolutionary alike, since the capture of Aleppo, saying it is designed to reassure the international community, with fancy slogans promising "coexistence" with "pagan and esoteric minorities" such as "the Shi'ite Alawites, Isma'ilis, and Yazidis, not to mention Christians."

The editorial went on to condemn the pacifying tone used by "apostate" Hay'at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS), when it said that "Crusader Russia" is a potential partner in building a bright future for a free Syria, and addressed the Shi'ite Iraqi government using terms like "understanding" and "brotherly cooperation."

"The Syrian Factions Fight To Topple One Ugly Statue Only To Build Another In Its Place With A Beautiful Face!"

The Syrian conflict, the editorial continued, is a Jahili (pre-Islamic) revolution that seeks to establish the concept of a "civilian state." Therefore, it said, events in Syria do not constitute jihad in the way of Allah: "It is a revolution of liberation from an oppressive regime with dominant power, with the goal of establishing another 'democratic' regime that shares its power. These are the concepts and alphabets of revolutions, and will be the shape of 'Free Syria' after the era of Al-Assad's Syria!" The Syrian factions fight to topple one "ugly statue" only to" build another one on its ruins with a beautiful face!", it added.

Weighing the developments in Syria on a religious scale, Al-Naba' argued that the conflict is part of the divine law of "fighting by means of force," citing as examples the conflict between Jewish Israel and Shi'ite Iran, and Syria's nationalists vs. Syria's Nusayris (pejorative for Shi'ites) who are in power. The fight, it claimed, seeks to free people from the grip of the Nusayris only to fall into the grip of secularist Turkey and its nationalist factions, which does not point to "emancipation" from Jahiliyyah, or a pre-Islamic age of ignorance.

"The Interests Of Syrian Factions Intersect With The Desires, Interests, And Projects Of The International System"

The editorial went on to criticize jihadis and revolutionaries in Syria for tethering their objectives to the interests and recognition of the international system. This is in contrast, it said, to ISIS's approach years ago, which was opposed by the largest "Crusader-Jahili" military coalition in history, which sought to stop the advancement the Caliphate. The piece described this coalition as "a global conspiracy created by America, the Jews, Iran, Russia, and all the world's intelligence services."

Further emphasizing the significant difference between ISIS's "Islam-based" doctrine and the ideology promoted by the Syrian factions, the editorial highlighted that ISIS continues to, and has never stopped fighting Syrian forces in Syria's desert and countryside areas. The recent move by Syrian factions, however, "intersect with the interests of the Jewish-American alliance."

To conclude, the piece argued that the eventual objective of the Syrian factions is to "establish and improve" existing political agreements, while ISIS always has and always will act in accordance with Allah's commands, seeking to advance the interests of Muslims, which are in total opposition to the desires, interests, and projects of others.