02 ISSUE II
JANUARY 2025
JANUARY 2025
The Middle East Chessboard
Developments in Syria could undermine or embolden Western powers' strategies in the Middle East, shaping Syria's
future and the region's broader trajectory.
future and the region's broader trajectory.
By Parker Norman
The Middle East has long been the collateral damage of global power struggles. Countries like Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and Jordan are not just players but also resemble chess pieces that are moved by hands and are more powerful. These pieces were not designed to move freely; they were carefully crafted by colonial powers to serve imperial ambitions. Britain and France, the original players, set the rules over a century ago, and though the hands moving the pieces have changed, the colonial legacy of manipulation persists. Today, Syria sits at the center of this board, like the piece that could determine the game's outcome. Following the dramatic overthrow of the Assad regime in early December 2024, all eyes are on this piece, waiting to see who will make the next move.
The map of the Middle East – drawn a century ago – wasn’t designed by its people. It was sketched by colonial powers with their own agendas, carving the region into pieces that served their imperial interests. The Sykes-Picot agreement - drawn up by British and French diplomats as a deal between their governments – turned the vast Ottoman Empire into a patchwork of artificial states, ignoring the deep-rooted ethnic, sectarian, and cultural mosaics. These new borders weren’t designed for harmony; they were drawn for control, prioritizing the convenience of empires over the stability of nations. As a result, dividing and ruling became the hallmark of colonial governance there. In Syria, the French elevated the Alawite minority, a small Shia sect, to military dominance. In Iraq, the British handed power to a Sunni monarchy in a country where Shia Muslims made up the majority. In Lebanon, the borders were tailored to ensure a Christian ruling elite. These calculated moves ensured these nations stayed dependent and fractured, planting the seeds of discord that still trouble the region today. However, the creation of the Jewish-majority state of Israel at the expense of Palestinians in 1948 unlocked another level to this chessboard. Backed by unwavering Western support, Israel wasn’t just another piece; it became a player, too. With the ability to reshape the board, Israel’s influence often came at significant cost to its neighbors, fueling decades of instability and conflict, including in Syria.
Syria’s colonial long past laid the foundation for its modern conflicts. During the French mandate, policies of divide and rule entrenched sectarian divisions. The calculated favoritism towards the Alawites ensured French control but planted seeds of discord that would persist long after their departure. The Alawite dominance in the military later enabled Hafez al-Assad’s rise to power in 1971, solidifying a regime built on sectarian alliances and authoritarian rule. His son, Bashar al-Assad, inherited a precarious system that began to unravel with the 2011 uprising. But what started as a popular movement against dictatorship quickly turned into a brutal civil war, attracting international actors with competing interests. The chessboard became crowded once again, with Russia and Iran stepping in as Assad’s most reliable allies, while the United States, Turkey, and Gulf states backed various opposition groups. Israel targeted Iranian and Hezbollah positions within Syria, adding yet another layer to the conflict.
Israel’s role on the Middle Eastern chessboard is very crucial. Armed and supported by Western powers, especially the United States, it acts as an extension of their influence while pursuing its own strategic interests. In Syria, Israel has conducted airstrikes targeting Iranian and Hezbollah assets, aiming to weaken its adversaries without becoming deeply entangled in the civil war. In many ways, the situation in Syria echoes Israel’s actions in Lebanon and Palestine, where its territorial ambitions have long fueled instability. In Lebanon, Israel’s 1982 invasion turned into an 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon. Though it officially withdrew in 2000, the scars of that occupation linger, and Hezbollah’s rise as a dominant force in the region can be traced to this period. Similarly, in the West Bank, Israel’s construction of illegal settlements has effectively created a permanent Israeli presence that evolved into long-term occupations.
Israel’s reluctance to define its borders and its shifting frontiers, from the annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights to its settlements in the West Bank, reflect a strategy of incremental expansion. The recent move into Syria’s buffer zone on Israel’s border, following Assad’s downfall, raises concerns that history could repeat itself. Much like its presence in Lebanon and the West Bank, Israel’s operations in Syria could become another open-ended occupation under the guise of security.
As Syria’s war continues, the question remains: Who really controls the game? Recent developments suggest that the Syrians will attempt to reclaim their agency. However, external powers continue to wield significant influence in Syria, maintaining deep-rooted involvement through military presence, strategic alliances, and economic leverage. In addition, middle powers like Turkey have pursued their own goals, targeting Kurdish forces in northern Syria while seeking to expand their influence. Despite reducing its military presence, the United States continues to hold sway over oil-rich regions and supports Kurdish allies.
The global chessboard has grown more intricate, with alliances such as BRICS and emerging powers like China and South Africa stepping onto the board to challenge the dominance of Western influence. China’s vocal support for Palestinian self-determination at the ICJ underscores a shift in the geopolitical balance. This stance aligns with BRICS’ broader agenda to amplify the voice of the Global South and counter the impact of the colonial legacies in the Middle East. South Africa’s leadership in bringing a genocide case against Israel to the ICJ reflects its historical commitment to decolonization, rooted in its own struggle against apartheid. Together, these players are reshaping the regional dynamics. As these alliances gain traction, their moves could redefine the board, forcing traditional powers to reconsider their strategies.
In sum, the chessboard of the Middle East remains as dynamic and contested as ever. Though the colonial powers may no longer be physically present, their legacy persists in the fragile structures and unresolved conflicts they left behind. New players have entered the game, but the rules remain familiar. For Syria, the stalemate is palpable. It is the chess piece everyone is waiting to move; its position is critical to determining the winner of this geopolitical game. Yet, the risks are immense: one misstep could plunge the region into greater chaos, while the right strategy could shift the balance of power in favor of stability. Syria’s future hangs in the balance, embodying the tension between order and disorder on the Middle Eastern chessboard. Whether it becomes the move that breaks the cycle or entrenches the stalemate further will define not just its destiny but the future of the region as a whole.
parker norman is a scholar of the Middle East.