Iran’s role in Syria’s sectarian violence and instability
In the past few days, Syria’s coastal region, long considered a stronghold of the Alawite sect, has witnessed an eruption of violence that has left more than 600 dead – a grim toll that speaks volumes about the gravity of the conflict.
The clashes between Sunni Muslim gunmen loyal to the newly established government and Alawite communities that remain loyal to the ousted Assad regime have reignited the sectarian fault lines that have plagued Syria for years.
But what seems like a clash between local factions is, in reality, a complex interplay of internal and external forces – one that is shaping the future of Syria in profound ways.
This violence is not merely a consequence of the country’s internal divisions but also a sign of the deeper struggles for influence over Syria’s post-Assad future.
The unrest presents an existential challenge to the interim government under Ahmad Al-Sharaa, highlighting the tenuousness of the state’s control in the region.
While the interim government is striving to establish its authority and legitimacy, its capacity to navigate these internal divisions is being tested. The role of external actors, particularly Iran, has been largely overlooked but should not be underestimated.
In fact, Iran’s shadow looms large over the recent violence, raising questions about the extent of its involvement in exacerbating these sectarian tensions to achieve its own regional ambitions.Sectarian divisions in Syria are deeply rooted in history.
The ruling Assad family, members of the Alawite sect, have long been at odds with the majority Sunni population. For decades, the Alawite minority has dominated the government, military, and intelligence apparatus, while Sunnis have often felt marginalized.
The Syrian Civil War, which erupted in 2011, further exacerbated these tensions. Iran played a significant role in propping up the Assad regime, providing financial, military, and intelligence support to ensure its survival.
Tehran’s backing of Assad was not merely about maintaining an ally but also about securing a foothold in Syria as part of its broader regional strategy.
Now, with the fall of Assad, Iran is adapting its tactics. No longer solely backing the remnants of the Assad regime, it has reportedly been stoking sectarian violence to ensure Syria remains a fractured and unstable state-one where Iranian influence remains entrenched.
As the recent violence unfolded, reports emerged indicating that Sunni gunmen, perceived as loyal to the new government, began targeting Alawite communities-historically regarded as bastions of Assad loyalism.
The human toll of these clashes is harrowing, with 428 Alawites, 120 pro-Assad fighters, and 89 security forces confirmed dead. These numbers are not just statistics; they represent the deepening of the cleavages within Syrian society, where sectarian identity is increasingly weaponized by both local actors and external powers.
There have been credible reports suggesting that Iran-backed militia groups have played a central role in instigating the recent violence.
One particularly alarming incident occurred in Latakia’s Basnada village, where three individuals with links to Iran were caught attempting to kidnap a man from a predominantly Sunni village.
Their goal was to kill him within an Alawite community in an attempt to ignite further violence between the two sects. The perpetrators admitted to their actions, underscoring the strategic role that Iran’s proxies are playing in exacerbating sectarian violence.
These provocations are part of a broader Iranian strategy to destabilize the country and maintain influence in the region by exploiting the very sectarian divisions that Iran helped create and foster during the war.
By keeping Syria weak and divided, Iran ensures that no single power-neither the new government nor external forces-can effectively challenge its influence.
Equally concerning is the role of disinformation in fueling this violence. As seen in previous conflicts, the power of social media and online propaganda cannot be underestimated.
In this case, coordinated disinformation campaigns have beentraced back to networks operating under names like “Protection Observatory” and “Violations Documentation Observatory in Syria.”
These networks, believed to have ties to Iranian-backed entities, have been disseminating false narratives and incendiary content designed to further inflame sectarian tensions.
By distorting facts and amplifying the fear of perceived threats, these actors aim to create an environment in which violence seems both justified and inevitable.
Such campaigns are not simply the actions of rogue actors; they are part of a broader Iranian strategy to reshape the political landscape of Syria, even as the regime’s hold over the country wanes.
This manipulation of sectarian sentiments and the exploitation of fear for political gain speaks to the broader regional power struggle unfolding in Syria.
While Iran supported the Assad regime as part of its broader vision for regional dominance, its actions in these recent clashes show a darker, more destabilizing side to its involvement in Syria.
The violence is no longer about the Assad regime’s survival; it has become a battleground for regional power, where Iran’s long-term goals may supersede any commitment to the sovereignty of Syria.
The international community, particularly Arab states, must take a critical look at these developments. Iran’s destabilizing influence in Syria cannot be allowed to continue unchecked, especially as the country is on the brink of potential reconciliation and reconstruction.
A shift in policy is needed, one that addresses the root causes of sectarian conflict, curbs external interference, and allows Syria to heal from the wounds of war. But for this to happen, all parties-internal and external-must be held accountable for their role in perpetuating the violence.
The Gulf states, which have long been wary of Iran’s regional ambitions, must take a more proactive role in countering Tehran’s influence in Syria.
This includes providing stronger political and economic support to the interim government while also pressuring international organizations to take decisive action against Iran’s destabilizing activities.
At the same time, Western nations, particularly the United States and European powers, must recognize that Iran’s role in Syria is not merely about supporting a defunct regime but about shaping the country’s future in ways that align with Tehran’s broader strategic interests.
The failure to counter Iran’s influence will only prolong Syria’s instability and provide fertile ground for future conflicts.
The recent clashes in Syria’s coastal region are not merely an internal struggle for control; they are symptomatic of a deeper, more complex geopolitical battle.
As Iran seeks to expand its influence, it does so at the cost of Syria’s internal stability. For peace to prevail, Syria’s future must be determined by Syrians themselves, without the manipulation of foreign powers whose interests often diverge from the aspirations of the Syrian people.
The path to lasting peace and stability in the Syrian Arab Republic may seem distant, but with the right international pressure and a commitment to internal dialogue, it is still possible to forge a future where sectarian divisions no longer dominate the political landscape.
Only by acknowledging and countering the external forces at play can Syria begin the long process of rebuilding and healing from years of war and destruction.
