Syrian Forces March into Daraa

 

Photo source: The New Arab

By Naveed Qazi | Editor, Globe Upfront

In July 2021, Syrian regime forces marched once again into Daraa, the city long remembered as the birthplace of the country’s uprising. It was here, in March 2011, that residents toppled the statue of Hafez al-Assad, an act of defiance that symbolised the courage of ordinary Syrians against a seemingly immovable dictatorship. As Martin Chulov of The Guardian observed, Daraa’s fate has always carried symbolic weight: it had a spark of the revolution, and its later subjugation was meant to demonstrate Assad’s ability to crush dissent. It also reflected Russia’s determination to present itself as the guarantor of stability in Syria.

The roots of the 2021 confrontation lay in the so‑called 'reconciliation' deal brokered by Russia in 2018, after a southern offensive that forced rebel groups to surrender. That deal divided Daraa into zones: the eastern side under full regime control, and the western side, including Daraa al-Balad, under semi-autonomous committees formed by former rebels and civilians. Aron Lund, writing for Carnegie Middle East Center, explained that these committees were intended to preserve some local authority while surrendering heavy weapons, with fighters folded into the Russian-backed Fifth Corps. This corps was designed to limit Assad’s and Iran’s direct military access, effectively placing Moscow as the arbiter of southern Syria.

Yet the arrangement was fragile from the outset. Assad’s government never accepted the idea of semi-autonomy, and Iran-backed militias sought to dismantle it altogether. By mid-2021, tensions reached breaking point when residents of Daraa al-Balad boycotted the presidential election, a symbolic rejection of Assad’s legitimacy. In response, the regime imposed a siege. Al Jazeera reporters covering the crisis described indiscriminate shelling, tanks rolling into residential streets, and civilians trapped without food or medicine. The UN’s human rights office warned of 'alarming reports' of suffering, with tens of thousands displaced, mostly women and children. UN OCHA briefings at the time documented families forced to flee under fire, with humanitarian agencies struggling to provide shelter and relief.

Negotiations initially offered hope. Residents agreed to surrender light arms and permit three regime checkpoints in exchange for lifting the siege. But Damascus quickly escalated its demands, insisting on more weapons and expanding the checkpoints to ten. Reuters correspondents reported that regime soldiers and allied militias attempted to storm Daraa al-Balad, reigniting clashes. The compromise collapsed, and the siege deepened.

Russia’s role was pivotal but increasingly strained. Its military police eventually oversaw the regime’s re-entry into Daraa al-Balad in September 2021, raising Syrian and Russian flags. Yet analysts noted that Moscow’s reconciliation model was faltering. As Aron Lund argued in Carnegie Middle East Center, Russia had enabled Assad’s survival but struggled to impose lasting stability amid Syria’s corruption and Iran’s divergent interests. Scholars at the Middle East Institute described the relationship between Russia and Iran as 'competitive cooperation': overlapping goals but frequent friction over control of armed forces and local governance. In Daraa, Iranian-aligned militias undermined Russian-brokered talks, pressing for total regime dominance.

The crisis also reflected shifting regional dynamics. Arab states such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia, wary of Iran’s influence and Turkey’s footprint, began cautiously normalising ties with Assad. As The Guardian reported, these governments saw Assad as a counterbalance, despite his brutality. The United States, meanwhile, reiterated its support for a political process under UN Security Council Resolution 2254, but its limited leverage made Arab engagement with Damascus easier. Sam Hamad, writing in The New Arab, argued that Russia’s vision of 'reconstruction' in Syria was less about rebuilding and more about securing long-term financial and geopolitical influence. Moscow hoped to attract investment from Gulf allies and potentially even Western actors, turning Syria into a colonial-style venture.

Neighbouring Sweida, with its Druze majority, largely avoided joining Daraa’s armed resistance. As Syria Direct reported, Sweida maintained its own militias and refused conscription into Assad’s army, underscoring the fragmented nature of southern Syria. Communities calculated survival differently, and solidarity across the south was limited.

The humanitarian consequences of the 2021 siege were devastating. UN OCHA noted that 80 per cent of Daraa’s population was displaced during the fighting, with families forced to subsist on smuggled wheat or dwindling reserves. Medicines and clean water were scarce. Human rights groups documented civilian deaths, including women and children, from indiscriminate shelling. The UN called for an immediate ceasefire and unimpeded humanitarian access, but little changed on the ground.

Russia’s intervention assured Assad’s military success, but it did not deliver genuine stability. Moscow found itself overstretched, unable to reconcile Assad’s corrupt state structures with Iran’s divergent interests. Iran, through its Revolutionary Guard and proxy militias, provided Assad with manpower and exerted significant influence. As analysts at the Middle East Institute observed, Iran often undermined Russian 'peace' negotiations, pressing for total conquest rather than compromise.

The broader geopolitical picture was equally complex. Arab states that once supported rebels in Daraa began to embrace Assad, seeing him as a bulwark against Iran and Turkey. The UAE reopened its embassy in Damascus, and Saudi Arabia explored cautious engagement. The United States, while formally committed to Resolution 2254, offered only rhetorical condemnation. As The Guardian noted, Washington’s retreat from Syria created space for Russia to present itself as the guarantor of stability, even as its model collapsed in practice.

For Daraa’s civilians, the outcome was bleak. The siege revealed the fragility of Russia’s guarantees, the assertiveness of Iran’s ground forces, and Assad’s determination to crush autonomy. The international community offered little beyond statements of concern. As UN officials stressed, civilians were left to endure starvation, displacement, and bombardment, while regional powers recalibrated their alliances.

The symbolism of Daraa’s fate cannot be overstated. It was the city that sparked Syria’s revolution, and its coerced surrender in 2021 marked the triumph of brute force over popular defiance. Yet the resistance in Daraa also demonstrated that Assad’s rule remains contested. As Martin Chulov wrote in The Guardian, the regime cannot fight effectively without Russian airpower, and its reliance on Iran underscores its weakness. The people of Daraa, despite immense suffering, refused to legitimise Assad’s rule, boycotting his election and resisting his siege.

Looking ahead, the crisis in Daraa illustrates the contradictions of Syria’s war. Russia seeks to present itself as a stabiliser, but its reconciliation model is collapsing. Iran exerts decisive influence on the ground, often at odds with Moscow. Arab states are normalising ties with Assad, prioritising regional security over human rights. The United States remains rhetorically committed to a political process but has little leverage. And civilians, caught between these forces, continue to pay the highest price.

As Sam Hamad argued in The New Arab, Syria is becoming a site of colonial-style exploitation, where reconstruction is less about rebuilding lives than about securing geopolitical and financial interests. Daraa’s ordeal shows how these ambitions play out in practice: siege, displacement, coerced surrender, and the hollow promise of stability.

Ultimately, the story of Daraa is the story of Syria itself. A revolution born in courage, crushed by violence, manipulated by external powers, and abandoned by much of the world. Its people remain defiant, but their suffering is immense. As UN officials and journalists from The Guardian, Al Jazeera, and Reuters have documented, the humanitarian crisis is ongoing, and the political settlement remains elusive. Daraa’s fate is a reminder that Syria’s war is far from over, and that the struggle for dignity and autonomy continues, even under siege.