Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and
Overview and U.S. Response
Jeremy M. SharpChristopher M. Blanchard, Coordinator
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
Christopher M. Blanchard
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
September 6, 2013Carla E. Humud
Analyst in Middle Eastern and African Affairs
Mary Beth D. Nikitin
Specialist in Nonproliferation
April 9, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33487
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Summary
The popular-uprising-turned-armed-rebellion in Syria is in its third year, and seems poised to
continue, with the government and an array of militias locked in a bloody struggle of attrition.
Members of Congress and Administration officials are debating options for responding militarily
to President Bashar al Asad’s forces’ reported use of chemical weapons in attacks on rebel-held
areas and civilians. After the U.S. intelligence community concluded that Asad’s forces used
weapons in limited attacks earlier this year, the Obama Administration had signaled a pending
expansion of U.S. civilian and military assistance to the opposition.
Earlier in the conflict, U.S. officials and many analysts asserted that President Asad and his
supporters would be forced from power, but had difficulty articulating how that outcome would
take place within the timeframes they set forth. Recent developments suggest that both the
opposition and the Asad regime face considerable challenges in their attempts to assert greater
control over Syria. Increasingly, analysts have focused on the potential for the regime and its
opponents to carve out strongholds and prolong the fighting. Rapid escalation or swift regime
change could deal a decisive blow to actors seeking to advance goals contrary to U.S. interests,
but it could also further jeopardize the security of chemical and conventional weapons stockpiles
and/or lead to wider regional conflict.
Opposition forces are formidable, but regime forces, backed by Hezbollah fighters and Iranian
and Russian material support, have initiated successful tactical counteroffensives in some areas.
The Syrian military continues to use air strikes, artillery, and pro-government militias in
punishing attacks on areas where rebels operate. Some members of Syria’s Sunni Arab majority
and of ethnic and sectarian minority groups—including the Alawite minority from which the
Asad family hails—view the conflict in communal, zero-sum terms. U.S. officials believe that
fighting would likely continue even if Asad were toppled.
Amid extensive damage to major urban areas and reports attributing war crimes to both
government and opposition forces, the war has created a regional humanitarian emergency. Some
estimates suggest more than 100,000 Syrians have been killed since March 2011. As of
September 6, more than 2 million refugees had fled Syria, and the United Nations projects that
the total may reach 3.5 million by year’s end. As many as 4.25 million Syrians have been
internally displaced. U.S. humanitarian assistance to date totals more than $1.01 billion.
President Obama and his Administration have been calling for Asad’s resignation since August
2011, and have pressed the United Nations Security Council to condemn the Syrian government.
The United States has recognized the National Coalition of Revolution and Opposition Forces
(SC) as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people and has provided nonlethal assistance to
the Coalition and an affiliated Supreme Military Council (SMC). Although the Administration is
seeking congressional authorization for the use of force in Syria, and preparing military plans for
various contingencies, it continues to maintain that there is “no military solution” and that a
negotiated political settlement is essential.
During more than two years of unrest and violence, the central question for policy makers has
been how best to bring the conflict in Syria to a close without irretrievably destabilizing the
region and/or endangering key U.S. allies or interests. The debate over a potential military
response to reported chemical weapons use adds new complications to this question. Given the
Congressional Research Service
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
human cost and the polarizing effects of the fighting, security, humanitarian, and economic
challenges will beset Syria and probably implicate U.S. interests for years to come.
For the latest on proposed legislation to authorize the use of force against Syria, see CRS Report
R43201, Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress, coordinated by Jeremy M.
Sharp and Christopher M. Blanchard.
Congressional Research Service
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Contents
Assessment ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Conflict Update ................................................................................................................................ 2
Alleged Chemical Weapons Attack and Related Developments...................................................... 4
Other Key Developments................................................................................................................. 7
U.S. Lethal Aid to Elements of the Armed Opposition ............................................................. 7
Prospects for a Political Settlement ........................................................................................... 9
Status of the Syrian Political Opposition ................................................................................. 11
Al Qaeda, Extremism, and Foreign Fighters ........................................................................... 13
U.S. Policy toward Syria: 2011 to Present ..................................................................................... 15
U.S. Assistance to Syria: Issues for Congress ......................................................................... 19
Possible Appropriations and Authorization Issues ............................................................ 21
Addressing Syria’s State Sponsor of Terrorism Status ...................................................... 22
Other Questions for Congressional Oversight ......................................................................... 23
Figures
Figure 1. Syria: Mapping the Conflict ............................................................................................. 3
Figure 2. Map of Syria: Conflict and Basic Data............................................................................. 5
Figure 3. Syrian Public Support for Political Settlement ............................................................... 11
Tables
Table D-1. U.S. Sanctions Against Syria in 2011-2013 ................................................................. 40
Appendixes
Appendix A. Syria Legislation in the 113th Congress .................................................................... 25
Appendix B. Syria Legislation in the 112th Congress .................................................................... 30
Appendix C. Chronology of United Nations Action on Syria ....................................................... 35
Appendix D. U.S. Sanctions on Syria ............................................................................................ 38
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 50
Congressional Research Service
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Assessment
The U.S. intelligence community has assessed “with high confidence” that Syrian government
forces used sarin nerve gas in limited attacks earlier this year and conducted a mass casualty
chemical weapons attack against rebel held areas near Damascus on August 21, 2013.
In June 2013, the Obama Administration stated that reported chemical attacks would lead the
United States to offer more material support to the opposition. Secretary of Defense Hagel and
Secretary of State Kerry have stated that the United States is providing lethal assistance to vetted
members of the Syrian opposition. In response to the alleged chemical attack in August, the
President is seeking congressional authorization for a punitive military response intended to deter
the Asad regime from using chemical weapons in the future. Members of Congress have offered
divergent views concerning the reported use of chemical weapons and proposed responses.
The war in Syria and the debate over possible punitive U.S. military action against the Asad
regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons pose a uniquely challenging series of questions
for policy makers. The overarching questions remain how to define, prioritize, and secure the
core interests of the United States with regard to Syria’s complex civil war. The immediate
questions are whether and how best to respond to the apparent use of chemical weapons in Syria
and how such a response might affect U.S. interests and standing regionally and globally. In
weighing these questions, Members of Congress and Administration officials are seeking both to
protect concrete U.S. national security interests and to preserve abstract international security
principles that may serve those interests.
The August 21 incident was the latest and most deadly of a string of reported instances where
Syrian forces appear to have used chemical weapons despite President Obama’s prior statement
that the transfer or use of chemical weapons is “a red line” that would “change his calculus.” The
president and senior members of his Administration have argued that the United States has a
national security interest in ensuring that “when countries break international norms on chemical
weapons they are held accountable.” Administration officials and some observers believe that by
failing to respond after setting out a so-called “red line,” the United States would risk not only
undermining any international norms against the use of such weapons but would risk
undermining its own credibility. There is also a broader concern about the ramifications of
demonstrating that the international community will no longer take action when its established
norms are flagrantly violated.
By his own account, President Obama believes that extensive, sustained U.S. military
intervention to shape the outcome of Syria’s civil conflict is undesirable. Administration officials
have cited a number of reasons for their skepticism about undertaking direct military involvement
to shift the balance of power in Syria, including fears of exacerbating the violence; inviting
greater regional spillover or intervention; or opening a power vacuum that could benefit the
extremists who are part of the opposition. Other foreign policy priorities also have influenced the
Administration’s position, such as a desire to maintain the limited international consensus on
Iran’s nuclear program and concern that sectarian and strategic competition in Syria could ignite a
regional conflict and threaten U.S. allies and security interests. While condemning Asad as a thug
and a murderer and aiding some of his adversaries, U.S. officials have continued to stress the
need for a negotiated political solution to the conflict in the hopes of keeping the Syrian state
Congressional Research Service
1
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
intact, securing its chemical weapon stockpiles and borders, and combating extremist groups now
active there.
Some critics have argued that the risks that even a limited military response could pose to these
objectives outweigh the potential benefits to the United States of reasserting an international
standard or being seen to have reliably followed through on a commitment to act. These
arguments suggest that if a military strike makes the political solution desired by U.S. officials
less likely or possible, then the destabilizing conflict could continue or worsen. Similarly, this line
of argument suggests that if military operations were to dramatically degrade remaining state
authority—whether intentionally or unintentionally—then undesired outcomes with regard to
terrorism, proliferation, or mass atrocities could occur.
Still other critics of the Administration’s proposals, including some Members of Congress, charge
that U.S. hesitation to intervene militarily to protect Syrian civilians and/or help oust the Asad
government has unnecessarily prolonged the fighting. Over time, these critics argue, the costs of
inaction have grown intolerably as the humanitarian situation has deteriorated, violent extremist
groups have seized the initiative, and Syria’s neighbors, including several U.S. partners, have
been overwhelmed by refugees and threatened with violence. Others have argued that by failing
to halt fighting in Syria, the United States and others are exacerbating already volatile SunniShiite sectarian tensions throughout the Middle East, which poses risks to other strategically
important countries. Finally, some critics argue that U.S. global credibility is being diminished by
Asad’s reluctance to step down or end abuses of civilians despite U.S. demands.
Sorting through these competing perspectives and prescriptions now falls to Members of
Congress as they reconvene to consider the president’s proposed course of action, his request that
Congress authorize the use of force, and the future of U.S. policy with regard to the conflict in
Syria and its regional consequences.
Conflict Update
The popular-uprising-turned-armed-rebellion against the Asad regime is in its third year, and
seems poised to continue, with the government and a bewildering array of militias locked in a
bloody struggle of attrition. Over the course of Syria’s civil war, momentum has shifted between
government and rebel forces. Currently, the support provided by Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah
fighters appears to have helped enable the Asad regime to wrest the initiative from the opposition
in central Syria (such as Homs) and to launch counteroffensives on the outskirts of the capital.
The Asad regime retains its advantages in air power, armored equipment, and artillery.
Various opposition forces control areas of northwestern, eastern, and southern Syria (see Figure 1
below). In areas near the northern city of Aleppo, diverse rebel forces have announced limited
tactical successes in recent weeks, including the fall of a key military air base.1 In the meantime,
Kurdish and Arab militia groups have clashed in the predominantly Kurdish areas of northeastern
Syria. Finally, reports from some rebel-held northern areas (such as the provincial capital of
Raqqa) suggest that jihadist rebels, bolstered by an influx of foreign fighters, are continuing to
1
“In Syria, Seized Weapons Caches boost Rebels’ Hopes after Weeks of Setbacks,” Washington Post, August 21,
2013.
Congressional Research Service
2
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
gain strength, as terrorist organizations like the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (formerly
known as Al Qaeda in Iraq) take root.2
Figure 1. Syria: Mapping the Conflict
Sources: Der Spiegel adapted from BBC and Syria Needs Analysis Project (SNAP), and originally based on
information from the U.S. government compiled from media sources.
According to close observers of the conflict, extremist militia groups are “concentrating their
efforts on consolidating control in the northern, rebel-held areas of the country,” 3 while they and
others among the range of “extraordinarily fractured”4 militia groups continue to battle regime
forces for contested areas. The Supreme Military Council (SMC) to which the United States has
provided assistance reportedly “is still far from a functioning rebel leadership.”5
2
“Al-Qaeda expands in Syria via Islamic State,” Washington Post, August 12, 2013.
Elizabeth O'Bagy, “On the Front Lines of Syria's Civil War,” Wall Street Journal, August 30, 2013.
4
Aron Lund, “The Non-State Militant Landscape in Syria,” United States Military Academy Combatting Terrorism
Center (CTC) Sentinel, August 27, 2013.
5
Ibid.
3
Congressional Research Service
3
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Rebel-held areas appear to be carved up into numerous autonomous zones where different militia
groups hold power. Some areas are under the control of armed Islamists, some of whom have
begun to govern towns under their control using their interpretation of Islamic teachings as the
rule of law. Kurdish groups have announced plans to form a Kurdish “transitional administration”
in northeastern and northern Syria and conduct parliamentary elections in areas they control.
As of September 2013, United Nations officials have cited estimates that over 100,000 Syrians
have been killed,6 including thousands of regime soldiers, police, and pro-government militia
members and civilians. According to UN agencies, as many as 4.25 million Syrians have been
displaced inside the country and more than 2 million Syrian refugees have fled.
Alleged Chemical Weapons Attack and Related
Developments
On August 30, the Obama Administration presented intelligence analysis suggesting that the
Syrian government was responsible for an August 21 chemical weapons attack against civilians in
rebel-held areas of the suburbs of Damascus. The Syrian government continues to categorically
deny any responsibility for any chemical weapons attack. For more background, see CRS Report
R42848, Syria’s Chemical Weapons: Issues for Congress, coordinated by Mary Beth D. Nikitin.
Summary of U.S. Intelligence on August 21 Incident
An unclassified summary of the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment7 released by the White
House concludes, among other things, that:
6
7
•
The United States Government assesses with high confidence that the Syrian
government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on
August 21, 2013.
•
A preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that 1,429 people were
killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children.
•
The U.S. intelligence community has intelligence that leads it to assess that
Syrian chemical weapons personnel—including personnel assessed to be
associated with the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC)—the
entity responsible for Syria’s chemical weapons program—were preparing
chemical munitions prior to the attack.
•
The U.S. intelligence community assesses that that the opposition has not used
chemical weapons and the scenario in which the opposition executed the attack
on August 21 is highly unlikely.
•
Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck
neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred—including Kafr
Batna, Jawbar, 'Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu'addamiyah.
“Syria Death toll tops 100,000: UN,” Agence France Presse, July 25, 2013.
Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
4
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Figure 2. Map of Syria: Conflict and Basic Data
Congressional Research Service
5
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Historical Background and Syria’s Diverse Population
Long before the current uprising, Syrians struggled with many of the challenges that have bred deep dissatisfaction in
other Arab autocracies, including high unemployment, high inflation, limited upward mobility, rampant corruption, lack
of political freedoms, and repressive security forces. These factors have fueled opposition to Syria’s authoritarian
government, which has been dominated by the Baath (Renaissance) Party since 1963, and the Al Asad family since
1970. President Bashar al Asad’s father—Hafiz al Asad—ruled the country from 1970 until his death in 2000.
The Syrian population, like those of several other Middle East countries, includes different ethnic and religious groups.
For years, the Asad regime’s strict political controls prevented these differences from playing a divisive role in political
or social life. A majority of Syrians, roughly 90% of the population, are ethnic Arabs; however, the country contains
small ethnic minorities, notably Kurds, the country’s largest distinct ethnic/linguistic minority (7%-10% of the total
population). Of more importance in Syria are religious sectarian differences. In addition to the majority Sunni Muslims,
who comprise over 70% of the population, Syria contains several religious sectarian minorities, including three smaller
Muslim sects (Alawites, Druze, and Ismailis) and several Christian denominations. The Asad family are members of the
minority Alawite sect (roughly 12% of the population), which has its roots in Shiite Islam.
Despite the secular nature of the ruling Baath party, religious sects have been important to some Syrians as symbols
of group identity and determinants of political orientation. The Asads and the Baath party have cultivated Alawites as
a key base of support, and elite security forces have long been led by Alawites. The government violently suppressed
an armed uprising led by the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1980s, killing thousands of Sunni Muslims and others.
Religious, ethnic, geographic, and economic identities overlap in influencing the views and choices of Syrians about the
current conflict. Within ethnic and sectarian communities are important tribal and familial groupings that often
provide the underpinning for political alliances and commercial relationships. Socioeconomic differences abound
among farmers, laborers, middle-class wage earners, public sector employees, military officials, and the political and
commercial elite. Many rural, less advantaged Syrians have supported the opposition movement, while urban,
wealthier Syrians appear to have mixed opinions. Local attachments also shape Syrian society, as seen in rivalries
between Syria’s two largest cities of Damascus and Aleppo, in differences between rural agricultural communities and
urban areas, and in the concentration of some sectarian and ethnic communities in discrete areas. Despite being
authoritarian, Syrian leaders over the years often found it necessary to adopt policies that accommodate, to some
degree, various power centers within the country’s diverse population and minimize the potential for communal
identities to create conflict.
That need is likely to remain, if not intensify, after the current conflict. While sectarian considerations cannot fully
explain power relationships in Syria or predict the future dynamics of the uprising, there are indications that as the
fighting continues sectarian and ethnic divisions are growing among Syrians. The Sunni Arab majority has been at the
forefront of the protest movement and armed opposition to the Alawite-led regime, with Syria’s Christians and other
minority groups caught between their parallel fears of violent change and of being associated with Asad’s crackdown.
The Alawite leadership of the Syrian government and its allies in other sects perceive the mostly Sunni Arab uprising
as an existential threat to the Baath party’s nearly five-decade hold on power. At the popular level, some Alawites
may feel caught between the regime’s demands for loyalty and their fears of retribution from other groups in the
event of regime change or a post-Asad civil war.
Some Sunni Arabs may view the conflict as a means to assert their community’s dominance over others, but some
Sunni opposition leaders have sought to assuage these concerns. Others have pledged that orderly trials and the rule
of law will prevail in any post-conflict setting. However, reports of abuses suggest that rebel leaders at times are
unable or unwilling to ensure that such sentiments prevail.
While some Kurds view the conflict as an opportunity to achieve greater autonomy, others are wary of supporting
Sunni Arab rebels who, should they come to power, may be no less hostile to Kurdish political aspirations than the
Asad government. Some members of Syria’s various Christian communities fear that the uprising will lead to a
sectarian civil war and that they could be subjected to violent repression, given that Muslim extremist groups have
targeted Iraqi Christians since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Other Christians reportedly are assisting the armed
opposition, including locally active militias and elements of the Free Syrian Army.
Congressional Research Service
6
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Other Key Developments
U.S. Lethal Aid to Elements of the Armed Opposition
Throughout the Syrian civil war, proponents of deeper U.S. involvement in Syria have called on
the Administration to offer lethal support to select armed rebel fighters; a policy the
Administration considered but initially rejected due to concern, among other things, over the
possible transfer of U.S.-supplied equipment to terrorists. Until recently, Obama Administration
officials have acknowledged that the United States is providing non-combatant elements of the
Syrian opposition with non-lethal assistance, such as medical supplies, food, communications
equipment, and training.8
In June 2013, the Administration changed direction, after receiving an intelligence assessment
apparently confirming that Syrian government forces had used chemical weapons in limited
operations several times in the spring of 2013. According to Deputy National Security Advisor for
Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes, President Obama decided to expand U.S. assistance to
the Supreme Military Council (SMC): “Put simply, the Assad regime should know that its actions
have led us to increase the scope and scale of assistance that we provide to the opposition,
including direct support to the SMC. These efforts will increase going forward.”9
The Supreme Military Council (SMC)
Should the Administration ultimately provide covert military assistance to elements of the armed Syrian opposition,
the Supreme Military Council could be one of the primary beneficiaries of U.S. lethal aid. In December 2012, a
number of brigades nominally affiliated themselves under the umbrella of a Supreme Military Council (SMC) headed
by General Salim Idriss, a former Asad regime military commander who defected. The SMC seeks to administer
regional commands with affiliated units nominally reporting through a chain of command to General Idriss, who has
yet to assert operational control over all affiliated units. Many opposition figures argue that only through the provision
of assistance to the SMC will General Idriss be able to assert such control. According to General Idriss, “Fighters go
to where there is money and weapons and if I had the means … within one or two months everyone would join....
They will know that this is a national institution while the brigades and battalions will eventually disappear.”10 In the
ever-changing landscape of the armed Syrian opposition, Western officials have deemed SMC commanders to be
more moderate in their political views than leaders of other armed opposition groups, although the SMC itself
includes Islamist units and commanders. SMC members reportedly coordinate on the battlefield with the Syrian
Islamic Front, a group that includes an extremist militia known as Ahrar al Sham.11 Overall, many observers believe
that while the SMC may be far from an ideal U.S. partner, given the complexity, disunity, and elements of extremism
within the Syrian armed opposition, it may be the only feasible U.S. partner available for now. According to one
unnamed U.S. source, “Idriss says and does the right things.... We believe he is genuine. Are there concerns? Yes, but
what are the options?”12
8
Such aid reportedly includes tools to circumvent Internet censorship, such as anonymizing software and satellite
phones with GPS capabilities. According to another report, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has “supplied
encryption-enabled communications gear to opposition groups, presumably enabling the United States to monitor their
talks.” CRS cannot verify these reports. See “US Provides Communications Aid for Syria Opponents,” Agence France
Presse, June 14, 2012; “In Syria Conflict, U.S. Struggles to Fill Intelligence Gaps,” Washington Post, July 23, 2012.
9
June 13, 2013, Statement by Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes on Syrian
Chemical Weapons Use, available online at: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/13/statementdeputy-national-security-advisor-strategic-communications-ben-]
10
“West pins hopes on Syrian general,” Financial Times, April 22, 2013.
11
“Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy,” New York Times, April 27, 2013.
12
“Obama bets big on Syrian rebel leader,” Washington Post, May 1, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
7
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Unnamed officials cited in subsequent press reports have indicated that such assistance would be
provided under intelligence authorities by the Central Intelligence Agency and include small
arms, ammunition and the possible provision of anti-tank weapons and training.13 White House
officials have repeatedly declined to publicly describe the content of any increased assistance to
the opposition, but have confirmed that President Obama “is committed to ramping up that
assistance as necessary because of the circumstances that we find, and because of the need for the
opposition to further strengthen and unify.” In a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee on September 3, Defense Secretary Hagel remarked that “We, the Department of
Defense, have not been directly involved in this. This is, as you know, is a covert action.”
General Salim Idriss
General Salim Idriss is currently the Chief of Staff to
the armed opposition Supreme Military Council. The
55-year-old Brigadier General defected from the Syrian
Army in July 2012 after dozens of his family members
reportedly were killed by government forces in the
city of Homs. Educated in East Germany, Idriss had
been the dean of the Aleppo military engineering
academy before his defection. Within the Syrian
opposition, he is considered more of a political figure
than a respected military commander. He routinely
appeals for outside funding and material support to
secure the loyalty of various commanders and militias.
Nevertheless, throughout the summer of 2013,
numerous reports suggested that alleged U.S.
lethal aid to the SMC had stalled. In Congress,
some lawmakers initially expressed concern
over the Administration’s alleged covert
proposal. Both Senate and House intelligence
committees had raised questions over the ability
of intelligence agencies to monitor weapons
flows; the efficacy of covert action to tip the
balance of power in favor of U.S.-supported
groups; and the Administration’s strategy to
avoid further entanglement in Syria’s civil war
while allegedly supplying arms to one side.14
Moreover, implementation of the President’s June policy may have run into other obstacles.
According to one article, “U.S. officials attribute the delay in providing small arms and munitions
from the CIA weapons program to the difficulty of establishing secure delivery ‘pipelines’ to
prevent weapons from falling into the wrong hands, in particular Jihadi militants also battling the
Assad regime.”15 Some observers insist that such concern actually masked continued U.S.
reticence to arm groups like the SMC. According to one member of the Syrian Opposition
Coalition interviewed in mid-August, “nothing has come through yet, and we haven’t been given
a specific date when we'll see them.”16 On August 19, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
General Martin E. Dempsey wrote to lawmakers, saying that “Syria today is not about choosing
between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides. It is my belief that the side
we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favor.
Today they are not.”17
After the August 21 incident, some lawmakers are calling on the Administration to jumpstart or
expand reported covert aid to the Supreme Military Council. According to Senator Bob Corker, in
a September 3 hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “I want to see us continue to
carry out the strategy that has been stated. And that is building the capacity of the vetted,
moderate opposition.” However, according to one recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 70%
13
For a description of intelligence authorities, please see, CRS Report R40691, Sensitive Covert Action Notifications:
Oversight Options for Congress, by Marshall C. Erwin.
14
“Congress Delaying U.S. Aid to Syrian Rebels –Sources,” Reuters, July 8, 2013.
15
“Still No Arms to Rebel Groups,” Wall Street Journal, September 3, 2013.
16
“U.S. has yet to arm Syrian rebels,” Los Angeles Times, August 17, 2013.
17
See, [http://democrats.foreignaffairs.house.gov/113/Letter_for_Rep_Engel_19_Aug_13.pdf]
Congressional Research Service
8
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
of respondents oppose the United States or its allies supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels.18 In
the meantime, some rebel commanders affiliated with the SMC have grown increasingly
frustrated by the lack of external assistance and have threatened to break ranks and join more
radical rebel groups. On August 22, Colonel Fatih Hasun, a deputy to General Idriss, demanded
better weapons and said that his fellow commanders had tired of “false promises of those who
call themselves Friends of Syria.”19
As part of the ongoing debate on possible U.S. military intervention, press reports claiming to cite
current and former U.S. officials have come into conflict with the public testimony of high-level
Administration policymakers on the question of whether tipping the balance in favor of the
opposition by providing arms might be worse than the current stalemate.20 Given that supplying
arms to Syrian rebels could occur in conjunction with or as an alternative to direct U.S. military
action, public discourse may focus on the relative merits of both options and how they might be
calibrated to serve U.S. interests.
As officials continue to debate the merits of expanded military aid to elements of the armed
opposition, reports continue to surface of arms financed by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf
monarchies being supplied to rebel groups. The SMC also is discussing forming a more formal,
unified “army.” According to one report, in southern Syria, where Islamist-oriented armed rebels
are less numerous, the SMC is expanding its presence with the assistance of Jordan, Saudi Arabia,
and the United States.21
Prospects for a Political Settlement
How fast-moving current developments may affect prospects for a negotiated political solution to
Syria’s civil war is unclear. Many analysts question the likelihood of the a diplomatic process
succeeding amidst continued fighting, more overt foreign intervention, and the regime’s recent
use of chemical weapons.
On May 7, Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced
that the United States and Russia would cooperate to convene an international conference to reach
a political settlement. The joint U.S.-Russian initiative was based on the June 2012 Geneva Final
Communiqué.22 Since June 2012, Russia has insisted that any internationally-brokered
negotiation be based on this agreement, which did not explicitly ban President Asad’s
participation in a transitional government despite U.S. and others’ assurances that Asad would
have no future role in governance.23 The Syrian opposition has been divided over the question of
18
“On Syria, Obama Faces a Skeptical Public,” Washington Post, September 3, 2013.
“The fragmenting FSA,” ForeignPolicy.com, September 3, 2013.
20
In the September 3 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Senator John McCain and Secretary Kerry had the
following exchange: (McCain) Secretary Kerry, in [a September 3] Wall Street Journal article, [there is a] quote, “The
delay in providing arms to the opposition in part reflects a broader U.S. approach rarely discussed publicly, but that
underpins its decision-making, according to former and current U.S. officials. The current administration doesn't want
to tip the balance in favor of the opposition for fear the outcome may be even worse for U.S. interests than the current
stalemate.” Is that story accurate? (Kerry) No.
21
“Syria's Opposition Considers National Rebel Army, Islamists Angered,” Reuters, August 26, 2013.
22
Available online at: [http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Syria/FinalCommuniqueActionGroupforSyria.pdf]
23
Days after the announcement of the U.S.-Russian initiative, Secretary Kerry stated that all sides were working to
“effect a transition government by mutual consent of both sides, which clearly means that in our judgment President
Assad will not be a component of that transitional government.”
19
Congressional Research Service
9
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
accepting Asad’s removal from power as an outcome of a transitional process24 versus insisting
on Asad’s removal as a precondition to any final settlement. Many different opposition leaders
and their foreign backers (such as Turkey and Qatar) endorse Asad’s removal as a precondition.
Moreover, many observers are doubtful that hardline armed Islamist elements of the opposition
would accept a negotiated settlement that included members of the current regime, especially
Asad family members.
Following the joint U.S.-Russian announcement, U.S. policymakers aimed to convene a “Geneva
II” summit in the summer of 2013. However, elements of the armed opposition balked at
participating unless the United States and other donors pledged lethal aid in addition to non-lethal
assistance. According to SMC head General Idriss, “If we don’t receive ammunition and weapons
to change the position on the ground, to change the balance on the ground, very frankly I can say
we will not go to Geneva...There will be no Geneva.”25 As mentioned above, in June 2013
President Obama did pledge to expand assistance to the SMC while also reiterating the need for a
political settlement of the civil war. On June 13, Deputy National Security Advisor Rhodes said:
Any future action we take will be consistent with our national interest, and must advance our
objectives, which include achieving a negotiated political settlement to establish an authority
that can provide basic stability and administer state institutions; protecting the rights of all
Syrians; securing unconventional and advanced conventional weapons; and countering
terrorist activity.
Presently, no formal date for the conference has been set. In addition to the uncertainty caused by
the possibility of external intervention, Syrians remain divided over the idea of forming a new
transitional government as called for in the June 2012 Geneva Final Communiqué. According to a
U.S. State Department July 2013 survey, only in opposition-held areas does a majority support the
establishment of a transitional government.
In the spring and summer of 2013, regime tactical advances and the opposition’s continued
fragmentation and struggles may have bolstered the Asad regime’s confidence in its military
position, making it less willing to negotiate. Many observers assert that the prospects for
negotiations increase only after Syrian government forces suffer significant setbacks on the
battlefield. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 3,
Secretary of State John Kerry stated that “Forcing Assad to change his calculation about his
ability to act with impunity can contribute to his realization that he cannot gas or shoot his way
out of his predicament. And as I think you know, it has been the president's primary goal to
achieve a negotiated resolution, but you got to have parties prepared to negotiate to achieve
that.”26
24
For example, in Yemen’s internationally-brokered 2011-2012 transition, former President Saleh was granted
immunity from prosecution and permitted to retain his role as head former ruling party. He stepped down after a 90-day
transition period after which Yemen then held an election with only one candidate on the ballot, current President Abed
Rabbo Mansour al Hadi.
25
“Syrian Opposition to Sit Out Any Talks Unless Arms Are Sent, General Says,” New York Times, June 8, 2013.
26
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Syria, September 3,
2013.
Congressional Research Service
10
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Figure 3. Syrian Public Support for Political Settlement
Source: INR/OPN survey, July 2013
Notes: For Official U.S. Government Use Only
Status of the Syrian Political Opposition
The decentralized nature and divided views of key Syrian opposition forces, coupled with
disputes between competing foreign patrons (such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia) have hampered
attempts to create a unified front against the Asad regime. Moreover, lack of opposition unity has
tempered foreign support for the rebel cause and slowed efforts to create an alternative Syrian
government that could receive broad international recognition. Since unrest began in March 2011,
no single leader or group has been able to fully establish itself as a universally supported
representative of Syrians seeking to oust the Asad regime. Rivalries have developed between
local leaders and exiles, among militia commanders on the ground, and between those who seek
accommodation with elements of the existing government and those who seek to bring down the
entire regime structure. Deep differences of opinion about the future of Syria lurk beneath the
surface, with Islamist and secular activists at odds, some Kurds seeking autonomy, and armed
extremist groups empowering themselves on the ground.27
The latest attempt to engineer a united opposition front came in October and November 2012,
when the United States and others helped facilitate the creation of the National Coalition of
27
Yezid Sayigh, “The Syrian Opposition’s Leadership Problem,” Carnegie Middle East Center (Beirut), April 3, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
11
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces28 (Syrian Coalition or SC, see Error! Reference
source not found. below). In pressing for an opposition coalition that would be more inclusive
and legitimate, the United States, the Arab League, and other international actors have now
extended recognition to the SC as “the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.” The
United States has not recognized the SC as the government of Syria.
From late 2012 through April 2013, 52-year-old Ahmed Mouaz al Khatib, a Sunni Islamist
opposition activist, served as SC President. He finalized his resignation in April, reportedly in
frustration that the United States and others had refused to intervene militarily or overtly provide
weaponry. Khatib’s willingness to negotiate with Syrian government figures was criticized within
the SC, especially from members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.29 George Sabra was
appointed as acting SC president until July 2013, when coalition members elected Ahmad Jarba
as the new SC president. Jarba, a Sunni Muslim from the Shammar tribe in eastern Syria, is
believed to have strong ties to Saudi Arabia. He was imprisoned by the Asad regime for two years
(1996-1998) and was jailed again in 2011 during the start of the uprising. He left Syria after his
release in August 2011. On September 1, 2013, Jarba urged the Arab League to endorse foreign
military intervention in Syria in response to the regime’s use of chemical weapons on August 21.
SC members met in Istanbul in mid-March 2013 and elected a Syrian-born U.S. citizen, Ghassan
Hitto30 to serve as the Interim Prime Minister of a planned opposition government to administer
rebel-held territory. Hitto had attempted to form a provisional Syrian government in rebelcontrolled areas, but his efforts failed, and he resigned in July 2013. The SC has yet to elect his
replacement. Presently, it is unclear how external backers of the SC would respond to the
formation of an alternative Syrian government, given that U.S. policy supports a negotiated
political solution based on the 2012 Geneva Final Communiqué. That document states that the
“sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Syria must be respected.”
Current policy debates focus on whether the SC is a credible partner and whether and how the
United States should empower the SC to better coordinate humanitarian aid and the delivery of
local services in order to increase its influence inside the country. U.S. officials and international
assistance implementers report that the SC has minimal capacity to deliver assistance inside
Syria, in spite of the establishment of its Assistance Coordination Unit (ACU). Instead, local
revolutionary councils, relief committees, and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent often oversee the
delivery of aid by third parties, with local councils taking responsibility for the reestablishment
and provision of services. Persistent SC demands for more forceful intervention and robust lethal
support have sought to increase the pressure on U.S. and European policy makers to revisit the
28
Since the beginning of unrest in Syria in 2011, opponents of Asad regime rule, particularly from those in exile, have
struggled to create a diverse representation of Syrian society. In May 2013, Syrian opposition figures met in Istanbul,
Turkey in attempts to expand SC membership to include more non-Islamist members and strengthen ties between
political figures and the armed opposition. At the conclusion of the six-day meeting, 51 new members were admitted to
the SC, of which 15 are from the armed opposition. The conference was widely viewed as a diplomatic victory of sorts
for Saudi Arabia, which has sought to limit Qatari support for Syrian Islamists and the Muslim Brotherhood. Of the 51
new members, at least 10 are political allies of Michel Kilo, a longtime Syrian dissident whose inclusion in the SC was
backed by Saudi Arabia. However, though the SC managed to expand its membership, its days of infighting amidst
military setbacks that the opposition has endured may have damaged its legitimacy in the eyes of some Syrians. The
Syrian Revolution General Commission announced its withdrawal of support for the SC in the wake of the conference,
alleging financial mismanagement and foreign interference.
29
“Syrian Lawmaker Rejects Conditions for Peace Talks,” Associated Press, February 6, 2013.
30
Some opposition sources view Hitto as having been backed by Qatar, which has been accused of supporting Syrian
Islamists at the expense of other Syrian figures.
Congressional Research Service
12
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
limits they imposed on military support to the uprising. In an August 2013 letter to National
Security Advisor Susan Rice, some Members of Congress encouraged the Administration to:
Lead international donors in coordinating with the Syrian Opposition Coalition’s Assistance
Coordination Unit (ACU). Currently, the ACU is struggling to define its role in the overall
humanitarian response and establish realistic expectations among its stakeholders.
Furthermore, it has failed to reach out to many Syrian and diaspora aid providers that have
access to Syria’s interior and are trusted by local communities. The ACU has the potential to
become the effective coordinating body that Syrian aid groups and large international NGOs
need, but it must take steps to engage them.31
Al Qaeda, Extremism, and Foreign Fighters
The armed insurgency against the Asad regime features a complex mix of militant groups bound
by geographic proximity, ideological affinity, kinship-tribal ties, or religious sentiment. There are
hundreds and perhaps over a thousand different brigades or militias, and as the Syrian civil war
has dragged on, many of the most religiously extreme groups have received increasing foreign
attention. The violence and disorder paralyzing Syria has created opportunities for Al Qaeda
operatives and other violent Islamist extremists to infiltrate the country and conduct or plan
attacks. According to one recent study, “At the very least, the current war in Syria can be
considered the third-largest foreign mujahideen mobilization since the early 1980s — falling
short only of Afghanistan in the 1980s and Iraq during the last decade.... [T]he mobilization has
been stunningly rapid — what took six years to build in Iraq at the height of the U.S. occupation
may have accumulated inside Syria in less than half that time.”32
In early 2012, Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI),33the Iraqi Sunni terrorist group that attacked coalition
forces during the U.S. occupation of Iraq and that continues to destabilize Iraq today, created a
Syrian off-shoot called Al Nusra Front (Jabhat al Nusra). In December 2012, the Obama
Administration designated Al Nusra Front as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and as an alias of
Al Qaeda in Iraq (which helped create Al Nusra in early 2012) pursuant to Executive Order
13224. The Iraqi government had previously expressed specific concern that individuals
associated with Al Qaeda in Iraq have travelled to Syria and are using the conflict there to their
advantage.34
In April 2013, Al Nusra backers split into two factions: one group maintained its original name
while Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the leader of AQI, transformed the other faction into a new group
called the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS). Al Qaeda central leader Ayman al Zawahiri
has instructed the groups to refrain from rivalry. He continues to encourage foreign fighters to
travel to Syria and calls on Muslims to offer material support to armed jihadist groups in Syria.
31
Hastings Urges National Security Advisor Susan Rice to Increase Cooperation with Syrian NGOs on Humanitarian
Aid, Available online at: [http://alceehastings.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=346785]
32
“Syria’s Jihadi Migration Emerges as Top Terror Threat in Europe, Beyond,” ProPublica, July 24, 2013. For the
original citation, see: [http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/739377-convoy-of-martyrs-in-the-levant-flashpoint]
33
Also referred to as the Al Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq (ISI).
34
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyam Zebari said, “We have solid information and intelligence that members of Al
Qaeda’s terrorist network have gone to Syria.” Al Jazeera English, “Iraq says al-Qaeda flowing into Syria,” July 5,
2012. See also, Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu-Bakr al Baghdadi’s remarks in OSC Report GMP20120721586002,
“Islamic State of Iraq Amir Calls on Sunni Tribes to ‘Repent,’” July 21, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
13
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Other prominent armed Salafist groups include members of the Syrian Islamic Front (SIF),35 the
Saquour al Sham brigades, the Abdullah Azzam Brigades,36 the Ummah Brigade (Liwa al
Umma),37 and the Islam Brigade (Liwa al Islam).38 The Free Ones of the Levant Battalions
(Kata’ib Ahrar al Sham) and other members of the SIF use jihadist rhetoric in some statements.
Press reports and anecdotal accounts suggest that there may be competition for influence among
extremist groups and that they have lacked overarching coordination or shared leadership. The
formation of the SIF and Syrian Islamic Liberation Front (SILF) in late 2012 and early 2013 may
signal increasing cooperation among like-minded Islamist militia groups. Experts consider the
SIF to hold more hard-line views than the SILF about the imposition of sharia law and members
of its constituent militias may hold more hostile views toward the United States and Israel.
The conflict in Syria has provoked a visceral public response in the region and is encouraging
some people to make donations to support the Syrian uprising or travel to Syria to support the
armed opposition. Some conservative Sunni clerics have issued religious edicts characterizing the
fighting as a “defensive jihad” and endorsing the provision of material support to fighters and
direct participation in the fighting.39 The late Al Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al Libi released a
statement in 2012 urging support for Syrian fighters and Ayman al Zawahiri continues to do so.40
In April and June 2013, Al Qaeda figures released statements from Zawahiri calling for fighters in
Syria to establish a “jihadist Islamic state.”
European and Middle Eastern media have published estimates of the number of volunteers, which
range from the mid-hundreds to low-thousands, along with anecdotal reports about individual
volunteers from Europe, North Africa, Turkey, the Gulf states, and the Levant.41 Northern
Lebanon and the Turkish border with northern Syria appear to be the most popular transit points
for volunteers, presumably because of better regional air-travel linkages with Beirut and Turkish
cities.
Statements from some armed groups indicate that their leaders are cognizant of the risks that
certain tactics and rhetoric (i.e., suicide bombing or attacks against civilians) may pose in
generating discord with other opposition groups or potential supporters. . The underlying
incompatibility of different groups’ motives and intentions could affect prospects to conclusively
establish a cohesive and credible opposition, particularly to the extent that some extremist groups
35
See Aron Lund, Syria’s Salafi Insurgents: the Rise of the Syrian Islamic Front, UI Occasional Paper 17, March 2013.
A Saudi-national named Majed al Majed reportedly leads the Azzam Brigades. OSC Report GMP20120626966212,
“Al-Qaeda in Syria: New Leader at the Helm,” Al Akhbar (Lebanon), June 26, 2012.
37
OSC Report GMP20120625125003, “Statement by New Al Ummah Brigade in Syria Promises ‘Jihad’ Until
Victory,” June 18, 2012.
38
OSC Report GMP20120719125001, “Liwa al-Islam Brigades Claims Responsibility for Damascus Bombings,” July
19, 2012.
39
OSC Report GMP20120618125001, “Al Shinqiti Calls Jihad in Syria ‘Duty,’ Advocates Joining Al Nusrah Front,”
July 6, 2012; OSC Analysis GMF20120706420001, “Syria—Salafis Possibly Eying Larger Role in Post-Al-Asad
Syria,” July 6, 2012.
40
OSC Report GMP20120612405002, “Abu-Yahya al-Libi Urges Iraqi, Jordanian, Turkish Mujahidin ‘To Champion’
Syria,” June 12, 2012.
41
The National (Abu Dhabi) “Syria, Jihad And the Boys From Tunisia’s Ben Guerdane,” July 3, 2012; OSC Report
GMP20120607648001, “Al-Jazirah.net Says Jordan Charges 6 With Trying To Enter Syria To Wage Jihad,” AlJazirah.net (Doha), June 6, 2012; OSC Report EUP20120523029004, “Foreign Jihadis Flock To Syria in Bid To
Overthrow Al Asad,” Le Figaro (Paris) May 22, 2012.
36
Congressional Research Service
14
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
are critical of or openly hostile to other armed groups and may oppose efforts to establish
democracy in any post-Asad Syria. The pro-sharia rhetoric and transnational orientation of some
extremist groups make it possible that they may end up in conflict with secular, nationalist, or
Islamist opposition elements. The prominent Syrian Salafist-Jihadist ideologue Abu Basir al
Tartusi has openly rejected other jihadists’ criticism of the Free Syrian Army and characterized
some of the groups and individuals now active in Syria as “extremists” and “fanatics.”42 This
struggle among opposition groups has raised concerns that a post-Asad Syria might be even
worse than the Asad regime, and that weapons provided to moderate opposition forces could end
up in the hands of extremist groups. On the other hand, some analysts calling for more aid to the
Syria opposition apparently not only seek to help them prevail against the Asad regime, but also
to improve their influence relative to their extremist counterparts.
U.S. Policy toward Syria: 2011 to Present
Since March 2011, U.S. unilateral and multilateral policy initiatives toward the Syrian civil war
have sought to stop the violence, push for the departure of President Asad, and begin a political
transition to a more democratic form of government. During the conflict’s initial phase, when
President Asad met non-violent civil protest with repressive force, the Administration denounced
the regime’s violent measures, expanded existing U.S. sanctions on Syrian government officials,
and insisted that the government enact substantive political reforms to meet protestor demands.
After President Asad continued his strategy of violently suppressing dissent while refusing to
resign, the Administration called for Asad’s resignation in August 2011. For the next year, U.S.
officials attempted to work multilaterally through the United Nations to sanction the regime,
reach a cease-fire, and endorse a political transition plan. All of these efforts were stymied by
Russian and Chinese rejections of such proposals at the Security Council and unabated violence
on the ground inside Syria.
After a year of conflict and without any consensus at the United Nations Security Council on
approaches to end the violence, President Obama continued to pursue primarily non-military
approaches toward the civil war. The White House continued to reject calls for unilateral U.S.
military intervention or lethal support to rebel forces. However, during the summer of 2012,
reports of alleged Asad regime preparation of munitions with chemical agents led President
Obama to remark that the movement or use of such agents would constitute a “red line” and cause
him to change his calculus.
With international attempts having failed at the baseline goal of bringing about a durable ceasefire, U.S. officials focused more intently on unifying the Syrian opposition. From September
2012 to February 2013, U.S. policy concentrated heavily on helping lay the foundation for a more
unified political and armed opposition that could serve as a recipient of potentially greater U.S.
and international support. The United States also took preliminary steps to support the defense of
states bordering Syria, such as Turkey and Jordan, with the deployment of Patriot missile batteries
to the former and small contingents of U.S. military personnel to the latter.
42
“Abu Basir al Tartusi” is the pen name of Abdel Moneim Mustafa Halimah. For more on this topic, see Aron Lund,
“Holier Than Thou: Rival Clerics in the Syrian Jihad,” Jamestown Foundation Terrorism Monitor, Volume: 10, Issue:
14, July 16, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
15
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
By the spring of 2013, as the death toll from the conflict had surpassed 70,000 and refugee
outflows had reached over a million Syrians, the United States expanded humanitarian aid to
U.N. agencies and neighboring states while providing limited, non-lethal assistance to the newly
formed Syrian Opposition Coalition. By April 2013, reports that the Administration may be
considering lethal assistance also surfaced. Meanwhile, in May 2013, the United States and
Russia agreed to jointly work toward convening a peace conference in Geneva in the hopes of
bringing Syrian combatants to the negotiating table. However, the lifting of the European arms
embargo, reports of new Russian weapons shipments, Hezbollah’s acknowledgement of its
involvement in the conflict, and indications of continued infighting among opposition groups cast
some doubt on the likelihood of successful negotiations.
In June 2013 confirmation by U.S. intelligence of limited chemical weapons use led the Obama
Administration to announce an increase in U.S. assistance to non-radical elements of the
opposition. The Administration reportedly notified Congress in July 2012 of its intent to begin
covert U.S. arming of select groups.43 The extent of U.S. lethal aid to elements of the armed
Syrian armed opposition during the summer of 2013 was unclear, as some Syrian rebel
commanders continued to publicly insist that more U.S. assistance was needed.
A mass casualty chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21 was the latest
and most deadly of a string of reported instances where Syrian forces allegedly have used
chemical weapons despite President Obama’s prior statement that the transfer or use of chemical
weapons is “a red line” that would “change his calculus.” The president and senior members of
his Administration have argued that the United States has a national security interest in ensuring
that “when countries break international norms on chemical weapons they are held accountable.”
Administration officials and some observers believe that by failing to respond after setting out a
so-called “red line,” the United States would risk not only undermining any international norms
against the use of such weapons but would risk undermining its own credibility. On August 31,
the President stated his conclusion that the United States should respond to alleged Syrian
chemical weapons use with limited militarily strikes.
43
“Divided Over Arming Syrian Rebels, Congress Declines to Block Obama's Plan,” CQ News, July 23, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
16
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Chronology of U.S. Policy toward Syria and its Neighbors: 2011-2013
Date
Event
April 2011—Present
(Sanctions)
Since the beginning of the Syria conflict, the Obama Administration has significantly
expanded U.S. sanctions against the regime and its supporters. The Treasury
Department has designated dozens of individuals and entities, freezing any U.S.based assets of theirs and denying them access to the U.S. financial system. For a
complete list of sanctions, please see Table D-1
August 2011 (President calls
for Asad’s Resignation)
On August 18, 2011, President Obama called for the resignation of Syrian President
Bashar al Asad, saying “We have consistently said that President Asad must lead a
democratic transition or get out of the way. He has not led. For the sake of the
Syrian people, the time has come for President Asad to step aside.” The President
also issued Executive Order 13582 which freezes all assets of the Government of
Syria, prohibits U.S. persons from engaging in any transaction involving the
Government of Syria, bans U.S. imports of Syrian- origin petroleum or petroleum
products, prohibits U.S. persons from having any dealings in or related to Syria’s
petroleum or petroleum products, and prohibits U.S. persons from operating or
investing in Syria.
February 2012 (President
suspends Embassy
Operations)
The United States suspended its Embassy operations in Damascus and withdrew
U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert S. Ford.
April 2012 (U.S. support for
United Nations involvement)
On April 14, 2012, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 2042, which
approved the deployment of a U.N. advance team of 30 military observers to Syria.
It also demanded that the Syrian authorities withdraw security forces from
population centers and begin a dialogue with the opposition. The vote marked the
first time since protests began that the Security Council was united in demanding a
halt to the violence. On April 21, the Security Council passed Resolution 2043,
which established—for a 90-day period—a United Nations Supervision Mission in
Syria (UNSMIS). The resolution also created a civilian team to help implement
elements of the full peace plan, such as the start of a national political dialogue and
the government's granting of the right to demonstrate.
June 2012 (U.S.-Russian
Endorsement of the Geneva
Communiqué)
On June 30 in Geneva, Switzerland, the Action Group on Syria (a group of countries
which included the United States) issued a communiqué endorsing a U.N.-proposed
peace plan and calling for a transitional government of national unity in Syria that
could include members of the opposition and current regime. Such a transitional
government would be charged with overseeing the drafting of a new constitution
and national elections. In order to secure Russian support for the final statement,
the Action Group stated that any transitional government “shall be formed on the
basis of mutual consent,” a phrase that would give supporters of Asad and the
opposition veto power over the selection of unity government leaders.
July 2012 (U.S. support for
United Nations involvement)
On July 19, 2012, the Security Council failed to adopt a proposed resolution that
would have, among other things, threatened sanctions on Syria if demands to end
the violence were not met. Permanent members China and Russia voted against the
resolution and Pakistan and South Africa abstained. The resolution would have had
the Security Council act under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter to
demand verifiable compliance—within 10 days of the proposed resolution’s
adoption—with its demands in previous resolutions that Syrian authorities pull back
military concentrations from population centers and cease the use of heavy
weaponry against them. Russia prominently vetoed two other U.N. Security Council
resolutions on Syria in October 2011 and February 2012.
Summer 2012 (President’s
reported rejection of lethal
aid)
Various U.S. media sources have reported that in 2012, then- Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton and then-CIA Director David Petraeus proposed a plan to
provide lethal aid (with the assistance of some neighboring countries) to vetted
rebel groups. Subsequent testimony revealed that then-Secretary of Defense Leon
Congressional Research Service
17
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Panetta also was in favor of this proposal, which reportedly was ultimately rejected
by the President.44
August 2012 (The President
on Regime Use of Chemical
Weapons)
On August 20, President Obama said, “We have been very clear to the Assad
regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start
seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That
would change my calculus.... We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have
put together a range of contingency plans.”
October 2012 (U.S. personnel
to Jordan)
In October 2012, then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that the
United States military had sent a task force of “planners and other specialists” to
Jordan.
December 2012 (Recognition
of the Syrian Opposition)
In order to help unify the long divided Syrian opposition, the United States and
others facilitated the formation of the Syrian Opposition Coalition (SC) in
November 2012 in Doha, Qatar. The United States extended recognition to the SC
as the “legitimate representative of the Syrian people,” though it has not been legally
recognized as the government of Syria.
December 2012 (Designation
of Al Nusra Front as an FTO)
The United States designated Jabhat al Nusra, a Salafi-Jihadist militia and reported
affiliate of Al Qaeda in Iraq, as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, indicating that U.S.
interests are not only threatened in the short term by the effects of the current
fighting but could be threatened over the long term by the empowerment of
extremist groups in Syria.
December 2012 (NATO
approves Patriot Missile
Deployment to Turkey)
On December 4, 2012, NATO announced that it would deploy Patriot missile
defense batteries to areas near the Turkish border, presumably to defend against
potential Syrian Scud missile and/or chemical weapons attacks, as Turkey does not
have a missile defense capability of its own. The United States, Germany, and the
Netherlands have contributed Patriot batteries and operational teams to the
Turkish population centers of Gaziantep, Karamanmaras, and Adana, respectively.
The batteries reportedly became operational in January 2013.
January 2013 (The President
on the prospect of U.S.
military intervention in Syria)
In a January 2013 interview with the New Republic, President Obama responded to a
question on how he views the violence in Syria by saying: “And as I wrestle with
those decisions, I am more mindful probably than most of not only our incredible
strengths and capabilities, but also our limitations. In a situation like Syria, I have to
ask, can we make a difference in that situation? Would a military intervention have
an impact? How would it affect our ability to support troops who are still in
Afghanistan? What would be the aftermath of our involvement on the ground?
Could it trigger even worse violence or the use of chemical weapons? What offers
the best prospect of a stable post-Assad regime? And how do I weigh tens of
thousands who've been killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are
currently being killed in the Congo?”
February 2013 (Non-Lethal
Aid to Syrian Opposition)
In February 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry announced an initiative to provide
new U.S. non-lethal support to the SC and local opposition groups inside Syria. U.S.
assistance to the SC and other opposition groups seeks to increase the opposition’s
capacity and credibility. To date, the Obama Administration and Congress have
repurposed $250 million to support opposition groups and provide assistance in
opposition-controlled areas of Syria.
April 2013 (More U.S.
Personnel to Jordan)
In April 2013, the Defense Department announced that it will deploy an Army
headquarters element (est. 200 personnel) to Jordan to help local forces defend
their border with Syria. The Defense Department noted that U.S. troops dispatched
to Jordan would provide training and equipment to Jordanian forces to “detect and
stop chemical weapons transfers along Jordan’s border with Syria, and develop
Jordan’s capacity to identify and secure chemical weapons assets.”
April 2013 (On alleged Syrian
regime chemical weapons
On April 25, 2013, the White House issued a letter to Congress stating that “our
intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the
44
“Backstage Glimpses of Clinton as Dogged Diplomat, Win or Lose,” New York Times, February 2, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
18
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
usage)
Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the
chemical agent Sarin.”
May 2013 (Return to the
Geneva Communiqué)
On May 7, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov announced that the United States and Russia would cooperate to convene an
international conference aimed at reaching a political settlement.
May 2013 (Humanitarian Aid)
On May 9, Secretary Kerry announced that the United States is contributing an
additional $100 million in humanitarian assistance, bringing total U.S. humanitarian
assistance for those affected by the violence in Syria to nearly $510 million.
June 2013 (Limited Sanctions
Relief)
On June 12, Secretary Kerry announced a partial waiver of preexisting Syrian
Accountability Act sanctions restricting exports to Syria to allow, subject to case-bycase review, the export and reexport of certain items to rebel controlled areas.
The items available to be licensed under the sanctions change are commodities,
software, and technology, including but not limited to those related to water supply
and sanitation; agricultural production and food processing; power generation; oil
and gas production; construction and engineering; transportation; and educational
infrastructure.
June 2013 (Chemical
Weapons Confirmation,
Expanded Assistance)
On June 13, White House officials confirmed the U.S. intelligence community’s
assessment that “the Asad regime has used chemical weapons, including the nerve
agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year.” In
response to the assessment, the White House signaled its intent to expand U.S.
assistance to the Syrian opposition, including the provision of unspecified support to
the Supreme Military Council of the armed opposition.
August 2013 (Chemical
Weapons Confirmation)
On August 30, the White House released an unclassified summary of the U.S.
intelligence community’s assessment of the Syrian government’s mass use of
chemical weapons on August 21. Among other things, the assessment determined
that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426
children.
August 2013 (President’s
Request to Congress for
Authorization of Use of
Force)
On August 31, President Obama submitted a draft resolution requesting that
Congress authorize the use of force for military operations “against Syrian regime
targets” to “hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons,
deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.”
September 2013 (Lethal Aid
to Syrian Opposition
In early September 2013, U.S. officials publicly acknowledged in hearings before
Congress that the Administration had approved a covert program to arm elements
of the Syrian opposition. On September 4, in a hearing before the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, Secretary of State Kerry said, “we have seen the president take
steps in response to the initial attacks of chemical weapons to increase lethal aid to
the opposition. That is now known.”
U.S. Assistance to Syria: Issues for Congress
Most U.S. foreign aid going to Syria is for humanitarian assistance. To date, the United States has
provided over $1 billion of humanitarian assistance45 both inside Syria and to neighboring
countries affected by the conflict. The United States has made humanitarian assistance
contributions in response to U.N. appeals and supports projects outside of the U.N. system.46 U.S.
humanitarian assistance has been drawn from global accounts, including the International
45
Cited funds have been provided in FY2012 and FY2013 and include previously appropriated funds. For more
information or analysis, contact Rhoda Margesson, CRS Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy, (ext. 7-0425,
rmargesson@crs.loc.gov).
46
For full details, see USAID, Syria–Complex Emergency Fact Sheet #22, August 22, 2013. Available online at:
[http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/08.22.13%20%20Syria%20Complex%20Emergency%20Fact%20Sheet%20%2322.pdf]
Congressional Research Service
19
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Disaster Assistance (IDA), Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA), and P.L. 480-Title II
accounts. On April 5, the State Department notified Congress of its intent to repurpose $220
million in FY2012 Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Funds to increase the FY2012 IDA and
MRA account balances for additional humanitarian assistance for Syrians. Section 1707(e) of P.L.
113-6, the FY2013 continuing resolution included increased account totals for the IDA and MRA
accounts, which improves the Administration’s ability to meet future Syria-related needs with
FY2013 funds.
According to the U.S. State Department, the United States also has committed to providing $250
million in transition support to the SC and SMC. To date, the President has used emergency
authority for unanticipated contingencies in Section 451 of the Foreign Assistance Act to identify
and repurpose Overseas Contingency Operations funds and Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Capability Funds to provide $54 million in nonlethal support to unarmed opposition groups. In
March 2013, the Administration notified Congress of its intent to reprogram an additional $63
million in OCO funds and use Section 451 authority to further enhance the capabilities of the
Syrian Opposition Coalition and local opposition councils inside Syria. In April 2013, the
President invoked drawdown authority to provide food and medical assistance to armed
opposition elements.
The Obama Administration has acknowledged the funding challenges that the Syria crisis
presents and worked with Congress to increase the balances in global humanitarian assistance
accounts in the FY2013 final appropriations bill to better meet Syria related needs. However, the
Administration has not identified specific additional Syria assistance funding requests in its
FY2014 appropriations budget and all indications suggest that the Administration intends to
continue to fund Syria opposition assistance efforts on an ad hoc basis by presenting
reprogramming requests and emergency contingency notifications to Congress.
Policy debates about U.S. humanitarian and opposition assistance have increasingly focused on
whether the United States is receiving adequate political benefit from its assistance efforts.
Anecdotal evidence from field reports and aid implementers suggests that many Syrians who may
be receiving U.S. assistance remain unaware of its origins, and that the general perception among
opposition groups is that the United States remains wary of providing assistance to rebels because
of fears of aiding extremist groups.47 In response, some Members of Congress and outside
observers have argued that the United States should begin to more aggressively “brand” U.S. aid
to enhance local perception that the people of the United States stand in solidarity with Syrians.
Humanitarian assistance implementers express concern that the so-called branding of aid
delivered into Syria as “American” or “foreign” may make aid personnel and recipients targets of
attacks by hostile extremists or Syrian government forces. Some proposed legislation introduced
in the 113th Congress would require branding of U.S. assistance for Syrians, with some exceptions
for the safety of those delivering assistance and consideration of the successful achievement of
U.S. policy objectives (see Appendix A).
U.S. assistance programs initiated in 2013 seek to create a grant-making mechanism that would
allow the SC to support the local efforts of councils, without creating duplicative arrangements.
The feasibility and political consequences of this approach remain to be determined. Some aid
delivery organizations and outside observers argue that traditional principles of impartiality and
47
CRS Specialist’s meetings with U.S. government grantees and Syrian opposition activists, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
20
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
neutrality should continue to govern all humanitarian assistance delivery and programs seeking
the improvement of local services. Some Syrians may regard efforts to channel assistance via the
SC-ACU as an attempt to assert political control over the funds and programs of other groups.
Local opposition groups reportedly are very sensitive to the duplication or manipulation of aid
delivery efforts to boost the political profile of exile opposition groups or foreign governments.
Possible Appropriations and Authorization Issues48
In considering and preparing for possible scenarios in Syria, Members of Congress might
consider current and likely future requests for appropriations and authorization from the
Administration. Syria’s economic situation was difficult prior to the conflict, and the Obama
Administration expects that security and reconstruction costs in Syria will be considerable and
will require international contributions.49 International organizations are already identifying
shortfalls in funding and material to respond to the humanitarian needs of Syrians affected by the
conflict, and those needs, along with reconstruction costs, could drastically increase if fighting
worsens and persists.
Given U.S. national security concerns about terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and the
regional security effects of conflict and potential regime change in Syria, it seems likely that
engagement between Congress and the Administration will continue to focus on those areas.
However, as part of a transition or negotiated settlement, the U.S. government could be asked to
financially support the repatriation or resettlement of Syrian refugees or to provide economic
assistance to Syria through contributions at future donors’ conferences and/or through
international financial institutions. The United Nations, NATO, or the Arab League could be
asked to fund, staff, and equip an international peacekeeping or monitoring operation inside
Syria. Congress may choose to define authorization criteria and identify potential funds for U.S.
contributions to such operations, including through reviewing current recurring obligations in the
Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) or Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA)
accounts.
Existing Restrictions and Authorities
Syria is among those states explicitly designated in the FY2012 foreign operations appropriation
act (Division I of P.L. 112-74; 125 Stat. 1164) as being prohibited from receiving direct aid
(§7007; 125 Stat. 1195). However, a number of provisions in that law could make funds available
“notwithstanding” other provisions within that law or other laws, including funds for
nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and related programs (125 Stat. 1185), foreign military
financing as it applies to demining (125 Stat. 1187), contingency funds (§7034(f); 125 Stat.
1214), and democracy promotion (§7034(h); 125 Stat. 1214).
The President also is granted special authority, under Section 614 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, to “authorize the furnishing of assistance without regard to any provision of this Act, the
48
CRS Specialist in Foreign Policy Legislation Dianne Rennack (ext. 7-7608) contributed to this section.
On August 15, 2012, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said, “Syria is not Iraq. It doesn’t have that
great, vast natural wealth. And depending on how long this goes on, we are already seeing a lot of the economic
underpinnings of Syria’s prosperity at risk from this fighting. So there’s going to have to be a serious rebuilding job
that will be Syrian-led obviously, but the international community has to be ready to support, so we’re beginning to
think about those things.”
49
Congressional Research Service
21
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Arms Export Control Act, any law relating to receipts and credits accruing to the United States,
and any Act authorizing or appropriating funds for use under this Act” if he finds it is “important
to the security interests of the United States” and so notifies Congress. Under this provision, the
President could make available up to $50 million in a given fiscal year to Syria. The President is
currently using this authority to provide assistance to the Syrian opposition. The Administrator of
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) also is authorized to provide
agricultural commodities to meet emergency food needs “notwithstanding any other provision of
law” pursuant to Title II of P.L. 480.
Addressing Syria’s State Sponsor of Terrorism Status
The Administration and Congress may wish to discuss ways to address Syria’s legal status as a
state sponsor of international terrorism in anticipation of any need to provide foreign assistance to
a transitional Syrian government. Similarly, the designation of the Al Nusra Front as a Foreign
Terrorist Organization and pursuant to E.O. 13224 may complicate U.S.-funded operations in
areas under Al Nusra influence or control. Syria has long been identified as a sponsor of terrorism
for the purposes of Section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and Section 6(j) of the
Export Administration Act of 1979. This status reflects long-standing Syrian government support
for Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorist groups. It remains unclear how any post-Asad government
might relate to those groups and other U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations. Since Syria
has long been identified as a sponsor of terrorism for the purposes of Section 620A of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, the President may be required to either issue a national security waiver to
provide certain types of assistance to a post-Asad Syrian government or to remove Syria’s
designation as a state sponsor of terrorism in consultation with Congress.
Section 620A affords the President two options to remove a terrorist designation: (1) he may
immediately remove a designation if there is a “fundamental change in the leadership and policies
of the government” of the targeted country, and that government does not support acts of
terrorism and has provided assurances that it will not in the future; or (2) he may remove a
designation for a government after 45 days if that government has not supported international
terrorism for a period of six months and has made assurances to not provide such support in the
future.
The President is also authorized to provide assistance pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 regardless of the terrorism designation in the following instances: He may make assistance
available for health and disease prevention programs, including funding for HIV/AIDS,
tuberculosis, and malaria treatment and prevention efforts (Section 104(c)(4)); he may provide up
to $25 million in any fiscal year for unanticipated contingencies (Section 451); and to some
extent he may fund international narcotics control and anticrime programs (Sections 481, 491,
respectively). Furthermore, he may furnish defense articles or services in exchange for “necessary
or strategic raw material” if he finds it in the U.S. national interest to do so (Section 663).
Under Sections 571 and 582 of the act, the President has broad authority to provide anti-terrorism
and nonproliferation assistance to foreign countries notwithstanding other provisions of law, with
the exception of human rights and terrorism related restrictions in Section 502B and 620A of the
act. Section 620A would restrict the provision of such assistance, in addition to peacekeeping
assistance under Section 551 of the act, without a national security waiver. Given the time and
certification requirements for removing the designation, it is likely the Administration would seek
authorization for the provision of such assistance through such a waiver.
Congressional Research Service
22
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Given the time and certification requirements for rescinding the designation of a state sponsor of
international terrorism, the President may seek separate, superseding authorization from Congress
for the provision of assistance to Syria, issue a national security waiver of terrorism related
restrictions, or invoke existing notwithstanding authorities included in current foreign operations
appropriations legislation. The Bush Administration sought and Congress granted separate
authorization for Iraq in 2003 for similar reasons: President Bush rescinded Iraq’s status as a state
sponsor of terrorism in May 2003 under authority granted by Congress in supplemental
appropriations legislation.50
Other Questions for Congressional Oversight
Possible questions that Congress may wish to consider in light of recent developments include the
following.
•
What should be the overarching goals of U.S. policy toward Syria? To protect
civilians? To further the opposition cause of removing President Asad from
power? To secure chemical weapons and prevent extremist groups from taking
hold? Can these aims be separated in principle? On the ground?
•
What might follow Asad’s departure? Would a negotiated solution that preserved
elements of the current government be acceptable to the United States? Why or
why not?
•
What authorities and appropriated funds might the Administration seek under
various scenarios? How can existing authorities and appropriations be used to
respond to various needs? What is the Administration’s view with regard to
addressing Syria’s status as a state sponsor of terrorism in the event of Asad’s
departure?
•
How are other countries responding to the crisis? Who is willing and able to
implement humanitarian or military intervention proposals? On what authority?
With what specific resources or forces, for what period, and at what cost? How
might direct or indirect military intervention affect ongoing relief and diplomacy
initiatives?
•
What potential risks and unintended consequences may stem from various
intervention proposals? What are the potential risks and consequences of opting
not to intervene? How will regional security be affected?
•
What signals might suggest that a collapse of the Syrian regime is imminent?
What signals might suggest that the current pattern of conflict by attrition will
persist? What developments could trigger direct intervention by regional actors,
and how should the United States respond to intervention?
50
President Bush rescinded Iraq’s status as a state sponsor of terrorism pursuant to Section 1503 of P.L. 108-11 by
issuing a memorandum to the Secretaries of State and Commerce and notifying Congress. Section 1503 states “that the
President may make inapplicable with respect to Iraq Section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or any other
provision of law that applies to countries that have supported terrorism. …provided further that the President shall
submit a notification 5 days prior to exercising any of the authorities described in this section to the Committee on
Appropriations of each House of the Congress, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee
on International Relations of the House of Representatives.” See President George W. Bush, Message to the Congress
Reporting the Declaration of a National Emergency With Respect to the Development Fund for Iraq, May 22, 2003.
Congressional Research Service
23
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
•
What political and security fault lines exist among Syrian opposition groups and
how might various scenarios affect prospects for conflict or cooperation between
them?
•
What role are extremist groups playing in the violence and what might their
future role be in Syria if the conflict ends? How can the United States best limit
opportunities for violent extremist groups to take advantage of continued conflict
or regime change in Syria?
•
How can the United States prevent the use, theft, or transfer of Syria’s
unconventional weapons? How can the United States and its allies prepare to
secure and limit the proliferation of conventional weapons stockpiles in Syria,
including missiles?
•
How should the United States respond to the humanitarian needs of the Syrian
people and address the impact of Syrian refugees on neighboring countries?
•
What steps should the United States take in its engagement with Syrian
opposition groups and regional actors to increase the likelihood of a post-conflict
transition process that will lead to stability for Syria and the region? Are secular
and Islamist Syrian opposition groups likely to prove hostile to Israel? How
might regime change affect prospects for a Syrian-Israeli peace agreement? How
likely are Syrian Kurds to remain at odds with Turkey and Syrian Arabs?
•
What steps is the Administration taking to ensure that the policies of U.S.
assistance recipients with regard to weapons of mass destruction, weapons
proliferation, terrorism, and human rights are compatible with U.S. goals and
interests? How credible are opposition leaders’ commitments on these issues?
•
What are the risks of additional spillover violence in Lebanon, Turkey, Israel, and
Jordan, and what steps should the United States take to eliminate or minimize
these risks? Would a greater spread of violence across borders change the U.S.
calculus regarding military intervention? If so, please explain how.
Legislation introduced in the 113th Congress related to Syria is summarized in Appendix A.
Legislation introduced in the 112th Congress related to Syria is summarized in Appendix B.
Table D-1 in Appendix D summarizes U.S. sanctions activity since the start of the uprising in
March 2011.
Congressional Research Service
24
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Appendix A. Syria Legislation in the 113th Congress
For the latest on proposed legislation to authorize the use of force against Syria: see CRS Report
R43201, Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress, coordinated by Jeremy M.
Sharp and Christopher M. Blanchard.
Bills
•
S. 960, The Syria Transition Support Act of 2013. Would, among other things,
authorize the President, notwithstanding any other provision of law that restricts
assistance to Syria, to provide assistance, including defense articles, defense
services, and training to vetted members of the Syrian Supreme Military Council,
units of the Free Syrian Army, and other Syrian entities opposed to the
government of Bashar al Asad. The bill would grant broad authority to provide
humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people and authorize the creation of a $250
million Transition Fund to provide security, transitional justice, democracy
building, and governance capacity building support as part of a post-Asad
transition. The bill would also prohibit U.S. military aid to U.S.-designated
Foreign Terrorist Organizations (such as Jabhat al Nusra) and would prohibit
surface-to-air defense systems including shoulder fired missiles from being
transferred to any armed Syrian group unless the President certifies certain
conditions. Approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as amended by
a 15-3 vote in May 2013.
•
H.R. 1327, the Free Syria Act of 2013. Would authorize the President
“notwithstanding any other provision of law, to provide such assistance as may
be necessary for protection of populations affected by the conflict in Syria.”
Section 205 of the bill states that, “Nothing in this Act may be construed to
authorize the use of military force in Syria by the United States Armed Forces.”
The bill would authorize the President “to make available such assistance as may
be necessary to enhance the capacity, performance of Syrian opposition-allied
local coordination committees.” Would authorize the transfer of any nondesignated foreign assistance account funds to “any humanitarian account” in
order “to address needs arising as a result of the conflict in Syria.” Would require
U.S. economic assistance to be marked “From the American People” with some
exceptions.
-Would authorize the President, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to direct the
drawdown of defense articles, services, education, and training for eligible groups.
Allows lethal assistance with required certification. Would prohibit provision of “antiaircraft defensive systems” unless a “vital national security interest” waiver,
certification, and report are issued. Would require notification of obligations to
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate. Would require the President to certify that military aid
provided is “consistent with the maintenance of regional stability and with the overall
security and stability of neighboring friends and allies.” Any anti-aircraft support would
require an accompanying report detailing recipients, deployment, targets, risks and
benefits. Entities failing to “demonstrate a commitment” to opposing and defeating
Assad regime; “establishing a democratic, pluralistic, and peaceful Syria”; and securing
and safeguarding WMD would be ineligible as are FTOs and SDGTs. States that
Congressional Research Service
25
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
security assistance should be provided “to the maximum extent practicable” in
accordance with current human rights provisions (22 U.S.C. 2378d).
-Would authorize the President notwithstanding any other provision of law to establish a
program with “a Syrian entity” to “secure, safeguard, disable, dismantle, transport out of
Syria, or destroy chemical and biological weapons, their precursor and constituent parts
and associated equipment, and establish verifiable safeguards against the proliferation of
such weapons.”
-Would authorize the President to provide democracy, economic and political
stabilization, reconstruction, and reconciliation assistance after determining that the
regime of Bashar al Assad is no longer in power, the U.S. government has recognized a
transitional government, and that such a transitional government is not controlled by an
FTO. Authorization would include “and notwithstanding any other provision of law.”
-Would authorize the President to temporarily suspend for 3 month intervals the
requirements of P.L. 108-75 and “any other provision of law relating to assistance,
trade, finance, the provision of defense articles and defense services, and the issuance of
visas to nationals of Syria” following a determination that a post-Assad government “is
demonstrating a verifiable commitment” to ceasing terrorist support; preventing missile
and WMD transfer; dismantling WMD programs, refraining from threatening U.S.
national security, interests, and allies; respecting boundaries and sovereignty of
neighbors; and upholding human rights. Would provide for two six month renewals
pending “substantial progress” determinations. Would provide for additional renewals
upon determination of achievement of security conditions and substantial progress on
human rights.
•
S. 617, the Syria Democratic Transition Act of 2013. Would state that it is the
policy of the United States—“to support civilians and innocent victims of the
conflict in Syria”; “that the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and
Opposition Forces (SC) is the sole and legitimate representative of the Syrian
people”; “…to support the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and
Opposition Forces (SC) efforts to establish a transitional government”; and, “to
affirm that the end of the Assad regime is in the national security interests of the
United States.” The bill would authorize the President, “notwithstanding any
other provision of law” to furnish assistance “on such terms and conditions as the
President may determine” for a series of stated purposes. Would require U.S.
economic assistance to be marked “From the American People” with some
exceptions. Would authorize the President, “notwithstanding any other provision
of law,” to “furnish assistance, and make contributions” to provide training and
nonlethal support to armed elements of the Syrian opposition. Would authorize
the President, “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” to “conduct
activities” in support of securing weapons in Syria. States the President should
enact financial sanctions against entities facilitating “significant” arms sales to
the Syrian government. Would require implementation reporting within 60 days.
•
H.R. 893, Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of
2013. Directs the President to impose sanctions for not less than two years on any
foreign person who on or after September 1, 2007, transferred to or acquired
from Iran, Syria, or North Korea: (1) certain listed nuclear, dual use, missile,
chemical, biological, toxic, or nonlisted but otherwise prohibited goods, services,
or technology; (2) acquired, mined, or otherwise extracted materials within the
territory or control of Iran, North Korea, or Syria for purposes relating to such
Congressional Research Service
26
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
countries' nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, or missile development
programs; (3) transferred to Iran, Syria, or North Korea goods, services, or
technology that could assist such countries' efforts to extract or mill uranium ore;
or (4) provided a vessel, insurance, or any other shipping service for transporting
goods to or from Iran, North Korea, or Syria for purposes relating to such
countries' nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, or missile development
programs.
•
H.R. 1922, Foreign Assistance Under Limitation and Transparency Act or the
FAULT Ac. Prohibits funds made available to any federal agency after FY2013
from being used to provide foreign assistance to Iran, North Korea, Syria, Egypt,
and Pakistan. Exempts agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices,
provided that the aggregate value in any fiscal year does not exceed $50 million.
•
H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
Contains Section1205, which would authorize the Secretary of Defense, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State, to provide assistance to the military and
civilian response organizations of Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab
Emirates, Iraq, Turkey, and other countries in the region of Syria in order for
such countries to respond effectively to incidents involving weapons of mass
destruction in Syria and the region. In addition, Section 1249 requires disclosure
of and report on Russian Support of Ballistic Missile Programs of China, Syria,
Iran, and North Korea. Section 1251 includes a sense of Congress on the Conflict
in Syria, which, among other things, states that: the President should fully
consider all courses of action to reinforce his stated `redline' regarding the use of
weapons of mass destruction by the Assad regime in Syria, which could threaten
the credibility of the United States with its allies in the region and embolden the
Assad regime.
•
H.R. 2432. Prohibits funds made available to any federal department or agency
for any fiscal year from being obligated or expended to provide military
assistance to any of the armed combatants in Syria absent express prior statutory
authorization from Congress.
•
H.R. 2492. Would prohibit funds made available to the Central Intelligence
Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United
States involved in intelligence activities to be obligated or expended for the
purpose of, or in a manner which would have the effect of, supporting, directly or
indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Syria by any nation, group,
organization, movement, or individual.
•
H.R. 2494. Would prohibit funds made available to the Central Intelligence
Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United
States involved in intelligence activities may be obligated or expended for the
purpose of, or in a manner which would have the effect of, supporting, directly or
indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Syria by any nation, group,
organization, movement, or individual.
•
H.R. 2501, Congressional Accountability and Oversight in Syria Act. Prohibits
assistance (except for humanitarian assistance) for the purpose, or which would
have the effect, of promoting the capacity of any nation, group, organization,
movement, or individual to conduct military or paramilitary operations in Syria,
unless and until Congress expressly authorizes such assistance by law.
Congressional Research Service
27
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
•
H.R. 2503. Prohibits the obligation or expenditure of funds made available to the
Department of Defense (DOD) or any other U.S. government department or
agency for military assistance to opposition forces in Syria.
•
H.R. 2507. Prohibits funds made available to the Central Intelligence Agency, the
Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States
involved in intelligence activities from being obligated or expended for the
purpose of, or in a manner which would have the effect of, supporting, directly or
indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Syria by any nation, group,
organization, movement, or individual.
•
H.Con.Res. 40. Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the President is
prohibited under the Constitution from the offensive use of the U.S. Armed
Forces in Syria without prior express authorization by an Act of Congress or
without a prior express appropriation of funds for that purpose by an Act of
Congress; and (2) the President's defiance of those constitutional limitations on
his authority to initiate war would constitute an impeachable high crime and
misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.
•
H.Res. 223. Calls on: (1) the Syrian Opposition Coalition to publicly outline a
detailed vision of inclusion for all of Syria's people, including a guarantee of full
citizenship and equality under the law; and (2) the Obama Administration, in
cooperation with international and regional partners, to continue to support the
Coalition as it develops mechanisms of transitional justice guaranteeing the rights
of all citizens under the law, and to support the Coalition as it forms an inclusive
and democratic provisional government. Urges all parties in the conflict to
respect international humanitarian law, protect minorities, preserve minority
cultural and religious sites, and hold accountable those who violate such norms.
•
H.Res. 229. Condemns the ongoing violence and the systematic human rights
violations carried out by Syrian government forces under President Bashar alAssad's direction, as well as abuses committed by opposition forces. Supports the
people of Syria seeking peaceful democratic change. Calls on the U.N. Security
Council, based on evidence that war crimes and crimes against humanity have
been perpetrated in Syria, to refer the situation to the International Criminal
Court.
•
H.R. 2397, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014. Includes Section
10034, which states that none of the funds made available by this Act may be
used with respect to Syria in contravention of the War Powers Resolution (50
U.S.C. 1541 et seq.), including for the introduction of United States forces into
hostilities in Syria, into situations in Syria where imminent involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, or into Syrian territory,
airspace, or waters while equipped for combat, in contravention of the
Congressional consultation and reporting requirements of sections 3 and 4 of that
law (50 U.S.C. 1542 and 1543).
•
S. 856, Syria Stabilization Act of 2013. Among other things, would authorize the
President, notwithstanding any other provision of law and using funds made
available for foreign assistance, to provide assistance, including defense articles,
defense services, and training to members of the Syrian Supreme Military
Council, units of the Free Syrian Army, and other Syrian entities opposed to the
government of Bashar al-Assad.
Congressional Research Service
28
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
•
S. 1201, Protecting Americans from the Proliferation of Weapons to Terrorists
Act of 2013. Would prohibit funds made available to the Central Intelligence
Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United
States involved in intelligence activities from being obligated or expended for the
purpose of, or in a manner which would have the effect of, supporting, directly or
indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Syria by any nation, group,
organization, movement, or individual.
•
S. 1372, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 2014. Would, among other things, make
appropriations available for assistance for Syria under titles III and IV of this Act,
notwithstanding any other provision of law. In addition, funds appropriated under
for programs in Syria may only be made available after the Secretary of State, in
consultation with the heads of relevant United States Government agencies,
submits, in classified form if necessary, a comprehensive strategy to the
appropriate congressional committees, which shall include a clear mission
statement, achievable objectives and timelines, and a description of inter-agency
and donor coordination and implementation of such strategy: Provided, That such
strategy shall also include a description of oversight mechanism and vetting
procedures to prevent the misuse of funds.
•
S. 1429, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014. Would, among other
things, prohibit funds made available by this Act to be used with respect to Syria
in contravention of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.),
including for the introduction of United States armed or military forces into
hostilities in Syria, into situations in Syria where imminent involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, or into Syrian territory,
airspace, or waters while equipped for combat, in contravention of the
congressional consultation and reporting requirements of sections 3 and 4 of that
law (50 U.S.C. 1542 and 1543).
Congressional Research Service
29
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Appendix B. Syria Legislation in the 112th Congress
Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (P.L.
112-158)
•
P.L. 112-158/H.R. 1905, the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act
of 2012, codifies the sanctions on Syria contained in E.O.13606 and includes in
Title VII, “Sanctions with Respect to Human Rights Abuses in Syria.” This
section directs the President to identify and impose specified sanctions on: (1)
Syrian government officials or persons acting on behalf of that government who
are responsible for or complicit in the commission of serious human rights abuses
against Syrian citizens or their family members, regardless of whether such
abuses occurred in Syria; (2) persons who knowingly transfer or facilitate the
transfer of goods or technologies (weapons, surveillance technology, or
technology to restrict free speech or the flow of information) that are likely to be
used by Syria to commit human rights abuses against the Syrian people; and (3)
persons who engage in censorship that prohibits, limits, or penalizes freedom of
expression by Syrian citizens. Section 604 states, “Nothing in this Act or the
amendments made by this Act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an
authorization of the use of force against Iran or Syria.”
FY2013 Appropriations and Authorization Legislation
•
In report language accompanying H.R. 5857, the Department of State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2013, appropriators note
under the heading “Global and Regional Programs/ Middle East Response” that
“The Committee is troubled by the ongoing violence in Syria and notes that
funds under this heading should continue to be made available to assist the
Syrian people. All funds for Syria are subject to the notification procedures of the
Committees on Appropriations, pursuant to section 7015(f) of this Act.”
•
In report language accompanying the Senate version of the bill, S. 3241,
appropriators recommended $2 million for the National Endowment for
Democracy programs in Syria. According to the report, “The Committee
recognizes the comparative advantages of the NED in the promotion of
democracy and human rights abroad, particularly given its status as an NGO,
unparalleled experience in promoting freedom during the cold war, and continued
ability to conduct programs in the most hostile political environments.”
•
House and Senate Amendments to H.R. 4310 and S. 3254, the House and
Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
See Amendments below.
Bills
•
H.R. 2105, The Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Reform and
Modernization Act of 2011—Stated that it shall be U.S. policy to fully implement
and enforce sanctions against Iran, North Korea, and Syria for their proliferation
activities and policies. Would have, among other things, prohibited U.S. nuclear
Congressional Research Service
30
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
cooperation agreements and related export licenses and transfers of materials,
services, and goods with a country that assists the nuclear program of Iran, North
Korea, or Syria, or is transferring advanced conventional weapons to such
countries.
•
H.R. 2106, The Syria Freedom Support Act—Would have, among other things,
sanctioned the development of petroleum resources of Syria, the production of
refined petroleum products in Syria, and the exportation of refined petroleum
products to Syria.
•
H.R. 5993, The Syria Non-Intervention Act of 2012—Would have prohibited the
use of funds available to the Department of Defense or an element of the
intelligence community for the purpose of, or which would have the effect of
supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Syria by
any nation, group, organization, movement, or individual.
•
S. 1048, The Iran, North Korea, and Syria Sanctions Consolidation Act of 2011—
Amends the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act to include in the
scope of such act a person that (1) acquired materials mined or extracted within
North Korea’s territory or control; or (2) provided shipping services for the
transportation of goods to or from Iran, North Korea, or Syria relating to such
countries’ weapons of mass destruction programs, support for acts of
international terrorism, or human rights abuses. Excludes from such provisions
shipping services for emergency or humanitarian purposes.
•
S. 1472, The Syria Sanctions Act of 2011—would have denied companies that
conduct business in Syria’s energy sector (investment, oil purchases, and sale of
gasoline) access to U.S. financial institutions and required federal contractors to
certify that they are not engaged in sanctionable activity.
•
S. 2034, Syria Human Rights Accountability Act of 2012—Would have imposed
sanctions on persons who are responsible for or complicit in certain human rights
abuses. Also would have prohibited procurement contracts with persons that
export sensitive technology to Syria.
•
S. 2101, Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Human Rights Act of 2012—Would
have imposed, among other things, sanctions with respect to certain persons who
are responsible for or complicit in human rights abuses committed against
citizens of Syria or their family members.
•
S. 2152, Syria Democracy Transition Act of 2012—Would have imposed, among
other things, sanctions on foreign financial institutions that conduct transactions
with the central bank of Syria.
•
S. 2224, Would have required the President to report to Congress on issues
related to Syria—Directed the President to report to Congress regarding (1)
opposition groups operating inside or outside of Syria to oppose the Syrian
government, and (2) the size and security of conventional and non-conventional
weapons stockpiles in Syria.
•
S. 3498, Syria Humanitarian Support and Democratic Transition Assistance Act
of 2012—Made several statements of policy regarding human rights violations,
assistance to the Syrian people, weapons security, and support for transitional
governance in Syria. Would have directed the President to appoint a Special
Congressional Research Service
31
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Envoy for Syria. Encouraged the President to provide bilateral assistance in the
form of relief and transition support and would have authorized “such sums as
may be necessary … for bilateral assistance programs in Syria” for FY2013 and
FY2014. Would have authorized increased funding to countries “that have
experienced an influx of refugees from Syria.” Encouraged the development of a
transition and security plan for Syria and would have required reporting on
implementation.
Resolutions
•
H.Res. 296/S.Res. 180, A resolution expressing support for peaceful
demonstrations and universal freedoms in Syria and condemning the human
rights violations by the Asad Regime—Among other things, it urged the
“President to continue to work with the European Union, the Government of
Turkey, the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and other allies and
partners to bring an end to human rights abuses in Syria, hold the perpetrators
accountable, and support the aspirations of the people of Syria.”
•
H.Res. 632, A resolution that, among other things, commended the leadership of
the Government of Turkey in calling for an end to the violence in Syria and for
its responsiveness to the humanitarian needs of Syrian refugees.
•
H.Res. 687, A resolution that, among other things, called on the United Nations
Security Council, based on evidence that crimes against humanity have been
perpetrated by Syrian government forces, to refer the situation of Syria to the
International Criminal Court.
•
H.Res. 763, A resolution that, among other things, called on all parties in the
conflict in Syria to respect the human rights and religious freedom of Syrian
citizens.
•
H.Res. 770, Expressed the sense of the House of Representatives that (1) only
Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war, (2) President Obama
should set clear objectives for the U.S. Armed Forces before sending them into
battle, (3) President Obama should indicate a direct national security interest in
placing the U.S. Armed Forces in harm’s way, and (4) the government of Syria
has surrendered all claims of legitimacy by massacring its own people and should
peacefully transfer power to a democratically elected government.
•
S.Res. 370/H.Res. 549, A resolution calling for democratic change in Syria,
would state the Senate’s condemnation of “ongoing, widespread, and systemic
violations of human rights conducted by authorities in Syria” and calling on
Bashar al Asad to step down. The non-binding resolution would have urged the
President to support a democratic transition in Syria, establish a Friends of Syria
Contact Group, develop a strategy to encourage further military defections, and
“develop a plan to identify weapons stockpiles and prevent the proliferation of
conventional, biological, chemical, and other types of weapons in Syria.”
•
S.Res. 379, A resolution that, among other things, expressed strong
disappointment with the Governments of the Russian Federation and the People’s
Republic of China for their veto of the United Nations Security Council
resolution condemning Bashar al Asad and the violence in Syria and urged them
to reconsider their votes.
Congressional Research Service
32
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
•
S.Res. 391/H.Res. 629, A resolution that, among other things, called on Syria to
(1) open the country to independent and foreign journalists; and (2) release all
detained journalists, videographers, and bloggers.
•
S.Res. 424, A resolution that, among other things, supported calls by Arab leaders
to provide the people of Syria with the means to defend themselves against
Bashar al-Assad and his forces, including through the provision of weapons and
other material support, and called on the President to work closely with regional
partners to implement these efforts effectively; urged the President to take all
necessary precautions to ensure that any support for the Syrian opposition does
not benefit individuals in Syria who are aligned with al Qaeda or associated
movements, or who have committed human rights abuses; and affirmed that the
establishment of safe havens for people from Syria, as contemplated by
governments in the Middle East, would be an important step to save Syrian lives
and to help bring an end to Mr. Assad’s killing of civilians in Syria, and called on
the President to consult urgently and thoroughly with regional allies on whether,
how, and where to create such safe havens.
•
S.Res. 428, A resolution that, among other things, urged the President to formally
establish the Atrocities Prevention Board established by Presidential Study
Directive-10 in August 2011, and for the Board to provide recommendations to
the President concerning the prevention of mass atrocities in Syria.
•
S.Res. 435, A resolution that, among other things, strongly urged all
Governments, including the Republic of Belarus and the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea, to refrain from providing any additional military or security
assistance to the Government of Syria.
•
S.Res. 494, A resolution that, among other things, condemned the Government of
the Russian Federation for its long-standing and ongoing support for the criminal
regime of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
Amendments
•
H.Amdt. 1131 to H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013, agreed in the House of Representatives May 18, 2012, an amendment
to limit the availability of funds for Cooperative Threat Reduction activities with
Russia until the Secretary of Defense can certify that Russia is no longer
supporting the Syrian regime and is not providing to Syria, North Korea, or Iran
any equipment or technology that contributes to weapons of mass destruction
programs.
•
S.Amdt. 3262 to S. 3254, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013, agreed to in the Senate December 4, 2012, and incorporated in the
conference bill H.R. 4310, an amendment to require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to congressional defense committees identifying options to “deny
or significantly degrade” the Syrian military’s ability to use air power against
civilians and the opposition. Specifically, the report would require an assessment
of the deployment of air defense systems, the establishment of no-fly zones,
limited air strikes, or “other military activities.”
•
Section 1295 of H.R. 4310, the conference version of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, requires the Administration to provide a
Congressional Research Service
33
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
report within 90 days of enactment on military assistance provided by the
Russian Federation to Syria.
Congressional Research Service
34
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Appendix C. Chronology of United Nations
Action on Syria
Date
Action
August 3, 2011
The Security Council issued a presidential statement that expressed profound regret
over hundreds of deaths in Syria, condemned widespread violations of human rights
against civilians by Syrian authorities, and called for an immediate end to violence in
Syria, urging all sides to act with utmost restraint. It also called for access for
humanitarian workers for Syrian authorities to follow through on commitments they
had made to reform. Lebanon disassociated itself from the statement after its
release.
October 4, 2011
The Security Council failed to adopt a resolution that would have, among other
things, voiced deep concern over violence in Syria and strongly condemned “the
continued grave and systematic human rights violations and the use of force against
civilians by the Syrian authorities.” It called for “an inclusive Syrian-led political
process conducted in an environment free from violence, fear, intimidation and
extremism, and aimed at effectively addressing the legitimate aspirations and
concerns of Syria’s population.” Russia and China voted against the resolution, and
Brazil, India, Lebanon, and South Africa abstained.
February 4, 2012
The Security Council failed to adopt a resolution that would have, among other
things, adopted an Arab League plan outlining a Syrian-led political transition to a
democratic, plural political system. The resolution had called on the Syrian
government to cease violence against civilians, withdraw its armed forces from cities
and towns and return them to their barracks, guarantee the freedom of peaceful
demonstrations, and allow unhindered access for all Arab League institutions to
“determine the truth about the situation on the ground and monitor the incidents
taking place." Russia and China voted against the resolution.
February 23, 2012
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Secretary-General of the
League of Arab States Nabil Elaraby appointed Kofi Annan as United Nations-League
of Arab States Joint Special Envoy for Syria.
April 5, 2012
The Security Council issued another presidential statement that, among other
things, noted the Syrian government commitment on March 25, 2012, to implement
Kofi Annan’s six-point peace proposal. The statement also called upon the Syrian
government to implement an U.N.-brokered cease-fire by withdrawing troops from
population centers by April 10, 2012. It also called upon all parties, including the
Syrian opposition, to cease all armed violence no later than April 12, 2012.
April 14, 2012
The Security Council passed Resolution 2042, which approved the deployment of a
U.N. advance team of 30 military observers to Syria. It also demanded that the
Syrian authorities withdraw security forces from population centers and begin a
dialogue with the opposition. The vote marked the first time since protests began
that the Security Council was united in demanding a halt to the violence.
April 21, 2012
The Security Council passed Resolution 2043, which established—for a 90-day
period—a United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) with an initial
deployment of up to 300 unarmed military observers under the command of a Chief
Military Observer. The resolution also created a civilian team to help implement
elements of the full peace plan, such as the start of a national political dialogue and
the government’s granting of the right to demonstrate.
June 16, 2012
UNSMIS Commander Norwegian Major General Robert Mood suspended
observation patrols due to increased violence.
July 19, 2012
The Security Council failed to adopt a proposed resolution that would have, among
other things, threatened sanctions on Syria if demands to end the violence were not
met. Permanent members China and Russia voted against the resolution and
Pakistan and South Africa abstained. The resolution would have had the Security
Congressional Research Service
35
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Council act under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter to demand verifiable
compliance—within 10 days of the adoption—with its demands in previous
resolutions that Syrian authorities pull back military concentrations from population
centers and cease the use of heavy weaponry against them.
July 20, 2012
The Security Council passed UNSCR 2059 which extended the UNSMIS mission for
an additional 30 days. It also conditioned any further renewal of UNSMIS on the
cessation of the use of heavy weapons by the government and a reduction in
violence by all sides.
August-September 2012
United Nations-League of Arab States Joint Special Envoy for Syria, Kofi Annan
announced his intention to resign upon the expiration of his mandate on August 31,
2012. Algerian diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi replaces Annan as Joint Special Envoy and
begins diplomatic engagement with international parties and the Asad government.
October 2012
Brahimi proposes a ceasefire linked to the Islamic holiday of Eid al Adha that is
considered and adopted by the government and some opposition groups, but
quickly breaks down.
November-December 2012
Brahimi warns that state failure may result from continued fighting in Syria and
renews calls for a negotiated political solution based on the July 2012 communique
of the Action Group on Syria.51 U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon reports his
concern “that the presence of armed members of the opposition and the ongoing
military activities of the Syrian security forces [in the Golan Heights area] have the
potential to ignite a larger conflict between Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic with
grave consequences.” The United Nations suspends operations in Syria on
December 3, citing deteriorating security conditions.
On December 19, the United Nations, humanitarian organizations, and the
government of Syria released estimates and appeals for assistance for Syrian
refugees as well as those displaced or otherwise in need in Syria. A U.N. Syria
Regional Response Plan seeks $1 billion for Syrian refugees through the first half of
2013. A U.N. Humanitarian Assistance Response Plan for Syria, prepared in part by the
government of Syria, seeks $519 million to support Syrians affected by the conflict
through the first half of 2013.
January-April 2013
On January 30, U.N. member states, agencies, and non-governmental organizations
convened an International Humanitarian Pledging Conference for Syria held in
Kuwait. At the conference, several countries made new pledges of funding to
support humanitarian assistance for Syrians. Several of the largest donors included
Kuwait, the UAE, United States, and European Commission.
In February 2013, the U.N. Commission of Inquiry on Syria released a report noting
that large parts of the country are scenes of “continuous combat, involving more
brutal tactics and new military capabilities on all sides.”
In March 2013, U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres testified
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and described the Syrian
humanitarian crisis “dramatic beyond description.” He also warned that the refugee
flows into neighboring countries will have an “unimaginable impact on the economy,
the society and the security of these countries.”
In April 2013, various U.N. officials published an OpEd in the New York Times in
which they called on “political leaders involved” to reach a political solution to the
Syrian civil war, writing that “We ask that they use their collective influence to insist
on a political solution to this horrendous crisis before hundreds of thousands more
people lose their homes and lives and futures—in a region already at the tipping
point.”
51
Available at http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Syria/FinalCommuniqueActionGroupforSyria.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
36
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
June 2013 (Limited Sanctions
Relief)
On June 12, Secretary Kerry announced a partial waiver of preexisting Syrian
Accountability Act sanctions restricting exports to Syria to allow, subject to case-bycase review, the export and reexport of certain items to rebel controlled areas.
The items available to be licensed under the sanctions change are commodities,
software, and technology, including but not limited to those related to water supply
and sanitation; agricultural production and food processing; power generation; oil
and gas production; construction and engineering; transportation; and educational
infrastructure.
August 2013
A team of United Nations (UN) chemical weapons inspectors went to Syria to
examine several sites where attacks were alleged to occur. The inspectors collected
samples from the sites, including the site of the August 21 attack, and those samples
are being studied. The team’s mandate is not to assess who used the weapons, but
rather to determine to the extent possible whether or not chemical weapons were
used and what type. The inspectors were invited to Syria by the Syrian government,
but they only arrived in the country on August 18—just before the apparent August
21 attack—after months of negotiating terms of access for the inspections.
In late August, the Security Council met to discuss a draft resolution proposed by
the United Kingdom regarding the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Russia opposed
the draft asserting that UN investigators must finish their investigation into claims of
chemical weapons use before discussing any resolution.
Congressional Research Service
37
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Appendix D. U.S. Sanctions on Syria
Overview
At present, a variety of legislative provisions and executive directives prohibit U.S. aid to Syria
and restrict bilateral trade. Syria remains a U.S.-designated State Sponsor of Terrorism and is
therefore subject to a number of general U.S. sanctions. Syria was placed on the State
Department’s State Sponsors of Terrorism List in 1979. Moreover, between 2003 and 2006
Congress passed legislation and President Bush issued new executive orders that expanded U.S.
sanctions specifically on Syria.
•
The table below reviews sanctions introduced since early 2011 in response to
Syria’s uprising.
•
Syria-specific sanctions and general sanctions applicable to Syria are also
summarized below.
Background on U.S. Assistance to Syria and Restrictions
Because of a number of legal restrictions and U.S. sanctions, many resulting from Syria’s
designation as a country supportive of international terrorism, Syria is no longer eligible to
receive U.S. foreign assistance. Between 1950 and 1981, the United States provided a total of
$627.4 million in aid to Syria: $34.0 million in development assistance, $438.0 million in
economic support, and $155.4 million in food assistance. Most of this aid was provided during a
brief warming trend in bilateral relations between 1974 and 1979. Significant projects funded
with U.S. assistance included water supply, irrigation, rural roads and electrification, and health
and agricultural research. No aid has been provided to Syria since 1981, when the last aid
programs were closed out. In the event of regime change, the Obama Administration and
Congress would need to reevaluate any successor government’s policies with regard to support
for international terrorism in order to determine Syria’s potential eligibility for U.S. assistance.
Syria’s Economy and Sanctions
Reports indicate that the Syrian economy and national budget are suffering due to a steep drop in
oil exports resulting from sanctions; over a year of domestic unrest and the loss of tourism
revenues; and new social and military spending aimed at quelling public anger. Estimates vary on
the degree of contraction in 2011, ranging between 5% and 15%.52 The Economist Intelligence
Unit predicted that the Syrian economy would contract by 8.1% in 2012.
Urban areas are now experiencing daily power outages and fuel shortages; inflation is rising; and
the value of the Syrian pound has plummeted, forcing the government to spend resources
propping it up. Foreign exchange reserves held by the Syrian Central Bank have reportedly fallen
considerably. With the loss of European export markets due to a European Union oil import ban,
Syria has been denied a major source of revenue and hard currency (25%-30% of total
government revenue or $4 billion a year).
52
“Cracks Widen in Syrian Economy,” IPS, January 24, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
38
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Before sanctions, the main buyers of approximately 150,000 barrels per day (bpd) of exported
Syrian oil were Italy, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Austria, Spain, and Turkey. Prior to the
conflict, Syria produced about 380,000 bpd total.53 Foreign oil companies that have suspended
operations in Syria include Tatneft (Russia), Royal Dutch/Shell Group, Total (France), Gulfsands
(UK), Suncor (Canada), and INA (Croatia). In March 2012, Syrian officials announced that the
Russian energy company Gazprom would take over INA’s oil and gas operations in Syria. The
operating status of two Chinese companies with investments in Syria, CNPC and Sinopec, is
unknown.54 Western countries also have banned non-licensed investment in Syria’s oil and gas
sector, and energy traders and shipping firms also report changes to their engagement with Syria.
European sanctions do not ban the export of liquid petroleum gas (LPG) to Syria, since it is
widely used by ordinary households for heating and cooking.
Since new sanctions were enacted, many analysts have speculated about whether new investors
and new foreign markets would arise for Syrian oil exports, albeit at lower prices due to sanctions
and increased shipping, insurance, and financing costs. Some experts believe that both India and
China are in a position to refine the heavy crude that Syria exports. However, others assert that
some Asian buyers would find the prospect of purchasing Syrian oil too risky or politically
problematic. Venezuela has supplied Syria with shipments of diesel fuel in exchange for Syrian
naphtha, a refined petroleum product. In 2012, Venezuelan Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez
referred to “a high level of cooperation with Syria, a besieged nation, whom the transnational
interests want to bring down.” Other reports have suggested that Russia and Iran export gasoil
and diesel to Syria.55 Syrian officials have referenced negotiations for fuel import deals with
Russia, Iran, and Algeria.56
53
Though oil production declined in 2011, natural gas production increased by 8% due to investment in gas
infrastructure made before unrest began.
54
“Syria: Voting with their feet,” Economist Intelligence Unit—Business Middle East, January 16, 2012.
55
“How Russia, Iran keep fuel flowing to Syria,” Reuters, April 26, 2012.
56
“Syria, Russia Negotiating Long-Term Gas, Diesel Fuel Contracts,” ITAR-TASS World Service, May 25, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
39
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Table D-1. U.S. Sanctions Against Syria in 2011-2013
(Implemented by Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control [OFAC])
Date
Sanctioned Individual/Entity
Sanction or Related Activity Description
July 11,
2013
Jaysh al Sha’bi (Army of the People), Adib Mayaleh
(Governor of Central Bank of Syria).
Added to OFAC’s Specially Designated
Nationals (SDN) List
June 12,
2013
OFAC issued regulatory guidance on a favorable
licensing policy regime through which U.S. persons
can request from OFAC specific authorization to
engage in transactions involving the
telecommunications and agricultural sectors of
Syria, as well as transactions related to petroleum
or petroleum products of Syrian origin for the
benefit of the National Coalition of Syrian
Revolutionary and Opposition Forces or its
supporters.
Syria General License 11A Issued
OFAC also issued Syria General License 11A
authorizing additional services in support of
nongovernmental organizations' activities to support
the preservation and protection of cultural heritage
sites in Syria. Syria General License 11A replaces
and supersedes Syria General License 11, dated
September 26, 2011.
May 16,
2013
Najm Hamad al Ahmad, Minister of Justice, Fahd
Jassem al Freij, Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the
Army and the Armed Forces and Minister of
Defense, Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani, Sa'ad AbdelSalam al Nayef, Minister of Health, and Adnan Abdo
al Sukhni, Minister of Industry.
Added to OFAC’s Specially Designated
Nationals (SDN) List
OFAC also added dozens of Syrian aircraft to its
SDN list.
April 18,
2013
Removed Nabil Rafik Al Kuzbari from the SDN list.
Syria Designation Removal
March 15,
2013
Authorizes U.S. persons to provide to the National
Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition
Forces certain services, including transfers of funds,
otherwise prohibited by Executive Order 13582
Syria General License No. 16 Issued
December
11, 2012
Two senior leaders of the Syria-based Al Nusra
Front, Maysar Ali Musa Abdallah al-Juburi and Anas
Hasan Khattab, for acting on behalf of al-Qa'ida in
Iraq (AQI).
Added to OFAC’s Specially Designated
Nationals (SDN) List pursuant to Executive
Order 13224
December
11, 2012
Jaysh al-Sha'bi and Shabiha (two armed militia
groups that operate under the control of the Syrian
government) and two Shabiha commanders Ayman
Jaber and Mohammed Jaber
Added to OFAC’s Specially Designated
Nationals (SDN) List pursuant to Executive
Orders 13572 and 13582 variously
September
19, 2012
Amr Armanazi, director of Syria’s Scientific Studies
Research Center, Army Supply Bureau, involved in
missile procurement, and Belarus-based
Belvneshpromservice
Added to OFAC’s Specially Designated
Nationals (SDN) List
Congressional Research Service
40
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Date
Sanctioned Individual/Entity
Sanction or Related Activity Description
September
14, 2012
Hasan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s Secretary General, is
being designated pursuant to Executive Order
(E.O.) 13582, for providing support to the Syrian
government.
Added to OFAC’s Specially Designated
Nationals (SDN) List, pursuant to E.O.13582
August 14,
2012
Riyad Hijab, former Prime Minister
Post-defection removal from OFAC’s Specially
Designated Nationals (SDN) List
August 10,
2012
Hezbollah, SYTROL
Added to OFAC’s Specially Designated
Nationals (SDN) List, pursuant to E.O.13582
July 18,
2012
Omran Ahed Al-Zoubi, Minister of Information;
Subhi Ahmad Al-Abdullah, Minister of Agriculture
and Agrarian Reform; Safwan Al-Assaf, Minister of
Housing and Urban Development; Wael Nader AlHalqi, Minister of Health; Mohammad Al-Jleilati,
Minister of Finance; Hala Al Nasser, Minister of
Tourism; Mohammad Abdul-Sattar Al-Sayyed,
Minister of Religious Endowments; Yasser Al-Sibaei,
Minister of Public Works; Hazwan Al Wazz,
Minister of Education; Mansour Fadlallah Azzam,
Minister of Presidential Affairs; Nazira Farah Sarkis,
Minister of State for Environmental Affairs; Hussein
Mahmoud Farzat, Minister of State; Omar Ibrahim
Ghalawanji, Deputy Prime Minister for Services
Affairs; Radwan Habib, Minister of Justice; Ali
Haidar, Minister of State for National Reconciliation
Affairs; Bassam Hanna, Minister of Water
Resources; Riyad Hijab, Prime Minister; Mahmoud
Ibrahim Said, Minister of Transport; Qadri Jamil,
Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs; Imad
Mohammad Deeb Khamis, Minister of Electricity;
Adib Mayaleh, Governor of Central Bank of Syria;
Jassim Mohammad Zakarya, Minister of Social
Affairs and Labor; Lubanah Mshaweh, Minister of
Culture; Said Mu’zi Hneidi, Minister of Oil and
Mineral Resources; Imad Abdul-Ghani Sabouni,
Minister of Communications and Technology; Fuad
Shukri Kurdi, Minister of Industry; Joseph Jurji
Sweid, Minister of State; Mohammad Yehya Moalla,
Minister of Higher Education; Mohammad Zafer
Mihbek, Minister of Economy and Foreign Trade
Added to OFAC’s Specially Designated
Nationals (SDN) List
Business Lab, Drex Technologies(Virgin Islands)a,
Handasieh, Industrial Solutions, Mechanical
Construction Factory, Syronics
May 30,
2012
Syria International Islamic Bank
Added to OFAC’s Specially Designated
Nationals (SDN) List
May 1, 2012
Foreign Persons/Foreign Entities that have violated,
attempted to violate, conspired to violate, or
caused a violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran or
Syria, or that have facilitated deceptive transactions
for persons subject to U.S. sanctions concerning
Syria or Iran.
Executive Order 13608—Authorizes the
Department of the Treasury to publicly identify
foreign individuals and entities that have violated
U.S. sanctions against Iran and Syria and
generally bars their access to U.S. financial and
commercial systems.
Congressional Research Service
41
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Date
Sanctioned Individual/Entity
April 27,
2012
Sanction or Related Activity Description
OFAC issued General License 4A, which
authorizes the exports or re-exports to Syria of
items licensed or otherwise authorized by the
Department of Commerce and of exports and
reexports of certain services. General License
4A replaces and supersedes General License 4,
dated August 18, 2011.
April 23,
2012
Governments of Syria and Iran, Ali Mamluk
(Director of the Syrian General Intelligence
Directorate), Syrian General Intelligence
Directorate, Syriatel, Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps, Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security,
Law Enforcement Forces of the Islamic Republic of
Iran, Datak Telecom
Executive Order 13606—Blocks the property
and suspends entry into the United States of
certain persons with respect to grave human
rights abuses by the governments of Iran and
Syria via information technology.
March 30,
2012
General Munir Adanov (Deputy Chief of General
Staff of the Syrian Army), General Dawood Rajiha
(Minister of Defense)
Added to OFAC’s Specially Designated
Nationals (SDN) List
March 5,
2012
General Organization of Radio and TV
Added to OFAC’s Specially Designated
Nationals (SDN) List
February 23,
2012
OFAC issued General License 15 related to
Syria to authorize transactions in connection
with patent, trademark, copyright, or other
intellectual property protection that would
otherwise be prohibited by Executive Order
13582.
February 16,
2012
Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security
Added to OFAC’s Specially Designated
Nationals (SDN) List
December
1, 2011
Muhammad Makhluf, Military Housing Establishment,
Real Estate Bank
Added to OFAC’s Specially Designated
Nationals (SDN) List
October 3,
2011
OFAC issued two general licenses related to
Syria to authorize payments in connection with
overflight or emergency landing and transactions
with respect to telecommunications
September
27, 2011
OFAC issued a general license related to Syria
to authorize third-country diplomatic and
consular funds transfers and to authorize certain
services in support of nongovernmental
organizations’ activities.
September
9, 2011
OFAC issued four general licenses related to
Syria to authorize wind down transactions,
certain official activities of international
organizations, incidental transactions related to
U.S. persons residing in Syria and operation of
accounts.
August 30,
2011
Walid Mouallem (Foreign Minister), Ali Abdul Karim
Ali (Syrian Ambassador to Lebanon), Bouthaina
Shaaban (Advisor to the President)
Congressional Research Service
Added to OFAC’s Specially Designated
Nationals (SDN) List
42
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Date
Sanctioned Individual/Entity
Sanction or Related Activity Description
August 18,
2011
Government of Syria
Executive Order 13582—Freezes all assets of
the Government of Syria, prohibits U.S. persons
from engaging in any transaction involving the
Government of Syria, bans U.S. imports of
Syrian-origin petroleum or petroleum products,
prohibits U.S. persons from having any dealings
in or related to Syria’s petroleum or petroleum
products, and prohibits U.S. persons from
operating or investing in Syria.
August 18,
2011
General Petroleum Corporation, Syrian Company
For Oil Transport, Syrian Gas Company, Syrian
Petroleum Company, Sytrol
Added to OFAC’s SDN List
August 10,
2011
Commercial Bank of Syria and its Lebanon-based
subsidiary, Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank,
Syriatel, the country’s main mobile phone operator
Added to OFAC’s SDN List
August 4,
2011
Muhammad Hamsho (businessman with ties to Asad
family), Hamsho International Group
Added to OFAC’s SDN List
June 29,
2011
Jamil Hassan (Head of Air Force Intelligence),
Political Security Directorate (PSD, domestic
intelligence)
Added to OFAC’s SDN List
May 18,
2011
President Bashar al Asad, Farouk al Shara (vice
president), Adel Safar (prime minister), Mohammad
Ibrahim al Shaar (minister of the interior), Ali Habib
Mahmoud (minister of defense), Abdul Fatah
Qudsiya (head of Syrian military intelligence),
Mohammed Dib Zaitoun (director of political
security directorate), Nabil Rafik al Kuzbari,
General Mohsen Chizari (Commander of Iran
Revolutionary Guard Corp Qods Force suspected
of human rights abuses in Syria), Al Mashreq
Investment Fund, Bena Properties, Cham Holding,
Syrian Air Force Intelligence, Syrian Military
Intelligence, Syrian National Security Bureau
Executive Order 13573 adds listed individuals
and entities to OFAC’s SDN List
April 29,
2011
Maher al Asad, Ali Mamluk (director of the Syrian
General Intelligence Directorate GID), Atif Najib
(former head of the Syrian Political Security
Directorate for Dara'a province and the president’s
cousin). the General Intelligence Directorate, and
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds
Force (for allegedly assisting Syria in its crackdown)
Executive Order 13572 adds listed individuals
and entities to OFAC’s SDN List
Source: U.S. Treasury Department.
Notes: As part of its enforcement efforts, OFAC publishes a list of individuals and companies owned or
controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, targeted countries. It also lists individuals, groups, and entities, such
as terrorists and narcotics traffickers designated under programs that are not country-specific. Collectively, such
individuals and companies are called Specially Designated Nationals or SDNs. Their assets are blocked and U.S.
persons are generally prohibited from dealing with them.
a.
According to the Treasury Department, Drex Technologies, “belongs to Assad’s billionaire cousin and
government insider, Rami Makhluf, who was designated by the Treasury Department in February 2008
under E.O. 13460 for improperly benefiting from and aiding the public corruption of Syrian regime officials.
Drex Technologies was designated pursuant to E.O. 13572, which authorizes the United States to sanction
any entities owned or controlled by persons designated under E.O. 13460.”
Congressional Research Service
43
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Specific Sanctions Against Syria
Specific U.S. sanctions levied against Syria fall into three main categories: (1) sanctions resulting
from the passage of the 2003 Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Act (SALSA) that,
among other things, prohibit most U.S. exports to Syria; (2) sanctions imposed by executive order
from the President that specifically deny certain Syrian citizens and entities access to the U.S.
financial system due to their participation in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction;
association with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or Osama bin Laden; or destabilizing activities in Iraq and
Lebanon; and (3) sanctions resulting from the USA PATRIOT Act levied specifically against the
Commercial Bank of Syria in 2006.
The 2003 Syria Accountability Act
On December 12, 2003, President Bush signed H.R. 1828, the Syria Accountability and Lebanese
Sovereignty Restoration Act into law, as P.L. 108-175. This law requires the President to impose
penalties on Syria unless it ceases support for international terrorist groups, ends its occupation of
Lebanon, ceases the development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and has ceased
supporting or facilitating terrorist activity in Iraq (§§5(a) and 5(d)). Sanctions include bans on the
export of military items (already banned under other legislation, see above)57 and of dual use
items (items with both civil and military applications) to Syria (§5(a)(1)). In addition, the
President is required to impose two or more sanctions from a menu of six:
•
a ban on all exports to Syria except food and medicine;
•
a ban on U.S. businesses operating or investing in Syria;
•
a ban on landing in or overflight of the United States by Syrian aircraft;
•
reduction of diplomatic contacts with Syria;
•
restrictions on travel by Syrian diplomats in the United States; and
•
blocking of transactions in Syrian property (§5(a)(2)).
Implementation
On May 11, 2004, President Bush issued Executive Order 13338, implementing the provisions of
P.L. 108-175, including the bans on munitions and dual use items (§5(a)(1)) and two sanctions
from the menu of six listed in Section 5(a)(2). The two sanctions he chose were the ban on
exports to Syria other than food and medicine (§5(a)(2)(A)) and the ban on Syrian aircraft landing
in or overflying the United States (§5(a)(2)(D)). In issuing his executive order, the President
stated that Syria has failed to take significant, concrete steps to address the concerns that led to
the enactment of the Syria Accountability Act. The President also imposed two additional
sanctions based on other legislation.
•
Under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, he instructed the Treasury
Department to prepare a rule requiring U.S. financial institutions to sever
57
Syria’s inclusion on the State Sponsors of Terrorism List as well as SALSA requires the President to restrict the
export of any items to Syria that appear on the U.S. Munitions List (weapons, ammunition) or Commerce Control List
(dual-use items).
Congressional Research Service
44
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
correspondent accounts with the Commercial Bank of Syria because of money
laundering concerns.
•
Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), he issued
instructions to freeze assets of certain Syrian individuals and government entities
involved in supporting policies inimical to the United States.
Waivers
In the executive order and in an accompanying letter to Congress, President Bush cited the waiver
authority contained in Section 5(b) of the Syria Accountability Act and stated that he wished to
issue the following waivers on grounds of national security.
Regarding Section 5(a)(1) and 5(a)(2)(A): The following exports are permitted: products in
support of activities of the U.S. government; medicines otherwise banned because of
potential dual use; aircraft parts necessary for flight safety; informational materials;
telecommunications equipment to promote free flow of information; certain software and
technology; products in support of U.N. operations; and certain exports of a temporary
nature.58
Regarding Section 5(a)(2)(D): The following operations are permitted: takeoff/landing of
Syrian aircraft chartered to transport Syrian officials on official business to the United States;
takeoff/landing for non-traffic and non-scheduled stops; takeoff/landing associated with an
emergency; and overflights of U.S. territory.
On June 12, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry cited Section 5(b) in order to authorize:
the export and re-export, subject to case-by-case review, of certain U.S.-origin items to
liberated areas of Syria for the benefit of the Syrian people. The waiver will authorize the
Department of Commerce to process license applications for export and re-exports of
commodities, software, and technology, including but not limited to those related to water
supply and sanitation; agricultural production and food processing; power generation; oil and
gas production; construction and engineering; transportation; and educational infrastructure.
These items are intended to help address the critical needs of the Syrian people and facilitate
reconstruction in liberated areas.
Targeted Financial Sanctions
Since the initial implementation of the Syria Accountability Act (in Executive Order 13338 dated
May 2004), the President has repeatedly taken action to sanction individual members of the Asad
regime’s inner circle.59 E.O. 13338 declared a national emergency with respect to Syria and
58
According to U.S. regulations, any product that contains more than 10% de minimis U.S.-origin content, regardless
of where it is made, is not allowed to be exported to Syria. For U.S. commercial licensing prohibitions on exports and
re-exports to Syria, see 15 C.F.R. pt. 736 Supp No. 1. The Department of Commerce reviews license applications on a
case-by-case basis for exports or re-exports to Syria under a general policy of denial. For a description of items that do
not require export licenses, see Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), U.S. Department of Commerce, Implementation
of the Syria Accountability Act, available at http://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/syriaimplementationmay14_04.htm.
59
According to the original text of E.O. 13338, the President’s authority to declare a national emergency authorizing
the blocking of property of certain persons and prohibiting the exportation or re-exportation of certain goods to Syria is
based on “The Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
45
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to block the property of individual Syrians. Based on
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), the President has annually
extended his authority to block the property of individual Syrians (latest on April 29, 2011).
When issuing each extension, the President has noted that the actions and policies of the
government of Syria continued to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat.60
The following individuals and entities have been targeted by the U.S. Treasury Department
(Office of Foreign Assets Control or OFAC):
•
On June 30, 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department designated two senior Syrian
officials involved in Lebanon affairs, Syria’s then-interior minister and its head
of military intelligence in Lebanon (respectively, the late General Kanaan and
General Ghazali), as Specially Designated Nationals, thereby freezing any assets
they may have in the United States and banning any U.S. persons, including U.S.
financial institutions outside of the United States, from conducting transactions
with them.61 Kanaan allegedly committed suicide in October 2005, though some
have speculated that he may have been murdered.
•
On January 18, 2006, the U.S. Treasury Department took the same actions
against the President’s brother-in-law, Assef Shawkat, chief of military
intelligence.
•
On April 26, 2006, President Bush issued Executive Order 13399 that authorized
the Secretary of the Treasury to freeze the U.S.-based assets of anyone found to
be involved in the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime
Minister Rafiq Hariri. It also affects anyone involved in bombings or
assassinations in Lebanon since October 2004, or anyone hindering the
international investigation into the Hariri assassination. The order allows the
United States to comply with UNSCR 1636, which calls on all states to freeze the
assets of those persons designated by the investigating commission or the
government of Lebanon to be involved in the Hariri assassination.
•
On August 15, 2006, the U.S. Treasury Department froze assets of two other
senior Syrian officers: Major General Hisham Ikhtiyar, for allegedly contributing
to Syria’s support of foreign terrorist organizations including Hezbollah; and
Brigadier General Jama’a Jama’a, for allegedly playing a central part in Syria’s
intelligence operations in Lebanon during the Syrian occupation.62
•
On January 4, 2007, the U.S. Treasury Department designated three Syrian
entities, the Syrian Higher Institute of Applied Science and Technology, the
Electronics Institute, and the National Standards and Calibration Laboratory, as
weapons proliferators under an executive order (E.O. 13382) based on the
authority vested to the President under IEEPA. The three state-sponsored
(...continued)
(NEA), the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, P.L. 108-175 (SAA), and Section
301 of Title 3, United States Code.” available at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/
13338.pdf.
60
The President last extended the State of Emergency on April 29, 2011.
61
See http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js2617.aspx.
62
See http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp60.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
46
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
institutions are divisions of Syria’s Scientific Studies and Research Center, which
was designated by President Bush as a weapons proliferator in June 2005 for
research on the development of biological and chemical weapons.63
•
On August 1, 2007, the President issued E.O. 1344164 blocking the property of
persons undermining the sovereignty of Lebanon or its democratic processes and
institutions. On November 5, 2007, the U.S. Treasury Department designated
four individuals reportedly affiliated with the Syrian regime’s efforts to reassert
Syrian control over the Lebanese political system, including Assaad Halim
Hardan, Wi’am Wahhab, and Hafiz Makhluf (under the authority of E.O. 13441)
and Muhammad Nasif Khayrbik (under the authority of E.O. 13338).65
•
On February 13, 2008, President Bush issued another order (E.O.13460) blocking
the property of senior Syrian officials. According to the U.S. Treasury
Department, the order “targets individuals and entities determined to be
responsible for or who have benefitted from the public corruption of senior
officials of the Syrian regime.” The order also revises a provision in Executive
Order 13338 to block the property of Syrian officials who have undermined U.S.
and international efforts to stabilize Iraq.66 One week later, under the authority of
E.O. 13460, the U.S. Treasury Department froze the U.S. assets and restricted the
financial transactions of Rami Makhluf, a powerful cousin of President Bashar al
Asad.
Sanctions Against the Commercial Bank of Syria
As previously mentioned, under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, President Bush instructed
the Treasury Department in 2004 to prepare a rule requiring U.S. financial institutions to sever
correspondent accounts with the Commercial Bank of Syria because of money laundering
concerns. In 2006, the Treasury Department issued a final ruling that imposes a special measure
against the Commercial Bank of Syria as a financial institution of primary money laundering
concern. It bars U.S. banks and their overseas subsidiaries from maintaining a correspondent
account with the Commercial Bank of Syria, and it also requires banks to conduct due diligence
that ensures the Commercial Bank of Syria is not circumventing sanctions through its business
dealings with them.67
63
See http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp216.aspx.
On July 29, 2010, President Obama extended that National Emergency with respect to Lebanon for another year,
stating that “While there have been some recent positive developments in the Syrian-Lebanese relationship, continuing
arms transfers to Hizballah that include increasingly sophisticated weapons systems serve to undermine Lebanese
sovereignty, contribute to political and economic instability in Lebanon, and continue to pose an unusual and
extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” See Notice of July 29, 2010—
Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Actions of Certain Persons to Undermine the Sovereignty
of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions, Federal Register, Title 3—The President, p. 45045.
65
See http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp666.aspx.
66
A previous executive order, E.O. 13315, blocks property of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and members of
his former regime. On June 9, 2005, the Treasury Department blocked property and interests of a Syrian company, SES
International Corp., and two of its officials under the authority of E.O.13315.
67
See “U.S. Trade and Financial Sanctions Against Syria.” Available at http://damascus.usembassy.gov/sanctionssyr.html.
64
Congressional Research Service
47
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
General Sanctions Applicable to Syria
The International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-329).
Section 303 of this act (90 Stat. 753-754) required termination of foreign assistance to countries
that aid or abet international terrorism. This provision was incorporated into the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 as Section 620A (22 USC 2371). (Syria was not affected by this ban until
1979, as explained below.)
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (Title II of P.L. 95-223, codified at
50 U.S.C. §1701 et seq.) Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the
President has broad powers pursuant to a declaration of a national emergency with respect to a
threat “which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national
security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.” These powers include the ability to
seize foreign assets under U.S. jurisdiction, to prohibit any transactions in foreign exchange, to
prohibit payments between financial institutions involving foreign currency, and to prohibit the
import or export of foreign currency.
The Export Administration Act of 1979 (P.L. 96-72). Section 6(i) of this act (93 Stat. 515)
required the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of State to notify Congress before
licensing export of goods or technology valued at more than $7 million to countries determined to
have supported acts of international terrorism. (Amendments adopted in 1985 and 1986 relettered
Section 6(i) as 6(j) and lowered the threshold for notification from $7 million to $1 million.)
A by-product of these two laws was the so-called state sponsors of terrorism list. This list is
prepared annually by the State Department in accordance with Section 6(j) of the Export
Administration Act. The list identifies those countries that repeatedly have provided support for
acts of international terrorism. Syria has appeared on this list ever since it was first prepared in
1979; it appears most recently in the State Department’s annual publication Country Reports on
Terrorism, 2009, issued on August 5, 2010. Syria’s inclusion on this list in 1979 triggered the
above-mentioned aid sanctions under P.L. 94-329 and trade restrictions under P.L. 96-72.
Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-399). Section 509(a) of this
act (100 Stat. 853) amended Section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act to prohibit export of
items on the munitions list to countries determined to be supportive of international terrorism,
thus banning any U.S. military equipment sales to Syria. (This ban was reaffirmed by the AntiTerrorism and Arms Export Amendments Act of 1989—see below.) Also, 10 U.S.C. 2249a bans
obligation of U.S. Defense Department funds for assistance to countries on the terrorism list.
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-509). Section 8041(a) of this act (100 Stat.
1962) amended the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to deny foreign tax credits on income or war
profits from countries identified by the Secretary of State as supporting international terrorism.
(26 USC 901(j)). The President was given authority to waive this provision under Section 601 of
the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-200, May 18, 2000).
The Anti-Terrorism and Arms Export Control Amendments Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-222). Section 4
amended Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act to impose a congressional notification and
licensing requirement for export of goods or technology, irrespective of dollar value, to countries
on the terrorism list, if such exports could contribute to their military capability or enhance their
ability to support terrorism.
Congressional Research Service
48
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
Section 4 also prescribes conditions for removing a country from the terrorism list: prior
notification by the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the chairmen of
two specified committees of the Senate. In conjunction with the requisite notification, the
President must certify that the country has met several conditions that clearly indicate it is no
longer involved in supporting terrorist activity. (In some cases, certification must be provided 45
days in advance of removal of a country from the terrorist list).
The Anti-Economic Discrimination Act of 1994 (Part C, P.L. 103-236, the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, FY1994-1995). Section 564(a) bans the sale or lease of U.S. defense articles
and services to any country that questions U.S. firms about their compliance with the Arab
boycott of Israel. Section 564(b) contains provisions for a presidential waiver, but no such waiver
has been exercised in Syria’s case. Again, this provision is moot in Syria’s case because of other
prohibitions already in effect.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-132). This act requires the
President to withhold aid to third countries that provide assistance (§325) or lethal military
equipment (§326) to countries on the terrorism list, but allows the President to waive this
provision on grounds of national interest. A similar provision banning aid to third countries that
sell lethal equipment to countries on the terrorism list is contained in Section 549 of the Foreign
Operations Appropriations Act for FY2001 (H.R. 5526, passed by reference in H.R. 4811, which
was signed by President Clinton as P.L. 106-429 on November 6, 2000).
Also, Section 321 of P.L. 104-132 makes it a criminal offense for U.S. persons (citizens or
resident aliens) to engage in financial transactions with governments of countries on the terrorism
list, except as provided in regulations issued by the Department of the Treasury in consultation
with the Secretary of State. In the case of Syria, the implementing regulation prohibits such
transactions “with respect to which the United States person knows or has reasonable cause to
believe that the financial transaction poses a risk of furthering terrorist acts in the United States.”
(31 CFR 596, published in the Federal Register August 23, 1996, p. 43462.) In the fall of 1996,
the then chairman of the House International Relations Committee reportedly protested to then
President Clinton about the Treasury Department’s implementing regulation, which he described
as a “special loophole” for Syria.
In addition to the general sanctions listed above, specific provisions in foreign assistance
appropriations legislation enacted since 1981 have barred Syria by name from receiving U.S. aid.
The most recent ban appears in Section 7007 of P.L. 112-74, Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2012, which states that “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to
titles III through VI of this Act shall be obligated or expended to finance directly any assistance
or reparations for the governments of Cuba, North Korea, Iran, or Syria: Provided, That for
purposes of this section, the prohibition on obligations or expenditures shall include direct loans,
credits, insurance and guarantees of the Export-Import Bank or its agents.”
Section 307 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, amended by Section 431 of the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act for FY1994-1995 (P.L. 103-236, April 30, 1994), requires the United
States to withhold a proportionate share of contributions to international organizations for
programs that benefit eight specified countries or entities, including Syria.
The Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000, P.L. 106-178, was amended by P.L. 109-112 to make its
provisions applicable to Syria as well as Iran. The amended act, known as the Iran and Syria
Nonproliferation Act, requires the President to submit semi-annual reports to designated
Congressional Research Service
49
Armed Conflict in Syria: Background and U.S. Response
congressional committees, identifying any persons involved in arms transfers to or from Iran or
Syria; also, the act authorizes the President to impose various sanctions against such individuals.
On October 13, 2006, President Bush signed P.L. 109-353 which expanded the scope of the
original law by adding North Korea to its provisions, thereby renaming the law the Iran, North
Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (or INKSNA for short). The list of Syrian entities
designated under INKSNA includes Army Supply Bureau (2008), Syrian Navy (2009), Syrian Air
Force (2009), and Ministry of Defense (2008).68 On May 24, 2011, the State Department
designated the Industrial Establishment of Defense and Scientific Studies and Research Center
(SSRC) under INKSNA.
Author Contact Information
Jeremy M. Sharp
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
jsharp@crs.loc.gov, 7-8687
Christopher M. Blanchard
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
cblanchard@crs.loc.gov, 7-0428
68
See State Department Press Releases and Documents, “Near East: Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act:
Imposed Sanctions,” July 20, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
50Overview and U.S. Response
Summary
Fighting continues across Syria, pitting government forces and their foreign allies against a range
of anti-government insurgents, some of whom also are fighting amongst themselves. Since March
2011, the conflict has driven more than 2.6 million Syrians into neighboring countries as refugees
(out of a total population of more than 22 million). Millions more Syrians are internally displaced
and in need of humanitarian assistance, of which the United States remains the largest bilateral
provider, with more than $1.7 billion in funding identified to date. U.S. nonlethal assistance to
opposition forces was placed on hold in December 2013, as fighting in northern Syria disrupted
mechanisms put in place to monitor and secure U.S. supplies. Administration officials have since
resumed some assistance to select opposition groups.
Neither pro-Asad forces nor their opponents appear capable of consolidating their battlefield
gains in Syria or achieving outright victory there in the short term. Improved coordination among
some anti-government forces and attrition in government ranks make a swift reassertion of state
control over all of Syria unlikely. Conflict between the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL,
a.k.a. ISIS) and other anti-Asad forces has intensified. The war in Syria is exacerbating local
sectarian and political conflicts within Lebanon and Iraq, threatening national stability.
In spite of an apparent shared antipathy toward ISIL’s brutality among opposition groups, many
anti-Asad armed forces and their activist counterparts remain divided over tactics, strategy, and
their long-term political goals for Syria. As of March 2014, the most powerful and numerous antiAsad armed forces seek outcomes that are contrary in significant ways to stated U.S. preferences
for Syria’s political future. Islamist militias seeking to impose varying degrees of Sunni Islamic
law on Syrian society, including members of the Islamic Front, ISIL, and Jabhat al Nusra, have
marginalized others who had received U.S. assistance.
The United States and other members of the United Nations Security Council seek continued
Syrian government cooperation with efforts to remove chemical weapons from Syria and provide
relief. The Security Council also has endorsed principles for a negotiated settlement of the
conflict that could leave members of the current Syrian government in power as members of a
transitional governing body, an outcome that some opposition groups reject. The FY2014
Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 3547, P.L. 113-76) authorizes the Administration to
provide nonlethal assistance in Syria for certain purposes notwithstanding other provisions of law
that had restricted such assistance previously. The Administration is seeking $1.25 billion in State
Department administered funding for the Syria crisis in FY2015, including $1.1 billion for
humanitarian programs.
The humanitarian and regional security crises emanating from Syria now appear to be beyond the
power of any single actor, including the United States, to contain or fully address. Large numbers
of Syrian refugees, the growth of powerful armed extremist groups in Syria, and the assertive
involvement of Iran, Turkey, and Sunni Arab governments in Syria’s civil war are all negatively
affecting the regional security environment in the Middle East. In light of these conditions and
trends, Congress is likely to face choices about the investment of U.S. relief and security
assistance funding in relation to the crisis in Syria and its effects on the region for years to come.
For more analysis and information, see CRS Report R42848, Syria’s Chemical Weapons: Issues
for Congress, coordinated by Mary Beth D. Nikitin, and CRS Report R43119, Syria: Overview of
the Humanitarian Response, by Rhoda Margesson and Susan G. Chesser.
Congressional Research Service
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
Contents
Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 1
Anti-Asad Forces ............................................................................................................................. 5
Pro-Asad Forces............................................................................................................................... 9
Shia Armed Groups and Iranian Support for the Syrian Government ..................................... 10
Hezbollah .......................................................................................................................... 10
Iraqi Militias ...................................................................................................................... 11
Iranian Support .................................................................................................................. 11
Chemical Weapons and Disarmament: Background ...................................................................... 12
Removal of Chemicals ............................................................................................................ 13
Destruction of Production Facilities ........................................................................................ 14
U.S. and International Funding for CW Elimination Efforts ................................................... 14
U.S. Policy and Assistance ............................................................................................................ 15
FY2015 Budget Request for Syria........................................................................................... 17
Issues Shaping Future U.S. Assistance .................................................................................... 18
Outlook .......................................................................................................................................... 20
Figures
Figure 1. Conflict Map and Regional Humanitarian Situation ........................................................ 3
Figure 2. Evolution of Al Qaeda Affiliates and Select Extremist Forces in Iraq and Syria,
2002-2014 ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure A-1. Select Anti-Asad Armed Groups ................................................................................ 23
Figure A-2. U.S.-Designated Sunni Terrorist Groups .................................................................... 24
Tables
Table 1. U.S. Foreign Assistance for Syria, FY2013-FY2015 Request ......................................... 18
Appendixes
Appendix. Select Group Profiles ................................................................................................... 22
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 24
Congressional Research Service
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
Overview
Fighting continues across Syria, pitting government forces and their foreign allies against a range
of anti-government insurgents, some of whom also are fighting amongst themselves. Government
forces are fighting on multiple fronts and have lost or ceded control of large areas of the country
since 2011, but hold most major cities. The Asad government continues to receive support from
Russia and Iran, and, contrary to some observers’ predictions, has shown no indication of an
imminent collapse. Opposition forces are formidable but lack unity of purpose, unity of
command, and unified international support. Various opposition groups have, depending on the
circumstances, cooperated and competed. At present, significant elements of the opposition are
engaged in outright conflict against one another. Some observers suggest that more than 75% of
the armed opposition may seek to replace the Asad government with a state ruled according to
some form of Sunni Islamic law,1 which non-Sunni minority groups oppose. Kurdish groups
control areas of northeastern Syria and may seek autonomy or independence in the future.
Meanwhile, chemical weapons inspectors work to oversee and implement the terms of the
September 2013 chemical disarmament agreement endorsed by the United Nations (U.N.)
Security Council in Resolution 2118. Some rebel groups and regional governments have
criticized the U.S. decision to forego a threatened military strike against Syrian government
forces in response to the Syrian military’s alleged use of chemical weapons in August. Members
of Congress expressed a broad range of views regarding the potential use of force in Syria during
intense debate in September, and Obama Administration officials have stated that they believe
that the threat of the use of force by the United States was instrumental in convincing Syrian
President Bashar al Asad to commit to the disarmament plan.
With internationally supervised disarmament proceeding, U.S. diplomatic efforts seek to shape
the terms and conditions for negotiation to end the fighting and establish a transitional governing
body as called for by a communiqué agreed to in Geneva in June 2012. That communiqué was
further endorsed in Resolutions 2118 and 2139, and served as the basis for the January-February
2014 “Geneva II” talks in Switzerland involving some members of the Syrian opposition,
representatives of the Syrian government, and delegates from dozens of countries. Those talks
failed to address the establishment of a transitional body, based largely on Syrian government
insistence that terrorism concerns be resolved first. Several unarmed and armed groups rejected
the Geneva II talks outright, and opposition forces remain divided over questions of whether and
under what conditions to participate in negotiations with the Asad government.
Inside Syria, neither pro-Asad forces nor their opponents appear capable of consolidating their
battlefield gains or achieving outright victory in the short term. In February 2014, the U.S.
intelligence community reported to Congress that a stalemate prevails in Syria, and that
“decisively altering the course of the conflict in the next six months will prove difficult for either
side.” According to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, the Syrian government and
its allies have gained some ground in recent months. However, improved coordination among
some anti-government forces and attrition in government ranks makes a swift reassertion of state
control across all of Syria improbable.
1
See for example, Charles Lister, “Syria’s insurgency beyond Good Guys and Bad Guys,” ForeignPolicy.com, Middle
East Channel (blog), September 20, 2013, and, Aron Lund, “The Politics of the Islamic Front 1: Structure and
Support,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Syria in Crisis (blog), January 14, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
1
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
The Geneva II Talks
The January-February 2014 Geneva II talks brought many of the internal and external fault lines in the conflict into
sharp relief. Divergent perspectives among Syrian parties to the conflict were reflected among their respective
international backers. The negotiations failed to make progress toward the establishment of a transitional governing
body (TGB), but provided an opportunity for some members of the U.S.-recognized National Coalition of Syrian
Revolution and Opposition Forces (or Syrian Opposition Coalition, SOC) to demonstrate their capability to
represent the interests of Syrians and potentially improve their standing with some of the disparate opposition forces
engaged in fighting inside Syria. Nevertheless, other opposition groups, including several powerful Islamist militias,
rejected the negotiations and stated their intention to keep fighting until their demands are met.
According to U.N. officials, the Syrian government delegation refused to engage in discussions aimed at establishing a
TGB and sought to focus on the question of combatting terrorism. Syrian military operations, including attacks on
rebel held areas of Aleppo using barrel bombs and other indiscriminate means, continued during the talks and killed
hundreds of civilians. Prior to the talks, President Asad stated that the government had already laid out its peace
initiative in January 2013.2 Under the first stage of this plan, the Syrian armed forces would halt military operations as
soon as regional countries stopped funding and arming the opposition and when the opposition itself ceased attacks
against the government.3
The United States and other members of the Core Group have reiterated their support for negotiations on the terms
of the Geneva communiqué, while criticizing the Asad government for “obstruction” and praising the SOC delegation
for its participation in the talks.4 Syrian government representatives criticized what they viewed as the opposition
delegation’s unwillingness to fully discuss terrorism and its inability to make firm commitments on the actions of
armed groups.5 The Asad government appears unwilling to open discussions regarding any transitional arrangements
until its concerns with regard to terrorism and anti-state violence are addressed. Opposition representatives
acknowledge the threats posed by extremist groups, but view the establishment of transitional arrangements as
necessary for undermining the legitimacy of violent extremist groups.
The potential for future talks is uncertain, although participants and international supporters on both sides
characterized the end of the January-February round of discussions as a recess and agreed to a four point agenda to
guide talks if they resume. The four agenda items, as described by Joint Special Representative for Syria (JSRS) Lakhdar
Brahimi, are (1) violence and terrorism; (2) the TGB; (3) national institutions; and (4) national reconciliation and
debate.6 On February 16, Brahimi said, “it’s not good for Syria that we come back for another round and fall in the
same trap that we have been struggling with this week and most of the first round. So I think it is better that every
side goes back and reflect and take their responsibility: do they want this process to take place or not?”
Obama Administration officials have reiterated their shared view that once a Transitional Governing Body [TGB]
called for by the Geneva communiqué is established by mutual consent and has full control over state security
services, “Asad and his close associates with blood on their hands will have no role in Syria.” Speaking in Montreux,
Switzerland on January 22, Secretary of State Kerry said that an emphasis on mutual consent would necessarily
preclude Asad from participation in a transitional government, along with “those who have supported him” and
“thousands of violent extremists” currently fighting the Asad government.7 Russian officials have called on the United
States and others not to prejudge the outcome of talks to establish transitional governing arrangements, which many
outside observers view as an indication that Russia does not view Asad’s departure as a necessary condition for
ending the conflict.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 2139 reiterated the Council’s endorsement of the Geneva communiqué
and demanded that parties support its implementation “leading to a transition that meets the legitimate aspirations of
the Syrian people and enables them independently and democratically to determine their own future.”
2
President Asad, interview with Agence France Press, Syrian Arab News Agency, January 21, 2014.
Asad, speech at the Damascus Opera House, Syrian Arab News Agency, January 6, 2013.
4
Secretary of State John Kerry, Press Statement: Geneva Conference and Situation in Syria, Washington, DC, February
16, 2014.
5
Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA), “Al-Jaafari: we will spare no efforts to make Geneva rounds of talks a success
with open-mindedness and a positive spirit,” Damascus, Syria, February 16, 2014.
6
Transcript of Press Conference by Joint Special Representative for Syria (JSRS) Lakhdar Brahimi, Geneva,
Switzerland, February 15, 2014.
7
Secretary of State John Kerry, Intervention at the Geneva ll International Conference on Syria, January 22, 2014.
3
Congressional Research Service
2
Figure 1. Conflict Map and Regional Humanitarian Situation
As of April 2014
CRS-3
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
Combat between Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, a.k.a. ISIS, Figure 2)8 and other antiAsad forces across northern Syria has intensified since late December 2013. In spite of an
apparent shared antipathy among opposition groups toward ISIL’s brutality, many anti-Asad
armed forces and their activist counterparts remain divided over tactics, strategy, and their longterm political goals for Syria. U.S. intelligence estimates the strength of the insurgency in Syria at
“somewhere between 75,000 or 80,000 or up to 110,000 to 115,000 insurgents, who are organized
into more than 1,500 groups of widely varying political leanings.”
As of March 2014, the most powerful and numerous anti-Asad armed forces seek outcomes that
are contrary in significant ways to stated U.S. preferences for Syria’s political future. Islamist
militias seeking to enforce varying degrees of what they recognize as Sunni Islamic law in Syrian
society—among them members of the Islamic Front (see below), ISIL, and Jabhat al Nusra—
have marginalized other armed groups, including some that received U.S. assistance. U.S.
intelligence community leaders have identified the approximately 26,000 members of ISIL,
Jabhat al Nusra, and Ahrar al Sham (a key component of the Islamic Front) both as extremists and
as the most effective opposition forces in the field. U.S. officials believe that as many as “7,500
foreign fighters from some 50 countries” have travelled to Syria, including Al Qaeda-linked
veterans of previous conflicts and Western nationals.9
In its recent threat assessment testimony, the U.S. intelligence community judged that Asad
“remains unwilling to negotiate himself out of power” and “almost certainly intends to remain the
ruler of Syria.”10 Iran and Hezbollah share that objective and continue to invest heavily in Syria
on Asad’s behalf. That testimony noted that infighting among anti-Asad groups has given
government forces and their supporters an advantage in some areas, but that an overall stalemate
is likely to prevail in the conflict for the foreseeable future.11
As clashes and diplomatic discussions continue, Syrian civilians continue to suffer in what U.S.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has described as an “apocalyptic disaster.” U.N.
sources report that since March 2011, the conflict has driven more than 2.6 million Syrians into
neighboring countries as refugees (out of a total population of more than 22 million). According
to U.S. officials, more than 6.5 million Syrians are internally displaced. The United States is the
largest bilateral provider of humanitarian assistance, with more than $1.7 billion allocated to
date.12 In December 2013, the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance
(UNOCHA) appealed for an additional $6.5 billion in humanitarian assistance funding to respond
8
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) also is commonly referred to in English language reports as the
Islamic State of Iraq and Al Sham (ISIS). Al Sham is an Arabic term for the Levant. Some Syrians refer to ISIL as
“Daesh,” its Arabic acronym.
9
Remarks by James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, to the Senate Armed Services Committee, February
11, 2014.
10
Office of the Director for National Intelligence, Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community,
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, January 29, 2014.
11
Office of the Director for National Intelligence, Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community,
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, January 29, 2014.
12
For details on U.S. humanitarian assistance see USAID, Syria Complex Emergency Fact Sheet #11, Fiscal Year (FY)
2014, March 27, 2014. Some U.S. aid to opposition forces and some humanitarian assistance were placed on hold in
December 2013, as fighting in northern Syria disrupted mechanisms put in place to monitor and secure U.S. supplies.
Congressional Research Service
4
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
to the crisis in 2014.13 For more information on humanitarian issues, see CRS Report R43119,
Syria: Overview of the Humanitarian Response, by Rhoda Margesson and Susan G. Chesser.
The negative effects of the humanitarian and regional security crises emanating from Syria now
appear to be beyond the power of any single actor, including the United States, to independently
contain or fully address. The region-wide flood of Syrian refugees, the growth of armed extremist
groups in Syria, and the assertive involvement of Iran, Turkey, and Sunni Arab governments in
Syria’s civil war are negatively affecting overall regional stability. The war in Syria also is
exacerbating local sectarian and political conflicts within Lebanon and Iraq, where violence is
escalating and threatens national stability.
Policy makers in the United States and other countries appear to feel both compelled to respond
to these crises and hesitant to embrace options for doing so that may have political and security
risks such as the commitment of military forces to combat or the provision of large-scale material
assistance to armed elements of the opposition. In light of these conditions and trends, Congress
may face tough choices about U.S. policy toward Syria and the related expenditure of U.S. relief
and security assistance funds for years to come.
Anti-Asad Forces
Anti-Asad forces have been engaged in a series of realignments and internal conflicts since mid2013, creating complications for external parties seeking to provide support. To date, the United
States has sought to build the capacity of the Syrian Opposition Coalition (SOC) and local
activists as well as to provide nonlethal and lethal support to armed groups affiliated with a
Supreme Military Command Council (SMC), whose leadership is in flux. In mid-February, SOC
figures announced that General Salim Idris was being replaced as SMC commander by Brigadier
General Abdul-Ilah al Bashir al Noemi: Idris and other commanders have rejected the change and
attempts to resolve differences continue. Many armed Sunni groups disavowed the SOC’s
participation in January-February 2014 talks with the Asad government in Switzerland. The U.S.
government has recognized the SOC as the legitimate representative of the Syrian opposition.
In late 2013, a number of powerful Islamist militia groups—some of which formerly recognized
the leadership of Idris and the SMC—announced the formation of a new Islamic Front.14 The
Islamic Front and other recently created opposition coalitions active in northern Syria, such as the
Syrian Revolutionaries Front (SRF) and the Mujahedin Army, have been engaged in a campaign
to evict ISIL from areas of northern and eastern Syria since early January 2014. Prior to the
outbreak of the confrontation with ISIL, many expert observers considered the Front to be the
most powerful element of the armed opposition in northern Syria (see the Appendix). The
pressures of confrontation between members of the Islamic Front and ISIL may be undermining
the cohesion of the group, as differences in ideology, strategy, priorities, and preferred tactics
encourage individuals, units, and groups within the Front to reconsider their positions.
13
For more information, see UNOCHA Syria Humanitarian Assistance Response Plan (SHARP) 2014 and 2014
Regional Response Plan (RRP).
14
The following armed groups constitute the core of the Islamic Front and were the original signatories of its charter:
Ahrar al Sham Islamic Movement; Suqur al Sham Brigades; Ansar al Sham Battalions; Jaysh al Islam; Liwa al Tawhid;
and Liwa al Haqq.
Congressional Research Service
5
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
The Front’s charter declared its goals to include “the full overthrow of the Al Asad regime in
Syria and for building an Islamic state ruled by the sharia of God Almighty alone.”15 The Front
explicitly rejects the concepts of secularism and a civil state, rejects “foreign dictates,” and is
committed to maintaining the territorial integrity of Syria. Front leaders have rejected the SOC
and issued a statement on January 20 in conjunction with the Mujahedin Army and another group
rejecting the Geneva II talks and setting a series of conditions that must be achieved before they
will contemplate a settlement.16 The statement calls for “the entire regime, including its head and
all its criminal figures” to step down and calls for security bodies to be held legally accountable.
The Front and its allies further demand that there be “no interference in the form of the future
state after the regime [steps down] and no imposition of any matter that conflicts with the Islamic
identity of the masses or which takes away the rights of any section of society.”
Jabhat al Nusra, an Al Qaeda-affiliated militia and U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist
Organization, first sought to mediate between ISIL and its adversaries but has since engaged in
battles with ISIL and called on ISIL members to defect to other Islamist groups in light of ISIL’s
intransigent brutality (Figure 2). In general, Al Nusra is viewed as more accommodating and
cooperative than ISIL by other opposition forces, including some who oppose its ideology. Some
members of the Islamic Front and other non-Islamist opposition groups appear to coordinate
operations with Jabhat al Nusra in different parts of the country.
The ISIL-opposition battles have momentarily supplanted deeper questions about the future
composition and direction of the Syrian opposition and the provision of external support to its
armed elements. The formation of the Islamic Front in November 2013 raised questions about
which forces actually remained affiliated with the SMC and whether they are credible partners for
the United States and others. Then, in December, Islamic Front fighters took control of facilities
and equipment belonging to the U.S.-backed SMC, including some U.S.-supplied materiel. The
incident, the Front’s continued rejection of the U.S.-preferred strategy of negotiation, and the
group’s long-term goal of establishing an Islamic state in Syria raise fundamental questions about
whether and how the United States should engage with the Front and its allies, despite their
capabilities and prominence.
In a January 2014 communiqué from their meeting in Paris, the United States and other members
of the “Friends of Syria core group of countries” [AKA the “London 11” or “Core Group”]17
stated that, “all armed groups must respect democratic and pluralistic values, recognize the
political authority of the National Coalition [SOC] and accept the prospect of a democratic
transition negotiated in Geneva….”18 It remains to be seen whether statements by the Islamic
Front and others rejecting secular democracy, the political authority of the SOC, and negotiations
with the Asad government will preclude engagement by outsiders with the Front and its allies
against Al Qaeda-affiliated groups in Syria or against pro-Asad forces.
15
Charter of the Islamic Front. For translation, see U.S. Government Open Source Center (OSC) Document
TRR2013112671951889, Syria: New ‘Islamic Front’ Formation Releases Charter, November 26, 2013.
16
The signatories—The Islamic Front, the Mujahedin Army, and the Islamic Union for the Soldiers of the Levant—
refer to themselves as the “forces active on the ground” in contrast to “those who only represent themselves.” OSC
Document TRR2014012066474330, “Syria: IF, Others Reject Regime Presence at Geneva 2, Issue Conditions for
Political Solution,” January 20, 2014.
17
The group consists of: Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab
Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
18
Foreign Ministry of France, Declaration of the Core Group Ministerial Meeting on Syria, Paris, January 12, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
6
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
Some reports suggest the Syrian Revolutionaries Front (SRF) and one of its prominent
commanders, Jamal Maarouf, or individual elements of the SMC may emerge as focal points for
new external assistance from the United States and others seeking to back relatively moderate
armed opposition forces. However, some Syrians consider members of the SRF and similar
locally organized forces to be corrupt, and the provision of outside assistance to select groups on
conditional political terms may provoke divisions and further infighting. In particular, Islamist
forces may seek to delegitimize and militarily target other groups perceived to be cooperating
with the United States and other outside powers. Reconciling U.S. and other third party support
for armed opposition groups with U.S. diplomatic efforts seeking a negotiated settlement and a
transitional governing body may be challenged by the refusal of certain armed groups to endorse
the terms of proposed settlements.
Terrorist Threats Posed by Syria- and Iraq-Based Sunni Extremists
Since January 2014, U.S. officials have made several public statements describing the potential for Syria-based
extremists to pose a direct terrorist threat to the United States. U.S. and European officials have highlighted the
particular threat posed by foreign fighters, some of whom hold U.S. and European passports. Central Intelligence
Agency Director John Brennan said in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in
February 2014 that:
…there are three groups of people that are a concern, from an extremist standpoint; Ahrar al Sham, Jabhat al
Nusra, which is the Al Qaeda element within Syria, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). It’s those
latter two I think are most dedicated to the terrorist agenda. We are concerned about the use of Syrian
territory by the Al Qaeda organization to recruit individuals and develop the capability to be able not just to
carry out attacks inside of Syria, but also to use Syria as a launching pad. So it’s those elements—Al Qaeda and
ISIL - that I’m concerned about, especially the ability of these groups to attract individuals from other countries,
both from the West, as well as throughout the Middle East and South Asia, and with some experienced
operatives there who have had experience in carrying out a global jihad. …There are camps inside of both Iraq
and Syria that are used by Al Qaeda to develop capabilities that are applicable, both in the theater, as well as
beyond.19
Brennan called the threat posed by these groups “a near-term concern, as well as a long-term concern,” and said that
“the intelligence community, including CIA, is working very closely with our partners internationally to try to address
the terrorist challenge.” In press reports, unnamed intelligence officials have described the foreign fighter problem as
“one of the most significant threats we're dealing with,” and the Federal Bureau of Investigation reportedly is
monitoring several returnees from Syria. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has called the terrorist threat
from Syria “a matter of homeland security.”
Secretary Kerry has accused the Asad government of “funding some of those extremists—even purposely ceding
some territory to them in order to make them more of a problem so he can make the argument that he is somehow
the protector against them.”20 Several press reports allege that opposition groups have sold oil and petroleum
products from areas under their control to agents of the Syrian government. The Asad government’s past
permissiveness toward anti-U.S. Sunni extremist groups during the U.S. presence in Iraq and Asad’s release of several
prominent extremists from prison in 2011 raise further questions about the regime’s strategy.
In July 2012, ISIL leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi warned U.S. leaders that “The mujahidin have set out to chase the
affiliates of your armies that have fled. …You will see them in your own country, God willing. The war with you has
just begun.”21 In January 2014, Baghdadi concluded a statement on recent regional developments with a further
warning for the United States: “Know, O defender of the Cross, that a proxy war will not help you in the Levant, just
as it will not help you in Iraq. Soon, you will be in direct conflict—God permitting—against your will. The youths of
Islam have steeled themselves for this day. ‘So wait; we too will wait with you," [partial Koranic verse, Al Tawbah,
9:52].’”22
19
Testimony of CIA Director John Brennan, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, February 5, 2014.
Ben Hubbard, “Syria Proposes Aleppo Cease-Fire…” New York Times, January 17, 2014.
21
OSC Report GMP20120721586002, “Islamic State of Iraq Amir Calls on Sunni Tribes To ‘Repent,’” July 21, 2012.
22
OSC Report TRR2014011980831299, “Statement by ISIL Emir Condemning ‘War’ Against Group,” Jan. 19, 2014.
20
Congressional Research Service
7
Figure 2. Evolution of Al Qaeda Affiliates and Select Extremist Forces in Iraq and Syria, 2002-2014
Source: U.S. government reporting and U.S. Government Open Source Center (OSC) reports.
CRS-8
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
Pro-Asad Forces23
The Syrian government has continued military and security operations against insurgents while
pursuing political measures intended to boost Asad’s domestic and international legitimacy.
Government forces in March continued operations in Aleppo and areas north of Damascus, in an
effort to isolate rebels and sever their supply lines.24 Meanwhile, Syria’s Information Minister in
mid-March stated that presidential elections would be held in the summer of 2014 in all provinces
except Raqqah, which is under the control of ISIL.25
Asad is planning to stand for reelection, according to U.S. and Syrian officials,26 despite
opposition demands that he cede power to a transitional governing body as outlined in the June
2012 Geneva communiqué. Asad has stated that presidential elections will include multiple
candidates in accordance with Syria’s new constitution, which was approved by referendum in
2012.27 However, the new election law stipulates that candidates must have maintained
continuous residence in Syria for 10 years prior to nomination and must hold no other nationality
or prior criminal convictions28—effectively disqualifying many members of the Syrian
Opposition Council who currently reside in exile. The United States and other members of the
Core Group on Syria have rejected Asad’s potential candidacy. On April 3, the Core Group issued
a statement saying:
any unilateral decision by the Syrian regime to hold presidential elections would be entirely
inconsistent with the Geneva Communique’s call for the establishment of a transitional
governing body to oversee constitutional reforms leading to free and fair elections in a
neutral environment. Elections organized by the Assad regime would be a parody of
democracy, would reveal the regime’s rejection of the basis of the Geneva talks, and would
deepen the division of Syria.29
As described above, the Syrian government participated in the Geneva II negotiations, but
insisted that counterterrorism issues be addressed before any discussion of a potential transition.
At present, Asad appears disinclined to make concessions that would significantly undermine his
hold on power, particularly if he assesses that his military ultimately can prevail over insurgents
or at least hold them at bay. Asad may judge that his move to declare and destroy his
government’s chemical weapons has eased international pressure on his government, and that
peace talks will further expose opposition divisions—perhaps thereby demonstrating that his
government lacks a credible negotiating partner.
23
Prepared by Carla Humud, Analyst in Middle Eastern and African Affairs.
“Syrian army to impose blockade in Aleppo,” Al Monitor, March 5, 2014; and “Syrian army, Hezbollah storm
Yabrud,” Daily Star, March 15, 2014.
25
“Syria plans presidential elections in summer; minister says Assad will likely be one of several candidates,” Wall
Street Journal, March 16, 2014.
26
“Syrians have decided that Asad should run in elections: minister,” Reuters, January 7, 2014; and, Office of the
Director for National Intelligence, Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, January 29, 2014.
27
Syrian Arab News Agency, “President al-Assad gives interview to the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
newspaper,” June 17, 2013.
28
“Syrian presidential election law excludes most opposition leaders,” Reuters, March 14, 2014.
29
Joint Statement by the London 11 Countries, April 3, 2014.
24
Congressional Research Service
9
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
Shia Armed Groups and Iranian Support for the Syrian
Government
The involvement of Shia militias and Iran in the Syrian conflict has evolved since 2011 from an
advisory to an operational role, with forces in some cases now fighting alongside Syrian troops.
Lebanese Hezbollah and Iran have traditionally depended on the presence of a friendly
government in Damascus to facilitate the transit of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah and to
preserve their ability to challenge Israel. Hezbollah and Iranian roles in Syria appear designed to
bolster Asad’s ability to suppress the opposition but also to secure their interests in Syria in the
event that the Asad government does not survive.30
Hezbollah
In August 2012, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned Hezbollah for providing training,
advice, and logistical support to the Syrian government.31 U.S. officials also noted that Hezbollah
has helped the Syrian government push rebel forces out of some areas in Syria. Hezbollah
Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, who was personally sanctioned for his role in overseeing
Hezbollah’s assistance to Damascus, publicly acknowledged Hezbollah’s involvement in Syria in
May 2013. Nasrallah also recently expressed confidence that the risk of the Asad regime’s defeat
and the partition of Syria had passed even if a war of attrition may persist.32 He further referred to
the need for reconciliation initiatives to bolster the Asad government’s support among Syrians.
As of March 2014, Hezbollah fighters remained active in the Qalamoun region northwest of
Damascus, where they reportedly assisted in the recent recapture of the opposition stronghold of
Yabroud.33 A senior Israeli military official in March 2014 stated that Hezbollah currently
maintains 4,000 to 5,000 fighters in Syria.34
Over the past year, Hezbollah has worked with the Syrian military to protect regime supply lines
by helping to clear rebel-held towns along the Damascus-Homs stretch of the M-5 highway.35
Hezbollah personnel in 2013 played significant roles in battles around Al Qusayr and the
Qalamoun Mountains region, in which rebel presence along the highway threatened the
government’s ability to move forces and to access predominantly Alawite strongholds on the
coast.36 Hezbollah forces on the Lebanese side of the border reportedly monitor and target rebel
positions near the border that facilitate attacks in Syria and Lebanon.
Last year saw an uptick in violence against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, and the militia’s
support for the Asad government appears to be contributing to the rise in sectarian violence and
tension in Lebanon. Jabhat al Nusra and ISIL have claimed responsibility for attacks on
30
“Iran and Hezbollah build militia networks in Syria in event that Asad falls,” Washington Post, February 10, 2013.
E.O. 13582, U.S. Department of Treasury, August 10, 2012.
32
“Hezbollah leader Nasrallah vows to keep fighters in Syria,” BBC, February 16, 2014; and, OSC Report
LIR2014040766062493, “Lebanon’s Nasrallah to Al-Safir: Risk of Bombings Drops, Danger of Syrian Regime’s Fall
Ends,” Al Safir Online (Beirut), April 7, 2014.
33
“Drastic rise in Hezbollah death toll as party battles for Yabroud,” The Daily Star, March 10, 2014.
34
“Israel watches warily as Hezbollah gains battle skills in Syria,” New York Times, March 10, 2014.
35
“Syrian Army goes all-in to take back strategic highway,” Christian Science Monitor, December 2, 2013.
36
“Hezbollah and the fight for control in Qalamoun,” Institute for the Study of War, November 26, 2013.
31
Congressional Research Service
10
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
Hezbollah-controlled areas of Beirut and eastern Lebanon, describing the attacks as retaliation for
Hezbollah’s intervention in Syria.37
Iraqi Militias
Analysts estimate that there are between 2,000 and 5,000 Iraqi Shia fighting in Syria on behalf of
the Syrian government.38 Many hail from Iraqi Shia political and militia groups including Asa’ib
Ahl al Haq and Kata’ib Hezbollah. Members identify their objective as the defense of Shia holy
sites such as the tomb of Sayyida Zeinab, the granddaughter of the Prophet Mohammad, in
southern Damascus. Other reports describe these groups as assuming a broad operational role,
noting that militias have formed sniper teams, led ambushes, established checkpoints, and
provided infantry support for Syrian armored units.39
It is difficult to assess the motivations of individual Iraqi fighters in Syria or determine whether
Asad’s survival is their primary goal. Some of the fighters appear to be young volunteers driven
by a desire to protect Shia holy sites, while others are trained militiamen who previously fought
coalition forces in Iraq. Reports suggest that Iraqi fighters receive training in Iran before being
flown in small batches into Syria, and that they work closely with Lebanese Hezbollah.40
However, it is unclear who ultimately exercises command and control over these militias. Clashes
between Iraqi and local Syrian militias in mid-2013 resulted in some Iraqi combatants refusing to
fight under Syrian command.41 Recent attacks by ISIL and others on Iraqi Shia could prompt
some of these groups to redirect their efforts to domestic struggles.
Iranian Support
Since 2011, Iran has provided technical, training, and financial assistance both to the Syrian
government and to pro-regime Shia militias operating in Syria. In February 2012, the U.S.
Treasury Department sanctioned the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) for
providing substantial technical assistance to Syrian intelligence, noting that MOIS also
participated in multiple joint projects with Hezbollah.42 Treasury also designated the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force (IRGC-QF) for training Syrian forces, and Iraqi Shia
militias fighting in Syria have credited Iran for providing training and coordinating their travel
into the country. Mohammad Ali Jafari, head of the IRGC, acknowledged in September 2012 that
some members of the Quds Force were present in Syria,43 and U.S. officials have described them
as also working closely with Hezbollah. Regional observers in March 2014 estimated that
between 1,000 and 1,500 IRGC members were present in Syria.44 In terms of non-lethal aid, Iran
37
“Hezbollah undeterred by ISIS claim, threats,” Daily Star, January 6, 2014.
“Leaked video: Iran guiding thousands of Shiite fighters to Syria,” Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 2013;
“From Qusair to Yabrud: Shiite foreign fighters in Syria,” Al Monitor, March 6, 2014.
39
“From Karbala to Sayyida Zaynab: Iraqi Fighters in Syria’s Shi’a Militias,” CTC Sentinel, August 27, 2013.
40
“From Karbala to Sayyida Zaynab: Iraqi Fighters in Syria’s Shi’a Militias,” CTC Sentinel, August 27, 2013.
41
“Iraqi Shi’ites flock to Assad’s side as sectarian split widens,” Reuters, June 19, 2013.
42
Department of the Treasury, Press Release, February 16, 2012.
43
“Elite Iranian unit’s commander says his forces are in Syria,” Washington Post, September 16, 2012.
44
“From Qusair to Yabrud: Shiite foreign fighters in Syria,” Al Monitor, March 6, 2014.
38
Congressional Research Service
11
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
has provided Syria with billions of dollars in credit to purchase oil, food, and import goods from
Iran.45
Chemical Weapons and Disarmament: Background46
A major policy concern of the United States has been the use or loss of control of chemical
weapons stocks in Syria during that country’s ongoing civil war. The United States and other
countries have assessed that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons repeatedly
against opposition forces and civilians in the country. The largest-scale use to date was reportedly
on August 21, 2013. The U.N. Mission to Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical
Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic released its report on September 16, 2013, concluding that
surface-to-surface rockets containing sarin were used in the Ghouta area of Damascus against
civilians on a “relatively large scale.” The U.N. investigative mission was not tasked with
assigning culpability for the attacks.
The Obama Administration threatened military action against Syria in response to chemical
weapons use in Syria in August 2013. In a diplomatic solution that resulted in the Administration
withdrawing the threat, Syria agreed to join the international Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC), which requires Syria to destroy all of its chemical weapons stocks and production
facilities. Based on a joint U.S.-Russian proposal, the Executive Council of the Organization for
the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), an intergovernmental body tasked with
implementation of the CWC, approved a destruction plan under which Syria is required to destroy
all chemical weapons by June 30, 2014. Under Security Council Resolution 2118, the OPCW is to
report to the U.N. Security Council on implementation on a monthly basis.
Syria is required to declare and destroy all of its chemical weapons stocks and production
facilities under international supervision. Syria is believed to have more than 1,000 metric tons of
chemical warfare agents and precursor chemicals. This stockpile includes several hundred metric
tons of the nerve agent sarin, which represents the bulk of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile.
Damascus also has several hundred metric tons of mustard agent in ready-to-use form and several
metric tons of the nerve agent VX.
A joint mission of U.N. and OPCW personnel was created to monitor and facilitate Syrian
chemical weapons disarmament.47 OPCW-U.N. experts arrived in Damascus on October 1, 2013,
and began to inspect Syria’s declared chemical weapons facilities. The OPCW spokesman told
reporters on October 31 that the Syrian government met the November 1, 2013, destruction
deadline for disabling production equipment, and that all chemical weapons stocks and agents in
Syria were under “tamper-proof” seal. The first stage of destruction activities focused on
destroying “critical equipment” at chemical weapons production facilities and mixing and filling
units.
45
“Iranians dial up presence in Syria,” Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2013.
Prepared by Mary Beth Nikitin, Specialist in Nonproliferation.
47
See http://opcw.unmissions.org/.
46
Congressional Research Service
12
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
Removal of Chemicals
The current stage of the chemical weapons destruction process involves transportation and
removal of chemical weapons agents from the country. These are liquid chemicals that have not
been loaded into delivery vehicles. The OPCW Executive Council on November 14, 2013,
approved the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons agents (“priority 1” chemicals) outside of
Syria due to the security situation in the country. The United States and others have provided
equipment to the OPCW-U.N. Joint Mission to help safely transfer these chemicals from storage
facilities to the Syrian port of Latakia. Once all the chemicals are at the port, Danish and
Norwegian ships are to pick up the chemicals and remove them from Syria. The first quantity of
priority chemicals was moved to the port of Latakia in early January 2014.
No country had agreed to conduct destruction operations on its territory due to public concerns
about the dangers of the material, but also due to the short timeline for destruction which in some
cases would not have allowed for the required environmental and health impact assessments.
Therefore, the United States plans to neutralize the liquid chemical weapons agents on board the
Maritime Administration’s Motor Vessel (MV) Cape Ray using newly installed field deployable
hydrolysis systems (FDHS). This ship is expected to receive 700 metric tons of both mustard
agent and DF compound, a key component in sarin.48 U.S. personnel, including 64 Army
chemical specialists, will run the operation. The MV Cape Ray is now at the port of Rota, Spain.
Once removed from Latakia, the most dangerous compounds in approximately 60 containers will
be transferred to the Cape Ray at the Italian port of Gioia Tauro for destruction at sea in
international waters. NATO has canceled cooperation with the Russian Federation on guarding
the Cape Ray during chemical weapons destruction activities because of Russia’s actions in
Ukraine.49 Less sensitive chemicals will be shipped to commercial processing facilities, for
example in the United Kingdom. Companies in Finland and the United States were awarded
contracts for processing the liquid waste from the destruction process.50
Syria did not meet the original deadline of December 31, 2013, for removal of these agents from
its territory. According to the OPCW Director General, the delays were caused by “security
concerns, the procurement and delivery of large quantities of packaging and transportation
materials and equipment, and adverse weather conditions.”51 Reports in early January quoted a
Syrian government official as saying two CW storage sites have been under attack.52 The Syrian
government also missed a February 5, 2014, deadline, raising questions about the intentions of
the Syrian government. Syria has asked for a new deadline of mid-May. In February, the U.N.
Security Council called upon Syria to expedite removal of the chemicals. The United States in
particular had been critical of the slow progress by the Syrian government. As U.S. Ambassador
to the OPCW Robert Mikulak said,
48
“Army to Destroy Syrian Chemical Weapons Aboard Ship,” Army News Service, January 3, 2014.
“NATO to cancel activities with Russia, step up military cooperation with Ukraine,” Stars and Stripes, March 6,
2014.
50
“OPCW awards contracts to two companies for destruction of Syrian chemical and effluents,” OPCW-U.N. Joint
Mission Press Release February 14, 2014, http://opcw.unmissions.org/AboutOPCWUNJointMission/tabid/54/ctl/
Details/mid/651/ItemID/182/Default.aspx
51
“Director General says Removal of Priority Chemicals in Syria Marks Important New Phase in Work of Joint
Mission,” OPCW press release, January 8, 2014.
52
Nick Cumming-Bruce and Rick Gladstone, “Syrian Government Reports 2 Attacks on Chemical Arms Sites,” New
York Times, January 8, 2014.
49
Congressional Research Service
13
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
The international community has put into place everything that is necessary for transport and
destruction of these chemicals. Sufficient equipment and material has been provided to Syria.
The ships to carry the chemicals away from Syria are waiting. The U.S. ship to destroy CW
agent and precursors is now in the region and waiting. Commercial facilities to destroy other
chemicals have been selected and contracts awarded; they are waiting. And yet Syria
continues to drag its feet.53
In March, OPCW-U.N. Joint Mission Special Coordinator Sigrid Kaag described “important
progress” in efforts to expedite the transfer and destruction of chemicals and encouraged the
Syrian government “to sustain the current pace.”54 As of April 8, Secretary Kerry confirmed the
March 20 Joint Mission estimate that the Syrian government had moved eleven shipments of
chemicals to the port of Latakia, representing around 53.6% of total stocks to be removed.55
Secretary Kerry also reaffirmed that he has been working with the Russian government to
expedite the transport of chemicals to Latakia for removal, so that the deadline for destruction of
the chemicals could be met.
Destruction of Production Facilities
The Syrian government also did not meet the deadline of March 15, 2014, for destruction of its 12
chemical weapons production facilities, and has proposed that the facilities not be completely
destroyed but instead made inaccessible.56 The CWC requires that production facilities be
“physically destroyed.” U.S. Ambassador to the OPCW Robert Mikulak said in a February
statement that the Executive Council should require Syria to physically destroy the facilities in
line with the Convention.57 The OPCW is now working on a destruction plan for these facilities
with Syria.
Despite these delays, however, U.N. officials say they are optimistic that the final deadline, June
30, 2014, for destruction of all chemical weapons and production facilities will be met.
U.S. and International Funding for CW Elimination Efforts
The international community, including the United States, is contributing both technical and
financial assistance to the OPCW-U.N. Joint Mission. In-kind technical assistance to date
includes specialized packaging from the United States for transporting chemical weapons in
Syria, security related support from Russia for Syrian ground movement of the materials, and
cargo ships and naval vessels from Denmark and Norway.58 Italy has volunteered to provide a
port for transferring the agent from the cargo ships to the Cape Ray; the United Kingdom and
Germany have provided a chemical processing facility for the destruction of some of the chemical
materials.
53
Robert P. Mikulak, “Statement to the Thirty-Ninth Meeting of the Executive Council,” The Hague, Netherlands,
February 21, 2014.
54
“Over half of Syria’s chemical weapons removed or destroyed, says joint OPCW-UN mission,” UN News Centre,
March 20, 2014.
55
Ibid.; Secretary of State John Kerry Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 8, 2014.
56
“Syria to miss deadline to destroy 12 chemical arms sites,” Reuters, March 6, 2014.
57
http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/2014/221891.htm.
58
http://opcw.unmissions.org/Portals/opcw-un-syria/General%20FAQs%20for%20PDF.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
14
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
According to the State Department, the United States has given approximately $6 million in
financial assistance to the OPCW and U.N. joint mission through the State Departmentadministered Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund. The United States has also given
significant in-kind assistance to international inspectors. The largest contribution to the
international effort has come from the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction
(CTR) Program. On April 8, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Countering Weapons of
Mass Destruction Rebecca K.C. Hersman said that the CTR program had allocated $160 million
to support the CW elimination effort. DOD CTR also accepted $19 million in contributions from
Germany, the UK, and Canada to assist with CTR programs, including the effort in Syria. Since
the bulk of this funding was spent preparing the MV Cape Ray and equipping inspectors, the
budget request for FY2015 is less than what was spent this past year—$15.7 million for technical
expertise and resources to support the U.N.-OPCW Joint Mission in FY2015.
For more information on Syria’s chemical weapons and U.S. and international participation in the
disarmament process, see CRS Report R42848, Syria’s Chemical Weapons: Issues for Congress,
coordinated by Mary Beth D. Nikitin.
U.S. Policy and Assistance
Debates over U.S. policy toward Syria since 2011 have repeatedly returned to the question of
U.S. military intervention, whether to protect civilians, target terrorist groups, or punish Syrian
forces suspected of involvement in chemical weapons attacks or other attacks on opposition-held
areas. To date, Administration officials have stated that U.S. military intervention to shape the
outcome of Syria’s civil conflict or to change the Syrian regime may not achieve U.S. objectives,
and may lead to unintended negative consequences. Administration officials have cited a number
of reasons for their reluctance to undertake direct military intervention or provide large-scale
assistance to shift the balance of power in Syria, including fears of exacerbating the violence;
inviting greater regional spillover or intervention; or opening a power vacuum that could benefit
the extremists who are part of the opposition.59 Uncertain costs, military constraints, and domestic
political opposition to such involvement also are likely factors.
Some critics of the Administration’s policy argue that many of these negative outcomes are
occurring even in the absence of U.S. intervention and suggest that the image and influence of the
United States are weakened by a refusal to intervene to protect civilians or respond to
provocations. Others express concern that military intervention will exacerbate negative
conditions prevailing on the ground and suggest that the United States cannot ensure that
intervention or support provided to opposition groups will not benefit extremists. Recent
Administration official statements concerning potential terrorist threats emanating from Syria
have led to a reconsideration of many of these questions by some Members of Congress and the
public. Some press reports suggest that Administration officials may be revisiting policy options
that could expand U.S. involvement in the conflict in Syria, but U.S. officials have declined to
confirm or deny reports about the contours of internal deliberations. On April 8, Secretary of
State Kerry referred to ongoing consideration of policy options in testimony before the Senate
59
Other competing foreign policy priorities also have influenced the Administration’s position, such as a desire to
maintain Russian and Chinese support for international sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program and concern that sectarian
and strategic competition in Syria could ignite a regional conflict and threaten U.S. allies and global security interests.
Congressional Research Service
15
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
Foreign Relations Committee and suggested that the United States was more engaged in
supporting opposition elements than it had been to date.
While condemning Asad as a thug and a murderer and aiding some of his adversaries,
Administration officials have continued to stress the need for a negotiated political solution to the
conflict in the hopes of keeping the Syrian state intact, securing its weapon stockpiles and
borders, and combating extremist groups now active there. The implementation of U.S. strategy
in Syria to date has included the provision of both nonlethal and lethal assistance to select Syrian
opposition groups, a sustained international diplomatic effort to establish a negotiated transition,
and the provision of humanitarian assistance in Syria and neighboring countries. Through 2013,
these initiatives were implemented under the auspices of an ad hoc series of assistance
notifications to Congress providing for the waiver of certain restrictions on the use of U.S. funds
for assistance in Syria and the assertion of emergency contingency authorities to reprogram and
allocate funds for use in response to the crisis. Cumulatively, the notifications illustrate an
evolution of U.S. involvement in the direction of seeking deeper partnership with select
opposition actors on the ground in Syria, while seeking to bolster and unify opposition figures
based outside of Syria.
At the October 2013 Friends of Syria conference in London, Secretary Kerry announced that the
United States, along with other members of the “London 11” group, had “agreed to increase ...
coordinated assistance to the opposition, including to the Syrian Opposition Coalition.... And we
also committed to do more to assist the brave people who are on the ground in Syria.” The
Obama Administration subsequently notified Congress of plans to expand nonlethal assistance to
various opposition groups. Through 2013, U.S. efforts to improve coordination among opposition
groups in aid delivery had mixed success, with some observers criticizing the SOC’s Assistance
Coordination Unit (ACU) for lacking capacity and duplicating partnerships among donors and
local organizations.
As of April 2014, the United States had allocated nearly $260 million in support of the non-armed
opposition (including the SOC and local activists), more than half of which had been delivered as
of late March.60 The delivery of some assistance to select groups reportedly has been resumed
after having been suspended as a result of the Islamic Front’s seizure of SOC/SMC-controlled
warehouse facilities and intra-opposition fighting in northern Syria.61 The FY2014 Consolidated
Appropriations bill (H.R. 3547, P.L. 113-76) provides new authority for the Administration to use
FY2014 and previously appropriated monies in the Economic Support Fund (ESF) account to
provide nonlethal assistance for certain purposes in Syria (see textbox below). An unspecified
amount of funding may be subject to this authority.
60
See U.S. State Department Fact Sheet, U.S. Assistance and Support for the Transition, January 17, 2014; and
Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Anne Patterson Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, March 26, 2014.
61
The State Department has reported that lines of supply for nonlethal support to armed opposition elements are
“periodically contested by the regime or extremist fighters.” In the wake of the incident the Obama Administration
“decided that it was a risk to be providing that assistance if it’s going to the extremists.” However, on January 12,
Secretary Kerry said the Administration is “considering the renewal of that assistance to the opposition,” and referred
to “augmented support to the opposition” in remarks in Montreux, Switzerland, on January 22. See Secretary of State
Kerry, Remarks with Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid bin Muhammad al Atiyah, Paris, France, January 12, 2014; and,
Secretary of State Kerry, Press Availability at the Geneva II International Conference on Syria, January 22, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
16
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
FY2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act and Nonlethal Assistance in Syria
Section 7041(i) of Division K of the FY2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 3547, P.L. 113-76) significantly
expands the Administration’s authority to provide nonlethal assistance in Syria for certain purposes using the
Economic Support Fund (ESF) account. Such assistance had been restricted by a series of preexisting provisions of law
(including some terrorism-related provisions) that required the President to assert emergency and contingency
authorities to provide such assistance to the Syrian opposition and communities in Syria. The new authority makes
FY2014 and prior year ESF funding available “notwithstanding any other provision of law for non-lethal assistance for
programs to address the needs of civilians affected by conflict in Syria, and for programs that seek to—
(A) establish governance in Syria that is representative, inclusive, and accountable;
(B) develop and implement political processes that are democratic, transparent, and adhere to the rule of law;
(C) further the legitimacy of the Syrian opposition through cross-border programs;
(D) develop civil society and an independent media in Syria;
(E) promote economic development in Syria;
(F) document, investigate, and prosecute human rights violations in Syria, including through transitional justice
programs and support for nongovernmental organizations; and
(G) counter extremist ideologies.”
The act requires the Secretary of State to “take all appropriate steps to ensure that mechanisms are in place for the
adequate monitoring, oversight, and control of such assistance inside Syria,” and requires the Secretary of State to
“promptly inform the appropriate congressional committees of each significant instance in which assistance provided
pursuant to the authority of this subsection has been compromised, to include the type and amount of assistance
affected, a description of the incident and parties involved, and an explanation of the Department of State’s response.”
The latter provision may be of particular interest in light of the reported seizure of U.S. provided assistance by armed
groups in December 2013.
The act further requires the Obama Administration to submit a comprehensive interagency strategy prior to using
the authority that would include a “mission statement, achievable objectives and timelines, and a description of interagency and donor coordination and implementation of such strategy.” The strategy, which may be classified, must also
include “a description of oversight and vetting procedures to prevent the misuse of funds.” All funds obligated
pursuant to the new authority are subject to established congressional notification procedures.
In the 113th Congress, other proposals to authorize the expanded provision of nonlethal and lethal assistance in Syria
with various provisos have been considered, including S. 960, the Syria Transition Support Act of 2013, and H.R.
1327, the Free Syria Act of 2013. S. 960 was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as amended by a
15-3 vote in May 2013.
FY2015 Budget Request for Syria
The FY2015 assistance request for Syria reflects the two main elements of the Obama
Administration’s policy response: (1) humanitarian assistance to meet the needs of internally
displaced Syrians and refugees in neighboring countries, and (2) political, economic, and nonlethal military support for national and local opposition groups. Funds provided since 2011 in
Syria and in neighboring countries for these combined purposes exceed $2 billion to date.
Of the total $1.26 billion in FY2015 funding requested specifically for Syria in the foreign
operations budget request, $1.1 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations funds would support
humanitarian response needs from the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA-OCO) and
International Disaster Assistance (IDA-OCO) accounts. A further $155 million from the
Economic Support Fund-Overseas Contingency Operations (ESF-OCO), International Narcotics
Control and Law Enforcement-Overseas Contingency Operations (INCLE-OCO), and
Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, De-mining, and Related Programs (NADR) accounts would
support the Syrian opposition and transition related initiatives. If a transition should occur,
Congressional Research Service
17
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
FY2015 funds would support a political transition toward democracy, as well as reconstruction
and recovery efforts. Specific proposals for the use of those funds have not been made available
as of April 8, 2014.
Table 1. U.S. Foreign Assistance for Syria, FY2013-FY2015 Request
(In current $ thousands, Fiscal Year denotes source of funds)
FY2013
(Actual)
Account
ESF
20,780 (OCO)
FY2014
(Estimate)
FY2015
(Request)
n.a.
125,000 (OCO)
INCLE
0
n.a.
10,000 (OCO)
NADR
0
n.a.
20,000
PKO
38,620 (OCO)
n.a.
0
FFP
18,338
n.a.
0
Totala
77,738
n.a.
155,000
Source: State Department and Foreign Operations and Related Programs, Congressional Budget Justification,
FY2015.
Notes: FY2014 estimates for Syria spending were not available as of April 2014. Funds appropriated in fiscal
years prior to FY2013 have supported U.S. assistance programs since 2011. n.a. = not available.
a.
The FY2013 total figure does not reflect all of the $260 million allocated for support to the Syrian
opposition to date. The FY2015 Syria request includes, but Table 3 does not show, $1.1 billion within
Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA-OCO) and International Disaster Assistance (IDA-OCO) accounts
expected to be used for humanitarian assistance related to the Syria conflict.
Issues Shaping Future U.S. Assistance
As with humanitarian assistance, U.S. efforts to support local security and service delivery efforts
to date have been hindered by a lack of regular access to areas in need. According to
Administration officials, border closures, ongoing fighting, and risks from extremist groups have
presented unique challenges. U.S. officials have stated their expectation that U.S. equipment will
be returned to the control of SMC leaders by the Islamic Front and reiterated their view that the
SOC and SMC remain the “legitimate representatives of the Syrian opposition and the Syrian
people.”62 On January 12, the United States and other Core Group members stated that they “fully
support the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army and other democratic opposition
forces in their action against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).”
In light of these developments, the future nature and direction of U.S. engagement with certain
Syrian opposition groups may be in flux. On the one hand, advocates of continued U.S. support
for opposition groups aligned with U.S. values and preferences argue that the withdrawal or
reduction of such assistance would bolster less cooperative or friendly groups. Advocates further
argue that if the United States withdraws or reduces its support, then it may “force” moderate
groups to turn to extremist groups for funding and support—thereby increasing the influence of
extremists while reducing U.S. leverage. On the other hand, critics of continued U.S. support
argue that such assistance risks exacerbating rivalry among opposition groups and reducing the
62
Statement of U.S. State Department Spokesperson Marie Harf, Press Briefing, Washington, DC, December 16, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
18
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
credibility of groups and individuals seen to be aligned with the United States. Critics of support
further point to problems in ensuring the identity of end users of provided support and the uses of
U.S.-provided support. Administration officials have stated that they remain open to engagement
with all opposition groups not affiliated with Al Qaeda. The Islamic Front reportedly has rebuffed
U.S. requests for consultation to date, and its charter states that it rejects “foreign dictates that
undermine its decision-making capabilities.”63
Efforts to provide lethal assistance to armed opposition elements have similarly evolved and were
reported to be expanding in late 2013 amid criticism by some opposition leaders that desired
support has not been forthcoming. In June 2013, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic
Communications Ben Rhodes said that the President had “authorized the expansion of our
assistance to the Supreme Military Council,” and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said in a
September 2013 hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the Administration
was taking steps to provide arms to some Syrian rebels under covert action authorities.64 Press
reports have cited unidentified U.S. officials suggesting that as of early October 2013, very little
lethal equipment had been delivered and fewer than 1,000 opposition fighters had received U.S.
supervised training in Jordan. CRS cannot confirm these reports. Press reports further suggested
that the program was being enlarged to produce “a few hundred trained fighters each month,”65
but it is unclear what effect, if any, recent developments, including infighting among opposition
groups, have had on any such plans or programs.
To date, U.S. officials have not publicly described in detail which elements of the opposition may
be receiving training, what such training may entail, what types of weaponry may be provided in
the program, and what safeguards may be in place to monitor the disposition of equipment and
the actions of any U.S. trained personnel. In late September, the Administration notified Congress
of its intent to use emergency authorities available to the President under the Foreign Assistance
Act to provide additional “nonlethal commodities and services” to the SMC. In January, the State
Department referred to completed deliveries of food, medical equipment, and vehicles and
“planned deliveries of satellite access equipment, laptops, radio communication equipment, and
medical kits to moderate SMC elements” in a summary of its nonlethal support efforts to date.66
On October 22, Secretary Kerry said that the “London 11” group had “agreed to direct military
aid exclusively through the Supreme Military Council ... to curtail the influence of extremists, to
isolate the extremists, and to change the balance on the ground.”67 However, as noted above,
several prominent Islamist militia groups now coordinate their operations independent of the
SMC and have rejected the political and military leadership of the SOC/SMC. Disputes within the
63
OSC Document TRR2013112671951889.
Secretary Hagel said, “it was June of this year that the president made the decision to support lethal assistance to the
opposition. As you all know, we have been very supportive with hundreds of millions of dollars of non-lethal
assistance. The vetting process that Secretary Kerry noted has been significant, but—I'll ask General Dempsey if he
wants to add anything—but we, the Department of Defense, have not been directly involved in this. This is, as you
know, a covert action. And, as Secretary Kerry noted, probably to [go] into much more detail would—would require a
closed or classified hearing.”
65
Greg Miller, “CIA ramping up covert training program for moderate Syrian rebels,” Washington Post, October 2,
2013; and, Adam Entous and Nour Malas, “U.S. Still Hasn't Armed Syrian Rebels,” Wall Street Journal, September 4,
2013.
66
Office of the State Department Spokesperson, “The Syrian Crisis: U.S. Assistance and Support for the Transition,”
January 17, 2014
67
Remarks of Secretary of State John Kerry, London, United Kingdom, October 22, 2013.
64
Congressional Research Service
19
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
SMC over its leadership also may complicate international efforts to engage with the SMC
leadership as a conduit for support to moderate armed elements. It remains to be seen whether
these realignments, disputes, and policy statements have decisively changed the context in which
the United States and its allies are providing support to the armed opposition, or whether or how
such support may change in the near future. On April 8, Secretary Kerry told the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee that “the fact is we are doing more than we've ever been doing.”
Outlook
Looking ahead, U.S. policy makers face a series of difficult choices as they seek to balance their
demands that Asad ultimately leave power on the one hand, and their desire for the Syrian
government to remain cooperative with implementation of the OPCW Executive Council
decision, participate in negotiations with the opposition, and facilitate humanitarian access on the
other. By seeking a negotiated rather than a military solution, U.S. policy apparently seeks to
bring the conflict to a close while maintaining the security benefits associated with the
preservation of some Syrian state institutions. However, recent statements by U.S. officials and
other members of the Core Group envision negotiations that will end with the leaders of the
current regime having no part in transitional governance in Syria.
As of April 2014, Secretary of State Kerry has acknowledged that President Asad feels more
confident in his position and has alluded to a need to change the calculus of the Asad government
and the opposition in order to bolster chances for successful negotiations. In testimony before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 8, Secretary Kerry said:
Today, Assad feels fairly secure in Damascus and in some of the corridor going north to the
ports. And that’s been his strategy. But around him in the south, particularly, in the east and
in the north, there is not that kind of security. In fact, the opposition has made some gains
recently. And so the key here is - how do you get the parties to a place where they both
understand that there isn't going to be a military solution that doesn't destroy the country
absolutely and totally, but which ultimately could be negotiated? There has to be a
recognition by both of the ripeness of that moment. It’s not now. We all understand that. So
the question is: Can you do something in order to create that? And that’s a legitimate
question for the Congress; a legitimate question for the Administration.
Absent a change in conditions that compels Asad’s departure or empowers opposition groups to
fully depose Asad, current U.S. demands for a negotiated settlement leading to the establishment
of a transitional governing body would appear to require the leaders of the current government to
agree to leave power voluntarily, which they may continue to resist doing without guarantees of
their safety and/or immunity. Opposition members may be unable or unwilling to make such
guarantees. U.S. officials have raised the prospect of international peacekeeping arrangements to
guarantee elements of a negotiated settlement, but such arrangements could require an
international mandate, military forces, and financial contributions that may prove difficult to
procure. Meanwhile, powerful armed Islamist opposition forces reject negotiation, seek the
creation of an Islamic state, and have vowed to continue fighting until the entire Syrian
government is toppled.
Reconciling the current U.S. diplomatic strategy and desire for cooperation on chemical weapons
destruction with the simultaneous provision of U.S. assistance to select elements of the opposition
may become more difficult in the event that negotiations begin and show promise, or in the event
Congressional Research Service
20
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
that anti-U.S. Islamist forces or Al Qaeda affiliates make further gains at the expense of their
counterparts.
In light of these conditions, responding to the humanitarian needs generated by the crisis and
working to prevent the destabilization of Syria’s neighbors will remain key agenda items for U.S.
decision makers for the foreseeable future.
Congressional Research Service
21
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
Appendix. Select Group Profiles
The following descriptions of armed groups operating in Syria are provided as reference
estimates compiled, reconciled, and edited by CRS from third-party open-source analysis.68 CRS
cannot independently verify the size, equipment, and current areas of operation of the groups
described. In considering these and other analyses of the size, composition, and goals of specific
groups there are several factors to consider:
•
At present, open source analysis of armed groups operating in Syria relies largely
on the self-reporting of individual groups and coalitions. Information is not
evenly and regularly available for all groups. Verification is imperfect and is
based on independent analysis of self-reported and third party-reported
information. Social media outlets and news reports can help verify information,
but most analysts consider it to be very difficult to confirm data points.
•
There are hundreds of active militia forces, ranging in size from a few dozen to
thousands and organized around a wide variety of local communities, ethnic and
religious identities, and political-religious ideologies. The size and relative
strength of groups have varied and will continue to vary by location and time.
•
Trends in the conflict have reflected both diversification and profusion of armed
groups and improvement in the size and capabilities of some actors relative to
others. Many groups and units who claim to coordinate under various fronts and
coalitions in fact appear to operate independently and reserve the right to change
allegiances.
•
The use of religious or secular imagery and messages by groups may not be
reliable indicators of the long term political aims of their members or their likely
success in implementing those aims. Factors motivating individuals to support
certain groups may not be ideological but practical. For example, the funding
available to Islamist groups from various public and private sources in the
Persian Gulf may be leading some secular groups to adopt Islamist rhetoric.
Others may mask extremist agendas.
68
CRS consulted the following sources and others while preparing the analysis below: Facebook, Twitter, and
YouTube outlets associated with groups. Charles Lister, “Syria’s insurgency beyond Good Guys and Bad Guys,”
ForeignPolicy.com, Middle East Channel (blog), September 20, 2013. Charles Lister, “Syria’s Insurgent Landscape,”
IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Security Monitor/IHS Jane’s Terrorism & Insurgency Centre, September 2013. Aron Lund,
“The Non-State Militant Landscape in Syria,” U.S. Military Academy Combatting Terrorism Center, CTC Sentinel,
August 2013. Ian Black, “Saudi Arabia to spend millions to train new rebel force,” The Guardian (UK), November 7,
2013. Michael Weiss, “Mergers and Acquisitions,” NOW. Online (Lebanon), October 29, 2013. OSC Document
PLN2013100218082086, “Syria: Chief of Newly Formed ‘Jaysh al-Islam’ Coalition Interviewed on Al-Qa'ida Ties,
Geneva II,” Al Jazirah Live Satellite Television (Doha) in Arabic, September 20, 2013. Aron Lund, “Islamist Groups
Declare Opposition to National Coalition and U.S. Strategy,” Syria Comment (blog), September 24-5, 2013. OSC
Document TRR2013112671951889, “Syria: New ‘Islamic Front’ Formation Releases Charter,” November 26, 2013.
Aron Lund, “Say Hello to the Islamic Front,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Syria in Crisis (blog),
November 22, 2013. Aaron Y. Zelin, “Rebels Consolidating Strength in Syria: The Islamic Front,” Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, PolicyWatch 2177, December 3, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
22
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
Figure A-1. Select Anti-Asad Armed Groups
Congressional Research Service
23
Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response
Figure A-2. U.S.-Designated Sunni Terrorist Groups
Author Contact Information
Christopher M. Blanchard, Coordinator
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
cblanchard@crs.loc.gov, 7-0428
Mary Beth D. Nikitin
Specialist in Nonproliferation
mnikitin@crs.loc.gov, 7-7745
Carla E. Humud
Analyst in Middle Eastern and African Affairs
chumud@crs.loc.gov, 7-7314
Congressional Research Service
24