Carnegie experts from all over the world analyze external actors’ strategic and geopolitical interests in Syria and the attempts made to protect those interests amid an ongoing civil war.
The highly localized nature of the Syrian conflict means that its evolution and eventual resolution will elude the control of outsiders.
For Tehran, the Syrian conflict is at the center of an ideological, sectarian, and geopolitical struggle against a diverse array of adversaries.
Amman is increasingly pursuing a policy of supporting neither the regime nor the opposition in Syria while quietly working to help resolve the conflict. It has few other options.
In response to the open-ended Syrian civil war and the policy dilemmas it raises, the Israeli government has essentially decided to take a backseat.
Lebanon struggles with a complex web of problems associated with the Syrian conflict, from an influx of refugees to sharp domestic political divisions.
Gulf states’ reasons for intervention in Syria are complex, and their polices are unpredictable and frequently contradictory.
Turkey faces the challenge of recalibrating its policy toward Syria given the Assad regime’s resilience and gradual recovery of international legitimacy.
Washington’s reluctance to take a leadership role in Syria has played a part in increasing the threat to core U.S. interests.
Russia has two broad strategic objectives in the Syrian conflict: challenging U.S. dominance in world affairs and aiding Assad in the fight against Islamist radicals.
China is unusually secure in its policy of nonintervention in the Syrian conflict. But will strong rhetoric and vetoes be enough?
The Syrian conflict has recently become a major source of concern for Europe, but it could still be overshadowed by an escalation of tensions in Ukraine.