Sochi puts Sham Liberation Organization between a rock and a hardplace

Sarah Rashad

“Much ado about nothing” is the best example that expresses the position of the so-called “Sham Liberation Organization” (the largest armed faction operating in Syria) on the Sochi agreement, which was signed last week between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, on the status of the Syrian city Idlib.

Although the organization’s terms used to denounce the agreement, such as “treachery of religion” and “espionage” is resonant and indicates a clear rejection of it, it is nothing more than ado. This attack on the agreement has not yet come out of the formal framework. The Sham Liberation Organization has so far issued an official statement on its behalf, rejecting the agreement with articles published by its media organization “Aba”, as well as posts published by its leaders through their accounts of social media outlets, expressing their rejection.

According to observers of the situation, the official announcement of the rejection of the agreement, once published by the organization, may put it in a great dilemma as it will be caught between its official rejection and therefore the continuation of the current situation in Idlib, which could lead to the imposition of military intervention once again and the containment of the situation and the avoidance of the consequences of military intervention, and thus make the least possible losses.

According to the current situation, the Organization controls about 60% of the area of Idlib, and because of the agreement, its influence will diminish if the armed factions commit themselves to evacuate 20 kilometers of the buffer zone approved by the agreement to separate the areas controlled by the regime and the armed areas. Therefore, there remains the question: Why did not the Sham Liberation Organization formally and clearly and explicitly reject the agreement?

The Future of the Sham Liberation Organization

Since the first moments of the agreement, the Turkish media have been promoting Ankara’s efforts to convince the armed factions to abide by the terms. It deliberately published news that there were notifications by the leaders of the Sham Liberation Organization and the agreement. The “Turk Press” went further by saying that information received from sources in Idlib, which it did not name, but described it as “confirmed”, indicates that the Syrian leaders of the organization agree to the option of leaving the land and withdrawing the weapon, while the non-Syrian leaders, headed by the Egyptians, reject this.

The website said that this scene renews the talk about the crisis dealing with non-Syrian elements in the organization after its dismantling, as it seems that they are more hard-line than the Syrians.

In turn, the official Anadolu Agency published scenarios for the scene of Idlib, discussing the future of the Sham Liberation Organization in which the Agency promoted the differences between the leaders of the Organization, considering it would be a prelude to its dismantling.

But are there actually differences?

Mohamed Sadiq Ismail, head of the Arab Center for Political and Strategic Studies, did not deny the existence of differences between the leaders of the front, but it is likely that these differences are a Turkish thing.

He explained that it is in the interest of Turkey to make the Organization disappear from the Syrian scene, and then may adopt a method of attracting some leaders to divide the entity from the inside.

Sadiq pointed out that attracting Syrian leaders to the Organization is more difficult than attracting foreigners. The Syrians are more committed to the objectives of the Organization because of the strength of the motivation that convinced them to leave their countries and carry weapons in another country.