UNSC

Background Guide

AGENDA
SITUATION IN SYRIA

Vision.Verve.Vibrance
SRMV 2024 UNSC

Letter from the Executive Board

This is a UN simulation at the organisational, structural and functional levels. We will follow the UN Security
Council’s (SC) UNA-USA Rules of Procedure and Working Methods. Importance will be placed on traditional
methods of diplomatic courtesy, adherence to foreign policy, sovereign exercise of functions, and methodical
negotiations. Through the annexures to this Letter, we are pleased to declare the flow of work for the meeting.

As a principal organ of the UN, we are guided by the principles enshrined in the Preamble of the United
Nations Charter. SC meetings are inclusive, and strongly averse to discrimination, misconduct and
malpractices. As a representative at the conference, Members shall be bound by the codes of conduct,
policies and regulations of the conference and the SC. Needless to say, we expect the highest possible
standard of commitment from all members involved.

Please be advised that this Background Guide includes information and data, to provide you with a
comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand, extending beyond the specified freeze date.

With hope that you will enhance the quality of this meeting with your substantive participation, we invite
you to be a part of this Security Council meeting.

We are looking forward to working with you all.

Regards,

Fazil Razak
President of the Security Council

Chellakumar
Vice President of the Security Council

Anindhitha Aravind
Director of the Security Council
Mandate
The UN Charter established six main organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council. It gives
primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security to the Security Council, which may
meet whenever peace is threatened. According to the Charter, the United Nations has four purposes:

1. To maintain international peace and security; 2. To develop friendly relations among nations; 3.
To cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; 4. To
be a centre for harmonising the actions of nations.

All members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.
While other organs of the United Nations make recommendations to member states, only the Security
Council has the power to make decisions that member states are then obligated to implement under the
Charter.

Maintaining Peace and Security

When a complaint concerning a threat to peace is brought before it, the Council’s first action is usually to
recommend that the parties try to reach agreement by peaceful means. The Council may:
● Set forth principles for such an agreement;
● Undertake investigation and mediation, in some cases;
● Dispatch a mission;
● Appoint special envoys;

● Request the Secretary-General to use his good offices to achieve a pacific settlement of the dispute.
When a dispute leads to hostilities, the Council’s primary concern is to bring them to an end as soon as
possible. In that case, the Council may:
Issue ceasefire directives that can help prevent an escalation of the conflict;
Dispatch military observers or a peacekeeping force to help reduce tensions, separate opposing forces and
establish a calm in which peaceful settlements may be sought. Beyond this, the Council may opt for
enforcement measures, including: Economic sanctions, arms embargoes, financial penalties and
restrictions, and travel bans; Severance of diplomatic relations; Blockade; Collective military action.
A chief concern is to focus action on those responsible for the policies or practices condemned by the
international community, while minimising the impact of the measures taken on other parts of the
population and economy.

I. INTRODUCTION
The Security Council in order to fulfil its obligations enjoys powers conferred by the UN Charter. Among these
powers and in conformity with article 39 of the UN Charter, the Security Council shall determine the existence
of any threat to the peace. Notwithstanding, as we will further analyse, there is no express
provision in the UN Charter that establishes the limits of this power or suggests the form in which the
Security Council has to interpret the term ‘threat to the peace’.

Since 1990 (after the end of the Cold War), the Security Council, through several resolutions, has been
developing a broader definition of the term ‘threat to the peace’ covering civil wars, violations of human
rights and terrorism, among others. However, through all the UN Charter there is also no definition of this
term, so in order to determine an act as a threat to the peace an interpretation of this term has to be done in
conformity with the general rules of interpretation stated in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

In order to establish whether the Security Council has been interpreting article 39 of the UN Charter in
conformity with the general rules established in the Vienna Convention, we will analyse the practice in
which the Security Council has been determining what constitutes a threat to the peace through several
resolutions.

As we will see, the Security Council had only determined as threats to the peace those acts related to specific
situations in a specific territory. Notwithstanding, with Resolutions 1373 and 1540 the Security Council
created resolutions in a general and abstract form that can be considered by some authors as an exercise of
law-making process by the Security Council in which general obligations were imposed on all States in a
context not limited to a particular country. This means that in both resolutions the Security Council for the
first time declared an abstract phenomenon (international terrorism) as a threat to international peace.

The powers of the Security Council cannot be unlimited, the Security Council has to act at least in
accordance with the principles and objects of the Charter and with the intentions of its drafters. However,
we also have to take in consideration the new forms of attacks and problems that have been developing,
especially the new mechanisms of attacks and the new non-state actors. An analysis among the new
international problems and the form in which the Security Council has been determining threats to the peace
will be the main goal of this article.

II. POWERS TO LEGISLATE OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

The separation of powers is a form of government used by some democratic States, usually divided in three
main branches, the executive, judicial and legislative powers. The last one (which is the only one that we will
analyse in this article) is in charge of making the law. By law we understand “a set of rules that are enacted by
an organ (normally a national legislature) of a state; these are mandatory throughout the territory of that state
and deal with matters that are of more or less general concern to the persons and entities in that territory.”

In order to consider an act a rule of law some main characteristics need to be considered, “they are unilateral
in form, they create or modify some elements of a legal norm, and the legal norm is general in nature,
directed to indeterminate addresses and capable of repeated application in time.” Manusuma in his book
stated that the rules of law: (i) must apply equally to all persons or entities subject to it when applied in
similar cases (a simple set of rules applicable to particular individuals cannot be qualified as law); (ii) have
to be general in order to facilitate equality in practice, so they must be formulated in general and abstract
terms, this means that the law cannot refer to particulars, groups or individuals, entities or States, or to any
particular situation; as opposed to regulations or decisions that pertain to particular cases or situations; (iii)
have to be known by those who must observe them; and (iv) should be stable and carry with them a measure
of certainty. Furthermore, all actions of any authority must be based on previously established rules; if an
action is not based on an established rule consequently it is not obligatory.

If a rule complies with all these requisites it has to be considered legislation, however this term is in
accordance with the legislative power of a State. In international law, there is only one specialised
organisation (ICAO the predecessor of the International Commission of Air Navigation (ICAN)) with
legislative competence in its regulatory function and its amendments or regulations when adopted by a
certain majority, are binding on all members, even for dissenting ones. This lack of practice led us to
consider that in international organisations the legislative authority is more an exception than a rule.

To consider a term such as ‘international legislation’ within the United Nations (UN), we have to bear in
mind that some authors in accordance with the
International Court of Justice are of the view that “the UN does not contain a legislative organ as such,
every norm of international law is based, at least in principle, upon the consent of all states bound by it –
no state is to be bound by a rule of international law if it did not have at least the opportunity to influence
the development of that norm”.

III. Powers of the Security Council

The Security Council is the most dynamic organ in the organisation with the greatest powers and functions
established in Chapters V to VIII of the UN Charter. Since there is no specific provision establishing the limits
of its powers, some authors have stated that “there are no international legal limits to the enforcement
powers of the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter (UNC)”.
Notwithstanding, some of these articles conferring powers to the Security Council can also be considered as
limitations to their acts. For instance, article 1 of the UN Charter states, as one of the main purposes of the
UN, “to maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for
the prevention and removal of threats to the peace...”, but this article is also a limitation for the actions taken
by the Security Council, since in accordance with article 24.2 of the UN Charter the Security Council must act
in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN and the provisions of the Charter, and for that
reason the Security Council cannot go beyond the limits of the purposes and principles of the Charter
(maintain international peace and security) and implement measures not in accordance with these limits.

Another example is article 2.4 of the UN Charter which states the prohibition of use of force by individual
Member States, meaning that the only one who can impose military and non-military measures is the
Security Council. However, in order to impose those measures the Security Council has to determine if an
act is a threat or breach to the peace or an act of aggression in accordance with article 39. Without this
determination the Security Council cannot impose military or non-military measures.

We also have to bear in mind that the decisions taken by the Security Council have a binding character, so
they must be carried out by all Member States in accordance with article 25 of the UN Charter. This power
of the Security Council is a requisite to maintain international peace and security, is the form in which the
Security Council can oblige Member States to fulfil its duties, so the Security Council has to “use” this
power in accordance with its main duties also established in the UN Charter.
Another relevant article is article 27 which set up the voting procedures in the Security Council, establishing
that each member shall have one vote and decisions (not on procedural matters) shall be made by an
affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent ones. Although article
27(3) does not explicitly mention the ‘veto power’, the fact that substantial decisions require the concurring
vote of all five permanent members to agree with the adoption of any resolution, makes it actually a power
only conferred to these five permanent members. Since the Security Council while determining a threat to the
peace is the only one who decides when to exercise or not its veto power, the permanent members have the
duty to comply with its obligations, they “have to exercise their office in good faith, commensurate with their
responsibility as members of the Council and bearing in mind the principles and purposes of the
Organization”.

Regarding Chapter VII, we have to consider some articles such as article 39 of the UN Charter which
confers the Security Council the faculty to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the
peace, or act of aggression. The Security Council in determining whether a situation can be considered a
threat to the peace according to article 39, has broad discretion, but this article will be further analysed.

Article 41 of the UN Charter also confers the Security Council the faculty of deciding the measures not
involving the use of armed force that shall employ to give effect to its decisions. Although article 41 does
not specify against whom the measures are directed to, these measures shall be applied to lead a certain
State or States to put an end to the conduct determined by the Security Council as threat to the peace in
conformity with article 39. The list of article 41 is not exhaustive, but this does not mean that any non-
forcible measure is permissible under this article. As G. Oosthuizen had stated, this requirement could be
linked to the concepts of ‘good faith’ and ‘abuse of rights’, however the list contains only measures dealing
with concrete situations, not norms of general and abstract applicability.
Article 42 refers to military action as measures that can be taken by the Security Council in case measures
of article 41 are inadequate or have proved to be inadequate. The Security Council is the only organ with
the power to take enforcement action that can involve military force, notwithstanding this power, a
determination of article 39 has to be done before the Security Council determines to apply it.

Although there is no specific provision delimiting the powers of the Security Council, this does not mean
that the Security Council is unbound by law, it is bound by international law and by ius cogens norms. This
is one of the reasons that some scholars have disagreed with the ‘legislative powers’ of the Security Council,
considering that the Council is not capable of legislating international law, and that the UN Charter does
not give the Security Council expressly or implicitly this legislative authority. Even when Security Council
resolutions have binding effect, they are not sources of general applicability and the Security Council may
“act as a law-enforcing body, but not as a legislator,” and that the
Council “cannot create legislation in the sense of binding, abstract and general legal rules”.

IV The Security Council as legislator

After the Cold War the Security Council has been implementing several measures considered by some
authors as of ‘legislative nature’. The Security Council started considering certain problems of concern to
the international community as ‘threats to the peace’ such as the protection of civilians in civil wars,
violations of human rights and state terrorism. For instance, the establishment of the United Nations
Compensation Commission and the creation of the ad hoc criminal tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia
and Rwanda (ICTY and ICTR), have been meant to be international legislation or legislative acts, since the
establishment of judicial bodies is done by ‘legislative acts’ and do not consider specific situations.
Notwithstanding, in these cases, the Security Council while creating these judicial bodies is not acting in a
general and abstract form, the situations were not general but rather specific cases, the Security Council was
not creating new law but enforcing the existing one while exercising its powers under Chapter VII in relation
with article 39 of the UN Charter.

Other similar cases are the imposition of disarmament obligations on Iraq, the determination of the Iraq-
Kuwait border; and in general the imposition of economic sanctions that also have been meant to be
international legislation or legislative acts. However in these cases, the Security Council once again was
referring to specific situations and not to general acts, furthermore is also of special relevance to consider
that it was imposing obligations to a specific State and not indiscriminately.

In all these cases, the resolutions were regarding concrete and not abstract measures, and as we have
analysed, the main characteristics of any legislation (even in an international scope) are the general and
abstract character of the obligations imposed which are not linked to concrete situations. The Security
Council can only issue decisions in response to particular situations or conducts, such decisions are not
wholly general. For a particular norm to be truly general in nature, it needs to be applicable to all persons
or particular classes of persons (rather than to specified individuals), in all circumstances or in all situations
where particular criteria have been satisfied. In other words, it should be composed of abstract legal
positions.
 The Situation in Syria
Now in its 10th year, the Syrian conflict has led to more than 500,000 deaths and displaced an
estimated 13 million—over half of Syria’s pre-war population. Over 6.2 million Syrians are
internally displaced, and 5.6 million are refugees, predominantly in Lebanon, Jordan, and
Turkey.
The war began after the Syrian regime cracked down against peaceful civilian protestors,
quickly evolving into a more complex conflict. Various factions—the Syrian regime, Syrian
rebels, the self-styled Islamic State, al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist organizations, Kurdish-led
organizations, and foreign militias including Hezbollah—have engaged in a costly contest for
control. Russia, Iran, Turkey, and the United States have also intervened.
In March 2011, growing frustration with the authoritarian rule of President Bashar al-Assad
ignited massive protests and pro-democracy demonstrations across Syria. Inspired by the Arab
Spring movements that had toppled regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, Syrians gathered in cities like
Daraa, Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo to demand political reforms, the release of political
prisoners, and an end to government corruption. The Assad regime, however, responded with a
heavy hand, deploying security forces to suppress the protests, which involved violent
crackdowns, mass arrests, and brutal treatment of demonstrators.
As the months passed and government repression intensified, the protests became increasingly
defiant, and some Syrians began to take up arms in response to the regime's brutality. By the
summer of 2011, defected soldiers and opposition activists had come together to form the Free
Syrian Army (FSA), an umbrella group for various rebel factions determined to overthrow Assad.
The FSA attracted support from a range of fighters across Syria, including former military
personnel and civilians, signaling the beginning of an armed insurgency against Assad’s
government.
With armed opposition groups forming and mobilizing across the country, the situation rapidly
deteriorated. By mid-2012, the violence had escalated beyond the government's control,
morphing into a full-scale civil war that engulfed nearly all of Syria’s major cities and regions.
The conflict quickly drew in regional and global powers, transforming Syria into a battleground
for competing interests and setting the stage for one of the most devastating humanitarian
crises of the 21st century.

History:
The war is fought by several factions. The Syrian Arab Armed Forces, alongside its domestic
and foreign allies, represent the Syrian Arab Republic and Assad government. Opposed to it is
the Syrian Interim Government, a big-tent alliance of pro-democratic, nationalist opposition groups
(whose military forces consist of the Syrian National Army and allied Free Syrian militias). Another
opposition faction is the Syrian Salvation Government, whose armed forces are represented by a
coalition of Sunni militias led by Tahrir al-Sham. Independent of them is the Autonomous
Administration of North and East Syria, whose military force is the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF),
a multi-ethnic, Arab-majority force led by the Kurdish YPG. Other competing factions include
Jihadist organizations such as the al-Qaeda-branch Hurras al-Din (successor of Al-Nusra Front) and
the Islamic State (IS). A number of foreign countries, such as Iran, Russia, Turkey and the United
States, have been directly involved in the civil war, providing support to opposing factions in the
conflict. Iran, Russia and Hezbollah support the Syrian Arab Republic militarily, with Russia
conducting airstrikes and ground operations in the country since September 2015. Since 2014, the
U.S.-led international coalition has been conducting air and ground operations primarily against the
Islamic State and occasionally against pro-Assad forces, and has been militarily and logistically
supporting factions such as the Revolutionary Commando Army and the Autonomous
Administration's Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Turkish forces currently occupy parts of northern
Syria and, since 2016, have fought the SDF, IS and the Assad government while actively supporting
the Syrian National Army (SNA). Between 2011 and 2017, fighting from the Syrian civil war spilled
over into Lebanon as opponents and supporters of the Syrian
government traveled to Lebanon to fight and attack each other on Lebanese soil. While officially
neutral, Israel has exchanged border fire and conducted repeated strikes against Hezbollah and
Iranian forces, whose presence in western Syria it views as a threat. Violence in the war peaked
during 2012–2017, but the situation remains a crisis. By 2020, the Syrian government controlled
about two-thirds of the country and was consolidating power.Frontline fighting between the
Assad government and opposition groups had mostly subsided by 2023, but there had been
regular flareups in northwestern Syria and large-scale protests emerged in southern Syria and
spread nationwide in response to extensive autocratic policies and the economic situation. The
protests were noted as resembling the 2011 revolution that preceded the civil war.

The war has resulted in an estimated 470,000–610,000 violent deaths, making it the second-
deadliest conflict of the 21st century, after the Second Congo War. International organizations
have accused virtually all sides involved—the Assad government, IS, opposition groups, Iran,
Russia,Turkey,and the U.S.-led coalition—of severe human rights violations and massacres.The
conflict has caused a major refugee crisis, with millions of people fleeing to neighboring
countries such as Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan; however, a sizable minority has also sought
refuge in countries outside of the Middle East, with Germany alone accepting over half a million
Syrians since 2011. Over the course of the war, a number of peace initiatives have been
launched, including the March 2017 Geneva peace talks on Syria led by the United Nations, but
fighting has continued.

Current Situation:
In October 2019, Kurdish leaders of Rojava, a region within Syria, announced they had reached
a major deal with the government of Syria under Assad. This deal was enacted in the wake of
the U.S. withdrawal from Syria. The Kurdish leaders made this deal in order to obtain Syria's
help in stopping hostile Turkish forces who were invading Syria and attacking Kurds.

The civil war had largely subsided, settling into a stalemate, by early 2023. The United States
Institute of Peace said:
Twelve years into Syria's devastating civil war, the conflict appears to have settled into a frozen
state. Although roughly 30% of the country is controlled by opposition forces, heavy fighting has
largely ceased and there is a growing regional trend toward normalizing relations with the
regime of Bashar al-Assad. Over the last decade, the conflict erupted into one of the most
complicated in the world, with a dizzying array of international and regional powers, opposition
groups, proxies, local militias and extremist groups all playing a role. The Syrian population has
been brutalized, with nearly a half a million killed, 12 million fleeing their homes to find safety
elsewhere, and widespread poverty and hunger. Meanwhile, efforts to broker a political
settlement have gone nowhere, leaving the Assad regime firmly in power.
 Russia and Syria:

Russia’s intervention in Syria, which began in September 2015, was a major turning point in the
Syrian civil war and has significantly shaped the conflict’s course. Russia's decision to intervene
was driven by a mix of geopolitical, military, and economic motivations, as well as a desire to
support its long-standing ally, Bashar al-Assad. Syria had been a crucial ally of Russia since the
Cold War, providing Moscow with influence in the Middle East—a region where Russia has
often been at odds with Western powers. Supporting Assad ensured Russia would retain a
strategic foothold in the region and challenge U.S. and NATO dominance. Russia also had key
military assets to protect in Syria, particularly the naval base at Tartus and the airbase at
Hmeimim. These facilities were essential for Russia's military operations and regional influence,
giving it access to the Mediterranean and expanding its power projection. Losing Syria as an
ally would mean forfeiting these bases, significantly weakening Russia’s strategic position.
Beyond preserving its influence, Russia saw the Syrian intervention as a way to reassert itself
as a major player in the Middle East. By stepping in when the West was reluctant to engage
militarily, Russia demonstrated that it could be a decisive ally, reinforcing its image as a
stabilizing force that stands by its partners even in challenging situations. Russia claimed its
intervention was aimed at countering extremist threats, as groups like ISIS and the al-Qaeda-
affiliated Nusra Front had established strongholds in Syria. Moscow argued that many fighters
from Russia’s North Caucasus and Central Asia had joined these factions, posing a potential
security risk if they returned home. The intervention was thus framed as a preventive measure
to contain extremism and prevent future attacks in Russia.
The intervention took the form of a comprehensive air campaign targeting various opposition
groups. While initially focused on ISIS, Russian airstrikes soon targeted a wide range of anti-
Assad factions, including some groups backed by the U.S. and other Western nations. Russia’s
air support, with bombers and jets operating out of the Hmeimim base, allowed Syrian
government forces to reclaim substantial territory. This air campaign relied on both precision-
guided munitions and unguided bombs, leading to significant devastation in opposition-held
areas. Alongside this, Russia showcased advanced military technology in Syria, deploying
sophisticated aircraft such as the Su-34 and Su-35 fighter jets and testing long-range cruise
missiles launched from as far as the Caspian Sea.

Turkish Operations in Syria:

1. Operation Euphrates Shield (August 2016 - March 2017)

In August 2016, Turkey launched Operation Euphrates Shield in northern Syria, marking its first
major military intervention in the conflict. This operation targeted two primary groups: ISIS,
which had established a stronghold along the Turkish-Syrian border, and the Kurdish-led Syrian
Democratic Forces (SDF), particularly the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), which
Turkey considers an extension of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), a Kurdish separatist
group it deems a terrorist organization.

Euphrates Shield aimed to secure the 100-kilometer stretch between the towns of Azaz and
Jarablus, removing ISIS fighters from this border region and preventing the YPG from
expanding its influence west of the Euphrates River. Turkish forces, along with allied Syrian
rebel groups, successfully took control of this area by March 2017, forcing ISIS out and creating
a buffer zone to limit Kurdish territorial gains. The operation established Turkey’s presence in
northern Syria and marked the beginning of its ongoing intervention in the conflict.

2. Operation Olive Branch (January 2018 - March 2018)

In January 2018, Turkey launched Operation Olive Branch with the goal of capturing the
Kurdish-controlled region of Afrin, located in northwest Syria near the Turkish border. Afrin had
been under the control of the YPG, and Turkey viewed its autonomy as a threat, fearing it could
inspire Kurdish separatism within Turkey.

The Turkish military, alongside allied Syrian rebel factions, advanced into Afrin and, after two
months of intense fighting, took control of the area in March 2018. The operation resulted in the
displacement of tens of thousands of Kurdish civilians, who fled to avoid the conflict. Turkey
then established a military and administrative presence in Afrin, allowing allied Syrian militias to
oversee much of the local governance. This marked a significant setback for Kurdish forces,
which lost a major stronghold in the region.

3. Operation Peace Spring (October 2019)

In October 2019, following the partial withdrawal of U.S. forces from northeastern Syria, Turkey
launched Operation Peace Spring. The aim was to push the YPG out of a 30-kilometer-deep
"safe zone" along Turkey’s southern border, extending from the Euphrates River eastward
toward Iraq. Turkey intended to use this zone not only to curb Kurdish influence but also to
resettle some of the 3.6 million Syrian refugees hosted in Turkey, as part of an effort to ease the
social and economic pressures of the refugee crisis domestically.

Operation Peace Spring resulted in significant clashes with the SDF, leading to a humanitarian
crisis as civilians were displaced. The offensive was met with widespread international
condemnation, particularly given the potential displacement of Kurdish communities and the
destabilization it risked bringing to areas previously liberated from ISIS. Following pressure from
the U.S. and Russia, Turkey agreed to pause the offensive and hold joint patrols with Russian
forces, ensuring that YPG fighters withdrew from the designated safe zone. This operation
allowed Turkey to establish a more extensive presence in northern Syria, creating a semi-
autonomous zone of influence.

4. Operation Spring Shield (February - March 2020)

Turkey launched Operation Spring Shield in February 2020, primarily in response to a Syrian
government offensive in Idlib, the last major opposition stronghold in northwestern Syria. Idlib
had been designated a "de-escalation zone" as part of a 2018 agreement between Turkey and
Russia, intended to prevent further clashes in the area. However, Assad's forces, supported by
Russian air power, intensified their offensive in Idlib, pushing northward and threatening Turkish
observation posts and allied Syrian opposition groups.

Following the deaths of 33 Turkish soldiers in an airstrike by Syrian government forces in late
February, Turkey retaliated with Operation Spring Shield. The Turkish military conducted
extensive drone and artillery strikes on Syrian government positions, inflicting significant losses.
This marked one of the most direct confrontations between Turkey and Assad’s forces. The
operation concluded with a ceasefire agreement between Turkey and Russia in early March
2020, which established a buffer zone and joint Turkish-Russian patrols along the M4 highway,
a crucial route linking Syria’s east and west.
 Iran and Syria:

Iran’s involvement in Syria has been a central factor in the country’s prolonged civil war, providing
crucial support to Bashar al-Assad’s regime. This alliance between Iran and Syria is rooted in a
decades-long partnership, built during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, when Syria was one of the
few Arab countries to back Iran against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Though Syria is predominantly
Sunni and governed by the Alawite minority, the two countries share a strategic alignment focused
on countering U.S. influence and opposing Israel. For Iran, Syria represents a vital part of its
regional strategy, connecting it to Hezbollah in Lebanon and extending Iranian influence to the
Mediterranean Sea. This land corridor, often called the "Shia Crescent," enables Iran to support
Hezbollah and other allied groups, strengthening its position in the Middle East and offering a direct
channel to Israel’s borders.

When the Syrian civil war began in 2011, Iran quickly recognized the potential threat to Assad’s
rule and moved to support the regime. Assad’s fall would have left a vacuum potentially filled by
a Sunni-led government supported by Iran’s regional rivals, like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
states, which could disrupt Iran’s influence and strategic access to Lebanon. Thus, keeping
Assad in power became a priority for Iran, which has since invested significant military, financial,
and logistical resources to prop up his government.

Iran’s support for Assad took multiple forms. Militarily, Iran deployed elite units from the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), particularly the Quds Force, to train and advise Syrian
forces. This early intervention helped the Assad regime hold its ground when opposition groups
threatened to overtake critical regions. Iran also organized and mobilized Shia militias from
across the region, including Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon, and created other groups like the
Afghan Fatemiyoun Division and the Pakistani Zainabiyoun Brigade. These foreign fighters
became instrumental on the front lines, supplementing the Syrian army’s capabilities and
helping to recapture territory from opposition forces.

Financially, Iran provided billions of dollars in aid to Assad, allowing the Syrian government to
endure despite severe economic isolation and sanctions. Iran offered credit lines, energy
supplies, and subsidies that helped Syria maintain basic services in government-held areas and
continue military operations. Iranian logistical support included arms shipments, ensuring the
Syrian military was equipped to resist various opposition factions.
One of the most significant impacts of Iran’s involvement was the role of Hezbollah, which Iran
supported as an ally against Israel and the West. Hezbollah fighters entered Syria to assist Assad
in securing key areas, such as the Qalamoun Mountains along the Lebanese border, which were
crucial for controlling supply routes. Hezbollah’s involvement not only reinforced Assad’s position
but also demonstrated Iran’s commitment to using its regional alliances to secure its interests.

Iran’s intervention has cemented its influence in Syria, transforming the country into a key part
of its regional network. By supporting Assad, Iran not only prevented a potential regime change
but also established a direct line of influence stretching from Tehran to Beirut. This influence
has enabled Iran to maintain pressure on Israel, as Iranian-supported forces in Syria have
occasionally clashed with Israeli forces, escalating regional tensions.

US Operations in Syria:

Operation Inherent Resolve (2014 - Present)

Operation Inherent Resolve is the overarching U.S.-led campaign against ISIS, which began in
September 2014. The operation encompasses airstrikes, ground operations, and coalition
efforts aimed at degrading and ultimately defeating ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. The operation
consists of several components:

● Airstrikes and Intelligence Operations: Following the rise of ISIS and its rapid territorial
gains in Syria and Iraq, the U.S. initiated a campaign of airstrikes targeting ISIS
positions, infrastructure, and leadership. These air operations have been extensive, with
thousands of airstrikes conducted against ISIS strongholds in key cities such as Raqqa,
Aleppo, and Deir ez-Zor. The U.S. has also provided intelligence support to local forces,
enhancing their ability to engage ISIS effectively.
● Support for Local Forces: A crucial aspect of Operation Inherent Resolve has been the
support provided to local ground forces, particularly the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic
 Forces (SDF). The U.S. has supplied the SDF with weapons, training, and intelligence,
enabling them to capture significant territory from ISIS. The SDF played a vital role in the
liberation of Raqqa in 2017, which was a symbolic victory against ISIS, as it served as
the group's de facto capital.
● Coalition Building: The U.S. has worked to build an international coalition to combat
ISIS, which includes several European and Middle Eastern countries. This coalition has
facilitated the sharing of intelligence, coordinated airstrikes, and provided humanitarian
assistance to civilians affected by the conflict. The U.S. has also involved regional
partners, including Arab states, in the fight against ISIS.

Operation Timber Sycamore (2013 - 2017)

Operation Timber Sycamore was a covert CIA program aimed at training and equipping
moderate Syrian rebel groups in their fight against the Assad regime. Launched in 2013, the
operation aimed to strengthen non-extremist factions within the Syrian opposition. However, it
faced significant challenges, including:

● Vetting and Security Issues: The program struggled to effectively vet rebel groups,
leading to instances where U.S. weapons and support fell into the hands of extremist
factions, including ISIS and al-Nusra Front (now part of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham). This
issue raised questions about the effectiveness of U.S. support and the fragmentation of
the opposition.
● Limited Impact: While Timber Sycamore had some initial successes in bolstering
moderate groups, the overall impact on the conflict was limited, particularly as more
radical groups gained strength and the Syrian military, backed by Iran and Russia,
intensified its campaigns against opposition forces.

Direct Action Against ISIS Leaders

In addition to broader military operations, the U.S. has conducted targeted operations to
eliminate key ISIS leaders:
 ● Targeted Airstrikes: The U.S. has executed several airstrikes aimed at high-profile ISIS
leaders, including the operation that killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in October
2019. Baghdadi was located in a compound in Idlib Province, and his death marked a
significant blow to the organization, although ISIS remains active with a decentralized
structure.
● Raids and Ground Operations: Special Operations forces have conducted various
ground raids against ISIS cells and hideouts, aiming to disrupt the group’s operations
and gather intelligence. These operations have included joint missions with partner
forces to capture or kill ISIS operatives and recover vital information about the group's
activities.

In December 2018, President Trump announced a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria,
arguing that ISIS had been defeated. This announcement prompted significant concern from
U.S. allies and partners regarding the potential resurgence of ISIS and the vulnerability of the
SDF to Turkish military operations. Despite the withdrawal announcements, a significant U.S.
military presence remains in eastern Syria to protect oil fields and support local forces.

● Protection of Oil Resources: After the partial withdrawal, the U.S. military focused on
securing oil fields in eastern Syria, which are vital to preventing ISIS from gaining
revenue. This has involved deploying troops to protect these resources and deter any
advances by ISIS or other hostile forces.
● Continued Engagement Against ISIS: The U.S. has maintained operations against ISIS
sleeper cells and remnant forces, conducting airstrikes and ground missions in
coordination with the SDF. The focus remains on preventing the resurgence of ISIS and
ensuring regional stability.
 Timeline
2011: Beginnings of the Uprising

March 6: Security forces arrest a group of teenagers in Daraa for graffiti calling for the fall of the
Assad regime. This incident sparks anger across Syria.
March 15: Protests begin in Damascus, with demonstrators calling for greater freedoms and the
release of political prisoners.
March 18: Protests spread to Daraa. Security forces open fire on protesters, killing several,
which fuels more protests and unrest.
April 25: The Syrian army launches a major military crackdown in Daraa, signaling a shift to
more aggressive tactics against demonstrators.
May 6: Assad deploys tanks and security forces in Baniyas and other cities; civilian deaths
increase.
June 4: The Syrian government begins an intense crackdown in Jisr al-Shughour, escalating
military operations.
August 18: U.S. President Barack Obama and European leaders call on Assad to step down.
October 2: The Syrian National Council (SNC), a coalition of opposition groups, forms to
organize opposition efforts.
November 12: The Arab League suspends Syria’s membership and imposes sanctions in
response to the Assad regime’s violent crackdown.
December 12: The Syrian military intensifies attacks on Homs, marking one of the most violent
periods in the uprising.

2012: Civil War Escalation

February 4: The Syrian army attacks Homs, resulting in hundreds of civilian casualties. This
sparks international condemnation.
July 15: Fighting reaches Damascus, marking the beginning of the “Battle of Damascus.”
July 19: The “Battle of Aleppo” begins as rebel forces attempt to take control of the city.
August 15: The U.S. and Turkey announce plans to coordinate support for the Syrian
opposition.
September 26: The Free Syrian Army (FSA) relocates its command center from Turkey into
Syria.
November 11: The National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces forms in
Qatar as the main opposition umbrella group.
December 12: The U.S. formally recognizes the National Coalition as the legitimate
representative of the Syrian people.
2013: Chemical Weapons and Increased Foreign Involvement
March 19: Reports emerge of a chemical weapons attack in Khan al-Assal, with both sides
blaming each other.
August 21: A large-scale chemical weapons attack occurs in Ghouta, killing hundreds. The
Syrian government denies responsibility.
September 14: The U.S. and Russia agree on a deal for Syria to dismantle its chemical
weapons arsenal.
October 6: The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) begins
inspections in Syria to oversee the dismantling process.
2014: Rise of ISIS and U.S. Intervention
January 3: ISIS seizes control of Raqqa and declares it their capital in Syria.
June 29: ISIS declares a “caliphate” spanning parts of Syria and Iraq.
September 10: U.S. President Obama authorizes airstrikes against ISIS in Syria as part of
Operation Inherent Resolve.
September 23: The U.S. and coalition forces begin airstrikes against ISIS in Syria.

2015: Russian Intervention

September 30: Russia launches its first airstrikes in Syria, targeting both ISIS and anti-Assad
rebels.
October 7: Russia intensifies its air campaign, bolstering Assad’s forces and helping to turn the
tide in key areas.
December 25: Syrian forces, with Russian air support, retake key territory in Latakia Province.
2016: Siege of Aleppo and Increased Violence
February 27: A U.S.-Russia-brokered ceasefire goes into effect, but it quickly unravels.
July 17: Syrian government forces encircle rebel-held eastern Aleppo, beginning a brutal siege.
September 19: A UN aid convoy is attacked near Aleppo, leading to a humanitarian crisis.
December 22: Syrian government forces recapture Aleppo, marking a major turning point in the
conflict.

2017: U.S. Strikes and Territorial Shifts

April 4: A chemical weapons attack in Khan Shaykhun kills over 80 civilians.

April 7: In response, the U.S. launches 59 Tomahawk missiles at Syria’s Shayrat airbase,
marking the first direct U.S. attack on Assad’s forces.
October 17: U.S.-backed SDF forces retake Raqqa from ISIS, effectively ending ISIS control in
its self-declared capital.

2018: Chemical Attacks and Western Airstrikes

February 7: U.S. forces conduct airstrikes on pro-government forces in Deir ez-Zor, killing
dozens of Russian mercenaries.
April 7: Another chemical attack is reported in Douma, with dozens killed.
April 14: The U.S., UK, and France launch coordinated airstrikes on Syrian chemical weapons
facilities in response to the Douma attack.
August 2: Assad’s forces, backed by Russia, prepare a final assault on Idlib, Syria’s last major
opposition stronghold.

2019: Turkish Operations and U.S. Withdrawal

October 6: U.S. announces the withdrawal of its troops from northeastern Syria, leading to
backlash and concerns over the fate of Kurdish allies.
October 9: Turkey launches Operation Peace Spring in northern Syria, targeting Kurdish forces
and causing widespread displacement.
October 26: ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi dies in a U.S. raid in Idlib.

2020: Idlib Offensive and COVID-19 Challenges

March 5: A Russian-Turkish ceasefire goes into effect in Idlib, temporarily halting hostilities.
March 23: The UN calls for a global ceasefire, but clashes continue intermittently in various
parts of Syria.
April 1: Syria confirms its first cases of COVID-19, raising concerns about the virus’s impact on
an already devastated healthcare system.

2021 - 2023: Stalemate, Sanctions, and Ongoing Violence

June 23, 2021: The U.S. renews sanctions on the Assad government under the Caesar Act,
aimed at pressuring the regime through economic restrictions.
March 2022: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine diverts global attention and some Russian resources
away from Syria, though Russia maintains a presence.
May 2023: Sporadic clashes continue in various regions, as well as airstrikes by Israel targeting
Iranian-linked sites.
The Syrian conflict remains unresolved, with Assad in control of most of the country but
significant areas still held by opposition forces, Kurdish-led forces, and foreign powers including
the U.S. and Turkey.
 RULES OF PROCEDURE
Although we will be explaining the ROP in detail before the commencement of the committee,
please do go through this to understand the basics of the ROP.
MOTIONS
SETTING THE AGENDA
Delegate of ___________ would like to raise a motion to set the agenda as ________________.
ESTABLISHING A GSL
Delegate of ___________ would like to raise a motion to establish the general speakers’ list with
an individual speaker’s time of __________.
MODERATED CAUCUSES
Delegate of ____________ would like to raise a motion to suspend formal debate and move into
a moderated caucus on the topic ______________ for a total time of __________ minutes with
individual speaker’s time being ______________.
UNMODERATED CAUCUSES

Delegate of _____________ would like to raise a motion to suspend formal debate and move
into an unmoderated caucus for a total time of ____________ minutes.
EXTENSION TO INFORMAL DEBATE

Delegate of _____________ would like to raise a motion to extend the current moderated /
unmoderated caucus by ____________ minutes.

POINTS
POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
Personal inconvenience e.g., inaudibility of some part of the speech of another Delegate
POINT OF ORDER
Used to point out inaccuracies in procedure and if allowed, even on factual inaccuracies within
the speeches of other delegates CANNOT interrupt an active speaker
POINT OF PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Used to clarify doubts on the rules of procedure CANNOT interrupt a speaker

POINT OF INFORMATION
Used to ask questions to other delegates on their speeches CANNOT interrupt an active speaker
 YIELDS
YIELD TO POINTS OF INFORMATION
Yielding the remaining time to other delegates so that they can question you on the speech you
made.

YIELD TO ANOTHER DELEGATE

Yielding remaining time to some specific delegate to let her/him make her/his speech. Prior
consent to the yield by the other delegate is necessary.
YIELD TO THE EXECUTIVE BOARD
Yielding the remaining time to the EB. Such yielded time is deemed elapsed by the EB but not
always. Such time usage is up to the discretion of the EB.

NOTE: This BG is meant to provide context only and by no means is meant to act as a
substitute to your individual research. Please come prepared for the council.