As violence in Syria deepens, with the Assad regime using ballistic missiles and, reportedly, nerve gas, against civilians, the U.S. and its allies continue to search for viable options to shorten the conflict and place Syria on the path to political transition. Few options have received as much attention as the idea of creating a no fly zone (NFZ) over part of all of Syria. However, while debate over the NFZ option intensifies, far less attention has been paid to the military, diplomatic, and regional complexities that such a move would entail. To inform and deepen this debate, the U.S. Institute of Peace convened a panel of distinguished experts to discuss the diplomatic, strategic, tactical, and political implications involved.

Panel at USIP: A Syrian No Fly Zone: Options and Constraints
Photo Credit: The New York Times

Now in its third year, with no end in sight, the Syrian uprising against the authoritarian government of Bashar al-Assad has brought devastation, death, and displacement to the country.  Today, more than a quarter of Syrians have fled their homes. Some 250,000 Syrians have been killed, wounded, or are missing. By the end of 2013, half of all Syrians, more than 11 million people, could need assistance in what the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, has called the worst humanitarian crisis the U.N. has ever faced.

As violence deepens, with the Assad regime using ballistic missiles and, reportedly, nerve gas, against civilians, the U.S. and its allies continue to search for viable options to shorten the conflict, bring the regime and the opposition to the negotiating table, and place Syria on the path of political transition.

Few options have received as much attention as the idea of creating a no fly zone (NFZ) over part or all of Syria. The Syrian opposition has appealed to the international community to create a NFZ. Members of Congress have called on the Obama administration to embrace an NFZ as the most effective way to protect Syrian civilians and achieve a political solution.

While debate around the NFZ option intensifies, there has been far less attention to the military, diplomatic, and regional complexities that such a move would entail. To inform and deepen the debate over an NFZ for Syria, the U.S. Institute of Peace convened a panel of distinguished experts to discuss the diplomatic, strategic, tactical, and political implications involved.

Speakers

Steven Heydemann, Moderator
Senior Advisor, Middle East Initiatives, U.S. Institute of Peace

Ambassador Frederic C. Hof
Senior Fellow, Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, Atlantic Council

Lt. General David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.)
Senior Military Scholar, U.S. Air Force Academy

Jon Alterman
Zbigniew Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy and Director of the Middle East Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies

Joseph Holliday
Fellow, Institute for Study of War

Related Publications

What Can We Learn from Syria’s Devastating Decade of War?

What Can We Learn from Syria’s Devastating Decade of War?

Monday, March 15, 2021

By: Mona Yacoubian

As the Syrian conflict marks its 10th anniversary, the protest movement from which it emerged stands as perhaps the most consequential of the Arab uprisings. The March 2011 peaceful protests that erupted across Syria have since evolved into the world’s most complex conflict. Equally significant, the conflict’s trajectory provides important insights into the complexity of the challenges that lie ahead in Syria, with significant ramifications for the region and the broader international community.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

What is Russia’s Endgame in Syria?

What is Russia’s Endgame in Syria?

Tuesday, February 16, 2021

By: Mona Yacoubian

Five years into Russia’s military intervention in Syria, understanding Moscow’s endgame could provide critical insights into the decade-long conflict’s trajectory, as well as Russia’s posture in the Middle East and beyond. Although still evolving and subject to internal debates, Moscow’s Syria strategy appears to be centered on a “spheres of influence” model. In this model, Syria is divided into distinct realms under the sway of competing external patrons.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

The Best Hope for Sustained De-escalation in Syria

The Best Hope for Sustained De-escalation in Syria

Wednesday, November 18, 2020

By: Mona Yacoubian

As the conflict in Syria approaches its 10th anniversary, a holistic political settlement encompassing the entirety of the country is unlikely in the near to medium term. More than eight years of diplomatic initiatives have yielded only limited results. The two principal tracks—the Geneva and the Astana/Sochi processes—are running up against the complexity of the conflict and an emboldened Assad regime; neither process is sufficient on its own to generate momentum toward a lasting political settlement for the whole of Syria. However, creatively bridging these two processes could bring greater stability to those areas of Syria still beyond the Assad regime’s control, assuaging the suffering of some Syrians, and potentially serving as a building block for a longer-term settlement.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

View All Publications