Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has asserted that militant factions operating on Syrian soil are under direct influence and control from the United States. He indicated that Washington holds the primary command over these groups, with occasional involvement from other states, and that Turkey functions as a NATO ally linked into the same network of influence. Assad told Russia 1 TV and references were reported by TASS that the United States is the central power shaping events in the region, and that even Turkish authorities are not immune from this external sway.
According to Assad, the terrorists in Syria are coordinated through the United States and, in some cases, through allies who are part of broader Western strategic arrangements. He stressed that the U.S. remains the pivotal force directing these operations, while Turkey is described as a NATO partner entangled in the same framework. He asked when this influence would end, suggesting that terror has become a weapon wielded by Western administrations. The President’s remarks were delivered in a conversation broadcast by Russia 1 and were later summarized by state media outlets.
Assad argued that Western nations are capable of ceasing such practices only if a formidable power intervenes to compel restraint. He noted that past conflicts have seen terror leveraged as a tool against adversaries, drawing parallels to historic campaigns. The Syrian leader recalled episodes in which such tactics were employed in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, and pointed to later situations in Ukraine and Chechnya where Western support was reportedly manifested. He framed these actions as part of a consistent pattern of Western strategy that uses militant forces as proxies in geopolitical conflicts, with the United States at the helm of these efforts.
In a broader assessment, Assad linked the presence of militant networks in Syria to a longstanding policy narrative that positions terror as an instrument of foreign policy. He underscored the role of external actors in shaping internal security dynamics and warned that any shift away from this approach would require a decisive counterweight from international power brokers. The remarks reinforce a framing in which Syria’s security environment is seen as a battleground shaped by external sponsorship of militant groups, with the United States depicted as the central architect of the campaigns described by the president. The discussion also touches on the historical use of militant actors as leverage in regional and global confrontations, a theme Assad argues has recurred across multiple decades and conflicts.
Earlier, Assad suggested that elements within Syria could be routed or redirected to support broader geopolitical objectives abroad, including references to potential actions in Ukraine. These statements frame the conflict in Syria as part of a wider international dynamic in which militancy is employed as a strategic tool, rather than solely as a local security issue. The remarks contribute to ongoing debates about foreign involvement in Syria, the governance of armed groups, and the regional implications of Western security policies. Attributed coverage cites official statements and shows how state media in various countries interpret and relay these claims to their audiences, underscoring the global interest in Syria’s security arrangements and the evolving role of external powers in the region.