Arshad Mahmood Awan
The weekend marked a dramatic turning point in Syria’s turbulent history, with the fall of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, bringing an end to over 50 years of authoritarian rule by the Assad family. Syrian rebels seized the capital, Damascus, just hours after Assad fled to Moscow, signaling the collapse of a regime that had been at the center of a brutal and bloody civil war. The immediate response from Syrians, both within the country and in the diaspora, was one of celebration. For many, this moment marked the end of a repressive dictatorship that had devastated the nation, contributing to the deaths of over half a million people during the 13-year-long conflict. Social media platforms were filled with expressions of triumph as people hailed the end of what many viewed as a dark era in Syria’s history.
However, while the euphoria surrounding Assad’s fall is understandable, it would be naïve to frame this development as the simple culmination of a popular struggle against an oppressive regime. The speed and timing of Assad’s downfall raise crucial questions about the true forces at play in Syria’s ongoing conflict. The Syrian Civil War has never been just a domestic issue; it has long been a battleground for global and regional powers, each with its own interests. What initially appeared to be an internal revolt against Assad’s authoritarian rule quickly transformed into a multi-sided conflict involving the United States, Israel, Russia, Iran, and several regional actors. These powers, rather than simply supporting opposing sides, have manipulated the conflict for their own gain, further complicating Syria’s already fragile situation.
It is crucial to understand that Assad’s fall was not just a result of internal rebellion, but was heavily influenced by international dynamics. The key players in the Syrian conflict have seen significant shifts in their influence in recent years. Two developments—Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine and the dramatic events of October 7, 2023—have severely weakened Assad’s key backers, Russia and Iran. These changes directly impacted the stability of Assad’s regime. Iran’s role in supporting Assad, particularly through Hezbollah and other militias, had been a central element in the battle against the Syrian opposition. However, the brutal actions of Israeli forces, particularly their strike against Hezbollah’s leadership, further eroded Iran’s ability to support Assad effectively. In this broader context, Syria became an indirect player in Iran’s “axis of resistance” against the U.S. and Israel.
With the weakening of this “axis of resistance,” many analysts argue that the fall of Assad represents as much a victory for U.S. and Israeli imperial interests as it does for the Syrian opposition. For Washington and Tel Aviv, Assad’s removal is seen as a strategic win, eliminating a major obstacle to their interests in the region, especially regarding Israel’s occupation of parts of Syria. This shift gives the U.S. and Israel greater flexibility in their broader regional policies, including a more aggressive stance toward Palestinian territories and the Iranian-backed militias operating throughout the Middle East.
Yet, this “victory” comes with significant risks, especially considering the history of U.S. intervention in the Middle East. From Iraq to Libya to Afghanistan, Western interventions have often created power vacuums, destabilizing entire regions and leading to the rise of extremist groups and terrorist organizations. In the case of Syria, this intervention has fueled the rise of groups such as Daesh (ISIS) and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), both of which were initially linked to Al-Qaeda. While Daesh has been significantly weakened, HTS has emerged as the dominant force within the opposition.
HTS, led by Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, has undergone a remarkable transformation. Once an extremist with close ties to Daesh and responsible for sectarian violence, Jolani has rebranded himself as a pragmatist, willing to present a more moderate image to the international community. His group now promises safety to minorities and stability, a dramatic shift from its earlier militant ideology. However, whether this transformation is genuine or simply a tactical move to gain favor with international powers, particularly the U.S. and Israel, remains to be seen. History teaches us to be cautious when it comes to U.S.-backed groups, particularly in the context of the Middle East. In many instances, the groups supported by the West have proven to be just as dangerous and destabilizing as the regimes they replaced.
Syria’s future, therefore, remains uncertain. The removal of Assad, while a significant moment, is unlikely to be the end of the country’s troubles. In fact, it may mark the beginning of a new and potentially more chaotic chapter. The collapse of the Assad regime could lead to further fragmentation, with various factions vying for control over different parts of the country. The promise of a peaceful, democratic future, which many in the West are hoping for, is a dubious one at best. Given Syria’s sectarian divides, its history of ethnic and religious conflict, and the involvement of numerous foreign powers, the likelihood of stability seems remote. The possibility of renewed conflict, fueled by both internal and external forces, remains a real threat.
Moreover, the broader implications for the region are troubling. A destabilized Syria could have a domino effect, spilling over into neighboring countries and exacerbating already fragile situations in Lebanon, Iraq, and beyond. The presence of extremist groups, the resurgence of sectarianism, and the continued interference of foreign powers could create a volatile environment that destabilizes not only Syria but the entire region. The promise of an end to conflict in Syria is, for now, an illusion. The reality is that the country’s future is uncertain, and it is likely to remain in turmoil for years to come.
At the same time, the geopolitics of the region have shifted. The end of the Assad regime represents the dissolution of the so-called “axis of resistance” that had once challenged U.S. and Israeli interests. With Assad gone, the U.S. and Israel have a freer hand in pursuing their policies in the region. The potential for further military intervention, whether in Syria or in neighboring areas, remains high. The West’s ability to exert influence over the region may increase, but this comes with significant risks of further destabilization. The shift in power also raises important questions about the role of Russia, Iran, and other regional actors moving forward. These powers will likely seek to reshape the Middle East in their own interests, adding yet another layer of complexity to an already volatile situation.
In conclusion, while the fall of Assad and the end of his regime are significant milestones, they should not be viewed through rose-colored glasses. The situation in Syria remains precarious, and the true consequences of Assad’s departure will only become clear over time. The involvement of external powers, the rise of extremist groups, and the lack of any coherent plan for Syria’s future all point to a potentially grim reality. As history has shown, the removal of one tyrant often paves the way for the rise of another, and Syria’s future may be one of continued conflict, division, and suffering. Optimism, in this case, should be approached with caution, and the global community should remain vigilant in ensuring that Syria does not fall further into chaos.