The Fall of The Assad House and The Task of Reshaping Syria’s Future

By Omar Haraco

The Assad family’s rule over Syria began with Hafez al-Assad’s military coup in 1970, in which leadership was marked by a focus on stability and control, often at the expense of political freedoms and human rights. His foreign policy positioned Syria as a pivotal player in Middle Eastern geopolitics, balancing relationships with the Soviet Union and regional Arab states. Upon Hafez’s death in 2000, his son Bashar al-Assad assumed the presidency, initially raising hopes for reform and modernization. However, Bashar’s tenure quickly mirrored his father’s, with increased repression and resistance to political change, setting the stage for future unrest and conflict.

The Arab Spring of 2011 was a watershed moment for the Middle East, as citizens across the region demanded greater political freedoms and an end to autocratic rule. In Syria, these demands manifested in widespread protests calling for democratic reforms and the release of political prisoners. The Assad regime’s response was swift and brutal, employing military force to suppress dissent. This heavy-handed approach transformed peaceful protests into a full-scale civil war, as opposition groups took up arms against the regime. Unlike other Arab Spring movements, which saw relatively swift regime changes, Syria’s conflict became protracted and complex, drawing in many domestic and international actors with competing interests.

Descending into Perpetual Chaos

The Syrian civil war has been one of the most devastating conflicts of the 21st century, resulting in a humanitarian catastrophe. The war has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced millions, both internally and as refugees in neighboring countries, mainly Türkiye, and beyond. The conflict has fragmented Syria, with various factions controlling different territories. The Assad regime, backed by Russia and Iran, has managed to retain control over significant parts of Syria, but at a tremendous human and economic cost. The war has decimated infrastructure, crippled the economy, and left a generation of Syrians traumatized and without access to basic services. Syria has become a battleground for regional and global powers, each supporting different factions to further their strategic interests. Iran and Russia have been staunch allies of the Assad regime, providing military and economic support to bolster its position. Conversely, the United States, Turkey, and Gulf states have supported various opposition groups, each with their agendas. This proxy warfare has complicated peace efforts and prolonged the conflict, as external actors prioritize their geopolitical goals over the well-being of the Syrian people. The involvement of these powers has turned Syria into a chessboard for international rivalry, resolving increasingly elusive.

Despite periods of intense fighting, the Syrian conflict eventually settled into a “frozen” state, with no clear resolution in sight. The Assad regime remained in power, but its control was tenuous, and the country became effectively partitioned. This stalemate left Syria in a state of perpetual instability, with dire humanitarian consequences. The lack of a decisive military victory for any side resulted in a fragmented landscape, where local ceasefires and de facto borders created a semblance of stability, but without addressing the underlying issues. This frozen conflict posed significant challenges for any future peace process, as entrenched interests and grievances continued to fester.

Assad’s Fall and its Implications

The sudden and swift fall of the Assad regime was catalyzed by a complex interplay of regional dynamics, particularly involving Iran, Lebanon, and their longstanding struggle with Israel. Iran, a staunch ally of Assad, had been deeply involved in supporting the Syrian regime through military and logistical aid. However, the ongoing struggle between Iran and Israel also played a crucial role. Israel, concerned about Iran’s influence in Syria and the potential transfer of advanced weaponry to Hezbollah, conducted numerous airstrikes against Iranian targets within Syria. This persistent military pressure from Israel disrupted Iranian operations and further weakened the Assad regime’s strategic position. As Iran’s ability to project power in Syria waned, the Assad regime found itself increasingly isolated. Lebanon, closely tied to Syria through political and sectarian links, was significantly impacted by the Syrian conflict. Hezbollah, a powerful Lebanese militia and political entity, had been actively involved in supporting Assad, further entangling Lebanon in the regional power struggle. However, Lebanon’s own political and economic crises, compounded by the influx of Syrian refugees, strained its resources and limited its ability to influence the outcome in Syria. Amidst these shifting dynamics, Turkey seized the opportunity to expand its influence in northern Syria. With the Assad regime weakened Turkey moved to solidify its control over border areas, primarily to counter Kurdish forces, which it viewed as a national security threat. Turkey’s actions further complicated the regional landscape, as it sought to shape the post-conflict political environment to its advantage. These regional dynamics, combined with the shifting focus of Russia toward its own geopolitical interests, notably in Ukraine, left the Assad regime without the robust external support it had previously relied upon. The culmination of these factors, diminished Iranian support, Lebanon’s internal struggles, Israel’s strategic interventions, and Turkey’s opportunistic moves, contributed significantly to the eventual fall of the Assad regime, reshaping the political landscape of the region.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), led by Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, who later became known as Ahmed al-Sharaa, had emerged as a significant force in the Syrian conflict. As a former affiliate of al-Qaeda, HTS operated primarily in the Idlib region, where it established a quasi-state, imposing its own governance and legal systems. Although it did not directly challenge the Assad regime’s control over major cities, HTS’s presence posed a continuous threat to stability and complicated peace negotiations. The group’s extremist ideology and military capabilities made it a formidable actor, capable of disrupting any attempts at a political settlement. Turkey played a complex role in the Syrian conflict, driven by a combination of security concerns and regional ambitions. Ankara supported various opposition groups, including factions within the Free Syrian Army (FSA), to counter the Assad regime and influence the outcome of the conflict. Additionally, Turkey conducted military operations against Kurdish forces, particularly the People’s Protection Units (YPG), which it perceived as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), a group designated as a terrorist organization by Turkey. Turkey also targeted ISIS as part of its broader security strategy. Ankara’s interests in Syria were primarily focused on preventing the establishment of a Kurdish autonomous region along its border, which it viewed as a threat to its national security. Furthermore, Turkey sought to influence the post-conflict political landscape to ensure a favorable outcome. As a key player, Ankara’s actions and policies significantly impact the future of Syria and the broader region.

New Down for the Syrians

With the promise of reuniting Syrians and help building a solid foundation for democratic institutions eventually leading to civilian elections, Ahmed al-Sharaa was named as Syria’s transitional president. The interim president is also expected to form a temporary legislative body that carries out the task of drafting a new constitution. The daunting tasks that lie ahead also include unifying the fragmented security forced into one national army. For now, the path forward for Syria and the broader region involves several critical steps to ensure a stable and prosperous future. First and foremost, the international community must intensify diplomatic efforts to facilitate a comprehensive political settlement that includes all relevant stakeholders, former regime elements, opposition groups, Kurdish factions, and civil society representatives. This inclusive approach is essential to foster national reconciliation and prevent the resurgence of conflict. It could also provide an opportunity for political transition and reconstruction in Syria, provided there is a concerted international effort to support such a process. A successful transition could serve as a model for resolving other conflicts in the region, potentially promoting greater stability and cooperation. However, ensuring a peaceful and constructive outcome will require careful navigation of the complex political and social landscapes in the Middle East.

Omar Haraco is a researcher and political analyst based in Istanbul, Türkiye.

You can reach him at [email protected]