AP
The fall of the Assad regime will affect the entire Middle East
In just two weeks, the Assad dynasty, founded by Hafez — Bashar al-Assad’s father — collapsed. His army surrendered virtually without a fight, fleeing and laying down their arms. The Syrian president himself first disappeared, only to reappear later with his family in Russia, where they were granted asylum.
Right now, all major international news channels are broadcasting footage of revolutionary masses toppling monuments, celebrating and kicking the statue of the fallen president’s father. This is very similar to what we saw in Iraq and Libya in 2010 during the Arab Spring. Riding on a toppled statue of a ruler being dragged by a tractor is almost a classic national pastime during Arab revolutions.
In my view, this turn of events was largely predetermined by the artificial way in which states were created in the Middle East by European powers. In 1916, British and French diplomats reached the Sykes-Picot agreement, which defined the borders of modern Syria. By drawing these borders on the map, they sowed the seeds of instability that still reverberate today. It was a completely arbitrary decision to place different national minorities under one central authority: Alawites, Sunnis, Kurds, Druze, and Christians, who were already deeply hostile to one another. An even greater problem arose when the Alawites (including the Assad clan), who make up only 10–15% of the population, came to dominate the Sunni majority. It was obvious that everyone was unhappy and that sooner or later the lid would be blown off this simmering cauldron of contradictions. That is exactly what happened. It’s not surprising that France — one of the powers that helped create such an unstable Syria — was the first Western country to congratulate the opposition on the fall of the Assad regime.
Moreover, we must not forget that Salafi Sunnis hate Salafi Shiites, and Iran’s Shiite intervention in Syria created another precondition for a bloody conflict. Not surprisingly, once the Iranian Shiite jihadists were pushed out, Sunni jihadists backed by Turkey and Qatar stepped in: ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), and the Muslim Brotherhood (all of which are banned in Russia).
Today, there are three main forces in Syria: in the north, the Turkish-Qatari proxies HTS and the Syrian National Army (SNA) — the armed Syrian opposition. In the east, there are the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), backed by the Americans, who want to create an independent state of Kurdistan. The SDF has taken control of areas abandoned by Assad’s army, increasing its «zone of responsibility» in Syria to about 40%, which deeply displeases Turkey.
In the south, the Free Syrian Army and local forces of the Southern Front are active.
In other words, a unified Syria does not currently exist, and it is highly doubtful that the country will reunite into a single state.
It remains unclear what will happen to the coastal areas of Tartus and Latakia, populated by Alawites and home to Russia’s Khmeimim air base and its naval supply facility. On the one hand, the Alawites, the group to which Assad belongs, must desperately resist, because the Middle East does not forgive anyone associated with a deposed ruling clan. On the other hand, there are reports that uprisings have begun there as well. I assume that the fate of the Russian bases will be handled by our diplomats once it becomes clearer who is in power. The Russian Foreign Ministry has stated that it is in contact with all opposition groups in Syria.
It’s logical to assume that the status of Russia’s bases in Syria could become a bargaining chip in negotiations with Turkey, which could use it as leverage to secure favorable gas contracts with Russia.
There are also armed Druze groups in Syria. They were once loyal to the Assad regime, but after their villages were shelled by Hezbollah (which fought on Assad’s side), they turned against the regime.
The situation is becoming so confused that it could lead to a «war of all against all», setting off a chain reaction throughout the Middle East. For example, Jaish al-Adl — a Baloch organization seeking a Balochistan free from Iranian control — and the Iranian opposition may decide that now is the time to overthrow the ayatollahs’ regime. In Yemen, where there are also many people unhappy with the pro-Iranian Houthis, the successful Syrian opposition could inspire them to rise up. It is not impossible that the region will descend into a full-scale war between Shiites and Sunnis.
It must be recognized that the situation around Iran is becoming extremely unfavorable. A senior member of Iran’s IRGC told the New York Times after all Iranian forces left Syria: «The fall of Syria is like the fall of the Berlin Wall for the Iranian Axis of Resistance». Hezbollah in Lebanon is now completely isolated from its sponsor and ideological inspiration, Iran.
Obviously, one of the interested parties is Israel, which is watching the unfolding events in Syria with concern because it’s a neighboring country. On the one hand, Israel wants to see Iran’s forces — its adversaries — completely driven out of Syria. On the other hand, it’s unclear how the Turkish proxies that have come to power will behave.
According to Israeli media reports, the Israeli Air Force is already bombing abandoned weapons depots to prevent them from falling into the hands of HTS and other anti-Assad fighters. The IDF has officially confirmed that while it is not intervening in the ongoing events, it has deployed ground forces in the buffer zone to ensure the security of Israeli communities on the Golan Heights.
Moreover, Israel has already warned Turkish proxies (HTS): «If you cross the 1974 cease-fire line, we will have to act against you», and the IDF Chief of Staff has declared that Israel will take an «offensive response» in Syria. In Tel Aviv, they understand that they will have to talk to Erdoğan, with whom relations are currently less than ideal.
Europe will not remain on the sidelines either. If Turkey, which currently hosts 3 million Syrian refugees, decides to send them back, Europe faces the prospect of receiving 1.5 million new Syrian refugees. So far, Europe has taken in refugees who opposed the Assad regime, but now Assad’s supporters will also flee. This will create major problems when these antagonistic refugee groups meet in European countries.
Even the Ukrainians have been drawn into this bloody situation, willing to help anyone who can inflict even minimal damage on Russian interests. In response, the Iranian Foreign Ministry has demanded that Ukraine immediately stop supplying weapons to terrorists in Syria.
What will happen next in the new Syria, and will it remain a state at all? For now, the leader of the Salafi-jihadist group HTS, Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, who is leading the Turkish coalition’s offensive in Syria, said in his first interview with international media: «The aim of the revolution is to overthrow Assad. We will create a government based on a people’s council, which will be institutional and not dependent on a single ruler who makes arbitrary decisions». But unfortunately, behind the pleasant assurances of a wonderful new people’s government, the concrete goals of the states behind these proxies — in this case Turkey — always emerge. President Erdoğan sees himself as a leader who will revive the Ottoman Empire. Commenting on the fall of the Syrian regime, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said: «During the transitional period, we must remain vigilant. We are maintaining contacts with various groups to prevent terrorist organizations such as the Islamic State and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party from taking advantage of the situation». The Turks are categorically opposed to the idea of Kurdish statehood.
I anticipate the gloating commentary that Russia was unable to save the Assad regime. Although Moscow helped him stay afloat for years, Bashar never drew the conclusion that, in the 21st century, basing a policy solely on the physical destruction of opponents is a dead end for the development of a state. He failed to learn the lessons of modern history. There were no attempts to establish contacts with all opposing sides, to overcome total corruption, or to carry out democratic reforms. His complacency — «I have allies in Iran and Russia, so my problems are entirely theirs, and therefore I can do nothing» — led him to political collapse.
And what about America? President Trump has already said that the war in Syria is «not our war», but the Americans have no plans to leave Syria. They’ve warned that any attacks on American military bases will be met with retaliation.
It is clear that if events unfold in a way that does not suit the White House, the Americans will intervene more actively, relying on the Kurds as allies. Thus, all parties with interests in Syria — the U.S., Qatar, Turkey, Iran and Russia — will now negotiate. The outcome of these talks will determine whether Syria remains a unified country or descends into an endless religious and civil war.