The sudden collapse of the Syrian government and seizure of power by the insurgent group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS, is probably the most consequential geopolitical development of the past week or so—no small feat, as it comes on the heels of a sophomoric attempt at a self-coup in South Korea and the abrogation of electoral results in Romania.
The fall of the Assad regime signals a new stage in the disintegration of a geopolitical order that has been in place since the Cold War, forcing adaptation by the United States and regional actors. The new order that is emerging doesn’t bode well for either the Syrian people or US influence.
After years of civil war in Syria, which began with anti-government protests in 2011, it seemed as though President Bashar al-Assad had consolidated control over most of the country, with assistance from Russia and Iran. The various insurgent groups active in the country—ranging from the Turkish-supported Syrian National Army, the Western-backed Kurdish coalition, and various jihadist organizations associated with Al Qaeda or Islamic State, among others—appeared to have been neutralized by the Assad regime’s brutal methods of repression. However, an unexpected resurgence of opposition forces led to the sudden crumbling of the Syrian government and the Assad family’s flight to Moscow.
Assad’s deposition marks the end of 61 years of Ba’ath Party rule in Syria. A series of coups and factional splits within the Ba’ath Party in the 1960s led to the ascent of his father, Hafez al-Assad, to the presidency in 1971, where he remained until his death in 2000. The elder Assad’s tenure saw the establishment of Syria as an active geopolitical power in the Middle East and the consolidation of a totalitarian regime founded on numerous spy agencies that surveilled each other as well as the populace, the violent elimination of political opposition, and a state-manufactured cult of personality.
Bashar, a London-based ophthalmologist, was his father’s third choice of heir. While he is often portrayed in Western media as the feeble failson of one of history’s great strongmen, his maintaining of a 21st-century dictatorship for nearly a quarter century shows otherwise. His ability to hold onto power for more than a decade despite the Arab Spring, an array of regional insurgencies, and widespread international delegitimization suggests a savvy, resilient operator who managed regime survival in an increasingly hostile environment—until now, that is.
While no tears should be shed for the Assad regime, the takeover of Syria by a coalition of Sunni Islamist militants is cause for concern. Women and religious minorities have particular cause to worry in the new Syria.
However, HTS appears to be courting Western states in an attempt to gain international recognition as the legitimate government of Syria. The group’s leader, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, was designated as a terrorist by the US Department of State in 2013 for his actions as leader of the al-Nusrah Front, an Al Qaeda affiliate described as the “most aggressive” jihadist organization active in Syria. Jolani has undergone a makeover in recent years, with American media outlets praising his “Western-style blazers” and commitment to “semi-technocratic government.” The HTS government has promised a return to a free-market economy in a bid to attract foreign investment.
Whether this sartorial Westernization and commitment to some degree of liberalism is genuine or performance may not matter. An entrenched totalitarian regime with substantial external support was overrun and ousted by a panoply of militant groups after a long struggle between rebels and the state. A new government is likely to lack the strength and resources of the previous one, and divisions will undoubtedly emerge within the rebel coalition that has seized power.
Low state capacity and internal rifts combined with the continued activity of militant organizations, Israeli annexation of Syrian territory, and international rivals with incentives to cripple the Syrian state create an environment that is inhospitable for a free and democratic Syria. Should the new Syrian government fall victim to internal radicalization or external subversion, those in power will likely resort to the same types of violent repression practiced for decades by the Assad regime. While the destruction of the dictatorship is indeed cause for celebration, the deck is stacked against peaceful reform in the long run.
President Biden is claiming some credit for this regime change, linking US involvement in Ukraine and Israel with weakening Syria’s main patrons in Moscow and Tehran. Biden noted that Islamic State “will try and take advantage of any vacuum to reestablish its credibility,” promising to maintain the current US military presence in Syria and continuing air strikes against IS targets within the country’s borders. President-elect Donald Trump, for his part, has emphasized on social media that “THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT. LET IT PLAY OUT. DO NOT GET INVOLVED!”—in line with his campaign promises to reduce American involvement in foreign wars.
“The dissolution of the Syrian dictatorship is but one symptom of a fracturing global system.”
But the vacuum left by the toppling of Assad will likely produce extreme regional instability for the foreseeable future, necessarily raising questions about the future role of the United States in managing instability in the Middle East. There are currently 900 US troops currently stationed in Syria, tasked with supporting Kurdish forces and ongoing military action against resurgent Islamic State affiliates. The American mission to suppress extremism and assist Kurdish minorities faces an uncertain future. Continuing current operations risks antagonizing the new regime and straining relations with (ostensible) NATO ally Turkey, while a US withdrawal could encourage sanctuary for militant organizations and state violence against the Kurds.
With this situation exacerbated by extremists within the new ruling coalition and regional actors including Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, and Iran all having some stake in the country’s future, Washington must be careful in discerning its priorities. While too much involvement could result in an Iraq-style quagmire, full withdrawal could completely destabilize Syria’s contested northeastern region. As Washington is already involved in this conflict, whatever actions it takes—or indeed, doesn’t take—will have diffuse consequences for the so-called liberal international order. The dissolution of the Syrian dictatorship is but one symptom of a fracturing global system, with more extremes likely to follow on its heels.