The Fall of al-Assad and the Major Implications for the World
Russia and Iran may never be the same
The murderous regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has finally ended. Rebel groups stormed Damascus, Syria’s capital, early Sunday morning, with evidence mounting that al-Assad had fled. It marks the end of a brutal civil war that al-Assad waged on his own people, including with chemical weapons.
The end of the al-Assad regime leaves a huge power vacuum at the center of global conflicts. Syria is strategically located with the Mediterranean Sea to the west, Turkey to the north, Iraq to the east and southeast, Jordan to the south, and Israel and Lebanon to the southwest.
Russia, for example, has multiple military bases in Syria. Their Hmeimim airbase in Syria's Latakia province and naval facility at Tartous on the coast are both at grave risk of falling into rebel hands, according to a prominent Russian war blogger. The Tartous facility is Russia’s only Mediterranean repair hub, which could have huge implications for Russia’s ability to project power across the Middle East and Europe if they lose it.
With Russia preoccupied with Ukraine and with Iran and Hezbollah tied up in their conflict against Israel, now was the perfect time for rebel groups in Syria to strike. But while we should be joyful that al-Assad’s barbarism appears to be over, it’s important to remember how we got here, in addition to the broader implications this will likely have for Russia, Iran, and Syria domestically.
Obama’s failed ‘red line’ that emboldened Putin and al-Assad
Over 10 years ago I wrote this short piece on the lessons the Obama administration could learn from America’s first diplomat, Benjamin Franklin. Franklin was charged with securing a peace agreement between England, France, and the United States near the end of the Revolutionary War. Like Obama with Russia and Syria in 2014, Franklin found himself in the middle of a three-dimensional chess match against two aggressive players. I wrote the following:
“From his opening move to his final checkmate, Franklin had the foresight of producing a peace agreement with England while preserving French friendship in the process. He achieved this goal by exhibiting great patience and circumspection when his pieces were not properly aligned, but attacked with swift confidence when strategic advantages presented themselves. He expressed his unwavering desire to avoid violence at all costs as he believed that ‘all wars are follies, very expensive, and very mischievous ones.’”
While Obama may have shared Franklin’s views on war, in the early to mid-2010s he made multiple ultimatums to Putin and al-Assad, but also promised the American public that he would not commit U.S. troops to another foreign war. To this point, I wrote:
“We have witnessed throughout history the effects on leaders acting like wolves in sheeps’ clothing. It never ends well. Instead, a patient, yet practical and cautious approach to distilling the conflict may yield a better solution for the region and the world. It will require compromise, which some may view as America sacrificing its own values or those of the Ukrainian people, but the potential for peace is far greater than its alternative.”
This passage was in response to Obama’s infamous “red line” in Syria. He had warned al-Assad in 2012 that any evidence of the use of chemical weapons would prompt the U.S. to act militarily. When strong evidence appeared that al-Assad had used a chemical gas called sarin on Syrian civilians, Obama was called on his bluff. It destroyed U.S. credibility abroad.
In 2014, Putin moved on Crimea. In 2015, Putin provided direct military involvement to al-Assad’s regime in Syria. With the support of the Russian Air Force in particular, al-Assad was able to quell any rebel uprisings and retain his iron grip on the country for almost another decade.
Iran has been a major player in Syria too, no doubt emboldened by the perceived weakness and empty rhetoric of the U.S. like Putin. For decades, Iran has operated military bases, weapons warehouses, and missile factories in Syria. Iran has used this infrastructure to project power across the Middle East and Arab world, including supplying militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas in its conflict with Israel.
With Syria providing a crucial military stronghold for both Russia and Iran for a solid decade, it’s no wonder one of Obama’s top advisors called Syria the administration’s “biggest failure.”
The broader implications of the fall of al-Assad
The fall of al-Assad could foreshadow the end of both Russia and Iran’s geopolitical strength. If the success of the rebel uprising in Syria leads to the loss of military bases for both countries, that could spell doom for both of them.
Russia would be unable to project power as easily across the Mediterranean without a key naval base and airfield in Syria, while Iran would see its supply lines significantly disrupted as it continues to try to help Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel.
It’s clear that both Putin and Iran’s leadership were spread too thin in their other ongoing conflicts against Ukraine and Israel, respectively, to come to al-Assad’s defense this time. And it’s not like they didn’t want to. No state pours the amount of investment and infrastructure in a country like Syria in the way Russia and Iran have without a desire to defend it. The fact that neither Russia nor Iran could or would defend Syria, especially given how strategically crucial it is to their geopolitical power, should be very telling to the world.
A former Iranian government official even admitted that this reshapes the balance of power, noting that “the potential fall of the Syrian government to Islamist extremists would be one of the most significant events in the history of the Middle East.” He also highlighted that “Israel would become the dominant force” in the region.
_02.jpg){kind=link}
A cautiously optimistic day for Syria and the world
Note that this former Iranian government official attributed the fall of the Syrian government to “Islamist extremists.” This is pretty rich coming from a former government official of a theocratic and authoritarian regime like Iran. But it’s not without a kernel or two of truth.
The primary rebel group that appears to have toppled al-Assad’s regime is Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. They’re a former Al Qaeda affiliate. While Al Qaeda is still a terrorist group with a global jihadist agenda, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has kept its focus on Syria.
The main question is - for how long?
Assuming this is the new group to fill the power vacuum in Syria, how can we trust that an authoritarian group grounded in religious extremism is going to govern effectively and not add to instability in the region?
It’s one of those situations where the future may appear bright with the fall of a murderous dictator like al-Assad, but any optimism must be held cautiously given the alternative. Like trading one life-threatening vice for another.
The good news is that - for now - Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has not focused on Al Qaeda or Islamic State-style attacks on the West, but rather on the territorial control and governance of Syria. But this current focus should satisfy no one. This group has not moderated its hardline interpretation of Islam, and there are no guarantees that it won’t adopt the broader extremism of its former parent, Al Qaeda, once the situation calms in Syria.
Even if it’s successful in Syria, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has promised to install a government inspired by Islamic principles, which likely means some version of Sharia Law that strips rights and equal protection under the law for any non-Muslims and all women. It’s a government strictly at odds with the democratic ideals and practices of the West.
So while we should celebrate the fall of al-Assad and cheer the balance of power shift in the region given the huge setbacks to Russian and Iranian aggression, we cannot be naive about who might rule Syria. It’s not a regime that will promote democracy or self-government from its citizens. In fact, it’s diametrically opposed to such ideals.
America and the West must approach this new potential Syrian regime cautiously and critically. Similar to the foresight, circumspection, and caution of America’s first statesman.
For now though, al-Assad’s ouster should be celebrated.
For more, find me on Medium, Threads, X/Twitter, BlueSky, TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube.