The quick fall — and flight — of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad has evoked triumph in certain quarters and disquiet in others, as it seems to have upended the political situation and strategic calculus of the Middle East.
However, a look at the record of the key Arab country and others may suggest the last word on what follows remains to be said.
Both Israel and the US have rushed to take claim for the overthrow of the over six-decade rule of the Ba’ath Party, Turkey is quietly exulting, and the end of the Russian and Iranian influence in the Arab heartland state is being celebrated.
There are, however, reports that Assad, who had been moving family members out of the country quietly, had cut a deal with the rebels for a safe exit, given the problems in maintaining control over a fragmenting and impoverished country. Russia, involved in Ukraine, and Iran, weakened by attacks on its regional proxies, are perceived as not extending themselves over much in preserving Assad’s rule, like earlier. They are also seeking to build bridges with the new rulers — Russia has obtained guarantees on its bases in the country, and both Moscow and Tehran may be biding their time till the inherent contradictions in the situation bubble up.
The Al Qaeda-linked Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army, the US-supported Syrian Democratic Forces, and other elements of what may become a toxic Syrian brew, may find ousting Assad was the easy part. Take the SDF, which is predominantly Kurdish — a community which Turkey regards as its enemy incarnate — what happens when they come close?
While Syria is predominantly Sunni, the power was long held by the Alawite sub-sect of Shias, from which the Assad family and its key personnel hail, and the country also has sizeable Kurd, Druze, Shia, and Arab Christian (divided into six major churches) segments of the populace.
Described as a tribal and fractious country by then Saudi Crown Prince Faisal in the mid-1950s, Syria has witnessed at least eight military coups and a short-lived union with Egypt in the first quarter century as a free country following independence from France in 1946. It was only after Air Force chief Hafez Al Assad seized power in 1970, after being a key part of the 1961, 1963, and 1966 coups, that there was a semblance of stability, though with an authoritarian bent, save the abortive Islamist revolt of the early 1980s.
While Assad had groomed his eldest son Bassel as his successor, the latter’s death in a 1994 accident forced him to choose his second son, Bashar, for the role. Bashar Al Assad succeeded his father in 2000 and governed without hitch till the Arab Spring affected his country too, leading to the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War in 2011. It was a tough time for him till Russian and Iranian military intervention turned the tide, leading to roughly another decade in power till the rebels’ resurgence at the end of 2024 spelt a final finish.
Then, the Assads’ long rule may have been despotic, but, here its end must be compared with the situation that arose after the violent overthrow of other ‘despots’ in the Middle East, spanning the entire region from the dusty plains of Iraq to the sandy expanses of Libya. Did the ouster of either Saddam Hussain of Iraq in 2003 or Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 meet the strategic aims of their adversaries or leave the countries a better place?
The answer is evident — in Iraq, the long-repressed Shia majority rose up and an alignment with neighbouring Iran was achieved, while sparking a Sunni insurgency that required the US and the regime a considerable time to stamp out. Scarcely had this been done, the spectre of the Islamic State — which in some respects, outdid Al Qaeda in viciousness — arose. While the US claims credit for countering and weakening it, the role of Iran-backed Iraqi militias, and Gen Qassem Soleimani as a strategist, was also key. In an unstable Syria, could either Al Qaeda or the IS regain strength?
Israel, as a neighbour, will also face the blowback, irrespective of rumours of “common interests”. And growing Turkish influence in an adjoining country, given the rising tension between the two over Gaza is not conducive to peace.
On the other hand, the removal of Gaddafi’s strong hand left the country divided and in chaos.
More significantly, for Europe, just across the Mediterranean, it sparked a refugee influx, straining littoral states like Italy and Greece, and as far beyond as the United Kingdom, creating social and demographic tensions, and fuelling the rise of nativist and populist parties that are gaining strength.
Remember what they say about history repeating itself?
(Vikas Datta can be contacted at [email protected])
*Except for the heading, this story has not been edited by The enewstime.in and has been published from IANS feed.
