The Assad era is over. The armed Syrian opposition has taken over Damascus, snapping the Assad family’s 53-year rule. Bashar al-Assad’s defeat is likely to reshape the Middle East’s political climate. But who are the biggest gainers and the biggest losers of his fall?
Syria’s armed opposition forces have taken over Damascus. The militants representing Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS, formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) encircled the city on 7 December. According to Al Hadath, the government army ceded Damascus almost without a fight. Merely hours into the hostilities, the rebels broke into Bashar al-Assad’s unguarded palace.
The Reuters reports suggest the president left Damascus. Currently, he has resurfaced in Moscow and apparently been granted asylum. Al Arabia quotes prime minister Mohammad Ghazi al-Jalali as confirming the collapse of the country’s secular government.
The PM claims most of the cabinet ministers have stayed in Damascus. They will continue to serve during the transition period. Reportedly, al-Jalali has negotiated a deal with Abu Mohammad al-Julani, the HTS leader. The opposition has in turn provided security guarantees to the government officials.
Meanwhile, the IDF has already seized the Golan buffer zone, according to The Times of Israel. It is supposedly intended to beef up the national security following Assad’s ouster. Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: ‘Assad’s fall opens new opportunities for the entire region.’ He also pointed to the IDF’s strikes on Iran and Hezbollah as an important factor that was conducive to the regime change. Netanyahu added that the Jewish state would offer peace to the Syrians while making sure the enemy forces did not have access to the Israeli border.
The West has struck a predominantly upbeat tone in the wake of Assad’s fall. Kaja Kallas, the EU’s top diplomat, pledged support to the Syrian armed opposition and assured the EU would be willing to cooperate with a new government. This stance was echoed by the French foreign ministry, whereas Germany’s Olaf Scholz referred to the abrupt end of Assad’s rule as ‘good news’.
The Russian foreign ministry’s statement, meanwhile, claims the country’s military assets in Syria are not at risk, even though the response infrastructure has been put on high alert. According to the Russian diplomats, they are making every effort to ensure the security of Russians based in Syria.
The current flare-up started on 29 November as the HTS militants launched an offensive on Aleppo, the country’s second-largest city. The terrorists were backed by Turkey, the US and Ukraine. On the night of 8 Decemver, the rebels captured the city of Homs, which paved the way for the Damascus offensive.
The period between 1971 and 2024 in Syria has commonly been called the ‘Assad era’. In 1971, Hafez al-Assad came to power on the back of the coup within the Ba’ath Party. Following his death in 2000, his son Bashar took over. His government had been mostly in control of the domestic situation till 2011 when the country plunged into the civil war.
‘The biggest loser of Bashar al-Assad’s fall seems to be Iran. For them, Syria was the biggest link in the realm of the Shia clout,’ says Vladimir Sazhin, a senior research fellow in Oriental studies. ‘Besides, the government collapsed following the weakening of Hezbollah, a major pro-Tehran force.’
‘It has now jeopardised Iran’s export of the Islamic revolution, the government’s overarching concept. It cannot change a thing now. They will have to come to terms with a completely different reality and start negotiating with a new Syrian government in a bid to establish a semblance of diplomatic relations,’ the expert stresses. ‘But the jury is still out on the feasibility of the move. HTS referred to Iran as its second worst enemy after the Assad regime. Under the circumstances, a consistent dialog will be highly problematic,’ he warns.
Turkey emerges as the largest beneficiary of the events in Syria. For them, it is yet another step towards the country’s mounting international clout and the stepping up of its presence in the region. ‘While Assad’s fall is likely to take a toll on Turkey’s relations with Iran, it will not spark an armed conflict,’ Sazhin assures.
‘As for Israel, the Assad government’s collapses spells a dicey future. On one hand, the Jewish state has seen one of its most powerful opponents with a vocal pro-Iranian stance eliminated. In theory, it can be conducive to Israel’s security,’ the researcher suggests.
‘But the nature of an upcoming Syrian government is shrouded in uncertainty. It may well see radical Islamists rise to power. They may view Israel as an arch-rival,’ the expert speculates. ‘Anyway, one thing that is for sure is that the Middle East is now mired in controversy. The hitherto delicate balance of power in the region has been shattered.’
According to Simon Tsipis, an Israeli expert on international relations and national security, the Syrian government was overthrown by the Western-backed groups. ‘The activities of HTS along with the rest of the groups has been coordinated by the US and UK intelligence community. Israel has also had a hand in training them,’ he states.
‘The overthrow of the Assad regime, the Jewish state’s long-time enemy, benefits Israel. Right now the IDF is striking the Syrian airfields, thus helping the rebels crush the government. ‘Syria is being turned into a feeble state,’ the researcher says.
‘The West is seeking to create the controlled chaos, a territory without a sustainable government capable of standing up for the nation’s interests. This way, Israel will no longer have an enemy capable of inflicting serious damage on it. Any hopes for stability in Syria will be dashed for decades to come. A most likely stable leader will be the West’s puppet,’ Tsipis concludes.
However, Vadim Kozyulin, a military analyst and director of a diplomacy research centre, puts more blame on Bashar al-Assad himself. ‘Truth be told, the former president has been reaping the victory laurels of the mid-2010s. His team thought the power struggle was over,’ he argues.
‘The upgrade of the armed forces was never a top priority for them. The army has degraded into a bunch of generals vying for influence. Neither the service members nor ordinary Syrians particularly liked it. Assad’s authority was slumping,’ the pundit adds.
‘Meanwhile, the militants were gearing up to stage a pushback. Perhaps HTS turned out to be the most proactive of the lot. Besides, it enjoyed the support of Turkey and other foreign players. They were mentally tough and perfectly motivated to put their lives on the line fighting the Syrian army,’ the expert believes.
‘HTS was supplied with a large amount of equipment and hardware. The group had access to a fleet of drones that were then shrewdly used in the Aleppo offensive. Assad’s soldiers had never seen an assault drone before. The lack of training resulted in a botched response and sowed panic,’ Kozyulin continues.
‘Importantly, HTS made good use of smaller groups that provided cover for one another as they rolled into the cities. Once the powerlessness of the Syrian army became obvious and they realised they were facing no resistance, the rebels ditched the tactical aspect altogether,’ he adds.
It took mere hours for the HTS rebels to take over each city they would establish control of. The locals were mostly supportive of the ‘liberators’. ‘This avalanche eventually helped them reach Damascus,’ Kozyulin believes.
‘As for the Russian military facilities in Syria, they may be retained. HTS has not been particularly critical of Russia, and most Syrians do not hold any grudges against Russia either. Should the Russian government seek to retain its military presence, they may keep control of the current infrastructure,’ the military analyst opines.
Western media talking about Russia’s botched policy in the Middle East are fundamentally flawed, according to political scientist Kirill Semenov. ‘Russia’s stance was spot-on. Back in 2015, Vladimir Putin said the Russian would never be more Syrian than the Syrians themselves.
‘It is up to the people of Syria to protect their government. Russia has been instrumental in fostering the productive negotiations among the various factions in Syria and offering international help to rectify the political crisis. But one thing Russia is incapable of doing is changing the Syrians’ attitude towards their own government,’ he insists.
‘These people have voted for a government change by refusing to support the army. The armed forces were not doing their job, while the civilians were not forming people’s militias. That was their choice. They decided this outcome would benefit their home country more. Let us all hope that the nation’s choice will be proven right long term,’ the expert adds.
‘Any attempts on the part of Russia to intervene would have been up to no good. Assad’s support would still be tantamount to a glass water being used to put out a large wildfire. On top of that, Russia is heavily involved in the Ukraine conflict, and that is the leadership’s priority,’ Kirill Semenov concludes.