The unceremonious ouster of President Bashar al Assad marks the demise of the last Ba’athist regime in the Middle East. The end of 54 years long Assad dynasty can herald a new era in the fragile body politic of Syria. The relatively well-organized Hayat Tahrir al Sham rebel force liquidated the resistance power of government forces within just a few days. The regime change, and the resultant uncertainty in Syria have invited regional powers to make adjustments for political and strategic spoils. Israel has yet again proved itself to be the peace spoiler by conducting more than hundreds of unwarranted air strikes to dismantle Syrian military and strategic capabilities. Asad regime has posed significant challenges for the US due to strategic divergences, and the US empowered the rebel factions fighting the government in Syria. This change is a major setback to Iran’s ‘axis of resistance’ and also puts Russian strategic interests in jeopardy. In the aftermath of the current development either the model of Libya or Iraq can be the possible trajectories for Syria in the future.
Middle Eastern Ba’athist regimes emerged, in the second half of the century, as Arab nationalist leaders, championing the ideologies of Pan-Arabism, socialism, secularism, anti-imperialism, and anti-Zionism. However, despite their lofty ideals, these regimes, exemplified by Assad’s rule in Syria, devolved into deeply authoritarian systems, characterized by the centralization of power, political repression, and a departure from their original revolutionary aspirations. Political oppression by the Assad regime created numerous ethnic and sectarian fault lines that were later exploited by the regional and extra-regional powers. The alleged Iranian support and Russin aerial cover seem to have kept the Assad regime in power even after the so called ‘Arab Spring’ removed numerous autocratic regimes across Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.
Syria exemplifies the emerging threat of rebel movements to dysfunctional polities and how they gain national legitimacy. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is a Salafi-Jihadist organization and a splinter group of al-Qaeda. The avowed pronouncements by HTS alludes to being independent from al-Qaeda’s influence thus forsaking any territorial claim in the name of caliphate beyond Syria. Assad’s Syria had also long been an irritant for US and Israeli interests by being a crucial component of Iranian ‘resistance axis’ in the region. HTS, however, is a UN designated terrorist organization and is also considered one by EU and the US. Irrespective of this fact, US and partners have expressed jubilance over the HTS takeover, which creates room for the speculations that US and partners might have been involved in the covert support for the regime change in Syria.
Millions of Syrian refugees and the Kurdish question has prompted Turkish involvement in the Syrian quagmire. Ankara makes little secret of its desire to neutralize the ambitions of Kurdish leaders demanding autonomy in the North of Syria. Donald Trump described Turkey as the most important player on the Syrian chessboard after the fall of Damascus. Having much at stake in the future of Syria, Turkish involvement and material support cannot be ruled out in the overthrow of the Syrian government under Assad. Kurds controls 25% of Syrian territory including much of the oil rich area, while been less than 10% of total population. Kurdish administration of North and East Syria is also a strong bulwark against the ISIS threat and it has been supported by the US in the past. HTS’ avowed pronouncements regarding the formation of a secular and inclusive government would be tested in the crucible of time considering Kurd-Turkish animosity.
The relations between Islamic Republic of Iran and the Assad dynasty had stood the test of numerous crises in the Middle East. The so called ‘Shia Cresent’ along with Houthis provided a sense of strategic depth to Iran vis-à-vis military threats in the Middle East. With the axis of resistance being torn apart, Iran finds itself deprived of deterrent capabilities, in the backdrop of the fall of Damascus. Hence it has to explore other strategic options to achieve its aims and objectives.
Russia has long used its strategic partnership with Damascus to project power across MENA region through military and naval assets. Russian airstrikes were crucial instruments of subversion of the political dissent and armed struggle against the Syrian despot. However, the fall of Assad from power doesn’t mean the strategic retreat for Russia as Mohammad Al Jolani, the leader of HTS, stated that “we don’t want Russia to leave”. This statement underscores the strategic importance of Russia in Syrian geopolitical calculus. It seems that Russia will stay in the region despite many analysts predicting a possible diminishing Russian presence in Syria.
China has emerged as a credible mediator on the Middle Eastern political horizon after Saudi-Iran deal. China could potentially help resolve the differences among the warring factions within Syria. It could potentially transform the zero-sum strategic contestation in Syria. The importance of Syrian conflict for China could be discerned by eight times use of veto during the last decade out of only sixteen times it has used in the UNSC. Syrians have made history, but their greatest challenge lies ahead: that of building its future. Syria is exactly at the point of its national history where Iraq and Libya were after the fall of Saddam Hussain and Muammar Gaddafi respectively. Both nations followed a contrasting trajectory with Libya continuing its struggle to end its violent conflict and build state institutions while Iraq had a series of elections since 2005 which helped to develop mechanisms for political bargaining, particularly between Shi’a, Sunni, and Kurdish factions. Syria faces almost similar challenges including the sectarian fault lines and Kurd minority. The consociationalism model for governance practiced in Iraq may best fit the social and political imperatives in Syria. Although foreign aid and rescinding the sanctions could help build Syrian state and society but the internal reconciliation and power sharing mechanisms could only satiate the concerns of stakeholders for lasting peace. The idiosyncratic socio-political climate of Syria requires the restraint and political acumen on the part of the victorious group to avoid another civil war. HTS’s leader has announced that it could take at least 4 years before Syria would go to general elections, but uncertainty looms large as to what will happen in these 4 years. Confidence in the state’s institutions must be restored and strengthened to create a viable state. Uplifting of sanctions, technical and humanitarian assistance on the part of external stakeholders could help build the Syrian state and society.
This article was published in another form at https://globalsecurityreview.com/the-geo-political-implications-of-new-syria-and-future-pathways/
Muhammad Haseeb Riaz is a Research Assistant at Center for International Strategic Studies (CISS), Islamabad.
