After seizing the capital Damascus, the rebels of the Organisation for the Liberation of the Levant, led by al-Jolani, took control of Syria. Ex-dictator Bashar al-Assad and his family fled to Moscow, where President Vladimir Putin offered them political asylum on “humanitarian grounds.” However, it cannot be said that other countries have stood by and watched: at the news of the regime’s downfall, the Israeli army launched airstrikes against 320 “strategic targets” in Syria to prevent weapons falling into the hands of Hezbollah. Behind the scenes, the G7 nations are looking forward to a peaceful transition that would contribute to regional stability. Alessandro Politi, director of the NATO Defense College Foundation, told SIR that “the main cause of Assad’s fall is his regime’s political incapacity to respond to the 2011 uprising, along with its failure to end the civil war with a peace settlement.” Commenting on the new regime, he added: “It could eventually engulf Lebanon as well, because the force of ideological conviction combined with combat capabilities could easily overpower many Lebanese factions.”
Why was Bashar al-Assad’s regime overthrown now?
Assad won the war because Iran and Russia intervened in a completely devastated country. But Assad ruled over a pile of rubble that was not entirely under his control, not least because of the buffer zones under US and Turkish protection. In addition, there was a parallel government run by the Organisation for the Liberation of the Levant. This set the stage for a potential takeover. Without perseverance and political success, the civil war never ends. Apparently, there was no political will or possibility to end the conflict with a settlement that would quell or isolate the opposition forces.
The first reason for Assad’s fall is his regime’s political inability to respond to the 2011 uprising, coupled with the failure to end the civil war with a peace settlement. That is the first cause. All the rest is just a very dubious way of apportioning blame. The primary causes of what is happening in the country are to be found in the country itself. The Assad regime fell for these reasons: without reconstruction, there was not enough money to pacify the situation.
And even if an agreement had been reached, there is no guarantee that it wouldn’t have turned out badly at a later stage. Look at what happened in neighbouring Lebanon. The peace there turned out to be a hollow peace. Syria’s tragedy goes back to the 1940s, when it tried to avoid subnational fragmentation by means of a dictatorship. But it collapsed anyway. Authoritarianism can prevent fragmentation to some extent, but after a few decades its limits begin to show, as in the former Yugoslavia or Libya. Even if it lasts, there is a risk that the country will crumble.
Is this the end of Assad?
Bashar al-Assad failed to find a smooth way out of the 2011 crisis.
Now he is in a supervised residence and there is little damage he can do for now.
Will Putin be strengthened by the offer of sanctuary, or will this move further isolate him?
First, Putin needs to end the disastrous war in Ukraine, which, if it is a victory, is a Pyrrhic one. Until yesterday, Syria was seen by Russia as an example of brilliant intervention in support of an ailing regime. I believe that Putin was influenced by memories of the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, which began under the same conditions. This time, however, Russia’s intervention unfolded through intense political and diplomatic activity both on the ground and at the regional level, which was successful until it collapsed due to the regime’s internal vulnerabilities.
Russia now holds a token for a potential recompense – albeit a very fragile one.
Nevertheless, the collapse of the regime initially took many countries by surprise, mixed with feelings of relief, including Western countries.
The regime was hated first and foremost by far too many Syrians. But we will have to wait and see who the ‘liberating force’ really is and what dangers it might pose to the Syrian people and their neighbours.
There is a real possibility of Syria becoming ‘Lebanonised’, or of an Islamic State-like regime emerging in Iraq that could gradually engulf Lebanon. In fact, because the force of ideological conviction combined with combat capabilities could easily overwhelm many Lebanese factions, the new regime could eventually engulf Lebanon too. Indeed, this remains to be seen, but it would be foolish to sweep it under the carpet with a superficial sense of euphoria. Moreover, Syria borders the Golan Heights, so Israel’s destruction of weapons may not be enough. As the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict shows, destroying weapons without politically disarming the war is a Sisyphean task, perfectly reflected in the Israeli metaphor of “mowing the grass.”
Who are the insurgents who have seized power in Syria?
They are jihadists, belonging to the branch that chooses to fight the enemy not on a global scale, but on a local one. They’ve gone through several transformations and fought against other jihadist groups, eliminating many of those competing with them. If the name of their organisation is to be interpreted in a literal sense, it includes the liberation of Palestine, since the borders of the Arab Levant extend from Antioch to the borders of Sinai, and various formations of the same type were deliberately deployed to overthrow the previous government in Damascus, only to boomerang. In the words of their leader, Abu-Mohammad al-Jawlani (al Golani in the Israeli press),
“Judge us by the facts”.
