Paradigm shift: On Syria and its future
Syria needs to be free of its societal fissures and religious militias
The regime of Bashar al-Assad has fallen in Syria. The Islamist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a former arm of al-Qaeda that had rebranded itself, is now the most powerful force in the country. Between a secular dictatorship that collapsed like a house of cards and a surging group of militants with a menacing recent past lies the present and future of 23.5 million Syrians. Eight years ago, Mr. Assad seemed to be winning the civil war. He had recaptured most of the lost territories, with help from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. A tense calm prevailed as militants holed themselves up in the tiny northwestern region of Idlib. In the southeast, the Kurds enjoyed limited autonomy, but bought peace with Damascus. Syria was readmitted into the Arab League. Gulf monarchs, who once funded the anti-Assad militancy, embraced him. But his victory was hollow, as he relied on external allies for security. His army, which fought years of civil war, was in bad shape. Under crippling U.S. sanctions, the government’s finances were in a shambles. The country never recovered from the scars of the civil war. To tackle dissent, the regime turned up repression, widening the social schisms.However, what made Mr. Assad’s dramatic fall on December 8 possible were factors beyond his direct control. After the Israel-Hamas war broke out in 2023, Israel has carried out air strikes in Syria, which weakened its armed forces. Israel’s war against Hezbollah substantially limited the Lebanese outfit’s ability to continue to help Mr. Assad. Iran, which lost officers in Syria, also took a step back, while Russia has been preoccupied with the Ukraine war. The weakening and distraction of the alliance provided the HTS, backed by Türkiye, a golden opportunity. And it took just 12 days for the HTS, and other militias, to reach Damascus as the regime army melted away. With Mr. Assad gone, Syria has an opportunity to build a new future. But the key actors of change are far from promising. The HTS wants to turn Syria, a diverse country with Sunnis, Alawites, Christians, Shias and Druze, into an Islamic state. The Syrian National Army, a sidekick of the HTS, is a Turkish proxy. In the south, there are numerous local militias. It is to be seen whether the winners of the civil war are going to unite under a national flag or, as in the case of the post-Communist Afghanistan or post-Qadhafi Libya, going to start a new one. A desirable outcome would be the establishment of a transition government, a disarming of the militias and the laying of the foundations of an inclusive new republic. But given Syria’s tumultuous history, societal fissures, and the ideological and programmatic characteristics of the militias, a likelier outcome would be more chaos and instability. That is the tragedy of Syria.