Vladimir Lenin once said,

“There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen.” Lenin’s statement rightly describes what just occurred in Syria. 

On December 8, 2024, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fled Syria to Moscow, ending 50 years of dictatorship. The group that took over was Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), led by Abu Mohammad al Jolani. (Jolani is designated a terrorist by the U.S. government). 

Brief Background

After the Ottoman Empire collapsed, the French and British divided up former Ottoman territory for themselves, known as the Sykes-Picot Treaty. Under this treaty, the British took what is today Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, and Israel/Palestine, and the French took what is now Syria and Lebanon. 

During colonial rule, the French propped up the Alawites, a religious minority group in Syria that had faced persecution by the Sunnis. The Alawite domination of Syrian politics began in 1963, after the Syrian Arab Baath Party took over, governing Syria as a police state.  

 “The Syrian revolution did not begin as sectarian. But Sunni extremist groups quickly infected the opposition — with a little help from Bashar al-Assad.”  

By releasing these terrorists from prison, the Assad regime was framed the opposition as ‘terrorists’ who are members of ISIS/Al-Qaeda to present himself to the international community, especially to Western audiences, insisting that he the ‘secular’ leader fighting Salafi terrorist groups. 

This view became immensely popular within the West, on both the left and right. For example, prominent French left-wing politician Jean Luc-Mélenchon supported Assad, viewing him as fighting American imperialism in the Middle East. Likewise, prominent French right-wing politician Marine le Pen viewed Assad as a bulwark against Salafi terrorism. 

Who Was Fighting Who?

One side of the conflict was the Syrian government (Assad’s regime), and the principal international backers were Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah. In addition, the Iranians used Shi’a militias from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan in Syria. 

The Turks gave support to the Syrian National Army, an umbrella group of various Islamist rebel factions, and the HTS that took power. The Saudis and the Qataris were the other primary backers of various Sunni rebels, and some of these groups were affiliated with Al-Qaeda and/or ISIS. 

The United States (and, by extension, the Europeans) initially supported the ‘moderate rebels.’ After realizing that these were not ‘moderate,’ the West started supporting the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). However, it caused problems in US-Turkish relations since Türkiye considers the YPG (a faction within the SDF) to be part of the PKK, a Kurdish group they consider terrorists. 

The third group was the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and the other countries that got involved in Syria, be it Russia, Iran, the USU.S., and Türkiye, gave the public justification for fighting ISIS. 

Why did Assad Fall?

Since 2018-19, it seemed as if the Assad government won the civil war. The readmission of Syria into the Arab League and the normalization of relations with the Arab Gulf countries indicated a realization in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi that Assad was there to stay. 

A key reason for this fall was the lack of support from Assad’s principal backers. Russia is preoccupied with Ukraine, Iran is preoccupied with countering the Israeli threat, and Hezbollah has been preoccupied with fighting Israel since it invaded Lebanon. Moreover, the Israeli assassinations of key leaders like Hassan Nasrallah severely weakened Iran and Hezbollah’s capability. 

However, other reports indicate that the Russians and Iranians were dissatisfied with Assad. Russia was reportedly unhappy with Assad’s unwillingness to negotiate. The Iranians were angered by Assad’s inability to halt Israeli attacks. Thus, when the rebels advanced, Tehran and Moscow were uninterested in bailing out Assad.

What Happens Next?

Below are the three most likely scenarios that could emerge. 

Most Likely: The HTS will dominate the new government, and the international community (UN, the U.S., Europe, Russia, China, etc.) will likely work to establish lines of communication with them if this group is genuine in its statements of safeguarding the rights of ethnic and religious minorities and cutting ties with terrorist groups. Other countries may offer a conditional pathway for normalized relations in that case. If not, communications will be limited to ensuring that the HTS does not allow Syria to become a hub of terrorism, akin to how many countries and the UN communicate with the Taliban without offering official diplomatic recognition. 

Worst Case Scenario: Syria could get embroiled in another civil war, following the path of Libya in which various insurgent groups will fight each other. Under this scenario, terrorist groups could gain territory due to a power vacuum. None of the countries in the Middle East or the rest of the international community want this to happen. 

Best Case Scenario (Less Likely): Free and fair elections will be held in Syria, a new constitution will be drafted, and Syria will become a liberal democracy. 

So, Who Won? 

From a geopolitical standpoint, Iran and Russia ‘lost,’ while Türkiye emerged as the ‘winner.’ If the HTS government remains in power, it will give the Turks immense influence over Syria. 

While the West (and by extension, Israel) can express satisfaction that an Iranian and Russian-backed leader is gone, it creates uncertainty given the possibility that Assad’s replacement could be even worse. 

From a humanitarian standpoint, no one won. Millions of Syrians have been killed, internally displaced, and have had to flee their countries. The biggest victims in the entirety of this conflict have been the people of Syria. The Syrian people don’t deserve another 20 years of dictatorship or civil war.