“THE REGIME HAS BEEN THROWN DOWN” You are hereby discharged from the military compulsory service. These are the final messages received by members of the Syrian army in the northern and northeastern countryside of Latakia, marking the conclusion of a regime that has ruled the Syrian people for over five decades.
This situation unfolding in Syria since November 27 has been nothing short of astonishing. A dramatic and rapid collapse of Syrian governorates has taken place, beginning with the northwest regions of Idlib and Aleppo, followed by Hama and Homs. Simultaneously, the southern front advanced in Sweida, Daraa, and Quneitra. As a result, the capital, Damascus, fell under the control of armed factions today on December 8, particularly those led by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, an organization designated as terrorist. This development ultimately put an end to a 24-year rule of Bashar Al-Assad described as dictatorial, preceded by 30 years of his father’s rule. Both, they governed the country with an iron fist.
Simultaneously, diplomatic discussions between the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Russia, have issued a joint statement addressing the ongoing Syrian crisis, which they deemed a significant threat to regional and international security. They called for a comprehensive political solution aimed at halting military operations in Syria and emphasized the need to enhance international aid to the Syrian people. The ministers highlighted that the political process should focus on ending military escalation, protecting Syrian sovereignty, and creating conditions for the safe return of refugees. They reiterated their commitment to continued dialogue and cooperation to fulfill the aspirations of the Syrian people for security and justice, ultimately seeking to end the prolonged crisis in the region.
This crisis has persisted for 14 years and has generated one of the largest displacement crises in the world. with 7.2 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 6.2 million refugees and 306,887 civilians have lost their lives by 2022.
It is striking that this situation warrants thorough analysis, study, and research into the reasons behind this dramatic decline, particularly given the apparent lack of significant resistance from the Syrian army to the attack. The Syrian Ministry of Defense has essentially become a media spokesperson, releasing statements such as «the Syrian army is withdrawing and repositioning according to military plans and orders, and it is adapting to the evolving circumstances; we will return to eliminate the terrorists’ hideouts.» However, on the ground, citizens across Syria, from north to south, witness nothing but the swift retreat of Syrian army soldiers and vehicles, along with the evacuation of their positions—evoking memories of the Iraqi army’s collapse in 2003.
As the Iranian ally seemingly vanished from the battlefields, the Fatemiyoun and Zainabiyoun militias, as well as the Popular Mobilization Forces from Iraq, were conspicuously absent. The Syrian regime was waiting for a support of Hezbollah, which is already fatigued, demoralized, and disintegrating both militarily and socially.
The relentless pace of events and news continues unabated. Recent reports highlight the takeover of several governorates by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham classified as a terrorist, which has significantly undermined the morale of both the army and the government. Simultaneously, there are troubling updates regarding the closure of key border crossings, including the “Masnaa” crossing with Lebanon and the “Nassib” border crossing with Jordan. The siege around the regime has grown increasingly constrictive and continues to intensify.
We cannot separate the events unfolding in Syria from those occurring in Palestine and Lebanon. As soon as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced a ceasefire to end the fighting on the Lebanese front, he asserted that “Bashar al-Assad is playing with fire.” as if his statement seemingly served as a coded signal for armed factions to initiate an offensive aimed at toppling the regime in Damascus.
Today, we are witnessing the emergence of the New Middle East, which was once declared by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during the 2006 Lebanon War:
“As we deal with the current circumstances, we need always to be cognizant of and looking to what kind of Middle East we are trying to build. It is time for the New Middle East”
Borders that will be imposed, leading to a fundamentally different Middle East than we have known since Sykes-Picot borders 1916. It appears that the borders of the Syrian Arab Republic will not remain unchanged. In the northeast, fragmented territories remain under the control of US-backed Kurds, while the Druze holds sway in the southern region of Sweida province. Current observations reported that Alawites from various provinces overtaken by terrorist armed factions are returning to their villages in the coastal areas, while Shiites, loyal to Iran, are being transported into Iraq via the Iraqi-Syrian border. Meanwhile, the Sunni -recognized as the majority- is spearheading the movements on the ground now. It appears that the demographic landscape of Syria is undergoing a significant transformation.
The current event reminds us with what the US Army General Wesley Clark, has disclosed in 2007 that:
“Bush administration has drawn up a plan to wage war on seven countries, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.».
Based on the suggested targets on the list, it seems that Iran may be the next in line after Syria. Notably, the influence of Iran and its affiliated militias, particularly Hezbollah, in Syria has grown significantly. This development has led to considerable internal, regional and international unrest, particularly concerning the threats posed to Israel’s security—something that the United States, the foremost ally of Israel, didn’t not tolerate.
Michael Koplow, the Policy Director of the Israel Policy Forum, said that: “The prevailing opinion among Israeli security officials is that Bashar al-Assad is the real threat because he is allied to Iran and Hezbollah.” Yoram Peri has made the same point that:“Iran and Hezbollah are a severe threat to Israel than ISIS because they pose a more significant conventional military threat. Israel will not allow using the Syrian territory to wage operations against Israel. And he saw that Israel should maintain the stability of Jordan because it is essential for Israel.”
So this marks the United States’ proxy war against what it known as the «axis of evil.» Indeed, it succeeded in toppling the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, who was long believed to be a supporter of the resistance. However, the resistance, epitomized by the Hamas movement, abandoned him at the onset of the events in 2011. Now, in 2024, the situation has changed once more, with Iran and Hezbollah also withholding their support. Where, then, did Bashar al-Assad go wrong in his alliances?
This development indicates a vacuum whose implications remain uncertain—will these armed factions be able to fill it on their own, or will Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan assume the role of «trusteeship» of the Syrian state, imposing his presence by force? This strategy seems to be the only language currently spoken and heard in the Middle East region.
Regardless of what the future holds for Syria after Bashar al-Assad’s rule, we are entering a very complex and precarious phase.This phase of turmoil has irrevocably transformed the region, altering its geopolitical landscape in ways that will render previous maps and alliances obsolete.
The current situation in the Middle East evokes memories of the wars and turmoil that plagued the region prior to the preparation for the Geneva Peace Conference in 1990. Arab nations were weakened by a series of regional and civil conflicts, including the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990), Black September (1970-1971), the Egypt-Syria-Israel War (1973), the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), the First Intifada in Palestine (1987-1993), and Operation Desert Shield in Iraq (1990-1991). In their desperate quest for peace, several agreements were eventually reached, notably the Oslo Accords (1993), and the Israel-Jordan peace treaty (1994). However, Syria, under Hafez al-Assad, stubbornly resisted signing a peace agreement with Israel. The former director of Mossad and the fourth head of the Israeli National Security Council, Efraim Halevy, said:
“Six successive Israeli Prime Ministers tried to get peace with Syria, and none of them was able to do this. Syria is the key to peace in West Asia, and it has been Syria and not any other country.”
Similarly, the rapid changes we are witnessing today appear to be setting the stage for a renewed peace process. This development began in 2020 with the U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposal of the “Abraham Accords” Peace agreements to resolve the Israeli-Arab conflict. Between UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan and Israel separately (2020-2021). With his anticipated return in January 2025, there is hope for the continuation of this unfinished work. For the US, changing the ruling regime in Syria will promote this path in the region and abandon the “Resistance”. This is what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented before the United Nations in October 2024. He displayed maps titled «Blessing,» which illustrate Israel and its Arab partners forming a land bridge that connects Asia and Europe, stretching between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. «Across this bridge, we will lay rail lines, energy pipelines, and fiber optic cables, benefiting two billion people,» he proclaimed. In contrast, he presented maps labeled «Curse.» He described them as a representation of a «curse,» illustrating an «arc of terror» that Iran has created and imposed from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean. Netanyahu emphasized that Iran’s belligerent arch has shut down international waterways, disrupted trade, destroyed millions of lives, devastated nations from within, and inflicted misery on countless individuals.
So this phase of the history of the Middle East is paving the way for normalization and the establishment of «peace for peace» with Israel phormula —a peace that was suggested through the «Clean Break» strategy and a doctrine of «Peace Through Strength.» by imposing Israel terms and conditions on the rivalry parties:
“We have for four years pursued peace based on a “New Middle East”. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behaviour of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighbourhood with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading «land for peace» will not secure «peace now.» Our claim to the land —to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years—is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, «peace for peace,» is a solid basis for the future.”
The stubbornness of Hafez al-Assad in the 1990s, when he refused to accept a peace agreement with Israel, resulted in the loss of more territory and left him internationally isolated, economically besieged, and unwelcome in the region throughout his thirty-year rule. He failed to reclaim his occupied lands, using the Golan Heights as a pretext to allocate 80% of the national budget to the military. However, when the country needed a robust military presence, it found itself lacking.
Similarly, the current president’s obstinacy has precipitated the end of the Assad family’s rule over Syria. Bashar al-Assad rejected the opportunity to cooperate with Russia, which sought to support the Syrian State as a political, legal institution and preserve the integrity of the state’s structure—not as a favor to Bashar or the Assad family. This fundamental misunderstanding proved detrimental. Russia entered the conflict aiming to prevent Syria from experiencing a fate similar to Libya’s chaotic quagmire. After the international coalition spent a year attempting to dismantle ISIS, their efforts only resulted in the organization bolstered by funding derived from operations that pilfered Syrian oil. Yet despite numerous overtures from Russia, Turkey, and Arab countries through various diplomatic frameworks like the Geneva and Astana processes, Assad ultimately refused to engage in negotiations—whether with the opposition or with Erdogan.
The arrangements between different regional and international powers on Doha forum has fostered a deeper understanding of how to manage and organize the cautious decline of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, while limiting bloodshed and preserving the integrity of the state, which Russia has been keen from the beginning to prevent from collapsing.
The next stage in Syria is critical and requires careful study and continuous monitoring to understand the nature of the regime that will emerge. What borders will define its territory? What does the future hold for the relationship between these factions and the Kurdish forces in northwestern Syria? In addition, how will their relations with regional and international parties develop?
