Collapse of Syria’s Assad Is a Blow to Iran’s ‘Axis of Resistance’

Broken pictures of Iranian spiritual leaders Ali Khamenei and Khomeini lie on the floor at the Iranian embassy after opposition forces took control of the city in Damascus, Syria, Sunday, Dec. 8, 2024. (AP)
Broken pictures of Iranian spiritual leaders Ali Khamenei and Khomeini lie on the floor at the Iranian embassy after opposition forces took control of the city in Damascus, Syria, Sunday, Dec. 8, 2024. (AP)
TT

Collapse of Syria’s Assad Is a Blow to Iran’s ‘Axis of Resistance’

Broken pictures of Iranian spiritual leaders Ali Khamenei and Khomeini lie on the floor at the Iranian embassy after opposition forces took control of the city in Damascus, Syria, Sunday, Dec. 8, 2024. (AP)
Broken pictures of Iranian spiritual leaders Ali Khamenei and Khomeini lie on the floor at the Iranian embassy after opposition forces took control of the city in Damascus, Syria, Sunday, Dec. 8, 2024. (AP)

For Iran’s theocratic government, it keeps getting worse.

Its decades-long strategy of building an “Axis of Resistance” supporting militant groups and proxies around the region is falling apart. First came the crushing Israeli campaign in Gaza triggered by the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Iranian-backed Hamas.

That war spawned another in Lebanon, where Israel has mauled Iran’s most powerful ally, Hezbollah, even as Israel has launched successful airstrikes openly inside of Iran for the first time.

And now Iran’s longtime stalwart ally and client in Syria, President Bashar al-Assad, is gone. As dawn broke Sunday, opposition forces completed a lightning offensive by seizing the ancient capital of Damascus and tearing down symbols of more than 50 years of Assad's rule over the Mideast crossroads.

Ali Akbar Velayati, a key adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, once called Assad and Syria “the golden ring of the resistance chain in the region.”

“Without the Syrian government, this chain will break and the resistance against Israel and its supporters will be weakened.”

That break in the chain is literal. Syria was an important geographical link that allowed Iran to move weapons and other supplies to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Its loss now further weakens Hezbollah, whose powerful arsenal in southern Lebanon had put Iranian influence directly on the border of its nemesis Israel.

“Iran’s deterrence thinking is really shattered by events in Gaza, by events in Lebanon and definitely by developments in Syria,” a senior diplomat from the United Arab Emirates, Anwar Gargash, said at the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ Manama Dialogue in Bahrain.

Iran still holds the card of its nuclear program. Though it denies that intention, it can use the potential for building a weapons capability to cast a shadow of influence in the region.

“Iran remains a critical regional player,” Gargash said. “We should use this moment to connect and speak about what’s next in my opinion.”

Dramatic reversal

Only a few years ago, Iran loomed large across the wider Middle East. Its “Axis of Resistance” was at a zenith.

Hezbollah in Lebanon stood up against Israel. Assad appeared to have weathered an “Arab Spring” uprising-turned-civil war. Iraqi insurgents killed US troops with Iranian-designed roadside bombs. Houthi militias in Yemen fought against the legitimate government there.

Syria, at the crossroads, played a vital role.

Early in Syria’s civil war, when it appeared Assad might be overthrown, Iran and its ally, Hezbollah, rushed fighters to support him — in the name of defending Shiite shrines in Syria. Russia later joined with a scorched earth campaign of airstrikes.

The campaign won back territory, even as Syria remained divided into zones of government and opposition control.

But the speed of Assad’s collapse the past week showed just how reliant he was on support from Iran and Russia — which at the crucial moment didn’t come.

A broken picture of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani is seen in the facade of the Iranian embassy after opposition forces took control of the city in Damascus, Syria, Sunday, Dec. 8, 2024. (AP)

“What was surprising was the Syrian’s army’s failure to counter the offensive, and also the speed of the developments," Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told state television late Sunday night. "That was unexpected.”

Russia remains mired in Ukraine years after launching a full-scale invasion there in 2022. For Iran, international sanctions over its advancing nuclear program have ground down its economy.

For Israel, breaking Iran’s regional network has been a major goal, though it is wary over extremist fighters among the opposition who toppled Assad. Israel on Sunday moved troops into a demilitarized buffer zone with Syria by the Israel-held Golan Heights in what it called a temporary security measure.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Assad's fall a “historic day,” saying it was “the direct result of our forceful action against Hezbollah and Iran, Assad’s main supporters.”

Iran’s theocratic rulers long touted their regional network to Iranians as a show of their country’s strength, and its crumbling could raise repercussions at home — though there is no immediate sign of their hold weakening. Anger over the tens of billions of dollars Iran is believed to have spent propping up Assad was a rallying cry in rounds of nationwide anti-government protests that have broken out over recent years, most recently in 2022.

Iran could respond by revving up its nuclear program

The loss of Syria does not mean the end of Iran’s ability to project power in the Mideast. The Houthis continue to launch attacks on Israel and on ships moving through the Red Sea — though the tempo of their attacks has again fallen without a clear explanation from their leadership.

Iran also maintains its nuclear program. While insisting it enriches uranium for peaceful purposes, Western intelligence agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency say Iran had an organized nuclear weapons program until 2003.

The head of the IAEA also warned Friday that Iran is poised to “quite dramatically” increase its stockpile of near weapons-grade uranium as it has started cascades of advanced centrifuges.

“If Iran would develop nuclear weapons, that would be a great blow to the international nonproliferation regime,” said Thanos Dokos, Greece’s national security adviser, in Bahrain.

Whatever happens next, Iran will need to make the decision weighing the problems it faces at both home and abroad.

“Whereas stability is a difficult commodity to export, instability can travel very fast, which is why stability in the Middle East is very important for all of us,” Dokos said.



How Far Will He Go? Trump’s Options for US Action Against Iran

An Iranian woman walks next to an anti-US mural in Tehran, Iran, 29 January 2026. (EPA)
An Iranian woman walks next to an anti-US mural in Tehran, Iran, 29 January 2026. (EPA)
TT

How Far Will He Go? Trump’s Options for US Action Against Iran

An Iranian woman walks next to an anti-US mural in Tehran, Iran, 29 January 2026. (EPA)
An Iranian woman walks next to an anti-US mural in Tehran, Iran, 29 January 2026. (EPA)

US President Donald Trump has threatened military action against Iran over its crackdown on protesters, while still for now appearing to leave the door open for negotiations over the country’s controversial nuclear program.

But should Trump, after weeks of American threats and counter-threats from Tehran, finally decide to order military action after already sending a US aircraft carrier to the region, he faces another dilemma over what form the intervention should take.

Such action could replicate American strikes during Israel's June war against the country, enforce economic strangulation by targeting the energy sector or amount to a bid to replace the theocratic system under supreme leader Ali Khamenei.

- Venezuela economic pressure scenario

Trump's relatively cautious stance so far has sparked speculation he could target Iranian energy infrastructure and squeeze its oil exports, mimicking a strategy Washington used over Venezuela.

This policy earlier this month led to the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, with Trump then working with the remnants of his former administration.

The US naval group in Middle East waters could look to block "dark fleet vessels" carrying Iranian oil and put pressure on Iran's oil exports, said Farzan Sabet, managing researcher of the Sanctions and Sustainable Peace Hub at the Geneva Graduate Institute.

"And that pressure can be gradual, similar to what we saw in Venezuela. It could play out over days, weeks, months, it's hard to foresee, but possibly longer," he said, while acknowledging that Trump was playing "his cards very close to his chest".

The naval group, repeatedly described as an "armada" by Trump, consists of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and its more than 80 aircraft, as well as its escort of three destroyers, equipped with anti-missile capabilities and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

- Strikes on military and IRGC targets

If Trump decides on a course of military action, prime targets would be bases of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and its youth militia, the Basij, which are accused by rights groups of taking a frontline role in the deadly crackdown on the protests that according to rights groups left thousands dead.

Using Tomahawk missiles and combat aircraft, the United States could strike positions of the Basij and the IRGC forces, "particularly those forces that participated and continue to participate in targeting Iranian protesters", said independent military researcher Eva J. Koulouriotis.

She said US intelligence, helped by Israel's Mossad spy agency, has "a clear picture" of those forces and their location nationwide.

"Such a strike would serve as a direct warning to the Iranian regime," she said.

During its June war against Tehran, Israel showed its deep intelligence penetration of Iran by killing senior security officials including the IRGC's chief and the armed forces chief of staff in targeted strikes based on location intelligence.

In a "harsh but measured strike", the United States could target "operations command and senior officers involved in mass killings carried out by the Iranian regime", she said.

- Massive strikes and regime change bid -

Iran's theocratic system has been in place since the 1979 revolution led by Khomeini that ousted the largely pro-Western shah.

Relations with the United States were cut in the wake of the hostage siege of the US embassy in Tehran that began that year and have remained severed ever since.

Under Khomeini, the revolution survived the war with Iraq in the 1980s. Since Khamenei took over in 1989, he has managed to keep the system in place despite economic sanctions and repeated protests.

As well as the so-called "armada", Washington already has a heavy deployment of military resources in the region with dozens of aircraft deployed at the air bases of Al Udeid in Qatar and Al Dhafra in the United Arab Emirates.

"The American objective is to destabilize the regime," said David Khalfa, co-founder of the Atlantic Middle East Forum (AMEF) think-tank.

"So there is really a strategy that will aim to paralyze it, to disrupt the chain of command" marked by the physical "elimination" of Khamenei, his close advisors and senior IRGC generals, he added.

But he said: "The regime is still relatively solid and resilient, it will not be an easy task", especially as "the Guards have anticipated this scenario".

Sabet said it would appear for now that Washington "would prefer something limited, where they can continue the process of weakening the system while minimizing the country's desire -- and to some extent its ability, but mostly its desire -- to carry out larger-scale retaliation".


Deal or Strike: Is Military Action Against Iran Drawing Closer?

Military equipment, including helicopters, on board the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (AP)
Military equipment, including helicopters, on board the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (AP)
TT

Deal or Strike: Is Military Action Against Iran Drawing Closer?

Military equipment, including helicopters, on board the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (AP)
Military equipment, including helicopters, on board the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (AP)

Despite reports of mediation and back-channel exchanges between Washington and Tehran, what is being described as “negotiations” so far looks more like a bid to keep tensions from boiling over than a diplomatic process.

Signals emerging from Western officials and media indicate the two sides have yet to engage in direct, substantive talks, with the dispute over the very terms of entry itself carrying a political message.

US President Donald Trump’s administration is pressing for an agreement that encompasses Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and regional influence. At the same time, Tehran insists that any dialogue be confined strictly to the nuclear file.

That gap has reinforced suspicions in Tehran that Trump’s offer of a deal is little more than a tactical feint, masking serious preparations for military action. This scenario would echo the US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025.

As Trump sharpens his rhetoric, the stalemate revives a central question: Is diplomacy becoming a pretext for war, or a narrowing window to avert it?

A different escalation

The key difference this time lies in the scale and nature of the military posture.

It is not a mere show of force, but a combined offensive-defensive package signaling readiness for multiple scenarios, following the arrival of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and its strike group in the US Central Command area of operations, enabling support for strikes or protection of allies against retaliatory attacks.

This has been accompanied by strengthened air defenses, including Patriot and THAAD systems, as well as air drills focused on deployment, operations, and sortie generation under challenging conditions, according to US Central Command.

Such a pattern is typically associated with raising readiness for potential reciprocal responses.

At the same time, Washington is aware that any operation against Iran would not be a “precision operation” like what occurred in Venezuela, where the US previously amassed large forces in the Caribbean in a campaign that ended with the arrest of President Nicolas Maduro in early January 2026.

Iran’s geography is more complex, and its missile capabilities and layered defenses make a “decisive strike” more complicated, even if the US enjoys overwhelming superiority.

Trump’s options

Earlier leaks pointed to the end of this month as a possible date for a US strike, though this remains unconfirmed publicly.

The danger in circulating such reports lies in the political-military dynamic they create. When a force of this size is mobilized, internal and external pressure on the White House grows to justify the cost by achieving some result, even if limited.

At the same time, the leaks may be part of psychological warfare aimed at forcing Tehran to make concessions before the window for de-escalation “closes.”

Accordingly, the practical rule is that absent a clear political decision, the scenario remains open to three graduated possibilities: a limited strike to impose new rules of engagement; a broader campaign targeting nuclear and missile infrastructure and security nodes; or continued military pressure as a negotiating lever without opening fire.

According to the Financial Times, Trump’s options, should he decide to carry out military action, range from a limited punitive strike targeting missile sites, drones, or facilities linked to the Revolutionary Guard, aimed at raising the cost of Iranian refusal without seeking regime change.

Another option would expand the target bank to include nuclear facilities that are being hardened and rebuilt, particularly after Western talk of Iranian attempts to resume work at deeper underground sites.

There is also a set of non-traditional pressure options, such as tightening a maritime blockade or striking state infrastructure as a political message.

These options carry higher risks, as they raise the likelihood of retaliation outside established rules of engagement.

The decisive issue, however, is the “endgame.”

The US administration itself implicitly acknowledges that removing the regime's head does not guarantee its collapse, and that the question of “who comes next” has no ready answer.

This explains repeated warnings in assessments leaked to the media and in statements by US officials that the regime is weaker than ever, but that a decisive blow is not guaranteed.

How might Iran respond?

Tehran has warned in advance that any attack would mark the start of a war, and that retaliation could extend to Israel, particularly Tel Aviv, as well as anyone who supports the aggressor.

Operationally, Iran has a ladder of response, starting with strikes on US bases in the region using missiles or drones, moving through the activation of regional proxies, and culminating in threats to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, the scenario with the most severe global impact.

The latter possibility may be among the main reasons regional states have sought to avoid war and continue diplomatic efforts while stressing neutrality.

This stance could increase US logistical demands in any large-scale operation and heighten reliance on distant naval platforms.

Markets, however, have already issued an early warning. Oil prices have risen for three consecutive sessions amid fears of supply disruptions, with Brent crude nearing the $ 70-a-barrel threshold and a rise in the geopolitical risk premium, while gold has climbed as a safe-haven asset.

If a strike does occur, the potential fallout would be threefold. Economically, a spike in oil prices, pressure on shipping and insurance, and volatility in Gulf markets. Security-wise, an expansion of theaters of engagement to include Iraq, Syria, the Gulf, and Israel, with heightened risks of miscalculation.

Politically, a narrowing of prospects for any near-term negotiations, or conversely, a limited strike used to force talks under harsher terms.


Unmentioned but Present, Trump is a Common Denominator in Efforts to Strengthen Asia-Europe Ties

US President Donald Trump waves as he walks upon arrival on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, US, January 27, 2026. REUTERS/Annabelle Gordon
US President Donald Trump waves as he walks upon arrival on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, US, January 27, 2026. REUTERS/Annabelle Gordon
TT

Unmentioned but Present, Trump is a Common Denominator in Efforts to Strengthen Asia-Europe Ties

US President Donald Trump waves as he walks upon arrival on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, US, January 27, 2026. REUTERS/Annabelle Gordon
US President Donald Trump waves as he walks upon arrival on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, US, January 27, 2026. REUTERS/Annabelle Gordon

Stability. Consistency. Ever-changing complexity.

With language like that, deployed in separate meetings in three Asian capitals this week, government leaders forged closer ties driven in part by a figure halfway around the world: the president of the United States. And much of the time, they didn't even mention Donald Trump's name.

IN BEIJING: The UK and Chinese leaders called Thursday for a “long-term, stable, and comprehensive strategic partnership” between their two countries. The important words are long-term and stable. The two countries committed a decade ago to building a comprehensive strategic partnership but progress has been halting at best.

IN HANOI: About 1,100 kilometers (700 miles) to the south, Vietnam and the European Union used the same phrasing on the same day. They upgraded ties to a comprehensive strategic partnership. The agreement places Vietnam on the same diplomatic footing with the EU as the United States, China and Russia.

IN NEW DELHI: Two days earlier, the EU and India reached a major free trade accord that had been mired in negotiations for years. It covers everything from textiles to medicines and will bring down India's high tariffs on European wine and cars.

Trump was not the only factor behind the agreements, but his shaking up of the global order is worrying friends and foes and driving them closer. From a purely economic perspective, his import tariffs have sent countries seeking new markets to reduce their dependency on the American consumer.

More broadly, all the agreements have been accompanied by words from the leaders referring to the uncertainty that Trump has introduced to global affairs, though mostly without mentioning his name. The systems they have relied on to manage the world since the end of the Cold War and, in some cases since World War II, appear at risk.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called for working with China on global stability “during challenging times for the world." Chinese leader Xi Jinping described the international situation as “complex and ever-changing.” In New Delhi, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the partnership with the EU “will strengthen stability in the international system” at a time of ”turmoil in the global order.”

European Council President António Costa summed up the sentiment Thursday in the Vietnamese capital: “At a moment when the international rules-based order is under threat from multiple sides, we need to stand side by side as reliable and predictable partners.”