The collapse of the Assad regime raised many questions on the Arab world and beyond. Conspiracy theories have been dug up to explain the speed of this collapse, but the sequence of events, the conditions of the regime, the opposition’s popularity, and the regional support it received all made clear that its demise had been a “matter of time.”
In truth, the Syrian experience has raised ethical questions that deserve reflections that go beyond one’s political view of the defunct regime, unpacking the broader and deeper implications and significance of two fundamental principles. Emphasizing these principles is the self-evident starting point for analyzing any regime or governance framework, regardless of the alignment with its politics.
The first principle is the duty to confront "fraudulent models.” The former regime was exceptionally inclined to proclaiming qualities it did not possess in the slightest. As it was concluding covert and overt arrangements with Israel, it presented itself as a defiant regime that champions resistance. In fact, it consolidated its legitimacy and ensured its survival by appeasing the Jewish state. Syria was consistently targeted by airstrikes, some facilitated by regime informants. It did not fire a single shot in retaliation, because it was too busy killing its own people with barrel bombs.
In the Arab and Islamic worlds, several regimes have confronted Israel and shown openly hostility to it; regardless of how we assess their performance, agendas, or the suspicions that many have raised, Nasser’s regime is one. The hostility of Saddam Hussein and Moammar al-Gaddafi is also well documented, as are Iran’s stance and the confrontations of Hamas and Hezbollah with Israel, though many have disagreed with their actions. In contrast, the Syrian regime claimed to have been part of the resistance without acting accordingly, establishing a sectarian political system and subjugating Syrians rather than liberating the Golan Heights or fighting Israel.
Accordingly, it was hardly surprising that Israel targeted particular sites in Syria, almost exclusively Iranian or Hezbollah positions, while leaving Assad’s army untouched. That part of its deal with Syria’s former leadership. Israel then bombed what had remained of this army after the regime’s fall, destroying its capabilities because the new regime, despite its moderation and its eagerness to sign a security agreement “to guard against Israel’s evil,” was not part of these arrangements. Indeed, its moderate position does not necessarily entail the normalization of relations so long as Israel continues to occupy the Golan Heights.
It was not merely a controversial regime that collapsed in Syria- fraud, deception, and imaginary heroics fell as well. In itself, this development is a step in the direction of a higher principle, truthfulness about the true nature and orientations of every regime. There are moderates who seek to restore rights through political tools and pressure, while hardliners who attempt to reclaim rights through force and arms. Both positions are clear and explicitly stated. However, fraud’s collapse unequivocally favors progress in the Arab world.
The other principle is “change.” We must believe that the choices and positions of peoples and leaders evolve as they reassess their discourse and actions. One cannot approach the new Syrian leadership as though it has not changed since taking up arms ten years ago. They have undoubtedly changed after having discovered, after reaching power, and even before, that the world is far more than that Nusra Front once believed. Its conception of the world was one ruled by “evil forces,” America and Israel.
In reality, the world has become far more complex than these reductionist binaries raised by Islamist factions; breakthroughs are possible, as we see from the emerging relationship between the new Syria and the United States. Moreover, the discourse that the new Syrian leadership has presented to the world, America, Israel, and international powers reflects a real and fundamental shift away from that of only a few years ago.
There is no doubt that transformation, change, and reorientation are natural human impulses. Indeed, they are part of human nature and should be adopted as a basic premise of political analysis. Nevertheless, that does not prevent us from reading this clearly stated claim to change critically. Debate, agreement, and disagreement over what is taking place in Syria, a year after the fall of the regime, should not negate fundamental principles: rejecting fraud and believing in change and reassessment.
