After the celebrations end and the last statues of al-Assad are toppled in the squares, Syrians will face a new and uncertain day. Who will govern them? A single individual or committees? Or will there be more than one Syria – three or four perhaps?
The situation may not be so straightforward and smooth, as al-Assad has left behind a fragmented country divided among various factions. The group that toppled Aleppo and led the change was “Hayat Tahrir al-Sham” under the leadership of Ahmad al-Sharaa, emerging from the Turkish-influenced area.
The force that entered Damascus (the Southern Operations Room led by Ahmad al-Ouda) advanced from Daraa province, a small faction of the remnants of the Free Syrian Army. Meanwhile, the group securing the border with Iraq was the Kurdish-majority “SDF” (Syrian Democratic Forces) operating within the US-influenced zone.
Damascus resembles Berlin in April 1945 when allied forces entered the city: Britain and America from the west, and the Soviets from the east. They agreed on the demise of Hitler – who committed suicide just before they arrived – but disagreed on governing Berlin. The Soviets occupied the east, while the western part of the city was handed to the Western Allies.
On Damascus’ victory day, all the victors are Syrians arriving from different zones of influence, as toppling the regime would not have been possible without external support. According to the agreements preceding Bashar’s departure – rumored to have vanished at 10 p.m. on a Thursday –governance is expected to transition to Syrian forces, revolutionaries, and independents in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2254.
This document, endorsed by the five major powers, stipulates governance by a transitional government, the drafting of a constitution, and subsequent elections. However, it is likely that “Hayat Tahrir al-Sham” will ultimately emerge as Syria’s de facto ruler, given that it is the most powerful force, which managed to overthrow al-Assad’s regime in roughly two weeks. The SDF will likely continue ruling eastern Syria, with the Euphrates River serving as a Berlin Wall dividing the two Syrian sides – unless the factions agree on a federal distribution of power, as previously proposed by Ahmad al-Sharaa or something similar.
Even if they agree, Syria is not for the Syrians alone, a reality that has shaped its fate throughout history. Regional and global powers have always had a say. I recently finished James Barr’s book A Line in the Sand, which details the British-French rivalry, much of which involved the struggle over the Levant between the two World Wars. Iran, Türkiye, Iraq, and Israel are unlikely to give up their influence and interference in Damascus.
Relations with these countries will depend on their interests and known policies. Some nations will pose a threat to the stability of the new Syria, fearing it might emerge as a rival power. Others will support stability in the new Syrian government to rebalance the regional power dynamics, which have previously favored Iran. These countries believe that the changes in Damascus will contribute to regional stability.
This means that Damascus faces a choice: Either navigate through landmines or act preemptively to reassure concerned nations, including its neighbor Iraq, as well as Iran and even Israel. All share apprehensions about the fall of al-Assad’s regime.
The interests of Syria and the region lie in forming a new regional system that reduces dangerous tensions and ends the severe polarization that al-Assad’s regime contributed to, ultimately causing its downfall. A policy of reconciliation could serve as insurance for the nascent regime. This is what Ahmad al-Sharaa hinted at in his televised message to Iraq’s Prime Minister, stating that Syria will not be an adversary to Iraq and extended a hand of friendship and respect.
Syria has just emerged from a 60-year era and faces numerous internal and external challenges. The nascent state will need money, advice, and patience. It will require support from its fellow Arab countries, not just politically but also in humanitarian efforts.
Providing moral support through presence and participation is crucial, ensuring the new leadership is not left vulnerable to those with harmful agendas, reckless intentions, and adventurists who have destroyed their own and others’ countries. The fires in the region have not been extinguished for the past 13 years and continue to burn today. Look around, and you will see numerous failed changes that serve as sufficient lessons for the new revolutionaries.
