WHY DID SYRIA FALL SO FAST AND WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

With each passing day since October 7, 2023, the contours of the regional processes unfolding in the Middle East become increasingly clear. That day – a watershed moment for the entire region – left behind a multitude of questions that remain unanswered.

One of the most formidable intelligence agencies in the world, Israel’s Mossad, failed to foresee or prevent the attack by Palestinian groups, sparking widespread astonishment.

However, beneath this shocking event lies a series of deeper processes, steadily propelling the region toward profound transformations. Mechanisms that once seemed hidden are now becoming more apparent, revealing a deliberate design to reshape those nations that long resisted Western influence and expansion.

On the morning of December 8, the region was shaken by news that, until recently, seemed unimaginable: Damascus had fallen to the forces of opposition and terrorist groups. The Ba’ath Party’s rule under President Bashar Assad has been effectively destroyed. Assad’s disappearance and the silence from official sources only amplified the sense of irreversible change.

Following a prolonged war with Hamas and the near-total defeat of Lebanon’s Hezbollah, international and regional actors shifted their focus to Syria, a key player in the ‘Axis of Resistance’ against Israel. Syria, which had long served as a cornerstone of Iranian policy in the region, became the latest link in a chain of nations succumbing to mounting internal and external pressures.

These events appear to be part of a broader scenario aimed at fundamentally altering the political and social landscape of the Middle East. With the weakening of key participants in the Axis of Resistance – from Palestinian groups to Syria and Lebanon – a crucial question arises: Who will be the next target of this rapidly unfolding plan?

The fate of the region, as well as answers to pressing questions about the role of external forces in these developments, remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: The Middle East will never be the same again.

What happened in Syria and why?

The escalation in Idlib province that began 11 days ago has rapidly spiraled into a series of events that have dramatically transformed Syria’s situation.

On December 7, armed opposition forces and fighters from Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS, designated a terrorist organization and banned in Russia) encircled Damascus, the nation’s capital. Within a single night, they seized the strategic city of Homs, encountering little resistance, and advanced into Damascus itself.

Along their path, they freed prisoners from numerous detention facilities, including Syria’s largest prison, Saydnaya, symbolizing the regime’s total loss of control.

By midday on December 7, panic had engulfed the city. Syrian soldiers, shedding their uniforms for civilian attire, fled the capital in haste, leaving it nearly defenseless. By nightfall, the streets of Damascus were deserted of military personnel, replaced by frightened citizens scrambling to stockpile food and flee their homes.

This exodus was particularly evident in the affluent northern districts, where residents departed en masse, fearing chaos. In contrast, the southern part of the city presented a starkly different scene: There, the opposition was welcomed as liberators.

Crowds gathered in celebration, waving flags, and in a climactic act of defiance, the statue of Hafez Assad, founder of the modern Syrian regime and father of Bashar Assad, was torn down.

Amid these dramatic events, Syrian Prime Minister Mohammed Ghazi al-Jalali made an urgent announcement. In a statement relayed by Al Arabiya, he declared the government’s capitulation and expressed his readiness to cooperate with the country’s new leadership.

Al-Jalali stressed that most ministers had remained in Damascus to ensure the continued functioning of state institutions and to prevent chaos during the transitional period. He also revealed that an agreement had been reached with HTS leader Abu Mohammed al-Julani, marking a significant step in minimizing destruction in the capital.

The words of Hadi al-Bahra, head of the Syrian National Coalition, carried a tone of hope for a new chapter in the country’s history. He stated, “The situation is safe. The dark times in Syria have ended, and there is no place for vengeance in the new Syria.”

This declaration sought to reassure the population and highlight the opposition’s intent to avoid reprisals. Yet, behind the facade of such statements lies an undeniable anxiety about Syria’s future – its political fate and stability amid a period of profound transformation.

A new day has dawned for the country, but whether it will bring peace remains an unanswered question.

The events unfolding in Syria are far from coincidental; they are the result of deep-seated processes that have been building for years. This tragedy was likely predestined by a confluence of internal contradictions, external pressures, and historical missteps, collectively creating a perfect storm capable of toppling even the most entrenched regimes.

The Syrian crisis, which began as a standoff between the government and certain opposition groups, evolved into a prolonged conflict fueled by a complex mosaic of local, regional, and international interests.

Years of relentless warfare and an unwillingness to seek compromise led to worsening economic inequality, a brain drain of skilled workers, the collapse of state institutions and infrastructure, and the fragmentation and corruption of the political elite.

Society, worn down by a lack of prospects, became deeply fractured, and the growing discontent among the population only hastened the weakening of the central government.

But it was not solely internal factors that brought about this outcome. Syria became a battleground for geopolitical rivalries, where external powers exploited the crisis to advance their own agendas.

From Western and Arab states backing the opposition to the direct involvement of foreign actors on Syrian soil, every side pursued its own goals, further deepening the conflict. Regional players like Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Israel saw Syria’s weakening as an opportunity to bolster their own influence.

Yet for years, these plans failed to materialize due to the robust support Syria received from Russia and Iran. The intervention of militants and terrorist groups added to the chaos, turning the struggle for power into a lawless war.

A key turning point came when Assad lost the support of even those who had stood by him for years. Economic hardships, sanctions, and a growing sense of hopelessness led many to believe that change was inevitable, even if it came at the cost of destruction.

The strategic mistake of the ruling elite – betting on a military solution to the conflict while ignoring political dialogue, both domestically and internationally – ultimately left Assad vulnerable to determined and well-organized adversaries.

Another significant factor was Assad’s own persona. Born in 1965 into the family of Hafez Assad, Syria’s long-time leader, Bashar had no initial ambitions for a political career, choosing instead to pursue medicine.

Educated as an ophthalmologist in Damascus and later specializing in London, he was seen as a secular and educated figure, far removed from the cruder aspects of Middle Eastern politics.

However, a family tragedy – the death of his elder brother Basil – altered his destiny, forcing him to return to Syria and assume the role of his father’s successor. In 2000, following Hafez Assad’s death, Bashar ascended to the presidency, inheriting a nation with great potential but riddled with deep internal contradictions.

Over the years, Bashar Assad found himself at the center of mounting challenges. Corruption within his inner circle, international pressure, and a protracted war drained both the country and Assad personally.

Another blow came with his wife Asma’s battle with cancer, which she has fought for years. These circumstances likely influenced his willingness to consider change. Media outlets frequently reported that Assad was ready to hand over power to the opposition, although no solid evidence supported this claim.

Perhaps war fatigue, personal tragedies, and the realization of inevitable transformation made him more open to compromise. The Russian Foreign Ministry recently confirmed that following negotiations with various armed factions within Syria, Assad decided to step down from the presidency, leave the country, and ensure a peaceful transfer of power.

The recent capture of Homs and the fall of Damascus marked the final act in this tragedy. Syria found itself trapped by its own missteps and the ambitions of external actors, with its people becoming pawns in a game where the stakes were not peace but power and resources.

This crisis is not just about Syria’s fate – it is a stark reminder of the fragility of any state that ignores the signals of its society and allows external forces to dictate its future.

Who benefits and what’s next?

The fall of Damascus is a turning point in Middle Eastern politics, signaling not only the collapse of Assad’s rule but also a significant weakening of Iran, which had spent years building its influence through its alliance with Syria. Tehran had regarded Syria as a vital link in the Axis of Resistance, encompassing Lebanon, Yemen, and Palestinian groups.

Syria served as a crucial logistical hub for arming Hezbollah and providing both political and economic support. However, the collapse of the Syrian capital and the ensuing chaos shattered these supply chains.

Capitalizing on the situation, Israel deployed forces into the buffer zone on the Golan Heights, effectively expanding its occupied territory. This move not only bolstered Israel’s strategic position but also deprived Iran of the ability to counteract its actions effectively in the region.

The losses suffered by Hezbollah have dealt yet another blow to Iran. The Lebanese organization, long regarded as one of Tehran’s key instruments in its struggle against Israel, now finds itself isolated and weakened.

The loss of arms supply routes and the destruction of its logistical chains have cast doubt on its combat readiness. The organization is now forced to reconsider its strategies, and its capacity to conduct effective military operations has been significantly curtailed.

For Iran, this not only means a loss of influence in Lebanon but also the erosion of a major pillar of its broader Middle Eastern strategy. In this context, Tehran faces the daunting challenge of overhauling its foreign policy, a task that is causing a deep internal crisis.

Iranian media and officials have sought scapegoats for the unfolding catastrophe, and Assad has become the primary target of criticism.

In its publications, Pars Today unequivocally places the blame on Assad, stating: “Bashar refused to stand to the end, and no one could change the outcome. Even Iran’s direct appeals had no effect on him because he understood that the army and society (for reasons ranging from betrayal to lack of motivation or corruption) would not support him. It was clear five days ago that resistance would not occur; only the speed of events was surprising. Bashar is not an ideologically driven leader like Yahya Sinwar, capable of holding out to the bitter end. For him, it was safe enough to leave Damascus. However, he will likely remember that Tehran was his only true ally over the last 13 years.”

These words reflect the deep frustration of the Iranian elite, who recognize the extent of their loss of strategic influence.

The situation in the region has become not only a foreign policy disaster for Iran but also an internal challenge, further exacerbating divisions within Iranian society. Tensions are rising between reformist forces advocating for dialogue with the West and conservatives who insist that maintaining a hardline approach is the only way to retain influence and control.

This divide is further intensified by the anticipated power transition from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to his son Mojtaba Khamenei, which, according to many analysts, could occur as early as 2025.

This transition is likely to trigger a new wave of domestic political conflicts. Increasingly, there are fears that the Islamic Republic could face internal fractures, potentially escalating into open conflict between various political and ethnic factions.

Adding to Iran’s woes is the looming threat of direct military confrontation with Israel, which continues to consolidate its position in the region. Taking advantage of Iran’s weakened state and the vulnerabilities of its allies, the Israeli military may seize the opportunity to target remaining infrastructure linked to Iran, further undermining Tehran’s ability to safeguard its interests.

Thus, the fall of Damascus is not merely a localized event but a symbol of Iran’s systemic crisis – one that is reshaping the balance of power in the Middle East and may lead to profound changes both within Iran and across the region.

The Syrian crisis is not just a localized conflict; it represents yet another element of both regional and global confrontation. It is evident that Western nations, led by the United States and its Middle Eastern allies, are backing the actions of rebels, opposition groups, and terrorist organizations.

A clear indication of this is the recent interview given by HTS leader al-Julani to the American network CNN, despite the fact that HTS is officially designated as a terrorist organization by the US.

This demonstrates the political support extended by Western nations, who view such groups as tools for achieving their geopolitical objectives in the region, even if it contradicts their proclaimed fight against terrorism.

However, the assault was not limited to Syria or Iran; it also targeted Russia’s interests in the Middle East. Western nations, spearheaded by Washington and London, have long expressed dissatisfaction with Moscow’s growing influence in the region over the past decade.

Acting as a key ally of Assad and forging successful relationships with several Middle Eastern states, Russia had emerged as a critical player in this strategically vital area. Moscow’s achievements in both the military and diplomatic spheres, including its role in conflict resolution and cooperation with nations such as Türkiye, Iran, and Gulf states, deeply unsettled the West.

The undermining of the Syrian regime was thus aimed at weakening Russia’s regional influence, stripping it of a key ally, and potentially ousting its military presence from Syria. While this could be seen as a blow to Moscow, it would be inaccurate to suggest that this significantly alters Russia’s broader Middle Eastern strategy or its relations with regional partners.

Washington, London, and their allies are not merely fighting to maintain control over the Middle East; they are striving to solidify their dominance on the global stage. Their actions demonstrate a willingness to use any means, including support for terrorist organizations, to achieve strategic objectives.

This conflict is yet another theater of global confrontation, where the struggle for influence in the Middle East is directly tied to the West’s efforts to retain its global supremacy.

Türkiye, meanwhile, emerges as another potential beneficiary, celebrating Assad’s fall alongside opposition forces. While Ankara’s goals may currently align with those of the Syrian opposition, it is unlikely that these events unfolded in direct coordination with Türkiye.

More plausibly, Ankara has reacted to the unfolding developments, seeking to portray itself as instrumental in the opposition’s success. Regardless of the specifics, this may lead to a cooling of relations between Moscow and Ankara, particularly if Türkiye is found to have played a direct role in coordinating events in Syria, violating previous agreements.

It is far too early to declare an end to Syria’s turmoil, as the experience of Libya vividly illustrates that regime change seldom leads to stability. Following Muammar Gaddafi’s overthrow, Libya failed to achieve peace, descending into a landscape of bloody wars, factional conflicts, and shattered hopes for millions.

The country remains divided among rival factions, each pursuing its own interests, leaving the population mired in chaos, insecurity, and the destruction of infrastructure. A similar fate may await Syria, where the fragile success of the opposition and its Western backers conceals the looming threat of protracted conflicts that could further fragment and exhaust the nation.