Confronted by a Resurgent Rebel Offensive, Will Bashar al-Assad Endure in Syria?
In 2012, then-President Barack Obama announced a “red line” that cautioned that any chemical weapon use by Bashar al-Assad’s government would trigger direct US involvement in the ongoing Syrian civil war.
Merely a year later, Assad’s forces dropped sarin gas on civilians in Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus, resulting in the deaths of over 1,400 individuals. Instead of the anticipated military response, a deal brokered by Russia led to the dismantling of Assad’s chemical weapons stockpile while allowing him to remain in power.
This event highlighted the persistent ambivalence among global leaders regarding the fall of Assad.
Although the West condemned Assad’s heinous acts, there has been no urgency in dismantling the precarious and brutal regime he represents.
Underlying this hesitation is a careful consideration: Would the removal of Assad foster a better Syria or plunge the nation into further chaos and extremism? That question loomed large this month as Islamist rebels took over Aleppo, the country’s second-largest city, and advanced towards the sizable town of Hama, marking the failure of a Russian- and Turkish-brokered truce that lasted four years in northern Syria.
While few would shed tears for Assad himself, many within the global community — perhaps even his regional rivals — might not be eager to see him deposed.
Despite his brutal reputation, the Syrian dictator enjoys some backing both locally and regionally, particularly among Syrian Christians and Druze who fear repression under Islamist governance.
Assad’s secular government has avoided direct provocations against Israel and appears indifferent to Israel’s ongoing occupation of the Golan Heights. The Syrian civil conflict has destabilized Lebanon, which absorbed hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees, while not spilling over into Jordan — a primary concern for the US.
If Assad were replaced by Islamist factions sympathetic to Al Qaida, neighboring countries such as Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel could be directly endangered. Extremists could gain access to Syria’s chemical weapons and possibly use the territory for jihadist recruitment and terrorist activities.
This new regime could marginalize minorities such as Christians, Alawites, and Druze, while women’s rights would be severely compromised.
This is a far cry from the optimism at the start of the civil war in 2011. Back then, the West had high hopes for the Free Syrian Army (FSA), a coalition of defectors from Assad’s military that was viewed as a moderate alternative. However, the groups currently gaining the most ground seem to be Islamist factions, particularly Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which was pivotal in the capture of Aleppo.
HTS is a Sunni group that once pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda’s central command. According to various reports from Middle East Eye and others, HTS has enforced Islamic law in areas it has governed in northwest Syria since 2015.
Syria’s civil war, now entering its 13th year, has become one of the most tragic and multifaceted conflicts of modern times. It is also a proxy war, with Russia and Iran firmly supporting Assad while Turkey and Gulf states initially backed various rebel groups.
The conflict has resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties, displaced millions, and devastated historic cities.
The current crisis is a striking example of unintended repercussions — seemingly triggered by Israel’s recent defeat of Hezbollah in fighting that resulted in a six-week ceasefire last week.
The incoming Donald Trump administration poses an unpredictable element. During his first term, Trump ordered missile strikes on Syrian military installations in retaliation for Assad’s chemical weapons use in April 2017, taking action where his predecessor hesitated.
However, Trump also made it evident that his overarching strategy in Syria was not focused on removing Assad but aimed at defeating ISIS and countering Iran’s influence in the area.
This situation presents Assad with a critical decision: whether to request additional support from Iran, which has dispatched Shiite fighters from Iraq and Yemen to bolster his regime, or to seek to rehabilitate his relationships with the Sunni world and the West by distancing himself from Iran.
His options appear constrained, with Russia too preoccupied with Ukraine to provide fresh military assistance to Assad.
Recent reports indicate that the UAE even proposed the notion of lifting sanctions on Assad in exchange for severing ties with Iran. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia and the US may also be attempting to persuade Assad to pursue a similar diplomatic shift. This pivot could yield a significant victory for either President Biden or an early achievement for Trump.
If Assad ultimately survives once more, it will, in part, be due to the fact that much of the world opted for the familiar over the unknown.
Dan Perry is the former Associated Press regional editor for Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Follow him at danperry.substack.com
