The Fall of Assad: A Turning Point in Syria's Troubled History
How the U.S., Israel, and Turkey Enabled the Fall of the Assad Regime and the Rise of Extremists in Syria
Introduction
The fall of the Assad government in Syria on December 8, 2024, marked a dramatic turning point in the country's turbulent history. This event, which saw President Bashar al-Assad flee to Russia and the rise of the extremist faction Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) to power, has left Syria in a state of profound fragmentation and uncertainty.
This article delves into the historical context of the Syrian conflict, examining the factors that led to the downfall of the Assad regime. It will explore the rise of the Ba'ath Party, the authoritarian rule of the Assad family, the outbreak of the 2011 uprising, and the descent into a devastating proxy war fueled by foreign intervention.
My perspective is critical of the role played by the United States, the Zionist entity, and Turkey in destabilizing Syria and the region. The actions of the United States and the Zionist entity, driven by self-interest and a desire to maintain and expand regional dominance, have had devastating consequences for the Syrian people and the broader West Asian region. Similarly, Turkey, under Erdogan's leadership, has pursued its own neo-Ottoman ambitions in Syria, often at the expense of the Syrian people. These ambitions have fueled the conflict and further complicated efforts to achieve a lasting peace.
Historical Context
The Rise of Arab Nationalism and the Ba'ath Party
The Syrian conflict is deeply rooted in the rise of the Ba'ath Party, an Arab nationalist movement that seized power in Syria in 1963. Founded in 1943 by Michel Aflaq and Salah al-Din al-Bitar, the Ba'ath Party championed ideals of Arab unity, liberation from non-Arab control, and socialism. These principles resonated with many Syrians who had long endured colonial rule and internal divisions, particularly under the centuries-long Ottoman Empire. While Ottoman rule brought infrastructure development, it was also marked by centralization and suppression of local identities, fostering a strong desire for self-determination among Syrians.
By the late 19th century, an emerging Arab nationalist movement in Syria, driven by intellectuals and reformers, sought greater autonomy or complete independence from the Ottoman Empire. The outbreak of World War I further destabilized the region, as the Ottoman Empire allied with the Central Powers against the Allied Powers, which included European colonial powers controlling vast overseas empires. The war's conclusion led to the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire and the division of its territories under various mandates. France assumed control over Syria under a mandate from the League of Nations, perpetuating colonial influence and intensifying Syrian nationalist sentiments. This historical backdrop amplified the Ba'ath Party's appeal with its pan-Arabist and socialist vision, as the pan-Arabist movement had gained significant traction in West Asia through growing sentiment for Arab unity, a response to colonial rule, and the desire to challenge Western imperialism and Zionism.
Ba'athism and Its Influence: The Roots of Conflict with the West
Ba'athism, the ideology of the Ba'ath Party, promoted a secular Arab nationalist identity aimed at transcending class divisions while pursuing socialist economic policies, including state control of key industries, land redistribution, and social welfare programs to reduce inequality and foster economic self-sufficiency. These socialist reforms were seen as a direct challenge to the United States, which viewed them as a threat to its capitalist economic model and global influence, particularly in a region vital for oil resources and geopolitical power. The Ba'ath Party's influence extended deeply into Syrian society, shaping the education system to promote Arab nationalism and socialist ideals, while controlling the media to disseminate its ideology and suppress dissent. In foreign policy, Ba'athism drove Syria to forge a close alliance with the Soviet Union and support various Arab nationalist movements throughout the region, including Palestinian resistance groups, the Yemeni socialist movement, and the nationalist factions in Lebanon, all of which sought to challenge Western influence and promote Arab unity and independence.
The Rise of the Assad Regime: Consolidation of Power and Strategic Alliances
The Ba'ath Party's ascent to power was tumultuous, marked by military coups and internal factionalism. In 1963, a military coup brought the Ba'ath Party to power, but subsequent power struggles led to instability.By 1966, a “radical” faction led by Salah Jadid seized control, implementing socialist policies that alienated many Syrians. Jadid's policies were considered radical due to his efforts to nationalize industries and implement land reforms, which threatened the interests of the traditional elite and the middle class. These groups, who had benefited from the existing economic structure, felt alienated by Jadid's socialist policies and sought to protect their privileges. The 1967 Six-Day War with the Zionist entity further destabilized Jadid's government, revealing deep divisions within the Ba'ath Party, particularly between Jadid's radical faction and more moderate elements led by figures like Hafez al-Assad, an Alawite military officer and Minister of Defense, who disagreed over Syria's military strategy and political direction.
In 1970, Hafez al-Assad orchestrated a "Corrective Movement" coup against Jadid. Assad's takeover was widely supported by Syrians disillusioned with Jadid's policies and the government's poor performance in the 1967 war, which included a catastrophic defeat by the Zionist entity, the loss of the Golan Heights, and the exposure of Syria's military vulnerabilities and lack of effective leadership. Assad established an authoritarian regime, consolidating power through repression and strategic alliances, particularly by empowering the Alawite minority. This authoritarianism, however, had a complex relationship with the West. In a chilling example of realpolitik, Assad's Syria even became a participant in the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program, hosting black sites where suspected terrorists were interrogated and tortured. This collaboration, shrouded in secrecy, highlights the cynical pragmatism that often underlies international relations, where even supposed enemies can find common ground in the pursuit of their respective agendas. (While the Assad regime was certainly repressive, especially towards political dissent and minority groups, in comparison to modern U.S. practices, one might view it as comparatively “harmless.” The U.S. government, particularly since the Cold War, has vastly expanded its own forms of authoritarian control—through surveillance, military interventions, and the systemic suppression of opposition—often on a far larger scale, both domestically and internationally. Furthermore, the U.S. frequently employs third parties, such as compliant governments and proxy forces, to carry out its authoritarian strategies, enabling it to maintain control and influence while distancing itself from direct responsibility. This has resulted in widespread human rights abuses, outright war crimes, and destabilization in various regions across the globe).
Consolidation of Authoritarian Rule: The Alawite Factor and Sectarian Tensions
Hafez al-Assad's rise marked the beginning of nearly three decades of authoritarian stability in Syria. He built a robust security apparatus to monitor and suppress opposition, purged rivals within the Ba'ath Party, and established a loyal faction to ensure his continued dominance. This consolidation of power enabled Assad to maintain a tight grip on the country through a combination of repression and strategic alliances, especially within the Alawite community.
Assad's regime strategically aligned with the Alawite minority, a heterodox Shia sect that had long been marginalized in Syria. They are a distinct religious group primarily found in Syria, with their beliefs incorporating elements from Gnostic, Neo-Platonic, and Christian traditions, in addition to traditional Shia doctrines. The Alawites have a unique interpretation of Islam that differentiates them from the mainstream Shia community, and their religious practices and beliefs are often considered esoteric and distinct from both mainstream Shia and Sunni Islam. Historically, they have been concentrated in the mountainous regions of coastal Syria, particularly around Latakia and Tartus.
Under French mandate rule, Alawites were elevated to privileged positions, primarily because the French colonial authorities viewed them as a marginalized minority that could be relied upon to counterbalance and suppress the Sunni majority, ensuring loyalty to the colonial administration. This trend continued under Assad's rule, where the Alawites became central to, and formed the core of, the military and security apparatus, ensuring the regime's loyalty and control over key institutions. This Alawite dominance significantly impacted Syrian politics, fueling resentment among the Sunni majority and contributing to sectarian tensions. The Assad government exploited these sectarian divisions to maintain power, portraying itself as the protector of minorities against Sunni extremism. This strategy exacerbated sectarianism and contributed to the fragmentation of Syrian society.
Suppression of Dissent and the Hama Massacre (1982): A Turning Point in Syrian History
One of the most horrific events in Syria's modern history was the Hama massacre in 1982. This brutal suppression was in response to an uprising by the Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni Islamist organization that had long challenged Assad's rule through violence, including assassinations and bombings. Hama was a significant stronghold for the Muslim Brotherhood, and the city had a history of anti-government sentiment. The uprising escalated into open warfare there as the rebels aimed to establish control and challenge the government's authority directly.
The Syrian government's response was swift and ruthless. The military, including the "Defense Companies" paramilitary force composed primarily of Alawites loyal to Hafez al-Assad and known for their brutality, besieged Hama for 27 days, using tanks, artillery, and airpower to indiscriminately bombard the city and reduce entire neighborhoods to rubble. Estimates of the death toll vary, with various sources reporting between 20,000 to 40,000 civilians killed. The massacre left a deep scar on Syrian society, instilling a culture of fear and silencing dissent for years to come. It also radicalized the opposition, leading to more violent forms of resistance, including guerrilla warfare, targeted assassinations of regime officials, and the formation of underground militant groups that sought to challenge Assad's rule through armed insurgency.
Internationally, the Hama massacre was condemned by the United Nations Security Council and Western governments, which imposed sanctions on Syria, including economic restrictions, arms embargoes, and the freezing of assets held by Syrian officials, all aimed at isolating the regime and pressuring it to change its policies. However, these measures had little impact on the Assad regime, which continued to rule with an iron fist. The massacre further isolated Syria from the international community and reinforced its image as a "pariah state." It also set a precedent for future violence, demonstrating the regime's willingness to use extreme force to maintain authority.
The Syrian Uprising and Proxy War: A Nation Divided
In 2011, the wave of Arab Spring uprisings reached Syria. Initial protests, sparked by the arrest and torture of children in Daraa, quickly spread nationwide, driven by legitimate grievances against the Assad government's authoritarianism, corruption, and economic mismanagement. The government's brutal response to these peaceful demonstrations escalated the conflict into a devastating proxy war.
Foreign Intervention: The Descent into Chaos
The Syrian proxy war attracted significant foreign intervention, with various powers pursuing their own interests at the expense of the Syrian people:
United States: The United States, under the guise of supporting "moderate rebels," funneled weapons and funding to various factions, including extremist groups linked to al-Qaeda. This policy aimed to destabilize Syria and counter Iranian influence but had disastrous consequences, fueling the conflict and contributing to the rise of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). Notably, years before the 2011 uprising, the CIA had been covertly funding Syrian opposition groups since at least 2006, primarily the London-based Movement for Justice and Development in Syria (MJD) and its associated satellite TV channel, Barada TV. Barada TV, launched in April 2009, served as a vital platform for disseminating anti-Assad news and opinions, playing a crucial role in the Syrian opposition's media strategy, especially during the peak of the uprising.
However, controversies surround these groups, including revelations from Wikileaks cables that the U.S. State Department funded Barada TV as part of a broader strategy to promote regime change in Syria. Additionally, leadership connections between the MJD, Barada TV, and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, particularly through the Al-Abdah brothers, have led to further scrutiny regarding the transparency and agendas of these groups.The Zionist entity: The Zionist entity provided logistical support, intelligence, and conducted airstrikes to aid anti-Assad forces. These actions aimed to weaken Syria and its allies, further exacerbating the conflict and humanitarian crisis.
Turkey: Turkey, under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, supported various rebel groups to establish a zone of influence in northern Syria. This included factions such as the al-Nusra Front, which evolved from al-Qaeda in Syria, and later rebranded as HTS. The al-Nusra Front, established in 2012 as al-Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, sought to overthrow the Assad regime and establish an Islamic state. In 2016, it severed formal ties with al-Qaeda and rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, aiming to integrate more deeply into the Syrian opposition. By 2017, it merged with other factions to form HTS, striving to present a more moderate image while maintaining a hardline Islamist ideology. Turkey's support for these groups, despite their extremist origins, was part of its strategy to counter Kurdish forces and expand its influence in the region.
Saudi Arabia: Driven by its rivalry with Iran, Saudi Arabia provided funding and weapons to various Salafist factions in Syria, thereby deepening the sectarian divide. Notably, the Saudis supported groups such as Jaysh al-Islam, an Islamist rebel alliance based in the eastern suburbs of Damascus, led by Zahran Alloush. Its creation was said to have been negotiated and spearheaded by Saudi Arabia, which believed that al-Nusra Front was gaining too much strength. Additionally, Saudi Arabia backed the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front (SILF), a coalition of Islamist rebel groups that fought against the Syrian government in the Syrian conflict. At the end of 2012, it was one of the strongest rebel coalitions in Syria, representing up to half of the rebel forces. Through financial support, arms supplies, and training, Saudi Arabia sought to bolster these factions to counter Iranian influence in the region. However, this intervention contributed to the intensification of sectarian tensions and prolonged the Syrian conflict.
These foreign interventions transformed the Syrian conflict into a complex proxy war, with multiple external actors exacerbating the violence and complicating efforts for peace.
The Fall of Assad: A Culmination of Internal and External Pressures
The fall of the Assad government in December 2024 was the culmination of years of proxy war, foreign intervention, and internal decay. The Syrian Arab Army (SAA), weakened by corruption and a lack of resources, was unable—and many argue unwilling—to withstand the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) offensive that swept through the country. Evidence suggests that a direct command was given to Syrian forces not to resist the HTS advance. This lack of resistance, both from the military and the local population, who notably did not form any grassroots defense forces, allowed HTS to rapidly and effectively reach Damascus with minimal opposition, despite being far from a formidable military threat to the Syrian forces.
Assad's strategic miscalculations also contributed to his downfall. His reluctance to fully embrace Russian and Iranian support, coupled with his attempts to appease Western powers, left him isolated when the final offensive came.
The collapse of the Assad regime has left Syria in a state of profound fragmentation and uncertainty. HTS, an extremist faction with ties to al-Qaeda, now controls Damascus, raising serious concerns about the future of the country and the region.
The Geopolitical Chessboard and the Future of Syria
The fall of the Assad government is a tragedy for the Syrian people and a cautionary tale for the world. It is a stark reminder of the devastating consequences of foreign intervention, proxy wars, and the cynical pursuit of power by imperial states.
The future of Syria remains uncertain. The power vacuum left by the collapse of the Assad regime has created a dangerous breeding ground for extremism and further instability. However, the geopolitical chessboard surrounding Syria suggests that the conflict's resolution will be shaped by ongoing behind-the-scenes negotiations and realignments among key external actors.
Russia's Strategic Shift: Russia appears to be recalibrating its role in Syria. While maintaining a presence at its strategic bases in Hmeimim and Tartus, Moscow is reportedly reallocating some military assets to Libya and engaging in direct negotiations with the "new authorities" in Syria, including factions like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). This pragmatic shift underscores Russia's intent to secure its interests in a rapidly evolving landscape, even if it means engaging with groups previously labeled as adversaries.
Turkey's Neo-Ottoman Ambitions: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's neo-Ottoman vision has further complicated Syria's future. Turkey's control over northern Syrian territories and its alignment—at least initially—with groups like the al-Nusra Front and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) reflect Erdoğan's broader ambitions of regional influence. At the same time, Turkey's relationship with the United States adds another layer of complexity. While Turkey is a NATO ally, its strategic objectives in Syria often clash with U.S. policy, particularly regarding Washington's support for Kurdish groups like the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the People's Protection Units (YPG), which Turkey considers terrorist organizations linked to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). This divergence has created a precarious dynamic where Turkey balances its relationship with both Russia and the United States, leveraging its geopolitical position to pursue its own interests in Syria. Despite these tensions, Ankara's ability to negotiate with both Moscow and Washington remains a critical factor in determining Syria's fate.
Iran's Waning Influence: Iran, historically a cornerstone of Assad's regional alliances, appears to face diminishing influence in Syria. During a recent press conference, President Vladimir Putin downplayed Russia's involvement in Syria, omitting any mention of Iran's role in the region. This omission suggests a shift in regional dynamics, indicating that Iran's influence in Syria may be diminishing. Despite this, the strategic partnership between Tehran and Moscow persists, implying that Iran will continue to play a role in Syria's future, albeit a recalibrated one.
The Zionist entity as the Beneficiary: The Zionist entity emerges as one of the primary beneficiaries of the Syrian conflict. The prolonged destabilization of Syria has allowed it to act with near-total impunity, conducting nearly 500 airstrikes across Syrian territory in the immediate aftermath of Assad's fall—an operation that flagrantly violated international law. These strikes systematically dismantled what remained of Syria's military infrastructure, including alleged warehouses storing Russian-supplied weapons. A critical and unresolved question looms specifically over these strikes on the supposed Russian warehouses: How did the Zionist entity acquire such precise intelligence on these highly sensitive targets? While plausible sources could include signals intelligence or assets on the ground, the possibility of a breach within the Russian Ministry of Defense cannot be dismissed outright. The accuracy and timing of these strikes suggest access to highly classified information, raising troubling implications about potential internal leaks or covert intelligence-sharing arrangements. This question casts a shadow over the already fragile dynamics of regional power struggles and underscores the extent to which intelligence operations have played a decisive role in shaping the Syrian conflict's trajectory.
Secret Deals and Ongoing Negotiations: Perhaps most consequential are the secret agreements made before the fall of Damascus. Recent reports suggest that Russia, Turkey, and potentially the Zionist entity had pre-existing arrangements that influenced the rapid military and political developments in the final phase of Assad's rule. These agreements, if real, likely included understandings about territorial control, military operations, and post-conflict governance. Such behind-the-scenes deals may explain the swift collapse of resistance in key areas and the smooth advances of certain factions, albeit nobody can say for sure in the current fog of war. As the situation continues to evolve, ongoing discussions among these major powers—shaped by competing agendas and overlapping interests—are expected to play a decisive role in determining Syria's post-Assad power structure and the broader geopolitical balance in the region.
A Way Forward: Towards a Just and Stable Future for Syria
A just and lasting solution to the Syrian conflict must prioritize the self-determination of the Syrian people and the stability of the region. It must reject foreign intervention, the cynical exploitation of sectarian divisions, and geopolitical agendas driven by external actors. As the plausibly ongoing secret negotiations suggest, any sustainable resolution, however unlikely, will require transparency, accountability, and the inclusion of all relevant stakeholders, both local and international.
Syria is not merely a contemporary geopolitical battleground—it is one of humanity's oldest civilizations, a cradle of culture, trade, and innovation stretching back nearly 10,000 years. From the ancient city of Ebla to the archaeological sites of Tell Qaramel, Syria has played a pivotal role in shaping early human society. Today, that millennia-old heritage stands at risk of being erased, fragmented into sectarian chaos under the shadow of imperial designs. The destruction of Syria is not just a regional tragedy but a loss for all of humanity—a fracture in the very foundation of our shared history.
The “international community,” with its hollow pronouncements and selective outrage, must somehow find the will to confront this crisis. Addressing Syria's humanitarian crisis, supporting reconstruction, and empowering the Syrian people to determine their own future are not just moral imperatives but also essential steps toward regional stability—a stability that, it must be acknowledged, stands in stark contrast to the chaos-driven agendas of the Zionist entity and its allies in the collective West. Indeed, preserving Syria's unity in the face of such destabilizing forces is not only a strategic necessity but a moral duty to protect one of humanity's oldest living legacies.
Call to Action
Advocate for a just and peaceful resolution that prioritizes Syrian self-determination and regional stability.
Support humanitarian efforts to aid the Syrian people in rebuilding their lives and their country.
The Syrian people have endured unimaginable suffering, caught between external powers and internal decay. Their resilience and determination to reclaim their future deserve our unwavering support and solidarity. We must hope that Syria is not entirely lost—for its people, its heritage, and for all of us who share in the legacy of one of humanity's oldest civilizations.