Syria Today: What Next?

On December 8, armed formations of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham entered Damascus, marking the end of more than fifty years of Assad family rule in Syria. The victors have not announced their plans for the country’s future but have publicly emphasised a moderate approach. Yuri Zinin, an Arabist Orientalist and senior researcher at the Institute of International Studies at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, talks with Kursiv Uzbekistan about how this change in power may impact the political landscape of Syria and the broader Middle East.

Crucial transformations

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the unofficial leader of the coalition of forces that emerged after Bashar al-Assad’s overthrow, is working to change its image. Many analysts and commentators on events in the Middle East agree on this shift.

The transformation began with the organisation’s leader, who replaced his nickname, Al-Julani, with his real name, Al-Sharaa. He also adopted a new appearance, opting for civilian attire instead of military fatigues.

Arab media have noted the milestones in the transformation of the former head of the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria. Recently, HTS has sought to distance itself from its past by establishing a semblance of administration in Idlib, which is outside the control of the Damascus government. Now, the organisation aims to expand this effort on a larger scale.

Syria’s newly appointed prime minister has promised to protect the rights of all religious groups within the anti-government coalition that ousted Bashar al-Assad.

Between to fires

Fulfilling these promises faces significant challenges for several reasons. First, the coalition that has come to power is diverse in its religious, sectarian and ethnic makeup, united primarily by its opposition to Damascus’s secular rule.

This coalition includes groups such as Jaysh al-Izza, Jaysh al-Ahrar, Ahrar al-Sham, and the al-Ghuraba Brigade (from Turkestan). Each of these groups has international sponsors and its own agenda.

In northwest Syria, control is divided between Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and the Ankara-backed Syrian National Army (SNA). According to the Syrian opposition abroad, these factions initially sought cooperation before their recent military operations.

Over 30% of eastern Syria is under the control of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which the United States supports. Clashes between the SDF and the Syrian National Army occur regularly. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan regards the SDF as a terrorist organisation and a branch of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, with Ankara engaged in a conflict against them for over four decades.

The new leadership that has taken power appears caught between two opposing pressures. On one side, there is a community demand for a shift away from radical ideologies to gain international recognition and lift sanctions. On the other, there is pressure from the jihadist elements who have fought against the “infidel rulers” and are now eager for their rewards. Many of these fighters include foreign mercenaries willing to be hired by the highest bidder.

The situation is further complicated by what might be termed Syria’s “deep state,” which is experiencing upheaval due to the departure of confident leaders and officials from the previous regime.

While the transitional government has made calming and reassuring statements, reports persist of ongoing violations and abuses. According to Syrian media and social media, militants have carried out field executions in the Hama countryside despite assurances from the new leadership. Jihadists have even destroyed the grave of former President Hafez al-Assad in his hometown.

The transitional government has already expressed its intention to extend the Sharia-based authority that previously dominated Idlib to all of Syria.

Iran’s position

Judging by the reactions, the authorities and society in Iran have received the latest news from Syria with disappointment and caution. A prominent member of the Iranian parliament stated that the country had lost about 6,000 troops and spent billions to support the Syrian government after ISIS invaded Syria.

Iranian media reported that Bashar Assad has not followed Tehran’s advice. Hussein Salami, the commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guard, noted that Iranian forces were the last to leave Syria, which he described as illogical given that the Iranian army was acting as a mere spectator.

Sources indicate that the Iranian-backed Hezbollah group, which initially supported Assad at the start of the war, has withdrawn many of its fighters from Syria in the past year. Israel has launched severe strikes against Hezbollah, targeting its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and many of its commanders.

Local authors initially labelled the pro-Turkish groups as “terrorists” during the early stages of the rapid attack. However, as those groups advanced and seized control, they began to be called “opposition.”

Today, Iranian figures emphasise the belief that the Syrian people should be responsible for determining the future of their country, including its political structure and governance.

Mohammad-Bagher Qalibaf, the head of Iran’s Shura Council, acknowledged that the recent events will impact resistance activities. Still, he encouraged the people, hoping their forces would eventually adapt to the new circumstances.

Israel’s position

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the ousting of Assad, calling it a “historic day” following airstrikes on Iran and Hezbollah. Israel’s raids extended into Syrian territory, targeting air defence systems, weapons depots, and various aspects of Syria’s military infrastructure. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, the number of these raids reached 446 across 13 Syrian provinces in just one week since December 8.

Pro-Islamic forces have played a role as accomplices to Tel Aviv, opposing their country’s military for years and undermining its defence capabilities.

Currently, Israel is actively expanding its buffer zone and plans to increase the number of illegal settlements in the Golan Heights. Time will reveal what happens next.

One thing is clear: the appetite of Israeli hawks has grown. We must not forget those who aspire to a “Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates,” a vision once proclaimed by the founding theorists of the Jewish state.

The position of the West

The political and media circles in the West are welcoming the fall of the regime in Syria, praising the “liberation of the long-suffering people of Syria.” They hold “dictator Bashar al-Assad and his father” responsible for the country’s woes over the past 54 years, accusing them of organising repression and violence against the population and expressing satisfaction with the results of Moscow’s and Iran’s influence.

Initially, the Western response included statements like “we do not communicate with terrorists,” as the group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is classified as a “terrorist” organisation. Despite this classification, Western diplomacy has been actively engaging with the situation.

The U.S. State Department has issued an urgent warning for its citizens in Syria to leave the country due to increasing concerns about potential actions from sleeper cells. They also noted that the U.S. had “direct contact” with HTS.

Analysts are expressing worries about the uncertainty and unpredictability of Syria’s future. One Western commentator described the situation as a “catastrophic success.” There are debates about what criteria should be used to remove the terrorist label from HTS leader Abu Muhammad al-Julani. Some urge swift action, while others advocate for caution, fearing that the country might become chaotic.

There is a concern that Syria might mirror the scenarios of two civil wars: Iraq in 2003 following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and Libya in 2011 after the ousting of Muammar Gaddafi.

Currently, many foreign advisors are offering various options to the Syrian people. As the Brussels-based International Crisis Group emphasises, the first priority should be to prevent lawlessness, looting, and infighting.

According to various centers of thought, protecting high-ranking government officials and military personnel from reprisals and preserving state institutions critical for a smooth transition are essential.

However, the same centers label the overthrown regime as hateful and parasitic, raising the question of why the structures of such a regime should be preserved. This concern should have been addressed decades ago when Western powers called for Assad’s removal.

These calls were not just verbal. During the Arab Spring in 2011, external forces began supporting anti-government groups, providing them with funding, weapons, and extensive media backing. This support allowed radical Islamist factions, led by ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, to dominate the opposition. The impacts of militant raids, often involving foreign mercenaries from Islamic nations and Europe, were devastating for Syria, resulting in thousands of civilian casualties, millions of refugees and displaced persons and the destruction of hundreds of villages.

Despite these challenges, the Syrian government, backed by allies like Russia, remained resilient. Moscow prevented Western forces from organising a military intervention like the NATO operation dismantling Libya. While the former Syrian regime was not ideal, the question remains: what alternatives exist in the region?

The struggle has taken a toll on the country, depleting its resources and demoralising its army and law enforcement. These factors played a significant role in the recent developments in Syria, now entering a period marked by uncertain and potentially grave consequences.