www.dailywire.com
‘We Can’t Control This’: The Fall Of Assad And The Future Of Syria
The possible outcomes for Syria after the fall of President Bashar al-Assad generally range from bad to worse, though the regime’s end may serve U.S. interests in the region.
Assad’s regime was well-known for the brutality it directed toward its own people as Assad sought to maintain power through a lengthy and bloody civil war. But with terror groups and jihadis in control of large swaths of the country, Syria’s next government could be as harsh or worse toward religious and ethnic minorities.
“Domestically, [Assad’s ouster] is probably going to result in chaos because, prior to Hafez al-Assad’s taking over 50 years ago, there was one coup after another in Syria,” Hillsdale College history professor Dr. Paul Rahe told The Daily Wire.
Rami Alsayed/NurPhoto via Getty Images
That chaos is largely a result of Syria’s creation out of imperial holdings of the British and French after the first world war, according to Rahe.
“The crucial thing to understand is that Syria is artificial. It goes back to the divvying up of the Near East between the British and the French after World War I. So, there really isn’t a country there,” Rahe said.
“The difficulties in bringing order to Syria other than the kind of order that Assad imposed – which is violent and dictatorial and tyrannical – the difficulty is very, very great. I don’t think we should expect this to produce a new awakening for Syria and good things,” he continued. “It may be good for us, … but I wouldn’t be shocked if the civil war continued.”
Amid the chaos, Russia risks the loss of its Tartus naval base on the Mediterranean, as well as the Khmeimim airbase, an important staging post between Russia and its operations in Africa. Iran’s losses are arguably greater. Tehran has spent decades building networks and infrastructure in Syria to supply its terror proxies throughout the region.
An aerial photo shows Syrian naval ships destroyed during an overnight Israeli attack on the port city of Latakia on December 10, 2024. (Photo by AAREF WATAD/AFP via Getty Images)
Whether Moscow and Tehran can maintain the influence they had with the new regional authority remains to be seen, though the odds are doubtful. Reports say both Russia and Iran have pulled resources out of the country in the days since Assad’s ouster.
The group responsible for Assad’s fall is Ha’yat Tehrir al-Sham (HTS), a U.S.-designated terror group that led the rebel coalition against the Assad regime. HTS is led by a man who, until recently, was known by his nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al-Jolani. He dropped the name while distancing himself from his radical Islamist past, recently reverting to his real name, Ahmed al-Sharaa.
Sharaa, with his past ties to al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, is wanted under a $10 million bounty by the United States.
Sharaa is closely aligned with Turkey and its autocratic ruler, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, leaving the Turks in the best position to influence the possible next leader of Syria. That influence could have a significant impact on how U.S. interests in the region are served, according to Rahe.
“Whether it’s in our interest or in the interest of the Israelis depends to a great degree on the policy of Turkey, and there’s no clarity about the policy of Turkey with regard to Israel,” Rahe said. “At times, the Erdogan government has cooperated very closely with the Israelis. At other times, it has been strongly hostile to Israel.”
Despite the questions surrounding Turkey, the fact that Tehran is no longer the dominant state sponsor in Syria bodes well.
“[Assad] was a pawn of Iran, so the weakening of Iran is very good for us,” Rahe said. “If it turns out to be a radical Islamist regime on the border of Israel, it will be trouble. But will it be as much trouble as Iran was with Assad, with Hezbollah, with the Houthis? I think not. So, on the whole, I think it’s a piece of luck for us.”
Scott Peterson/Getty Images
The United States has roughly 1,000 troops in Syria, left over from forces ordered there under the Obama administration to fight the rise of the Islamic State. President Joe Biden has dedicated American forces toward that aim again, launching dozens of airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria in the past week.
“We’re clear-eyed about the fact that ISIS will try to take advantage of any vacuum to reestablish its capability and to create a safe haven. We will not let that happen,” Biden said in remarks from the White House on December 8.
Biden’s limited interventions in Syria appear to be more than President-elect Donald Trump prefers or would pursue after he takes office in January.
“Syria is a mess, but is not our friend, & THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT,” Trump said in a recent post on Truth Social. “THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT. LET IT PLAY OUT. DO NOT GET INVOLVED!”
But with Assad out and Syria’s future governance in doubt for the first time in 50 years, should the United States move in to assert its influence and interests in the new regime? According to Rahe, that would be a bad idea based more on hubris than reality.
“It’s too easy for Americans to exaggerate American agency, our capacity to fix things, to shape things. The prudent thing to do is to watch and wait,” Rahe told The Daily Wire. “If a government emerges and it’s in control of the territory, we should recognize it and our diplomats should try to work with it. Then we’ll see.”
“But we can’t control this,” he continued. “The Russians can’t control it. The Iranians can’t control it. And my guess is, in the end, the Turks can’t control it, though they can influence things.”
News Feed (Home)
Popular Posts 
Events 
Blog 
Market 
Forum 
Headline News
VidWatch
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
