After an inconceivably fast twelve day march through Syria by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is in exile in Moscow, his government has fallen, the more than five decade’s long Ba’ath rule of Syria is over and a group descended from Al-Qaeda is in control of Syria.
The Assad regime only survived as long as it did because of Hezbollah ground support, Russian air support and significant Iranian assistance in the first round of the Syrian rebellion over a decade ago. This time, none of that was available.
Hezbollah had been critically wounded by airstrikes and assassinations in its war with Israel. To concentrate on its war with Israel, Hezbollah had withdrawn forces from Syria. And its ceasefire agreement with Israel prevented its presence in South Lebanon, hampering its ability to assist Syria. Iran had been weakened both locally by its exchange of attacks with Israel and regionally by the weakening of Hezbollah. Russia was focussed on its own war with Ukraine.
But it is not entirely clear that Iran and Russia lacked the ability to come to Syria’s aid more significantly. Despite the forces and material being committed to Ukraine, a recent report by Chatham House concludes that “Russia’s global power projection capabilities are undiminished.” General Christopher Cavoli, the commander of United States European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, similarly told a congressional audience of the House Armed Services Committee that “Much of the Russian military has not been affected negatively by this conflict… despite all of the efforts they’ve undertaken inside Ukraine.”
Russia promised to “continue to provide support to President Assad.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Russia is “actively studying measures needed to stabilise the situation in the region,” and Syrian military sources said Russia had promised that more military aid would start arriving withing 72 hours.
But there may not have been 72 hours. As HTS forces poured through Syria, the Syrian army just melted away. The rapidity and ease of the advance took everyone, including Israel and the United States, by surprise. Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said that Iran was “fully aware” of what was going on in Syria. “What caught us off guard,” he said, “was, one, the inability of Syria’s army to confront the movement and, second, the speed of developments.”
Syria’s two biggest supporters seem to have realized that the speed of events “was outpacing their ability to turn the tide.”
Perhaps more even than the weakening of Hezbollah and Iran and the distraction of Russia, the rapidity of events may have been because, as one U.S. official put it, “The Syrian military forces are not really fighting.” The New York Times, too, reported that it was crucial that “Syria’s Army has demonstrated an unwillingness to fight.” There are reports of Syrian soldiers abandoning their posts and even leaving for Iraq and surrendering their weapons.
Middle East expert Stephen Zunes, who is Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, told me that without external support, Assad was forced to rely on conscripts in the Syrian Army, “who were clearly unwilling to fight for him.” The surprisingly rapid advance of the rebels was the result “more of a political collapse,” Zunes told me, “than a military victory.” In the end, Assad fell, not because Iran and Russia didn’t support him, but because the Syrian military and people didn’t support him.
Though the U.S. claims it was not being behind the rebellion that has not stopped them celebrating it. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan told CNN that because HTS is “a terrorist organization designated by the United States… [w]e have real concerns about the designs and objectives of that organization.” But, “[a]t the same time, of course,” he added, “we don’t cry over the fact that the Assad government, backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, are facing certain kinds of pressure.” U.S. President Joe Biden called the fall of Assad at the hands of “rebel groups” with “their own grim record of terrorism and human rights abuses,” a “fundamental act of justice.”
The U.S isn’t crying because, although there may be many losers in and around Syria with the ascendancy of a regime that is a radical offshoot of Al-Qaeda, the real losers are Hezbollah, Iran and Russia.
Already reeling, Hezbollah has been dealt another blow. Syria was the bridge over which Iranian arms flowed to Lebanon.
For Iran, the overthrow of Assad by a radical Sunni group that is no ally of theirs represents the continued dismantling of its front line proxy defense and deterrent. Iran not only had military bases and missile factories in Syria, but every weapon Iran sent to its partners in the region went through Syria.
In his victory speech, HTS leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani said that Assad had made Syria “a playground for Iranian ambitions.” No sooner had Damascus been captured than the Iranian embassy was stormed by Syrian rebels.
For Russia, the loss of Syria represents the loss of its closest ally in the Middle East and the “backbone” of its “military presence in the region.” It could also mean the loss of its only Mediterranean naval port in Tartus. Although, according to the Russian media, “Russian officials are in touch with representatives of armed Syrian opposition, whose leaders have guaranteed security of Russian military bases and diplomatic missions on the Syrian territory.”
But Russia could suffer not only a military setback. Russia could also suffer a diplomatic and grand strategy setback. Coupled with China’s brokering of a resumption of diplomatic ties between Saudi Arabia and Iran, Russia’s brokering talks between Syria and Saudi Arabia held the promise of ending the imposition of Cold War blocs on the region with a U.S. backed Saudi bloc in opposition to an Iran bloc. Russia and China were diplomatically attempting to reshape the region into one of multipolarity and cooperation. Saudi Arabia and Syria had agreed to reopen their embassies, and, last year, Syria was welcomed back into the Arab League.
In round one of the Syrian rebellion over a decade ago, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and others tried to isolate Syria and actively supported the ISIS and Al-Qaeda groups who were trying to overthrow Assad. This time, they supported Assad. The replacement of Assad with a radical group hostile to Iran threatens to throw the region back into the new Cold War.
There are more losers than just Assad. Hopefully, this time, the Syrian people will not be the losers. America, though, seems not to be a loser because the rapidly unfolding events coincide with U.S. ambitions for the region. The big losers are America’s big enemies: Russia and Iran.
But, even for the United States, there are risks. A group that the U.S. recognizes as a Foreign Terrorist Organization is now at the head of a very unstable country that still has many opposition groups struggling for their share of control. How much HTS will be in control and how much they can control the other radical members of the opposition is still unknown. Much is still unstable, and much is still to be determined. And that, in today’s Syria, is a very volatile and dangerous situation.
Ted Snider is a regular columnist on U.S. foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets. To support his work or for media or virtual presentation requests, contact him at tedsnider@bell.net.
