 |
| Credit: Middle East Eye |
Despite the apparent weakening
of Iranian dictatorship in Syria, U.S' support for these particular opposition groups has remained
limited in recent years. The Syrian rebel coalition, called Hayat Tahrir al-Sham
(HTS) was formed as a terroist organization. Though one of its leaders, Jolani
promised governance by institutions and a "council chosen by the people,"
skepticism remains about the groups capacity to uphold their democratic
principles. His past ties with pan-Islamic militant groups have made him a
subject of international concern. In fact, the US State Department's Rewards for
Justice program placed a $10 million bounty on the high-priority figure, which underscores its serious stance against HTS. The rebel forces has taken advantage of a power vacuum created by Iran's distractions with domestic protests and Israel, as well as Russia’s preoccupation with the war in Ukraine. As a result, the US Pentagon has expressed concerned over the
rebel alliances taking advantage of this momentum to step into the leadership void to seize further control.
 |
| HTS in Damascus Credit: CBS News |
Impact on US-Russia-Isreal relations
A fragmented Syria could further increase tensions between Israel, Iran, and other regional powers, which complicates power dynamics and undermines the US' past diplomatic efforts. Moscow had relied on its
partnership with Iran and Assad to project power in the Middle East, using bases
in Syria as strategic outposts. Though the Iranian embassy attack and Assad's fleeting represents significant dismantling of Russian influence in Syria and the middle east, the absence of a robust Syria policy weakens
America's ability to challenge the military advancements/threats from Moscow.
Isreal's airstrikes on Iranian backed militias in Syria as a form of defense have further demonstrated how this is beyond a domestic conflict.
Syria, now caught between the Assad regime and extremist factions, highlights the regions need for more strategic and sustained support from global powers from US, for example. Without it, the US risks ceding influence to rivals like Russia which further destabilizes the region. To counter extremist threats, the US needs to continue providing targeted support to moderate opposition groups, like Syria Free Army opposition faction, for example, and continue engaging with European and Middle Eastern allies to distribute the cost of these efforts. The stability in Syria currently hinges on the creation of an inclusive government; and for now, the non-dictatorial candidate, Ahmad al Sharaa, with his full inner circle government made up entirely of HTS loyalists who vows to punish those who tortured Syrian detainees, still raises skepticism. If he attempts to govern Syria, it's likely to be as another region controlled by Sunni-dominated rebel groups. Because of that, the nation is bound to experience further repression and instability as feuding warlords wrestle for control domestically.
 |
| Credit: AP News |
What now
For Syria to rebuild and for millions of refugees to return, it has to rebuild its government internally. Though the involvement of external power has often exacerbated its struggles, a unified approach can prevent the nations instability from spilling into Iran and Jordan. The US should encourage regional powers to support sustainable political settlement. If Sharaa ever emerges as a national leader, the US may need to reposition its stance and alter its strategy. This outcome is still far from certain, but HTS's solidified authority over parts of Syria offers it an opportunity to free itself from the control of Iran and Russia. The question of who is going to step up and how they are going to reshape the region remains ambiguous, but in order for the nation to be less politically and religiously fractured, the leader and their foreign supporters have to commit to policies that promote inclusivity and long-term stability.
Live coverage by WSJ:
Sources:
27 comments:
While I don't know what is going to happen with a new regime change in a quite violent and militant country, I think that it is exactly that's exactly what it is: change. Even though Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has a worrying background, I don't think that a rebel campaigning under the banner of democracy can be much worse than the Assad regime was for the Syrian people. This is definitely a worrying and instable time for the entire Middle East, and only raises tensions with it's Israeli neighbor, who is already fighting two wars. Speaking of, Israel, in it's usual stance of aggressive defense, decided to invade the NATO-supervised buffer zone adjacent to the Golan Heights, and seized several abandoned Syrian military bases. In addition, they have carried out bombing, destroying much of Syria's strategic weapon stockpiles to prevent them from falling into militant hands. While this might seem like an extremely aggressive move that further escalates tensions (and it does), their tactics come from experience. In the past, militant groups operating in Syrian territory have launched rocket-fire, cross border shooting, and infiltration attempts, and the NATO buffer has done little to stop them. The new regime change will definitely be on the headlines for the foreseeable future, and we can only hope that it will be more benevolent than the previous.
As someone who has done exorbitant research on the lives of Syrian refugees, I can safely say that it's going to be hard to get them to come back. In Syria, identification for many prior citizens has been destroyed and burned, housing has been seized by the current government and a variety of militant groups, and necessary infrastructure such as schools and hospitals have been all but destroyed. That being said, it honestly just sucks being a Syrian even outside of Syria itself. In Turkey, a place that was once a haven for 3.4 million refugees, is now under a power struggle between the existent refugee friendly government, and a new right-wing anti-refugee government determined to send all Syrians back to where they came from - except only now their homes are rubble and their food is rotten. Sound familiar? Oh yeah! Trump. Not to dwell on him for long though, Syria itself is facing a crisis, it just isn't a new one. The power struggle in this country has been going on for far too long, and it doesn't look like it will end any time soon.
Upon reading this, I also thought about how this change in Syria's leadership would change Israel's position in the Middle East. I've constantly seen rumors online that both sides are Israeli/CIA-backed. While both rumors are odd, there will definitely be a difference in American and Israeli foreign policy. It is clear that the Assad regime was affiliated with Iran and Russia, enemies of Israel and the US, and Israel has assassinated Iranian leaders in Damascus in the past. The new leaders in Syria don't seem to be affiliated with Iran, reflecting the hope that there can be more peaceful relations filling a once violent place in the Middle East.
Syria has effectively transitioned into a hellhole. The place is no longer safe for its inhabitants--the people have no home, they live under the constant fear of seeing no tomorrow, and worse than that, the political scene is effectively in flames. While this new HTS group looks to be promising, there's a high possibility of it continuing the cycle of death and rebirth in the context of political tyranny. And also, though the group labels itself as democratic, there's no guarantee those under the organization will remain that way if power is to be given. In that regards, it's hard to tell whether the decision to impose a ten million dollar bounty on Jolani, a leader of HTS, is justified or not. It does tell us that the U.S. fears radical change and has a fairly high level of skepticism for what's about to come not just in Syria. As an added perspective, the U.S. has the difficult job of stabilizing Syria's government--there is no one-and-done type of solution and removing one group from power creates a power vacuum that repeats the cycle yet again. Effective collaboration will be essential to mending the tears within Syria's fabric of government and I hope that this situation will only get better from now on, not worse.
Syria’s ongoing turmoil really underlines the dangers of replacing one oppressive regime with potentially extremist factions like HTS. ya the weakening of Assad’s regime and Iran’s influence offers hope for change, but the path forward remains fraught and uncertain. For true stability, international powers must push for inclusive governance while ensuring that extremist groups do not fill the power vacuum. Without a unified global effort, Syria risks further chaos and suffering for who knows how much longer.
You raise a powerful point about the cyclical nature of tyranny in Syria and the challenges of genuinely democratic governance in a fractured state. I share your skepticism about HTS's promises of democracy. Groups with such deeply entrenched militant histories often struggle to transition into legitimate governing entities without reverting to authoritarian tendencies.
I also think the U.S.'s role is incredibly delicate here. While they must balance skepticism toward HTS and its leadership, outright rejection or harsh policies could worsen instability or push HTS toward even more radical alliances. Instead of focusing solely on preventing the rise of extremism, the U.S. and its allies could prioritize supporting grassroots Syrian efforts to rebuild civil society and infrastructure. Do you think this kind of bottom-up approach might break the cycle of instability, or is Syria’s fragmentation too far gone to recover without significant external intervention?
This could be a monumental shift in Syrian rule if it does mean the fall of the Asaad family who has ruled over the region for years now. The only question is how will HTS fill the roll in his position? Does this mean more instability for the Syrian people? They do promise to to have a council "chosen by the people" however, past actions as well of the past of Syria make democracy seem out of reach. Ultimately the future of Syria remains uncertain.
Now with the overthrow of Assad, there is, as you said, a "power vacuum" in Syria. Along with the limited support and wariness by the US towards the rebel groups who overthrew Assad, I wonder if the US will step in in a similar way that they did in the 1953 Iranian coup d'etat. Will the US fight the rebel groups in Syria to make way for their own candidate? There may be a need for this, as the rebel group will likely continue on the trend of instability in Syria through undemocratic leadership. However, in the 1953 Iranian coup d'etat the US was not too successful with their candidate Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was overthrown in the end in part due to his Western strings. Assisting Syria with this transition of power will be difficult, but I agree that whoever is in power next must be one that promotes a democratic nation free of instability and corruption.
Syria’s recent developments, including Assad’s retreat and the weakening of Iranian and Russian influence, offer a glimmer of hope but demand cautious optimism. The rebel coalition, led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), raises concerns given its history of extremism and ties to militant groups. While HTS promises governance and democracy, I agree that skepticism is necessary to avoid replacing one oppressive regime with another. For Syria to rebuild, the international community must support moderate factions, promote inclusivity, and encourage a stable political settlement. Despite the challenges, I hope for a future where Syrians can live in peace, refugees can return home, and the nation can overcome decades of repression.
This is really quite interesting, I had never known very much about Syria as a whole and its politics and how they tie into other global superpowers. I think that while it is probably a good thing to hope that Syria will shift from a dictatorship of a power-hungry family to maybe even something resembling democracy, the potential for oppression is still incredibly high. This rebel coup could easily unite the people against a common enemy and then simply have its own leaders step up to seize power, which would be a worst case scenario to have the Syrian people continue to live in a fragmented society which then would not even have the US or Russia supporting it. Change is, of course, inevitable, but will this truly be a positive change and a step in the right direction for Syria, or is it only an illusion of choice for the Syrian people if they are thrust right back into the same situation?
If what HTS is saying is true and they are a “council chosen by people,” I think it is a great transition from the Assad family, with previously Syrian people facing constant torture. Today, the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken says that Washington has made direct contact with HTS, which is another encouraging news. However, the fact that HTS was once affiliated with al-Qaida and was designed as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department in 2018, does not make all of what HTS says promising. At the same time, as one of the most, if not the most powerful country in the world and the country that represents freedom and independence, I think it is the right thing to contribute to the reconstruction of Syria. The U.S. has the option to just stay out of it, but with the resources and power that the U.S. has, I believe that they should attempt to do everything they can with safety measures.
I am worried about the current state of the country, and do not believe that the HTS will lead to a successful outcome for Syria. The author describes the country of Syria to be in a "power vacuum". Syria lies in a similar state to Afghanistan a few years back. The US decided to withdraw their troops from Afghanistan, setting them back many years, leaving the country in a unstable power vacuum. I feel the US should learn from their past mistakes, and stay involved in the situation along with their allies in Europe. The presence of multiple moderate factions is deeply concerning, and without intervention, will leave Syria in dismay. Additionally, leaving Syria unstable, will allow room for rivaling countries like Russia to spread their influence and gain power. It will eliminate the progress made by the US in pushing diplomatic efforts and peace in the middle east. I think it important the US intervenes with the help of allies to make sure Syria becomes stable again.
You make a really good point about the U.S. being a highly resourced country and how they should do everything possible to resolve this conflict. We certainly haven't shied away from a similar role in the past, however, caution must be exercised when engaging with HTS. HTS's claims of being a "council chosen by the people" could signify a potential shift toward a more civilian-led governance structure. If this is genuinely the case, cautiously engaging with HTS while holding them accountable to international human rights standards might pave the way for a more stable Syria. Diplomacy, coupled with safety measures and strategic reconstruction support, could indeed align with the U.S.'s values of promoting freedom and independence globally. Overall, I think it's important for the US to carefully get involved in supporting Syria through this reconstruction.
I think this post brings up a really important point about Syria needing a new government. However, it’s not just about getting rid of the dictatorship—it’s crucial that they don’t end up with another strict regime. Jolani’s past ties with extremist groups make it hard to trust their “people’s council” promise, which is why the U.S. has been hesitant to back these groups. Another key factor in achieving a new, inclusive government is considering how it will impact foreign relations—both in the Middle East and beyond. Overall, I believe the U.S. and other powers need to stop playing it safe and actually work toward a lasting, stable solution. Otherwise, we’ll just see more chaos unfold.
I think this article does a good job at describing the messiness of Syria’s current state. Assad fleeing to Moscow might seem like a big win for the rebels, but with HTS in charge, it’s hard to celebrate. Sure, they’ve shaken things up, but their history as an extremist group makes it tough to trust their promises of democracy and stability. The U.S. seems stuck in an awkward spot—helping HTS risks legitimizing them, but doing nothing lets Russia and Iran keep playing their games in the region. It’s a classic case of “out of the frying pan, into the fire,” and unless someone steps up with a real plan for inclusive governance, Syria’s future looks just as fractured as its past.
While I am hopeful towards the future of Syria, I am deeply concerned about the future treatment of the many minorities in Syria. HTS and other rebel groups had a lot of assistance from the Turkey in overthrowing Assad. Turkey has consistently been opposed to the SDF which is primarily Kurdish, supporting attacks against them and launching their own airstrikes against them. Even now the opposing rebel groups are fighting one another. It is definitely worrying that the Turkish backed Islamic extremist group is now the one in charge of Syria, posing a major risk to the minorities of Syria. Further the Alawite minority that the former dictator Assad was from and supported by could become a target for revenge from the Sunni Arab majority. Overall I am hoping for the best but deeply concerned by the possibility of ethnic conflict.
This looks to be a huge turning point for Syria, but it’s hard to feel optimistic with HTS in charge. Jolani’s promises of democracy sound nice, but his past actions don’t exactly scream "trustworthy." Replacing one form of oppression with another isn’t liberation it’s just a new kind of instability. The U.S. really needs to step up and support actual moderate opposition groups to prevent Syria from falling deeper into chaos. Without a real plan for inclusivity and stability, this will just lead to more turmoil for the Syrian people.
While the weakening of Assad’s regime is a step forward for the Syrian people, rises of other groups sets a backbone for a lot of dangers to come. HTS has many ties to extremism and consistently proven itself to be a controversial and unreliable force. The possibility for HTS to be apart of the situation left by Assad is only going to open a door to a lot of instability and repression. It’s concerning that the US and other global powers haven’t created a clear and strategic vision for post assad syria. The US needs to be more proactive in work with their allies to create a more peaceful and stable Syria instead of waiting for the dust to settle and let Russia/Iran take control of what is to come. An approach to fix these issues need to be done or else the country will remain a battleground for competing powers where Syrians will have to pay the price again
The long-time war has severely damaged Syria’s infrastructure, including its water systems, agriculture, and energy sources. I worry about not only the quality of life for Syrians but also the consequences for rebuilding efforts. Syria faced a significant water crisis because of the destruction of water infrastructure and the mismanagement of resources under Assad's regime. As rebel factions like the HTS, take over, there is an opportunity to prioritize environmental recovery and political rebuilding. I think if Syria’s future can be shaped like this, other countries and allies can focus on restoring natural resources and implementing food practices that could provide stability in the nation, and attract aid in a much more effective manner.
This is a very interesting development in the politics of Syria. While I think that it is good that Assad has fled, due to the harm that he has done to Syrian people, there might still be some concern over HTS. With HTS being formed as a terrorist organization and having a bounty put on its leaders head, as you said in the article, it may cause even more instability and hostility from other countries. While the removal of Assad is likely better for the people who are being abused in Syria, it brings into question what the future of Syria's diplomacy will look like. Will leaders of other countries be willing to speak to someone that has been labeled as a terrorist and overthrown the leadership of a country (even if it is for the better)? I think that if other nations are willing to overlook this, this could be the path for Syria to start rebuilding, and have a chance at fixing all of the hard done to its infrastructure and helping the victims.
Syria's one of those countries where the only real knowledge I've ever had about it was that it was just in constant peril and had war stuff going on. I think this post was enlightening in that it shed some light on a topic that I, personally, am pretty unfamiliar with. Of course, it's good that the Assad regime is being weakened considering how terrible they seem to have been in ruling Syria. However, I don't know that HTS will be any better (or significantly better) with their designation as a terrorist group and involvement with militant groups. Additionally, any transfer of power, especially when done in an informal rebellious process like this, has the capacity to lead to even more conflict/violence than usual. This change probably isn't a great thing for Syria since HTS seems to be only marginally better than Assad rule, if any better at all. Of course, I hope that the US can help Syria in some way by supporting moderate groups like you suggested or otherwise -- I am sure it's terrifying to live in a place like that where there is a constant power struggle beyond your control.
I believe this developments in Syria are pretty monumental. The collapse of Assad’s control after countless decades of his brutal rules offer a glimpse of hope for the Syrian people who have suffered for so long under his oppressive regime. The rise of HTS as a dominant force does raise concerns about whether Syria will transition to actual liberation or just trade one form of authoritarianism for another. HTS has made efforts to rebrand itself and move away from its extremist roots, but it does have a bad history leading to a lot of skepticism.
I think that the US will want to take a role in filling the power vacuum with some sort of democracy. It has just been revealed that diplomats are going to Syria for the first time sine the US cut off ties in 2012. Additionally, the numbers of US troops in Syria have doubled. Whether this leads to a stable and fair government for the people remains to be seen, but nevertheless change is good for the country.
The change in leadership in Syria offers hope but also raises concerns not only for the Syrian people who could possibly be going from one dictator to an even worse regime of tyranny. With a coup d'etat in Syria, will the current alliances shift? If so, worldwide tensions could reach a breaking point and likely lead to a world war. Assaad and Syria were Russia and Putin's allies. This alliance may shift with a change in leadership, and in that case, Syria will stand in a different place when it comes to international relations and affairs, possibly partnering with the US, Israel, Ukraine, and most of Europe.
This is where the President needs to step as chief diplomat, managing the relations. With the complexity between the abusive nature of the current regime and the extreme factions of the HTS, a cohesive and strategic plan is necessary. As chief diplomat the President has to coordinate the US foreign policy to negotiate and take a lead. This outcome could shape the future of Syria for a long time US should try to manage this complexity by considering the outer perspective.
Reading this really woke me up to how many people in the US have been complaining about our government, but at least ours works in some capacity and isn’t in total disarray. If Syria’s government can come back from so much destruction then it doesn’t seem so hard to change our own political system. Yet I also realized a problem with that way of thinking, most people in Syria know just how bad their government is and are willing to work to change it. The US works just enough for people to not commit to drastic action and it really just keeps going at a snail’s pace.
Post a Comment