K.C. Singh | Assad’s exit an inflection point: Stability or chaos?

The rebel operation began on November 27 as local retaliation and then extended to Aleppo, Syria’s second largest city. That fell two days later, followed by Hama on December 5 and the third largest city Homs on December 7. A day later, the capital Damascus was “freed”. Why did Syria’s military and then its foreign allies, such as Russia and Iran, let this happen? Russia is distracted and even weakened by its misadventure in Ukraine. The Iranian ability was compromised by Israel’s relentless attack on Hezbollah, the decapitation of its top leadership and that of Iran’s Quds Force, which was training and equipping the militias of non-Arab Shias, including from Pakistan. The rapid collapse of the Syrian National Army is comparable to that of the US-trained and equipped Afghan National Army when the Americans prepared to pull out of Afghanistan just over three years ago. Both cases demonstrated that once external support weakens, then the morale of any indigenous Army units, sensing lack of support or even animus amongst the local population, begins to crack. The Assad family managed to rule for 50 years, despite belonging to the Alawite-Shia community constituting just 10 per cent of the population, by repressive measures and brutal authoritarian control.

Mr Assad earlier faced displacement once the Arab Spring, a street-level popular uprisings in the Arab world which began in Tunisia and overthrew authoritarian rulers in Egypt and Libya, hit Syria in 2011. But Iran and Russia had helped to stabilise his government.

Thus unsurprisingly, according to a BBC report, Bashar al-Assad and his family have got asylum in Russia. Meanwhile, the fate remains uncertain of the Russian naval base at Tartus as well as an airbase. Both these facilities had allowed Russia to support their militias in Africa and project Russian influence and presence across West Asia and the eastern Mediterranean. Both facilities being west of a mountain chain appear to be safe for now. Though reportedly Russia has begun withdrawing its helicopters and moved ships out of the port, ostensibly for an exercise.

The rebel coalition’s main component is Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), led by Abu Mohammad al-Jilani. They controlled till now a small area around Idlib. Al-Jilani formed the Nusra Front during the early phase of the Syrian civil war but claims to have left the Islamic State, or Daesh, in 2016. Reportedly, HTS’ rule in Idlib was authoritarian, conservative and intolerant of dissent, though it left the minorities alone. His latest statements preach tolerance and coexistence. Only time will tell if he maintains that, but the multi-ethnic and diverse nature of the Syrian population practising multiple faiths can only be handled either, like the Assads, by authoritarian secularism, or via tolerant democracy. Egypt provides an example.

After President Hosni Mubarak’s ouster following the popular protests in 2011, an election led to a Muslim Brotherhood Islamist government. Soon popular resentment arose over its attempt to impose an Islamic framework, which in turn allowed the military to execute another coup and seize power.

According to the CIA World Factbook, the Syrian population is 87 per cent Muslim, of which 74 per cent are Sunnis. The rest are Shias, dominated by the Alawis, besides some Ismailis. Christians are estimated to be 10 per cent, mostly Greek Orthodox or Catholic.

The rebels were quoted claiming that “the future is ours”. However, Syria’s neighbours and global leaders have voiced concern. US President Joe Biden has cautioned about the resurgence of the Islamic State or Daesh. Germany expressed relief over Mr Assad’s ouster but also warned about the ascent of disruptive Islamist elements.

France, diplomatic as always, simply advocated a peaceful transition. Iran cautiously suggests that decision-making must be “solely the responsibility” of Syrians. Jordan’s King Abdullah II appeared to be supporting the rebels, hoping to keep the lines of communication open.

The challenge for HTS would be to keep the disparate rebel components united. The first challenge would be the Kurdish People’s Defence Units, called YPG, with about 70,000 fighters. They played an important role, with US help, to eliminate ISIS’ control. Turkey and Qatar characterise them as a terrorist organisation.

Turkey and Iran fear their links to their own substantial Kurdish populations, especially Turkey’s PKK. Kurds are an Iranic ethnic group scattered amongst Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria. They number around 40 million, ranging from 14.3-20 million in Turkey, 8.2-12 million in Iran, 5.6-8.5 million in Iraq and 2-3.6 million in Syria. Even in Germany, they are 1.2-1.5 million. US President-elect Donald Trump has voiced happiness over Mr Assad’s ouster but strongly urged a hands-off policy regarding Syria. Does that mean that the United States will abandon the Syrian Kurds as they did Afghan allies earlier?

One obvious lesson is that Israel’s blitzkrieg to weaken both the Hezbollah and Iranian influence in West Asia created a vacuum which the Syrian rebels have quickly exploited. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now voices concern over the next regime in Damascus. Israel’s military has also acted to seize the Golan Heights’ areas vacated by the Syrian Army. A secular regime run by Bashar al-Assad, despite allowing Iran land access to Hezbollah, provided more regional stability than a ruling group with past links to the Islamic State and unknown future propensities. The immediate gain for Turkey and Lebanon is that Syrian refugees have begun trickling back into Syria.

Syria’s Prime Minister Mohammad Ghazi al-Jalali, who refused to abandon his post, has offered to assist in the transition. If an orderly transition occurs and the new rulers quickly establish control without getting diverted by revenge against members of the Assad regime, gradually stability may be restored. The region is thus at an inflection point, with either revived Islamic radicalism spilling across the region and beyond or a new non-authoritarian model of multi-ethnic governance and growth. The latter is unlikely with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu persisting with his genocidal activities or Donald Trump with his isolationist instincts.