The fall of Syria’s Assad regime: The winners, the losers and the uncertainty – Katzenellenbogen - Biznews
The fall of the Assad regime in Syria ends over 50 years of rule, reshaping regional dynamics. Russia and Iran suffer significant losses, while Turkey-backed Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) takes control. Syria remains fragmented, with foreign powers vying for influence. Assad’s defeat exposes global alliances and escalates regional uncertainty.
Jonathan Katzenellenbogen
The fall of the Assad regime in Syria after more than 50 years in power marks a dramatic shift in the balance of power in the region.
Russia and Iran are the losers, but, as yet, the clear winners remain uncertain, with Syria divided and multiple foreign forces on its land. The new rulers, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), have been part of the Islamic State, yet are backed by Turkey, which has previously described them as terrorists.
The defeat of Hamas and particularly Hezbollah, provided an ideal opportunity for HTS to launch a full attack on Assad’s forces. Hezbollah was defeated and could no longer rush to Assad’s aid. And Russia, already overstretched in Ukraine, did not have the resources to spare to defend one of their closest allies. Iran could not do much with its offensive capability weakened by the Israeli strikes and its proxy Hezobollah on its knees.
Both Russia and Iran have suffered an immense loss of international prestige and their military capabilities have been shown to be overrated. And now their governments in the face of economic problems could be running scared about popular uprisings.
While South Africa is not a significant player in the region, it is firmly on the side of the losers. It has been a good friend of Russia and Iran, and protected the Syrians in the United Nations against accusations of torture and mass killings. Assad’s overthrow throws a light on South Africa’s allegiances to one of the world’s most evil dictators and his friends.
When President Donald Trump is inaugurated in a month’s time, he will have been handed a new reality in the Middle East, and a strong US hand.
Assad was heavily backed by Iran and Russia, and it’s highly unlikely that Syria’s new rulers will allow them to play large roles. Iran and its Axis of Resistance − Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and others − have been fundamentally weakened. Iran can no longer use Syria as a conduit to supply weapons to allow Hezbollah to rebuild. And Russia without its Syrian bases will not have much of a role.
Pressure
As Israel is close to victory and with the senior political and military leadership of Hamas and Hezobollah dead, the changes in Syria bring pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to come up with a day-after vision. What are Israel’s plans for Gaza and Lebanon now that Iran does not have the leeway to run its proxies?
As Bashar al-Assad was on the verge of falling, Trump declared that the Syrian conflict was “not our fight”. But it is in the US interest to see that it retains some influence in Syria, at least to keep its enemies out. The US does not want to see Russian and Iranian influence re-emerge in Syria, or new rulers committed to the Islamic State. And in the wider region, he will have to ensure Iran does not cross the nuclear threshold.
Trump speaks of “a deal with Iran”, but Tehran must be deeply afraid that another option is a joint Israeli-US strike on its nuclear facilities and a push for regime change. Iran’s negotiating power has diminished as it can no longer play its Hezbollah hand, its stock of missiles is diminished, and it is facing growing internal dissent.
Russia is also a big loser from the overthrow of the regime they have backed for more than 50 years. The Russians are likely to lose their naval base at Tartus on the Mediterranean and a nearby air force base at Hmeimim. These have been important bases for Russia to ensure a continuous and sizable presence in the Mediterranean on NATO’s southern flank. The bases also give Russia a supply point for the operations of its Africa Corps across the Sahel.
Will HTS want to do a deal with the Russians that would allow them to retain their bases?
Very little
Money might sway HTS, as the Syrian government now has very little after years of looting by the Assad’s and civil war. There are two grain shipments that Russia promised to the overthrown regime that are offshore, and Russia could transfer weapons.
But the West could pay a lot more for those bases or at least for them to be kept out of Russian hands. As a condition for Russia retaining its bases, the Syrians just might ask for the return of Assad as part of a wider deal. If the West is prepared to pay a sufficiently large amount, Russia will lose its bases.
The West, Russia, Iran and Israel have been talking to Syria’s new rulers, but much is up in the air. It is hardly the case that HTS are able to exercise nationwide control. The Israelis have been hitting military targets so that weapon and chemical warfare stocks do not fall into the wrong hands.
HTS rhetoric has been conciliatory, which represents a change from its days as part of ISIS. Turkey probably wants to see the country put together again, and end the war by the Kurds for an independent state. Russian forces have retreated into the naval and air base but multiple armed groups, including Islamic State, the Kurds, the Turkestan Islamic Party and the Syrian armed opposition, control different parts of the country.
What sort of autonomy will HTS have to guarantee for these armed groups to be prepared to agree to unite the country?
Under Assad, the Israelis, the US, and the Russians launched attacks on the Islamic State and would coordinate certain operations. It was a weird arrangement, but one that worked, on the whole. Under the new dispensation, it is unclear that the Islamic State and the other armed actors will suddenly fall in line. That leaves various scenarios for chaos on the table, but without Russia and Iranian influence.
Losing side
All this does not leave South Africa in a very good position. After all, Russia, which President Cyril Ramaphosa said a few months ago was our “valued ally” and “valued friend”, is on the losing side. And another close friend, Iran – which we, with others, invited into the BRICS grouping − is also on the losing side.
South Africa seems to have been at a loss for words since the overthrow of Assad. Just days before the regime fell the international relations department said it was standing in “solidarity” with his regime.
Throughout the Syrian civil war, the ANC government refused to condemn Assad’s extensive use of chemical weapons, the massive number of civilian deaths, and the extensive torture used by his regime. With Assad gone, Pretoria clearly chose the wrong side for moral and pragmatic reasons.
Jonathan Katzenellenbogen is a Johannesburg-based freelance journalist. His articles have appeared on DefenceWeb, Politicsweb, as well as in a number of overseas publications. Katzenellenbogen has also worked on Business Day and as a TV and radio reporter and newsreader. He has a Master’s degree in International Relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and an MBA from the MIT Sloan School of Management
This article was first published on the Daily Friend.