Assad’s fall

THE downfall of Bashar al-Assad marks the end of over half a century of authoritarian rule in Syria, ushering in a fragile era of hope and uncertainty. Assad’s hasty departure, following a swift rebel offensive led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), symbolises both the collapse of despotism and the challenges of rebuilding a fractured nation. For over 13 years, Syria endured a brutal civil war that claimed over 5,00,000 lives and displaced millions. Assad’s regime, once propped up by Russia and Iran, crumbled under the weight of its own corruption and violence. Yet, the victory of the HTS, an Islamist faction, offers no guarantee of stability. While its leader, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, has shifted the group’s narrative toward national liberation, critics question the HTS’ capacity to govern inclusively.

The immediate challenges are monumental. Syria’s institutions lie in ruins and its economy shattered by war and sanctions. Internally displaced citizens and refugees yearn for a return to normalcy, but fears of ethnic and sectarian divides linger. The promise of democracy is clouded by the ghosts of Libya and Iraq, where transitions led to chaos rather than cohesion.

The US faces a critical moment in its West Asia strategy. Having supported Kurdish forces against the ISIS and maintained a military presence, Washington must now navigate the aftermath of Assad’s fall. Its role could define whether Syria’s future is one of peace or continued strife, balancing counterterrorism with humanitarian engagement. External forces further complicate Syria’s path. Turkiye, the Gulf states and western powers have vested interests, while Israel and Iran remain wary of instability spilling across borders.

While Trump has said the Americans must keep off, the question is how the HTS was able to find the gunpowder to mount the final assault on Damascus, forcing even the Russians to withdraw. Who has this kind of military might?