After the Fall: Why Russia and Iran Turned Their Backs on Assad and What It Means for Syria

After the overthrow of the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the country found itself on the threshold of a new era, full of challenges and uncertainties. The question of how the transfer of power will be organized, who will be part of the transitional government and whether the interests of numerous ethnic and religious minorities will be taken into account, remains open. The resulting political vacuum threatens to exacerbate conflicts between the various forces claiming leadership in the new Syria.

However, the uncertainties are not limited to the domestic political dimension. The fall of the Assad regime has caused a wave of geopolitical issues affecting not only Syria, but the entire Middle East. Did it really happen out of the blue? What made Russia and Iran, who for years supported the Syrian government financially, militarily and politically, abandon the dictator? Why did these countries, which had invested significant resources in preserving the Assad regime, suddenly stop supporting it?

Why did Russia and Iran abandon Syria?

The events that took place were “not so unexpected,” noted defense analyst Professor Michael Clarke by Sky publication.

From a military point of view, this is something that often happens, he explained, referring to similar scenarios during the civil war in Libya in 2011, as well as in Iraq in 2014, when the fighters of the “Islamic State” reached the gates of Baghdad within a few weeks. . The professor noted that the promotion was made possible by the fact that Russia and Iran took care of less expensive operations in Syria. Russia provided air support, but its ground forces were limited, and Wagner was exiled after the mutiny. Iran, on the other hand, acted through its well-trained, but small in number, groups within the Republican Guard. At first, support for Assad was cheap because the presence of fighters on the ground was enough, but when the regime came under multilateral pressure, this intervention became insufficient. As a result, both Russia and Iran decided to abandon Syria.

What happened behind the scenes of the war

After the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, there are still many groups that can theoretically claim power. The question is: can they come to an agreement to avoid further escalation? Commenting on this issue to the German publication Tagesschau, Syrian political expert Scheller explains: The situation in Syria can remain peaceful if all the groups claiming power can find a common language. In recent years, they have put a lot of effort into building trust and understanding. These processes were not aimed at immediate seizure of power, but rather had a long-term perspective. The work was carried out both among Syrians in the diaspora and inside the country. This shows that, even despite the war, some progress was made behind the scenes. Now the main thing is to use these developments to build the future of Syria. Currently, several groups are the main players in Syria. For example, Abi Muhammad al-Jolani of HTS strengthened his position by actively leading the operation and also started using his civilian name, Ahmed al-Sharaa. However, other groups, particularly in southern Syria in cities such as Suwayda and Darya, have considerable influence. The protests of friends against Assad did not stop there. So, the future of Syria is likely to involve the sharing of power among different forces.

Who won and who lost from the fall of the Assad regime

The events in Syria, which significantly changed the geopolitical balance in the region, clearly revealed the winners and those who suffered significant losses. The latter include Iran and Russia.

Both countries have invested significant resources—financial, human, and military—in support of the Bashar al-Assad regime, but their investments are at risk of being lost. Russian military bases in Tartus and Khmeimim, which until recently played a key role in Russian strategy in the region, are now effectively abandoned. Some ships of the Russian Navy were evacuated at the initial stages of the crisis, but a significant part of the equipment, including the S-400 air defense systems, remained on Syrian territory. According to Western intelligence, a large-scale evacuation from the Khmeimim base was not carried out, and Russian aviation carried out fruitless bombing just a few days ago. This indicates that Russia has gradually distanced itself from the Syrian conflict, leaving its military in a vulnerable position.

Iran, for its part, faced catastrophic losses in the region. The evacuation of the Iranian military took place in a hurry, which was accompanied by the abandonment of a significant amount of equipment and weapons. With the loss of Syria as a strategic bridgehead to support Hezbollah, Iran’s position in Lebanon has also weakened, creating favorable conditions for Israel to strengthen its influence.

Turkey and Israel can be singled out among those who benefited from the situation. Israel, taking advantage of the disorganization of the forces of Hezbollah and Iran, can expand its influence in South Lebanon and end the struggle with other proxy forces, in particular Hamas. Turkey, in turn, has significantly strengthened its position in Syria thanks to the support of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group and the Syrian National Army. Both organizations are actively financed and trained by Turkey. Their forces are already fighting against Kurdish groups in northern Syria. Obviously, Ankara wants to use this situation to achieve its long-term geopolitical goals, in particular to push Kurdish formations out of key regions.

Recovery scenarios for Syria

Turkish government newspaper Sabah offers consider five options for the further development of events in the region.

1. Creation of the Syrian Democratic Republic.
   This option involves the formation of a united alliance of opposition forces representing different religious and political currents. Although reaching a consensus between the parties is a difficult task, such a form of government would receive the support of Turkey, Russia, the United States and European countries. The main advantage of this scenario is the preservation of the territorial integrity of Syria and the creation of conditions for its political stability.
2. Islamic Republic of Syria.
   If the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group comes to power, the country may turn into an Islamist state under the auspices of the Salafi movement of Sunni Islam. While such changes have the potential to gain Turkey’s support, they pose a serious threat to domestic stability, especially through the possible escalation of conflicts with other regional and global players. One advantage of this scenario is that these groups will likely avoid direct confrontation with Israel and the United States.
3. An anti-Shia state under the influence of Israel.
   This scenario envisages the formation of a state whose main goal will be to contain Iranian influence, block Hezbollah in Lebanon and stop the supply of Iranian military aid through Syrian territory. This development may contribute to reducing tensions in the region, but there is a risk of escalation of conflicts with Shia communities and their allies.
4. Federal Republic of Syria.
   The US could support the creation of a federal system where the country would be divided into several autonomous regions, each of which would have a significant level of self-government. However, this may lead to the “Balkanization” of Syria, when the fragmented state will become more vulnerable to external influence and internal conflicts.
5. The complete collapse of Syria.
   If the negotiations between the opposition forces and their international partners fail, the civil war may break out with new force. Such a development will create chaos, which will lead to the final disintegration of the country into unrecognized territories under the control of various groups or neighboring states.

The author of the analysis, Berzhan Tutar, emphasizes that each of these options will determine the future of Syria and affect regional stability. The outcome will depend on the ability of the international community and the Syrian parties to find a compromise that would take into account the interests of all participants in the conflict.

The best option, according to analysts of the publication, is the creation of the Syrian Democratic Republic, which would unite various opposition factions. The worst-case scenario could be the complete disintegration of Syria, when the country breaks up into a number of parts controlled by neighboring states. However, a large number of observers believe that the most dangerous scenario is the creation of an Islamist state under the control of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, actually under the auspices of Turkey. This would strengthen Ankara’s position in the region and threaten further complications for international actors, including the US, Israel and European countries.

Thus, the events in Syria have far-reaching consequences that go beyond the borders of this region. The country’s future will depend on whether international and regional players can find a compromise capable of stabilizing the situation and avoiding further escalation.

How to return the lost subjectivity?

Ukrainian orientalist Mykhailo Yakubovych respects, that the future of Syria depends on external players: Turkey, the United States, the United Arab Emirates, less so on Iran and Russia. Syria has long lost its subjectivity and has become an arena of influence of external players such as Turkey, the United States, the United Arab Emirates, and to a lesser extent Iran and Russia. This process began under Bashar al-Assad, who stayed in power only thanks to the help of Russian and Iranian allies. However, the new forces claiming control are also focused on external support, which limits their ability to conduct independent policies. Experience shows that such dependence only increases the internal crisis.

Syria is a multi-confessional country, where dialogue between different communities remains a key challenge. Without such a dialogue, the existence of a united Syria becomes doubtful. Sectarian tension, for example, poses a threat to the Alawite community, a section of which could suffer in the event of change. It will be recalled that during the civil war in Syria, the Alawites became the key base of support for Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Now they themselves are under threat from opposition groups, many of which represent the Sunni majority.

However, it is worth noting that not all Alawites supported the Assad regime. Most of the youth, who saw no prospects in the country, opposed him. In fact, only a few families close to the president benefited, while the rest of the community suffered from energy, food and financial crises.

Syrian society is undergoing transformations, similar to neighboring Lebanon, where sectarian politics have also exhausted themselves. People long for a normal life where religion is not a determining factor. Young people are increasingly advocating democratic change and competent leadership, rejecting patriarchal methods of governance.

At the same time, the world is gradually getting tired of Middle Eastern problems. European countries that are not involved in military operations often perceive them idealistically, believing in the possibility of a quick peaceful settlement. However, the governments of major powers such as the US, France and the UK understand the real risks, particularly those related to natural resources and security. Despite the fatigue, these countries remain ready to intervene, especially if there are threats of terrorism or destabilization in the region.