Assad’s survival, though remarkable, is increasingly precarious. He has weathered storms with the help of foreign allies who have sacrificed heavily to keep him afloat. Whether Iran and Russia will continue to bear this burden is unclear. But even if Assad falls, Syria’s agony is far from over.
This editorial was originally published in our edition on November 30
Editorial
The Syrian conflict has never been merely about territory—it is a profound struggle for the very identity of a nation, and a theatre for the ambitions of global powers. Assad’s survival or demise will not determine Syria’s future; the forces fracturing the country are far too entrenched for any single outcome to provide resolution. As an ancient Syrian proverb says, “He who digs a well for his brother, falls into it himself.” Every participant in this war—Assad, the rebels, the West, Russia, Turkey, and Iran—is digging wells of ambition and betrayal. The true question is not who will fall in, but how many will drown before it’s over.
 |
| This handout picture provided by the Saudi Press Agency (SPA) on November, 2023, shows Syrian President Bashar Assad attending an emergency meeting of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), in Riyadh.[Saudi Press Agency/AFP] |
In a plea for survival, the Syrian regime has called on Iran for urgent military support. This request comes amid a decisive offensive by opposition forces under the “Deterrence of Aggression” operation, which has shattered the Syrian Arab Army’s (SAA) defences, sweeping through Aleppo and Idlib. For years, Assad has relied on foreign intervention to remain in power, and now, as the tide of battle turns, he turns once more to his closest ally. But this appeal reeks of desperation—and irony. Iran, already exhausted from years of proxy warfare, is itself near breaking point. The recent death of Iranian Brigadier General Keyomarth Pourhashemi in Aleppo and the ongoing Israeli airstrikes show that Tehran has already paid a heavy price in Syria. The question now is whether Iran can afford to sink deeper into this quicksand, or if Syria will become just another casualty in the age-old game of empire-building.
For Assad, the stakes could not be higher. The rebels are not only challenging his military dominance—they are undermining his legitimacy. As the opposition makes unexpected gains in western Aleppo, the SAA, once a symbol of Assad’s iron-fisted control, is faltering. The strength of the opposition exposes the fragility of the regime’s hold on power, revealing that the Syrian state, at least in its current form, has always been more mirage than reality. As opposition forces gain ground in areas thought secure, cracks in Assad’s facade grow wider, laying bare the vulnerability of a regime that has relied on violence, fear, and foreign backing to stay afloat.
The true irony, however, lies in Assad’s greatest strength—his ability to endure. Over the years, he has outlasted Western sanctions, uprisings, airstrikes, and even assassination attempts. As the Syrian proverb goes, “Patience is bitter, but its fruit is sweet.” Assad has weathered countless storms, knowing that each phase of crisis offers a new chance to survive. But this strategy, which has served him well in the past, is now facing its greatest test. With his foreign backers—Russia and Iran—stretched thin, the question is whether Assad can withstand a rising tide of opposition, one that is not merely threatening his rule but shaping a new order for Syria.
In this geopolitical contest, Syria is not merely the battleground for Assad’s regime; it is a pawn in a larger contest for power. The United States, despite its supposed mission to promote democracy and fight terrorism, has embedded itself in Syria’s oil-rich northeast. The fight against ISIS has become little more than a pretext for controlling vital resources and countering Russian and Iranian influence. Through its Timber Sycamore program, Washington through its CIA armed opposition groups, yet the disarray within those groups led to many of these weapons being co-opted by radical Islamists, undermining its goal of a stable Syria. The U.S. also collaborated with Kurdish-led forces to combat ISIS, despite the tensions this relationship created with NATO ally Turkey, which regards Kurdish factions as terrorists. Meanwhile, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Assad’s regime, and conducted missile strikes in 2017 and 2018 in retaliation for alleged “chemical weapons attacks.” Despite its military presence, American efforts often seem incoherent, leaving Syria fragmented, with U.S. interests shifting from one administration to the next.
Russia’s role as Assad’s protector serves a broader agenda of securing its Mediterranean foothold and expanding influence in the West Asia. Yet even Moscow is growing weary of the Syrian quagmire. Its ties with both Turkey and Iran are strained, and Syria increasingly appears as a costly military and political deadlock. Each Russian strike is an attempt to preserve its influence, but the rewards of this costly engagement become less clear with time.
Turkey, hosting millions of Syrian refugees, has also carved out its own role in the conflict—but it is driven not by humanitarian concern, but by territorial ambitions. Its incursions into northern Syria, framed as efforts to create a “safe zone” for refugees, are aimed at eliminating Kurdish autonomy and securing strategic territory. Turkey has leveraged the refugee crisis to gain political leverage in Europe, while pushing its own agenda in Syria. ErdoÄŸan’s pursuit of territorial gains is as much about consolidating domestic political power as it is about reshaping the region’s borders. In this endeavour, he has found common cause with Western powers that have long supported his ambitions, further complicating NATO-Russia relations.
Iran, too, is at a crossroads. Once Assad’s most steadfast ally, Tehran now finds itself caught in a conflict that is draining its resources. The cost of supporting Assad has been immense—financially, militarily, and in human lives. The deaths of top Iranian commanders, alongside the increasing frequency of Israeli strikes, highlight the toll on Tehran’s involvement. Yet, Iran cannot afford to abandon Assad. The collapse of his regime would be a blow to Iran’s regional strategy, but at what cost? This dilemma grows more urgent by the day. Will Iran continue to bleed for Assad’s survival, or will it begin to withdraw, leaving the regime to face its fate?
What is often overlooked in the analysis of foreign interventions is that Syria has always been a prize—not only for regional powers, but for empires throughout history. Positioned at the crossroads of Europe, Asia, and Africa, Syria has always held immense strategic value. Its rich history and cultural significance make it a coveted prize. The United States, Russia, Iran, Turkey—all have sought to carve out their place in Syria, each driven by different goals. The suffering of the Syrian people has always been collateral damage in this wider game of geopolitical chess.
In the end, the real tragedy of Syria lies not in the ambitions of foreign powers, but in the plight of its people. What began as a peaceful uprising in 2011, a cry for dignity and freedom, has devolved into a battlefield of competing foreign interests. The Syrian opposition, fragmented and often infiltrated by extremist factions, has failed to present any coherent vision for the country’s future. Armed by the West, only to be abandoned when convenient, the opposition has become as much a part of the problem as the regime it seeks to overthrow.
Meanwhile, the regime’s survival has become a matter of personal and political survival for its leaders. The prospects for rebuilding Syria under Assad’s leadership seem increasingly bleak. The very notion of a unified, secular Syria has been shattered by years of war, sectarianism, and foreign interference. Even if Assad manages to survive this crisis, it is hard to see how he can restore Syria to any semblance of the unity and stability it once knew. His rule has shattered the fabric of Syrian society, leaving a fragmented, war-torn state behind.
The insurgents’ capture of Aleppo is more than a tactical victory—it is a sign of the shifting power balance in Syria. For Assad, the loss of Aleppo is not merely a military defeat; it is a blow to his regime’s legitimacy. Aleppo, once Syria’s cultural and economic heart, has become a key prize in the contest for Syria’s future. Its fall may mark a turning point, but whether it signals Assad’s downfall or simply another chapter in his prolonged survival remains uncertain.
At this precipice, Syria’s future hangs in the balance. Will the country be rebuilt, and if so, on whose terms? Will the Syrian government evolve, or will the insurgents, having gained ground, seize control of the country? Assad’s survival, though remarkable, is increasingly precarious. He has weathered storms with the help of foreign allies who have sacrificed heavily to keep him afloat. Whether Iran and Russia will continue to bear this burden is unclear. But even if Assad falls, Syria’s agony is far from over. What follows will likely be a chaotic power struggle, where no faction can predict its place, and the Syrian people will once again bear the weight of a conflict they did not start.
Syria’s fate, like its history, is wrapped up in the power struggles of empires. Whether it rises from the ashes or remains buried under foreign ambitions will not depend on the strength of its people but on the will of the external powers that control its future. And as the cycle of destruction continues, the real question remains: how many more will suffer before Syria finds peace—if such a thing is even possible?
