What groups constitute the rebels? What kind of regime is it likely to be – extreme Islamist, moderate Islamist, chaotic, well-ordered?
Assuming a coherent new regime, what is its attitude towards Israel likely to be?
All I have is questions. Maybe we can have a discussion.
Several groups, it appears, including:
The multiple factions are not united. Maybe just vaguely united in the ultimate goal of overthrowing Assad.
Geopolitically, I think they are all anti Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Russia. Which is good.
I’m not clear if HTS or it allies support an independent Kurdistan. Just because HTS, the former Al-Qaida affiliated group is anti Assad/Iran/Russia doesn’t mean they are pro western liberal democracy.
And we should be clear that all the above mentioned militias are not unified.
I’m all for the overthrow of the Assad regime, but you have to be careful who does the overthrowing.
Indeed, I would be very surprised if they were.
It is apparently early days yet, but any speculation on what happens in, say, the first month or three months after Assad flees the country? I’m willing to bet that, should the Islamic groups come to terms with each other, the Kurds will be left out in the cold.
I am actually somewhat encouraged that this is mostly not happening with US backing, since our past record post-overthrows is so dismal. Perhaps the resulting regime, if any, will only be cautiously antagonistic to us, rather than immediate sworn enemies.
Since we don’t have a say in the matter, maybe just aware of?
What are the chances that the various elements will be able to come to a power sharing arrangement versus fairly immediately fighting for their individual fiefdoms?
It’s a reasonable question, but I suspect the answer will skew towards the latter. As much as Assad needs to be gone, I fear that his departure won’t put an end to conflict in that unfortunate country.
This WaPo article came up in my newsfeed; don’t know if it’s paywalled.
Makes the argument that fall of Assad would be a significant negative for Russia, particularly if the insurgents are able to get control of Russia’s two military bases in Syria: the naval base of Tartus and, farther north, the Hmeimim air base, both on the Mediterranean coastline. They allow Russia to project power in the eastern Med.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/12/06/russia-syria-war-rebels-tartus-bases/
From a global geopolitical viewpoint, anything that weakens Russia and their ability to project power in the Middle East is good for the USA, NATO, Ukraine, and our allies in the Middle East.
Regional geopolitical viewpoint: Anything that weakens Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas is good got us and our allies…
So in the very hard ass interpretation of geopolitical policy, we should be happy. I’m sure Henry Kissinger would be.
But we did kinda mess up the results of the Russian/Afghanistan war.
It’s been my understanding that the blowback from Bush II’s conquest of Iraq destroyed the pro-democracy movement in Syria.
“Now, talking about democracy and freedom has become very difficult and sensitive,” Salam said. “The people are not believing these thoughts anymore. When the U.S. came to Iraq, it came in the name of democracy and freedom. But all we see are bodies, bodies, bodies.”
And of course years of civil war selects for the best fighters, not the most democratic. So I doubt it’s gotten better.
Not so sure.
I remember when Koppel was interviewing him during the first Gulf War and he was stating that “we” wanted a strongman in Iraq, just dialed down a notch. (Koppel’s reaction was that major military action seemed like a blunt tool to achieve balance in regional actors, to which Kissinger replied “yes but it is the only one we have.”)
A Kissinger interview last year around his hundredth birthday day was still expressing preference for stable circumstances. This circumstance in which it is unknown who will be in charge of what next month? Maybe a Syria of fiefdoms with who knows how others respond? I dunno
I think the immediate actions are positive. The Rebel groups took over Damascus. Often that means the immediate destruction and looting of the powerful and capture and execution of any government officials.
They did not do that here. They have called for protection of all the assets of Syria, with the destruction limited to pro-Assad propaganda and statues.
The Prime Minister was safely escorted out of the palace and is cooperating, and the leader of HTS has expressed interest in not taking over the daily operations of government.
It’s certainly too early to know how things will actually play out, how much is theater to try to get positive international press, etc. But the first steps are at least positive, not negative.
Loss of clout for Iran certainly seems to be a big element of the outcome, whatever else happens.
With the actual overthrow of the Assad regime I’m altering my geopolitical viewpoint slightly.
Tsar Putin of the Russian Empire just lost a vassal state. The leaders of other Tsar Putin’s vassal states are aware of this. So Tsar Putin has been weakened. This is good for liberal democracies.
Iran? Not sure about that. They support anything that pisses us off and will probably will continue to do so.
Ukraine? The Tsar can’t keep losing wars. People are gonna notice. Powerful people.
Syria? I wish them luck. So far there has been some platitudes to a unified coalition government for all Syrians. I’ll wait and see.
My tentative assessment is that this will be maybe a very slight positive for Syria itself, but the nation will probably remain pretty dismal, but that it’s a definite positive on the larger world stage, just because it weakens both Russia and Iran, who seem to be the biggest current troublemakers.
I don’t see what keeps Putin from saying, “Ah, mere loss of face, aw shucks” and plugging on. He lost some image and a warm-water port but in practical terms Russia was already pretty fully pulled out of Syria and focused all on Ukraine.
I’m seeing reports of massive celebrations by Syrian Refugees throughout Europe who are eager to return home.
This has the potential to be good for the region. I’m going to remain optimistic. For right this minute.
IMO don’t get anyone’s hopes up much.
One Assad will be replaced by a dozen. each owning part of what was once Syria.
I agree with folks upthread that suggest this is definitely bad news from Putin’s POV. Besides Assad himself, that’s probably the other leader most harmed buy this outcome.
For a dictator, loss of face tends to lead to a loss of a lot else. If he can’t defend Russia’s interests in Syria, then a lot of folks are going to be asking what else he can’t defend.
Seems the “Rebels” have served their purpose?
Now kneecap them so Turkey and others will have less trouble going forward with their goals in the area.
This was reportedly done
to prevent the terrorist group from conducting external operations and to ensure that ISIS does not seek to take advantage of the current situation to reconstitute in central Syria.
The perspective of the Central Command report seems to be that ISIS were not among the rebel groups that participated in overthrowing the Assad government. So your assessment does not seem to match your sources.
Quite the opposite. ISIS wasn’t part of the winning rebel group.
Pure speculation on my part, but maybe a little bird told us where the best places to hit ISIS were.
A mutually beneficial event for us and the new “powers that be” in Syria. We gotta make friends.
That’s my view of geopolitics. Cold hard decisions about what advances one’s national interests. And having HTS in our camp is in our national interest.