Planning a post-Assad Syria | The National Interest

In a shocking week, the brutal regime of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had crash in Syria after almost fourteen years of civil war. However, while the fall of the government in Damascus certainly marks a generational flashpoint for the region – the shaping of which will reshape West Asia in unpredictable and perhaps unprecedented ways – the crisis itself is far from over. .

Indeed, as Syria enters a new phase, international actors should set aside geopolitical rivalries and grandiose visions of micromanaged state-building and let the Syrian people rule. Revitalizing the country should be a Syrian-owned, Syrian-led effort, rather than an extension of the useless policies that have prolonged the fighting.

The Fall of the Lion

Assad ran away Damascus for political asylum in Moscow as opposition forces reached the city’s gates from the north and south, and every governorate erupted into a state of revolt. His escape decisively ended one of the longest-running authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and North Africa – an outcome most analysts thought was completely out of the picture just weeks ago.

Indeed, while many…including this analyst— predicted that Assad’s allies, Iran and Russia, would come to his defense in the strategic city of Homs established secondary transactions with another key stakeholders inside and outside the country to protect their interests. In the end, Moscow and Tehran have judged that there is no winning this time, given the former’s focus on its war against Ukraine and the latter’s inability to score serious victories against Israel over the past year amid tactical losses and strategic majors in Palestine. and Lebanon. Assad’s refusal to directly support the so-called “Axis of Resistance” probably won him no points with Tehran.

Syrians erupted in jubilation at the news that their national nightmare was at least partially over. Videos with Syrians tearing down statues of Assad and release of prisoners from the regime’s notorious prisons abound, highlighting the joy of many who dreamed of a life without Assad.

However, even among the celebrations, many questions remain. In progress the fight persists in the north between the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army (SNA) and the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Big protests they have erupted against the SDF and their administrative arm, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES). For the first time, Israel did it occupied strategic Mount Hermon and other parts of the Quneitra governorate in southeastern Syria, directing large-scale airstrikes across the country to eliminate advanced conventional and chemical weapons centers and create a “demilitarized zone” to buffer illegally occupied The Golan Heights. rumors a renewed resurgence of the Islamic State continues to persist in Syria’s eastern desert.

That says nothing about flood of armed groups roaming Damascus and country. These groups do not fall under the same command structures and do not carry the same alliances. Southern militias in Daraa and Suwayda constitute the old southern front, HTS constitutes a pragmatic Islamist northern front, and several SNA groups constitute different ethnic and geographic loyalties across the country alongside their northern strongholds.

This situation is not only highly volatile, it is unsustainable. Several competing interests that have been united in their fight against Assad can quickly turn into competition for state resources and power. This unfortunate reality has come to define much of the Syrian crisis and past opposition failures. The Assad family did this The Social Fabric of Syria for decades through a classic strategy of divide and conquer. Syria cannot move forward unless its people address this reality head on.

Building a better future for Syria

Cooperation between the multitude of regional and international stakeholders will be crucial. Any efforts to revitalize the Syrian state must have broad support at these levels as well, spanning the pro- and anti-Assad camps. This will probably require unpleasant but necessary concessions, considering conditions as they are and not as they would like them to be.

As the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) experienced one of the first major failures of the 21st century in Syria, it must play a central role in its revitalization. Such an effort is impossible without the abstention of Russia and China, at least. What it probably includes are concessions to Moscow military bases in the country. Russian date overtures for HTS and other backers of the opposition, such as Turkey, this effort may already be underway.

While frustrating, this effort paves the way for the establishment of a UN-led political mission in Syria UNSC Resolution 2254which calls for a Syrian-owned, Syrian-led political transition. Although imperfect, the United Nations is best suited for the job because it will honor the resolution, allowing Syrians to lead their national future, acting as an impartial stakeholder in the process. Key international players – namely the United States, Russia and Turkey – could underwrite this process, given their influence over the main Syrian groups.

Once a political process supported by the UN and key stakeholders is established, a national dialogue can begin, possibly within or alongside a reformed process. Syrian Constitutional Committee— if it better represents all key Syrian groups. Currently, the main Kurdish elements are excluded from the now-defunct mechanism — an unacceptable reality imposed by Ankara, given their disdain for the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)-aligned People’s Protection Units (YPG), the main component of the SDF.

The opposition and the official regime have previously discussed many of the major theoretical points underpinning any new constitution in Syria, but that conversation would need to restart to include previously excluded voices. If the supposed support of HTS for a inclusive governance system is genuine, it should be possible to bring in Syrian Kurds, giving them some autonomy in northeastern Syria.

Kurdish autonomy will require a grand bargain between Turkey and the United States, with the former in mind rejection of any such outcome in Syria. But these talks will be necessary to ensure that Washington’s Syrian partners are protected and represented. More importantly, it will allow the United States to withdraw its troops from northeastern Syria—a critical and necessary point both for the future of the country and for correcting its military engagements in the region.

A massive reconstruction effort must accompany any political process to avoid repeating similar mistakes in other post-Arab Spring states. Ultimately, for any new governance process to succeed, it needs the buy-in of its people. If those people see a shaky government run by a motley crew of former warlords while their lives are not improving, counterrevolutionary forces will succeed.

This result occurred in Tunisia, Egyptand Sudan. Tunisians did not realize the material gains of their revolution and reverted to an authoritarian model of government led by a charismatic political outsider. In Egypt and Sudan, former regime officials and aligned militias simply outmaneuvered the revolutionaries, building power to eventually oust young and weak democratic forces. The leaders of these counter-revolutionary forces received substantial support from regional powers – namely Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – a threat that persists today when looking at Sudan.

Finally, an intensive local peacebuilding effort must immediately take effect throughout Syria. The country’s demarcation lines remain stark after nearly fourteen years of conflict, with a significant lack of trust permeating along traditional ethno-sectarian lines. Western powers such as the United States already support such efforts through international development contracts and grants – a low-cost tool for stabilizing the country. Without local efforts to build the social cohesion that gradually expands nationally in parallel with the political process, renewed fighting or balkanization of the country could spell the end of Syria.

Ultimately, it is in the national interest of the United States, Russia, Turkey, and all regional states to commit to a framework that ensures Syria’s stability, territorial continuity, and political transition. This cannot and should not mean micromanaged nation-building projects – with which Washington has a miserable track record. Rather, a smart policy that ensures lasting stability in the heart of the Middle East is key. Ignoring the situation risks a resumption of fighting that harms the foreign policy priorities of these major powers. This is to say nothing of the importance and low cost of ensuring that Syrians can develop their political system.

Alexander Langlois is a foreign policy analyst focused on the Middle East and North Africa. He holds a master’s degree in international affairs from American University’s School of International Service. Follow him at @langloisajl.

Image: Mohammad Bash / Shutterstock.com.