Bashar al-Assad was secure in power right up until the moment he wasn’t, which it turns out was November 30, when the northern city of Aleppo — or what was left of it after Assad and his Russian and Iranian allies devastated the city and murdered tens of thousands of its inhabitants between 2012 and 2016 — fell to the forces of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham-led alliance.
Few observers picked that a full-scale collapse of the Assad regime was imminent — the fall of Aleppo was merely a “significant threat”, according to the sober-minded Foreign Policy. Then Homs, a city far to the south and more than halfway to Damascus, fell at the end of last week and it became clear an Afghanistan-style collapse was happening to a regime that had appeared immovable. Assad has now reportedly retreated to Moscow, now the guest of another monster. It’s an outcome he could have obtained more than a decade ago with some honour and international credit if he had stepped down in the face of Arab Spring protests against his vicious rule.
Don’t let the hard left, the propagandists and apologists for Assad — like Tim Anderson, who visited Assad with John Shipton in 2013 and is currently spinning Assad’s downfall as an Israeli plot — tell you otherwise: the removal of this monster is an unmitigated good. He is responsible for the slaughter of at least half a million people, including more than 160,000 civilians. His regime’s systematic use of torture and sexual violence — against women, men and children — is a matter of record, as is his use of chemical weapons and illegal munitions on his own citizens. The only pity is that he wasn’t dragged from a ditch by his enemies like Muammar Gaddafi, but will instead enjoy the luxury of exile.
But like the welcome overthrow of Gaddafi did for Libya, Assad’s removal only rolls the dice on Syria’s political future rather than guaranteeing any sort of better world. The Libyan example demonstrates the chaos and misery that can follow the removal of a tyrant, as well as the consequences for the broader region (ask Italians about the scourge of mass illegal migration caused by Gaddafi’s removal, and the impact it has had on the nation’s politics).
The leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, Ahmad al-Sharaa (formerly Abu Mohammed al-Golani), might seek to portray himself as an unusually pluralist kind of Islamist militant, but as yet there is no evidence he can hold Syria together any more than Assad could in the face of multiple factions and a continuing Russian presence — or that he won’t resort to the same brutal measures to hold on to the territory he’s now claimed. At this point, Libya Mark 2 would seem to be the most likely outcome, despite the celebrations in Syrian cities, with the Islamic State poised to try to take advantage.
Assad’s deposition is a very late win for the Biden administration, which, like the Obama administration, has continued to fund and arm whichever Syrian rebels it determined were the least worst. It’s also an illustration of the limits of Vladimir Putin’s power. The once mighty Russia now can’t prop up its closest allies even with the support of Iran and major terrorist groups like Hezbollah. All Putin can do is offer a safe haven for the fleeing tyrant.
It’s also problematic for Donald Trump, whose famously subtle idea of “diplomacy” will be tested by having to find a way to help prevent Syria from falling into chaos. He could start by ditching Tulsi Gabbard as his pick for director of national intelligence given her enthusiastic support for Assad. You may, if you’re a glutton for punishment, remember Murdoch buffoon Greg Sheridan lauding Trump as having “greater deterrent credibility” than Kamala Harris. Sheridan has never explained how appointing a Putin and Assad supporter as director of national intelligence demonstrated “greater deterrent credibility”, but the case, such as it is, took an almighty hit over the weekend.
Have something to say about this article? Write to us at letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
