For decades, the regime of Hafez al-Assad was propped up by the Soviet Union. When the USSR collapsed in 1991, that support ended. Hafez continued to limp along, but he maintained his grip on power by relying on lesser regional allies like Iran and increasingly draconian internal policies.
Soon after his death on 10 June 2000, I published an article titled Syria at the Crossroads, which identified changing dynamics that might allow his son and successor, Bashar al-Assad to guide Syria away from isolation and authoritarianism. Bashar proved to be unwilling and possibly incapable of seizing the opportunity. Russia, the less capable successor of the Soviet Union, eventually returned to shore up the regime in exchange for basing rights in the country. Syria continued to languish.
In 2011, the country deteriorated into civil war. Early on, in 2012, the international community developed a plan for the rehabilitation of Syria. This document calls for a “transitional governing body exercising full executive powers” in Syria. The United Nations and League of Arab States (LAS) joint special envoy for Syria worked with the foreign ministers of the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Russia, China, Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and the European Union to forge an acceptable path forward. The group’s final communique outlined principles and guidelines for a Syrian-led transition over an eighteen-month timeline. The al-Assad regime rejected this plan, but in December 2015, the U.N. Security Council again endorsed the 2012 Geneva communique, in Resolution 2254.
Unfortunately for the Syrian people none of this mattered and the war continued. Bashar was able to maintain his hold on power for an additional thirteen years. U.S. and international support for opposition factions and sanctions slowly took a toll. Russia, squandering the bulk of its military capability in Ukraine, proved incapable of continuing to prop up the al-Assad government. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, starting in the northern border province of Idlib, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham orchestrated a lightning offensive culminating on 8 December 2024. Damascus was captured; the al-Assad government was deposed; and Bashar went into exile in Russia.
As a result, Syria is once again at the crossroads.
The leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has used many names over his interesting career. As the President of the Syrian Transitional Government (STG) he uses his given name, Ahmed al-Sharaa.
In an in-depth interview, the Economist describes him as a pragmatic man who does not allow ideology to detrimentally influence his decisions. He is persuasive and able to work effectively with diverse perspectives. It has only been a little over three months, but he is saying the right things, and his actions are criticized for both going too far and not going far enough. That is a good sign. Generally, he has managed to remain acceptable to all sides. Three recent events help to illustrate the dynamic.
In late February, the STG held a one-day “National Dialog” conference to discuss the way forward for drafting a new constitution focused on the importance of freedom of expression and human rights. The conference was hastily organized, and many would-be attendants were not present. As a result, the event was both praised and condemned, but the output was mostly positive and an overall acceptable showing.
In mid-March, al-Sharaa agreed to a ceasefire with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a U.S.-backed, Kurdish militia that runs three north-east provinces. This deal is significant. If implemented, SDF will begin integrating with state institutions bringing border crossings, airports, and oil fields in the region under the Syrian government’s control. In return, the Syrian Kurds would be granted broader constitutional rights. This is being greeted by observers as a major step forward.
That same week, there were also mass killings of Alawite Muslims. This is the minority sect that includes and supported the ousted President, Bashar, and his extended family. While it is still unclear how the fighting started, it is clear that much of the killing was fueled by revenge and grievance. While tragic, it is also not surprising that STG appears to be responding appropriately.
The question remains, how will the U.S. and the international community respond?
There are calls from many quarters to dramatically reduce or eliminate U.S. and other international sanctions. Yes, sanctions must be addressed quickly. This is a critical step but insufficient to accomplish the task of rehabilitation.
More must be done as events are moving quickly. Just this week, al Shara signed a Constitutional Declaration laying out a five-year transition plan. While envisioning a longer transition period, it is consistent with the U.N. Security Council 2012 Geneva communique in Resolution 2254. The United States and the global community should embrace this opportunity and take immediate steps to facilitate and support its implementation. Work with the STG and support the entire process through the United Nations.
The potential for improvement in Syria and the region is enormous; the worst that can happen is a return to the status quo. It is difficult to imagine the situation becoming worse than before. The way forward is up. As the eternal optimist Lloyd Christmas might respond, “so you’re telling me there’s a chance.”
Martin A. Perryman, a retired U.S. Army Colonel, is a defense and foreign policy expert.
