by Rustam Taghizade
The collapse of the Assad regime would represent a profound transformation in Syrian politics, marking the end of over half a century of centralized Alawite dominance. Nevertheless, this transition would probably result in the country entering a new period of uncertainty and challenges, with implications for governance, sectarian dynamics, Kurdish aspirations, and the broader regional balance of power. The following section presents a comprehensive political analysis, based on the information provided in the preceding text.
1. The internal governance
The internal governance of the country is characterized by a complex system of power relations and a lack of clear authority. The risk of fragmentation is heightened by the presence of numerous factions engaged in rivalries with one another. The absence of a central authority would serve to exacerbate the existing divisions among Syria’s fragmented opposition. The lack of cohesion among groups such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and secular forces increases the risk of intra-opposition conflict. The absence of a unifying leadership could result in a situation akin to that witnessed in Libya following the demise of the Gaddafi regime, where competing factions have hindered national reconstruction efforts.
A governance void has the potential to emerge. In the absence of a centralized state, there is a risk that Syria will devolve into a system of localized power structures, governed by warlords or ideologically motivated militias. Such fragmentation would impede the reconstruction of national institutions and could result in prolonged instability.
2. Sectarian Dynamics
Vengeance and Retaliation: The disproportionate reliance on the Alawite community by the Assad regime has resulted in the cultivation of profound and enduring animosities. In the event of Assad’s departure, Syria could witness retaliatory violence against Alawites, akin to the sectarian strife observed in Iraq following Saddam Hussein’s fall.
Sunni Ascendancy: With Sunnis comprising the majority, their pursuit of political dominance could result in the marginalization of other minority groups, further destabilizing Syria’s societal fabric and deepening sectarian divides.
3. Kurdish Ambitions and Regional Tensions
The pursuit of Kurdish autonomy: It is possible that the Kurdish-controlled areas, which are led by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), may seek to consolidate their autonomy. This ambition directly threatens Turkey, which views Kurdish statehood as a precursor to separatism within its borders.
Regional implications: A move towards Kurdish independence would likely elicit a strong response from neighboring states, including Turkey, Iran, and Iraq, all of which are opposed to Kurdish statehood. Such tensions have the potential to escalate into regional conflicts.
4. The intensity of proxy wars is increasing.
The role of Iran is as follows: The loss of Assad would have a significant impact on Tehran’s influence in Syria, as well as on its regional ambitions, particularly in relation to the supply of arms to Hezbollah. It is possible that Iran will increase its support for Shiite militias with the intention of maintaining a presence in Syria, which could result in heightened sectarian tensions.
With regard to Turkey and the Gulf States, it is conceivable that countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey will intensify their support for opposition factions with the objective of influencing the future of Syria in a manner that is favorable to them. Turkey, in particular, may seek to utilize its military presence in order to curtail Kurdish ambitions while simultaneously expanding its regional influence.
5. The engagement of global powers
The decline of Russia: The removal of Assad from power would have the effect of undermining Russia’s strategic presence in the Middle East. The potential loss of military bases in Syria may prompt Moscow to reassess its foreign policy and pursue influence through alternative avenues, including the support of separatist enclaves.
Western Dilemmas: Although the United States and its allies may be inclined to support the removal of Assad from power, they are confronted with the challenge of stabilizing the region without inadvertently strengthening extremist factions. It seems probable that their focus would shift to supporting Kurdish-held areas and counterterrorism. However, this course of action carries the risk of becoming enmeshed in the intricate power dynamics of the Syrian conflict.
6. The long-term regional implications of this situation are significant.
The role of the Arab League in this context is also of great importance. It is possible that the Arab League may attempt to act as a mediator between the warring factions, but its ability to do so remains uncertain, given the limited success it has had in previous conflicts.
Israeli Security Concerns: The disintegration of Syria could have significant implications for Israel’s security, particularly in relation to Hezbollah and Iranian proxies. Nevertheless, it is possible that Israel’s proactive security measures and intelligence capabilities may help to mitigate these threats.
The demise of the Assad dynasty would signal the conclusion of a significant historical period, yet it would also precipitate a multitude of complex challenges for Syria. In the near term, the likelihood of achieving political stability is minimal, largely due to the fragmented nature of the opposition, the presence of sectarian divisions, and the existence of competing external interests. The achievement of a unified national vision would necessitate the forging of unprecedented levels of cooperation among domestic and international actors, a challenging prospect when one considers the complexities of Syria’s history and geopolitical landscape.
It seems unlikely that a direct conflict between Israel and Turkey will occur in the context of Syria’s post-Assad dynamics. However, tensions could escalate due to differing interests and actions in the region. The following section presents an analysis of the potential points of contention and factors that could lead to a clash between the two parties.
Points of Divergence
1. The Kurdish Issue
Turkey’s Concerns: Turkey is firmly opposed to the concept of Kurdish autonomy in Syria, on the grounds that it could serve to embolden the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) within its own borders. Turkey has deployed military forces with the objective of suppressing Kurdish aspirations and maintaining its influence over northern Syria.
Israel’s perspective on this issue can be understood by examining its historical and geopolitical context. Israel has historically regarded Kurdish groups as a means of counterbalancing hostile Arab regimes and Iranian influence. Should Israel offer support to the Syrian Kurds, whether political or military, this could result in a deterioration of relations with Turkey.
2. The influence of Iran in the region is a significant concern for Israel.
Israel’s primary objective is to: Israel’s principal objective in Syria is to counter the influence of Iran and Hezbollah. Israel has conducted a significant number of airstrikes against Iranian targets in Syria and is likely to intensify these efforts in the context of a fragmented Syrian state.
The position of Turkey is as follows: Turkey, while in opposition to Assad and seeking to exert influence in Syria, also seeks to avoid open confrontation with Iran. Any scenario in which Israel’s actions have a direct impact on Turkish operations has the potential to give rise to friction.
3. Proxy Dynamics
It is possible that both Israel and Turkey may find themselves supporting opposing factions in a divided Syria. Turkey has expressed support for various Sunni opposition groups, while Israel may seek to undermine those aligned with Iran or potentially collaborate with the Kurds.
De-escalation Factors
Mutual Economic Interests: Israel and Turkey have historically enjoyed robust economic relations, particularly in the realms of trade and energy. Both states have a vested interest in avoiding any form of armed conflict that could potentially have a detrimental impact on their bilateral relations.
The potential for mediation by the United States is a further factor to be considered. The United States, an ally of both Israel and Turkey, could potentially act as a mediator to prevent clashes, particularly if tensions escalate due to conflicting actions in Syria.
Potential Sources of Conflict
Miscalculations in Military Operations: The occurrence of accidental strikes or perceived provocations in northern Syria has the potential to give rise to diplomatic disputes or localized clashes.
The role of the Kurdish population in this context is a further factor to be considered. Should Israel’s support for Kurdish forces become overt, it is possible that Turkey may perceive this as a direct challenge to its national security.
Proxy confrontations: Should proxy groups backed by Israel and Turkey engage in escalatory behavior, this could indirectly draw the two nations into a larger confrontation.
Although a direct military conflict between Israel and Turkey over Syria is unlikely, given the broader geopolitical constraints and mutual economic interests, the complex and volatile nature of Syria’s post-Assad environment creates numerous potential flashpoints for tension. It seems probable that both states will seek to avoid direct confrontation. However, uncoordinated actions, particularly in relation to the Kurds and Iranian proxies, could have a significant detrimental impact on relations.