The fall of the Assad regime in Syria marks a profound turning point in the Middle East, reshaping not just the region’s power dynamics but also the lives of millions who have endured years of unimaginable suffering due to the civil war in the country. Yet, the seismic forces that brought about this collapse reveal not just geopolitical machinations but also the ground realities of Syria. This dramatic shift was far from inevitable. For years, rebel factions—fragmented, beleaguered, and often abandoned—had struggled to challenge Assad’s dominance. They waited for the perfect circumstances to challenge the entrenched regime. That moment came as Bashar al-Assad’s government buckled under the weight of some key geopolitical forces: the growing struggles of its allies, the relentless external pressures from regional and global powers, and the regime’s own corruption and inability to adapt to a changing world.
The collapse unfolded against the backdrop of a rapidly shifting region. Hezbollah, once a formidable ally of Assad, found its itself engaged in southern Lebanon following a brief yet impactful conflict with Israel. Israel’s airstrikes systematically dismantled Syria’s military infrastructure while rebel forces on the ground seized these moments of weakness to press their advantage. Amid the intensifying HTS offensive against Syrian regime forces, Iran extended an offer of military assistance to Bashar al-Assad, urging him to formally request their support to counter the advancing rebels. However, Assad hesitated, opting instead for self-preservation. Choosing a path of retreat, he sought refuge in Russia, perhaps calculating that inviting deeper foreign entanglement could shatter Syria’s already precarious political balance or maybe that he did not possess ample amount of mettle to withstand the shifting sands. In the shadow of Assad’s decision, Iran’s regional strategy suffered a decisive blow. The regime’s fall severed Tehran’s influence over Damascus and dismantled its critical land corridor to Hezbollah in South Lebanon—a geopolitical artery it had painstakingly cultivated. Thus, the conflict’s landscape shifted, leaving Iran’s ambitions adrift amid the ruins of its once-powerful alliance.
Meanwhile, Russia, another crucial ally of Assad, was increasingly distracted and overstretched by its costly and drawn-out war in Ukraine. As Moscow diverted resources and attention away from Syria, the regime was left exposed, its vulnerabilities more pronounced than ever. These geopolitical realities collided with internal decay. The regime’s endemic corruption, characterized by the entrenchment of nepotism within the Alawite elite, had sapped its capacity to respond effectively to crises. Bashar al-Assad, once perceived as a strongman, appeared increasingly indecisive and disconnected from the realities on the ground. His inability to rally even his closest allies in the face of mounting threats became the final nail in the coffin of his rule.
The battlefield dynamics of Syria have always been defined by a mosaic of actors, alliances, and agendas. Over the years, militias like Hezbollah and Iran-backed groups such as the Zainabiyyun, Fatimiyyun brigades, and Syrian National Defense Forces formed the backbone of Assad’s military efforts, holding contested territories and propping up his regime. These groups were formed by the late Major General Qassem Soleimani. Soliemani who is said to have played an important role in convincing Russian President Vladimir Putin to intervene in the Syrian civil war. Russian involvement changed the battlefield dynamics in favor of the Assad regime.
Yet, the tide began to turn when Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a key so called rebel force supported by external elements, such as Israel, launched a coordinated offensive to reclaim Syria from Assad’s forces. This was no isolated rebellion. It unfolded within a rapidly evolving landscape shaped by the eruption of conflict in Gaza and Israel’s subsequent military campaign against Iran’s regional allies. Israel’s precision strikes on critical targets, including the Iranian consulate in Damascus, the neutralization of Syria’s air defense systems, and the assassinations of key Quds Force commanders reshaped the region’s balance of power. These actions stripped the Assad regime of its ability to exert control, leaving its forces increasingly vulnerable.
The relative calm that has settled over Syria in the wake of Assad’s fall is striking—almost eerie. Remarkably, this shift has remained relatively bloodless, a sharp contrast to the fiery rhetoric of Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani, the commander of HTS. He has painted this moment as a revolutionary triumph, but revolutions are rarely peaceful, nor do they unfold so seamlessly within a nation’s borders. The reality on the ground suggests something far more deliberate—a revolution less spontaneous than scripted, coordinated by forces far beyond Syria’s boundaries. Even the figurehead of this so-called revolution, al-Jawlani, complicates the narrative. Though he claims the mantle of a Syrian leader, his roots trace back to outside Syria, where his parents were born before migrating to Syria. This disconnection mirrors the broader orchestration of events by powers outside the country, a pattern that becomes clearer with each passing day.
The quiet withdrawal of Russian troops from Syrian soil, Bashar al-Assad slipping into the asylum in Russia, and Iran’s diplomatic overtures to Turkiye even as the rebel offensive gained momentum. These events suggest a shared understanding among key stakeholders—an unspoken agreement, perhaps, to let the tides of change roll in without resistance. For their part, both Iran and Russia appeared acutely aware of the brewing storm but lacked either the will or the means to counter it. Iran, weighed down by its own challenges seemed resigned to this outcome. Russia, embroiled in its grueling conflict in Ukraine, likely calculated that its dwindling resources were better spent elsewhere. This tacit acquiescence by Assad’s most stalwart allies marks a striking turn. Both nations, once deeply invested in maintaining Syria as a stronghold, have now accepted the inevitable—whether begrudgingly or pragmatically, only they know.
Amid the shifting sands, the outgoing U.S. administration seized the moment to assess the unfolding drama. Secretary of State Antony Blinken made a surprise trip to Aqaba, where Jordan hosted a high-stakes diplomatic summit. Around the table sat: U.S. Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, and the foreign ministers of a dozen regional powers, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE. Conspicuously absent were Syria, Russia, and Iran—a glaring reminder of the shifting balance of power in the region.
Still, the careful choreography of these events invites hope. But the Middle East is a place where peace often walks hand in hand with peril. The streets of Aleppo, Homs, and Damascus may hum with cautious optimism as children play in places where silence once screamed louder than bombs. As the crevices in the Syrian society when it comes to the acceptance of the new status quo have begun to appear. Yet, beneath this hope lies the question that has haunted this land for generations: how long before the next storm?
Author
Syed Raza Abbas, Research Associate at Strategic Vision Institute, Islamabad.
