The collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian government in late November and early December 2024 occurred with stunning speed. There was little question that Joe Biden’s administration and several U.S. allies, especially Turkey, were pleased with the outcome. Washington worked diligently to force Assad from power since 2011, even though the effort triggered a civil war that produced more than 600,000 fatalities and over thirteen million people displaced. Russia’s military intervention in 2015, though, gave the Assad regime and the Syrian military a new lease on life. Until the latest offensive, rebel control of Syrian territory had shrunk markedly.
The Biden administration, as well as the always reliable pro-imperial mouthpieces in the establishment news media, predictably have portrayed the dramatic rebel victory as the “liberation” of the oppressed Syrian people. The lead segment on the December 15 edition of the CBS program 60 Minutes was typical. Such propaganda continues a long, dishonorable tradition of portraying even Washington’s most corrupt, authoritarian clients as proponents of freedom and democracy. The whitewashing of Volodymyr Zelensky’s autocratic rule in Ukraine is another ongoing example.
No one seriously disputes that the Assad family, which ruled Syria with an iron fist for decades, was a nasty governing elite. However, the abusive nature of the entrenched regime did not automatically mean that its opponents were better. U.S. officials, though, have behaved with utter certainty that the anti-Assad factions would be a major upgrade to Syria’s governance, as well as improve overall prospects for peace in the Middle East. Especially with respect to Syria, Washington has conducted a shameless flirtation with Islamic radicals.
U.S. policymakers should act with less arrogance and much greater caution. The leading faction in the coalition that overthrew Assad is Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which until very recently had close ties to Al Qaeda and the United States officially considers it a terrorist organization. During the earlier phase in Syria’s civil war, the strongest insurgent military faction (by far) was the Nusra Front—Al Qaeda’s official affiliate in Syria.
Syria was and is a fragile ethnoreligious tapestry. The predominant Arab ethnic population is subdivided among Sunnis (about 60% of the Arab population); Christians (10-12%); Alawites, a Shiite offshoot (also 10-12%); and Druze, a sect combining elements of Shia Islam, Christianity, and Judaism (about 5%). The remainder of the population comprises various (mostly Sunni) ethnic minorities, primarily Kurds (about 10%) of the total Syrian population.
For more than four decades, the Assad family—which is Alawite—remained in power because of the loyalty of its Alawite bloc and its loose alliance with Christians, Druze, and other smaller ethnic groups. What erupted in 2011 quickly became a largely Sunni Arab bid backed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia to overthrow Assad’s “coalition of religious minorities” government. Assad’s ouster may well open the door to tyranny and persecution of minorities by a new Sunni-dominated regime.
Nevertheless, some U.S. officials and opinion leaders, especially during Barack Obama’s administration, openly advocated cooperation with Al Qaeda and its allies. Former CIA Director David Petraeus, for example, insisted that some of the organization’s “more moderate” elements could be useful allies for the United States, and therefore should be courted. Jake Sullivan, who would later become President Joe Biden’s national security advisor, embraced similar reasoning.
It is a troubling, persistent policy blindness. Just a few weeks ago, Sullivan sneered that the United States was not shedding any tears that Syrian government forces were coming under growing pressure from HTS fighters. Given the subsequent developments in Syria, one has to wonder whether the Biden administration had already decided to help HTS and its ideological cohorts launch a new offensive to oust Assad.
The belief that the revolution in Syria might well produce a stable, tolerant democratic system over the long term seems exceedingly naïve. The country’s religious schisms alone are sufficient to generate dangerous, potentially very violent, outcomes. Add various economic, geographical, and religious factors to the volatile mix, and a new, catastrophic civil war becomes all too likely.
There is also the ongoing geostrategic struggle between the West and Russia, in which Moscow’s naval base in Syria could become a possible key prize. Moscow seems close to achieving an agreement with Syria’s new government that the status quo regarding its naval base will be preserved, but the reliability of that promise remains uncertain. It could become another flashpoint between Moscow and Washington—about the last development Donald Trump’s incoming administration should desire.
Syria is a bloody mess, and U.S. leaders bear extensive guilt for helping to create that situation. The best option now is to end Washington’s incessant meddling and not make matters even worse. Let Syria be the last tragic armed U.S. crusade in the Middle East—or anywhere else.
