Syria in the crossfire of regional powers

One regional power in particular has cause to celebrate, political scientist Nuno Severiano Teixeira writes in Público:

“Turkey is the first to gain from the outcome of the civil war. ... Firstly, it wants to prevent the formation of a Kurdish state in north-eastern Syria. Secondly, it wants to reverse the migration flows and send some of the millions of Syrian refugees in Turkey back to Syria. Time and again it tried to negotiate with Assad, who always refused. Until Erdoğan had had enough and decided to support, train and arm the rebel group which has now emerged victorious. Now he is in a good position to achieve his goals and expand his influence along neo-Ottoman lines.”

A lot now depends on what happens in the areas controlled by the Kurdish militias YPG and SDF in the north-east of the country, says Liberal:

“The fall of the Assad regime unleashed a wave of enthusiasm in the Turkish government, as Turkey itself now has the opportunity to 'purge' Syria's territory of the Kurdish militia using military force. The US, however, is opposed to this because it relies on the Kurds for its fight against the Islamic State, for Israel's security and for its own presence in the Middle East. And neighbouring Israel, trapped in a hostile environment, has found a reliable ally in the Kurds.”

The fall of the Syrian president bodes ill for Ukraine, Helsingin Sanomat fears:

“Russia now seems to be trying to adapt to the new situation in Syria and the Middle East. The loss of prestige is humiliating for the Kremlin, but Syria is not nearly as important for Russia as Ukraine. That is why Putin was finally prepared to sacrifice Assad. The situation in Syria is unlikely to bring any relief to Ukraine. On the contrary, now that Assad has been ousted Ukraine has become an even greater obsession for Putin. The West should not forget this.”

For Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, criticising Israel's actions in Syria shows a lack of foresight:

“Syria is in a state of lack of control and lawlessness, so swift action is required. At least the Israeli air strikes against Syrian military installations make sense. ... After 7 October, Netanyahu was criticised for wanting to create a new Middle East through military force. In retrospect, he was right: the crackdown on Hezbollah was a decisive step towards a new beginning in Syria and, above all, towards weakening the Iranian 'axis of resistance' which has brought disaster not only to Israel but to the entire region.”

Syria is already being targeted by external powers intent on pursuing their own interests in the country now that the regime has fallen, notes the Cyprus Mail:

“While people were celebrating the fall of Assad's brutal regime, Israel, the United States and Turkey all carried out bombing raids on different parts of the country. While the US bombed sites associated with Islamic State, Turkey targeted Kurdish forces and Israel bombed facilities believed to have been used for missiles and chemical weapons. Israel also sent troops into the buffer zone beyond the occupied Golan Heights. Meanwhile Assad's backers - Russia and Iran - are also concerned about their interests. Iran has said it expects good relations with Damascus to continue, while from Moscow the message was that Russia would respond to any attack on its military bases.”

Expresso comments on the military intervention of Syria's southern neighbour:

“Israel is celebrating but it's nervous, as its military movements show. It would prefer a weak Assad with no legitimacy among the population, even if he supports Hezbollah, to a new regime guided by Islamist nationalism and susceptible to popular pressure. ... Tel Aviv wanted Assad's limited power to be preserved, the war to continue and his regime to control the south, where its territory's borders run. The Israeli strategy has always been to divide and rule, even if it means chaos in the region that affects the whole world.”

Neatkarīgā examines the potential economic ramifications:

“If peace is restored in Syria this time and if democratic institutions are strengthened, the Gulf states could use Syria for the transit of their oil and gas to the Mediterranean and by extension to Europe. ... This would help us to meet our needs and also offer Ukraine new alternative procurement opportunities. Turkey's need to make money through the transit is a guarantee that as the largest country in the region it will continue to appease the situation by acting firstly in its own interests, but this time also a little in ours.”

Politiken hopes for an energetic response from the global community:

“Imagine if the United Nations could play a leading role in creating a transitional government that ensures that Syria does not fall into the hands of an extremist Islamist regime. ... And imagine if Assad's fall in Syria and the weakening of Hezbollah in Lebanon could bring freedom and democracy. This is of course a pious – and perhaps naive – hope, but when the great wheels of history are in motion, the global community must try to keep up. ... How nice it would be if the fall of the dictator in Damascus could lead to the Arab Spring that Assad himself brutally crushed in 2011.”

Russian opposition politician Leonid Volkov sees the end of the Assad regime as a hugely positive development. He writes on Facebook:

“I don't understand all the moaning about Assad having been defeated by 'the wrong' opposition forces, or that what comes next could be even worse. ... Of course, a bright democratic future won't just fall from the sky in Syria. Of course, a lot of difficult and unpleasant things lie ahead. And it is by no means certain that all will end well. But the overthrow of one of the most bloodthirsty dictators of our time is great cause for celebration and a major coup. Because it serves as a warning example for other dictators. Because it shows how unstable regimes based on a single person can be.”

Syria deserves support, writes De Volkskrant:

“Hopefully the rebels won't clash among themselves and forfeit their fragile unity against Assad. ... After the fall of the caliphate in 2019, Assad regained the initiative with the help of Iran and Russia. Even if these countries have now abandoned him, they will be watching the developments in Syria very closely. ... Despite all the uncertainties about the future, this revolution, if properly managed, deserves support. And it is encouraging to see so many Syrians wanting the same thing: unity, stability and peace.”

Eldiario.es takes a worried look at the looming social problems:

“Can the pre-war Syrian mosaic – multi-ethnic, multi-religious, unusually tolerant and secular – be pieced back together? ... The challenges facing us are colossal. The civil war killed more than 300,000 people. ... Half the population is displaced. ... The prisons are now emptying, sending a tide of angry, embittered, physically and psychologically scarred and vengeful people back into a devastated, already dysfunctional society. Humanitarian and security calamities loom. Destructive foreign meddling – central to the story of Syria since the war began – is another very real threat if things fall apart.”

Politiken takes a worried look at the future for minorities in Syria:

“The rebels are led by the jihadist militia Hayat Tahrir al-Sham – an extremist group that grew out of the Islamic State and was allied with Al Qaeda. Since then it has become less extremist but still consists of hardcore Islamists. If they take power in Syria, a country with many religious minorities and a long tradition of religious tolerance, this could lead to new waves of refugees. ... Europe can and should do its utmost to ensure that they are not driven out - and get ready to provide Syria with massive help in the extensive reconstruction effort that lies ahead.”

La Repubblica comments:

“It is striking how easily Turkey has pushed the Sunni rebels to topple Assad by openly defying Russia and Iran, the major protectors of Damascus. ... Erdoğan sees Damascus as part of his natural neo-Ottoman sphere of influence and is showing that he knows how to use his proxies effectively: Sunni militias, more or less jihadist, traceable to the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology of political Islam - a current of which the AKP party, with which Erdoğan has dominated Turkish political life for almost a quarter of a century, is also an expression.”

Assad's fall is a bitter blow for Putin, Jutarnji list notes:

“By leaving Assad to his fate, Putin has revealed a number of weaknesses. Firstly, he is no longer able to protect every one of his allies, which will give them pause for thought. Secondly, it shows that Russia is not all that strong but has limited resources, since it is obviously unable to fight on several fronts. Thirdly, by abandoning the Middle East, Russia has lost its clout in the region and confirmed the theory that the war in Ukraine has not only worn Russia down but also reduced its 'sphere of influence', making it less of a world power than Putin would like.”

Iran and its possible reactions must not be ignored, the pro-government daily Sabah commented even before Assad's final fall:

“Tehran, which from the beginning developed instruments based on confessions to turn the Iraq-Syria-Lebanon axis into a Shiite crescent, is very unhappy about this weakening of Assad. ... Iran, demoralised by the missile wars with Israel and with severely weakened paramilitary elements such as Hashd al-Shaabi and Hezbollah, is expected to get hysterical. As a state that cannot be ignored, Iran should be seen as a destabilising rather than a stabilising force in Syria.”