The impact of the Syrian regime change on the region: What to expect

In a recent interview with the BBC, Al-Sharaa, the de facto leader of the current Syrian authorities, expressed his views on the military presence of other countries in Syria. According to Al-Sharaa, Turkey is the only country whose presence in Syria is fully justified. He stated that the Syrian conflict has had a direct impact on that country, with Ankara being forced to accept the highest number of Syrian refugees and contributing to stability by maintaining its presence in northern Syria. Regarding Israel’s presence, the Syrian leader deemed it justified, although he noted that Syria currently poses no threat to any country, suggesting that there are no reasons for concern and that it is time to withdraw from Syrian territory. As to Russia and Iran, Al-Sharaa expressed extreme negativity toward their presence, stating that they have been assisting Assad’s regime for years, contributing to crimes against the Syrian people. However, he did not rule out the possibility that, after reaching certain agreements, the Russians might maintain their presence in Syria.

Ahmed Al-Sharaa, who now presents himself to the world as the leader of Syria’s transitional authority and harbors ambitions to become the country’s future leader, is portrayed by some media outlets as a fighter for freedom and an advocate for women’s rights. However, the reality is quite different—this individual has a rich “work” background in terrorism and extremism, a fact that is well-documented. According to reports from the BBC, Al-Sharaa, previously known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani, has had close ties with some of the most notorious figures in terrorism, including Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State, and, prior to that, with al-Qaeda. Furthermore, it was under al-Baghdadi’s command that Al-Sharaa established the extremist group Jabhat al-Nusra in northern Syria. This group initially received support from Turkey and actively contributed to military operations against the Syrian Army and the Kurds. This background helps explain Al-Sharaa’s pronounced pro-Turkish stance. Later, Jabhat al-Nusra changed its name to Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, ostensibly to dissociate from its terrorist past. However, it soon reappeared on the lists of terrorist organizations. This was hardly surprising, given that this organization was fundamentally created as a terrorist entity from the outset in terms of its activities, nature, and structure.

Many experts, both from Western platforms and Armenian TV channels, express the opinion that the United States, together with its allies Turkey and Israel, using their proxy groups, broke the influence of Russia and Iran in Syria. According to these experts, Iranian influence in Syria is now nullified, and the Russians will soon have to withdraw their military bases, relocating either to Libya or Algeria. In short, the West, represented by the U.S. and its allies, has achieved a definitive victory in the hybrid wars on the Syrian front. However, caution is warranted regarding the notion of a “definitive victory.” Russian official circles, starting from Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, report that they are ready to negotiate with the new Syrian authorities to maintain their military presence there. These are not merely empty hopes, as Al-Sharaa himself has stated in an interview with the BBC that, after certain agreements, they are ready to accept the presence of Russian bases in Syria. A question may arise: how can the leader of a group supported by the West and Turkey agree to the continued presence of Russia in Syria? The only true answer to this question is that Al-Sharaa himself understands well that the so-called victory over Assad is not his own, but that of his foreign patrons. Therefore, he is fully aware that, if necessary, those patrons can also get rid of him. Although Al-Sharaa is considered the leader of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, which took power from Assad, the reality is that this organization is not monolithic, and it seized power alongside many other groups, some of which are under Turkish influence, while others are under that of the U.S. and Israel. The mere fact that more than half of the Syrian capital, Damascus, was captured by a group called the Southern Operations Room (SOR)—composed of ethnic Druze—is sufficient to say that Al-Sharaa is not the sole owner of the victory over Assad. And when he says that after certain agreements the Russians can remain, he is trying to maintain a counterbalance to the dominance of the U.S., Turkey, and Israel in Syria. Now, let us bring a brief historical note: Hafez al-Assad, Bashar al-Assad’s father, also stood out for his anti-Russian and anti-communist views, but later he changed his stance, becoming the most pro-Soviet leader. Geopolitics forced him to do so, as only the Russians have the means and connections in the region to counterbalance the West or any other power. By supporting them, it was possible to ensure the continuation of the Assad regime in Syria. It should not be ruled out that Al-Sharaa, for the same reasons, is not categorically excluding the Russian presence in Syria. He fears that his patrons, just as they helped him become the leader of the country, could also “topple” him. And they can be effectively counterbalanced with the help of the Russians.

Thus, it is still early to talk about peace, stability, or any side’s victory in the hybrid war that has taken place in Syria. Even the interests of allies such as Turkey, Israel, and the United States often contradict each other, and it is not excluded that at some point, the proxy groups they support may fight against each other. This could open new opportunities for Russia and, why not, Iran. Many theorists believe that Iran has lost everything in Syria and has definitively withdrawn from there. However, it is still too early to rule Iran out of the game. This country still has a significant presence in neighboring Iraq and Lebanon, and besides, some remnants of Assad’s army have fled to Iraq with their weapons and equipment. Any change in the situation in Syria could provide Iran with the opportunity to utilize these forces and return its presence to Syria. And how can the processes unfolding in Syria affect Armenia? One thing can be said in this regard: Turkey has serious plans for Syria. If it manages to implement them, as Turkish officials themselves state, after Syria, they will address the issue of having a corridor through Armenia’s Syunik. On the other hand, if Ankara becomes mired in the swamp of never-ending conflicts in the region, including Syria, Turkey will be forced to put the issue of obtaining a corridor through Syunik from Armenia on the back burner.

Ashot Barekyan