This sectarian-based control strengthened the Baath’s power but also led to its isolation in the Arab world. The Iraqi Baath Party, on the other hand, had a structure representing both Shiite and Sunni Arabs, and there were ideological and sectarian differences between it and the Syrian Baath. These sectarian differences became a factor that deepened the relations between the Syrian and Iraqi Baath parties.
Hafez Assad used not only the military but also sectarian divisions to consolidate his regime, suppressing opposition through harsh interventions such as the 1982 Hama Uprising. Assad’s administration ensured that the Alawite sect became one of the regime’s most powerful elements by utilizing the sect’s power and support. These sectarian dynamics played a critical role in maintaining the Baath’s power.
Bashar Assad’s rise to power was shaped by Bakr Assad’s sudden death in a traffic accident. Bassel Assad was his father’s natural successor, and there were hopes that he would implement modernizing reforms. However, Bassel Assad’s death led to Bashar Assad’s unexpected rise to the leadership position. With the power he inherited from his father, Bashar Assad initially made promises of democratization but resorted to repressive methods in the face of growing opposition. Despite his inexperience, he quickly established a strong administration and continued his father’s legacy.
After the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, although Bashar Assad made some reforms to consolidate the Baath Party’s rule under international pressure, most of these changes remained superficial. Despite the international community’s demands for democratization, the Assad regime continued its repressive policies. International reactions following the Hariri assassination and the support given to Syria by regional countries restricted the opposition’s room for maneuver.
In 2011, the wave of the Arab Spring spread to Syria. Peaceful protests that began in Daraa in March quickly spread throughout the country. During this process, the people’s demands were initially focused on reform, but the regime’s harsh intervention and pressure on protesters led to peaceful protests turning into armed resistance. These events became the main factors triggering the civil war in Syria. Anti-regime movements united against the regime at the “Conference for Change in Syria” held in Antalya on June 2, 2011. This gathering was an indication that opposition movements in Syria had gained an international dimension.
The civil war in Syria has not remained merely an internal conflict but has become more complex due to the influence of sectarian and regional dynamics. Bashar Assad’s administration aimed to consolidate its political power by using sectarian divisions, which led to tensions with neighboring Iraqi Baath. In particular, the Iraqi Baath remained distant from the Syrian Baath’s Alawite-based structure, which increased Syria’s isolation in the Arab world.
At the beginning of the civil war, opposition elements that separated from the Syrian army engaged in armed resistance against the regime, and Turkey played an important role in establishing and arming the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Turkey also strengthened this structure by training the opposition. This deepened the regional dimension of the civil war in Syria.
The history of the Baath Party in Syria has been a process shaped by sectarian tensions and political conflicts beyond ideological goals. This process is critical to understanding how the repressive administration and sectarian conflicts that began before the Arab Spring deepened political instability in Syria and ultimately led to civil war. The civil war has also reshaped Syria’s international relations and regional balances.
What Will Happen in Syria?
In this article, we discussed how the Baath regime was established in Syria, how the Assad family came to power, and how the civil war emerged. In this section, I will discuss possible scenarios that could occur with the fall of the Baath Party and Assad regime, whose rule ended as of December 8.
Since 2011, we know that numerous different armed groups and their supporter regional and global powers have been in conflict. The Assad regime had established dominance over a large part of Syria thanks to Iran, Russia, and Iranian-backed militia groups, and the civil war seemed to have largely ended. However, Iran’s conflicts with Israel in the region and Russia’s war with Ukraine may have weakened support for the Assad regime. This assessment is based on the attacks initiated by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) leader Abu Mohammed al-Jolani on November 27 and successfully concluded on December 8, leading other armed groups.
Ending the civil war that has continued since 2011 in just 11 days raises two main possibilities. First, the Assad regime may have lost its economic and military support. Second, armed groups led by HTS may have received enough support to gain superiority over the regime. My personal opinion is that the Assad regime lost its backing support, and armed groups, along with their supporting countries, took advantage of this situation. We can support this opinion with claims that Russia has evacuated its military bases in Syria.
There are three main scenarios that could occur in Syria.
A United Syria Scenario
This is the scenario I wish would happen but is the most difficult to realize. Syria’s cosmopolitan structure, consisting of various ethnic origins, sects, and religious groups, makes this scenario difficult. Moreover, considering that these communities are armed and factionalized, it will be very difficult to bring different interest groups together at a common point. Additionally, the presence of coups, unstable administrations, and chronic conflicts in Syria indicates that there is not a suitable environment for democracy.
Considering the interests of regional and global powers, the probability of this scenario occurring is quite low. For this scenario to be implemented, a constitution that benefits all interest groups needs to be prepared and elections need to be held. However, I believe this is very difficult in the current political and social atmosphere. Moreover, attempts by influential powers in the region like the US to design Syria’s constitution could lead to a repetition of examples like Jordan and Lebanon.
The internationally recognized legitimate government of the Syrian opposition is the Istanbul-based Syrian National Coalition, and this government has a political sphere of influence through the Syrian Interim Government (SMO). However, in the government established by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), they did not include anyone from this group. This creates uncertainty about the political leadership of SNC and HTS merging and becoming a single structure. Still, how this merger will occur is not clear at the moment.
On the other hand, the New Syrian Army formed by FSA members in the South is a US-guided structure, and this group advanced towards Damascus under their direction rather than HTS’s. Technically, while this group appears to be affiliated with the SNC, in practice, it operates more under CIA guidance. However, although this group is not very large, it can be decisive enough to affect the dynamics in the region.
In the future, instead of a completely united Syria, a structure with regional administrations giving autonomy to various groups could be adopted. However, in this case, it should not be forgotten that an important regional actor like Turkey will oppose a Kurdish regional formation on its southern border.
Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s Authoritarian Rule
I previously stated that Syria’s current structure is unsuitable for democracy. In this context, there is a high probability that HTS will emerge as an authoritarian and unilateral administration. The discourse of organization leader Abu Mohammed al-Jolani about brotherhood, unity, and togetherness may not continue if power is obtained. There is a possibility that the authoritarian model left by the Assad regime will continue with HTS.
HTS’s direct connection with Al Qaeda, its emergence as an Islamist group, and its use of the black caliphate banner on white makes this scenario similar to today’s Taliban administration. This situation strengthens the possibility that an authoritarian Islamist state could be established in Syria in the future. The ongoing Israel-Palestine conflicts in the Middle East also increase the likelihood of this scenario.
A New Civil War
The worst and most likely scenario is the failure to form an administration and the start of a total conflict between groups. Syria’s cosmopolitan structure, inability to maintain public order, and lack of food and medical supplies could fuel anarchy over time. This situation could bring about a civil war in which global and regional powers would also participate.
Such a scenario could create major regional instability. There is still a possibility of resistance in the Latakia mountains by voluntary NDF (National Defense Forces) forces, Shabiha, and criminals of the old regime besides those conscripted to the Assad regime, and there are still groups unwilling to lay down arms. These elements could form a strong counter-force against the regime and trigger a new phase of the civil war in Syria. Additionally, the YPG (People’s Protection Units) issue could also be an important civil war trigger. YPG’s influence in the region and especially Turkey’s reactions to this group could lead to a deepening of the conflict in Syria. These developments could create additional grounds for global powers to intervene.
The US could intervene to fill this power vacuum, design a constitution, and bring a administration to power that suits its interests. This could both deepen regional instability and further fuel the conflicts of interest of global powers in the region.
General Assessment
Whether these three scenarios will materialize largely depends on the interests of global and regional powers. The main reason for the regime’s collapse was that the Assad regime did not receive the expected support from Iran and Russia during the conflicts. Israel’s entry into Syrian territory by crossing the Golan Heights and its air strikes show that Syria’s future will be determined not by its own people but by regional and global actors. The main purpose of the air strikes and territorial expansion has been to completely destroy Syria’s military capacity and take control of the land routes going to Hezbollah. The US could achieve its goals by using Israel in this process.
