The Middle East remains entangled in a complex web of conflicts shaped by local insurgencies, regional rivalries, and global power struggles. From the rise of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in Syria to Israel’s strategic campaigns in Lebanon and Gaza, the region has become the focal point of a multifaceted and enduring war that extends beyond borders. The interplay between regional actors such as Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and the global strategies of the United States, Russia and China, highlights the intricate geopolitical dimensions of this conflict.
In this article we delve into these dynamics, exploring the historical roots, contemporary struggles, and ideological undercurrents shaping Syria’s role in this broader war. We examine the rise of the Baath regime, the Arab Spring’s impact on Syria, the transformative influence of the Syrian Civil War, and the emergence of alternative governance models like Rojava. The article also reflects on the rise of HTS under Abu Mohammad al-Julani and its significance within the Middle East wars, providing a lens to understand the enduring struggles for self-determination, peace, and democratic socialism in a region fractured by decades of strife.
The Establishment of Baath Regime
The establishment of the Baath regime is a remarkable historical process shaped by its ideological foundations and political rise. Emerging in the 1940s under the leadership of thinkers like Michel Aflaq, Salah al-Din al-Bitar and Zaki al-Arsuzi, Baathist ideology offered a framework that combined Arab nationalism with socialist rhetoric. This ideology, with its emphasis on equality and freedom, resonated widely among the people of the post-independence Middle East. However, the Baath’s understanding of socialism was pro-USSR, a model centered on a bureaucratised state and reliant on strong authority of one leader.
The Baath Party, established in Damascus in 1947, gained significant support within the military during the 1950s. When it came to power in the 1963 coup, it promised socialist policies and reforms. Land reforms and nationalization efforts were well-received in rural areas, but the growing authoritarianism within the party weakened its claims.
In 1970, Hafez al-Assad’s “Corrective Movement,” a coup within the party, marked a new phase for the Baath regime. Assad established a highly centralized government, suppressing internal party dissent and turning the regime into a military dictatorship. During this period, support from the Soviet Union bolstered the regime’s strength.
The Baath regime’s understanding of socialism emphasized themes of equality and social justice, yet in practice, it excluded huge segments of the population from political processes and systematically suppressed opposition.
The repressive policies of the Baath regime, particularly during the rule of Hafez al-Assad and Bashar al-Assad, were extensive and led to severe human rights violations. These policies employed both physical and psychological methods of repression, with various national and international sources providing data to illustrate the scale of these abuses.
During Hafez al-Assad’s rule, the regime conducted a large-scale military operation in the city of Hama in response to an uprising by the Muslim Brotherhood in 1982. This operation resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. According to Human Rights Watch (HRW) and other sources, the death toll exceeded 25,000. Entire neighborhoods were destroyed, making this event a symbol of the regime’s brutal methods against opposition.
The Arab Spring
The Arab Spring in Syria, as in other countries in the region in 2011, was the result of a combination of extensive socio-economic, political, and social problems. The protests and subsequent conflict in Syria can be better understood through an in-depth analysis of the country’s historical, economic, political and demographic dynamics.
When Hafez al-Assad passed away in 2000, his son Bashar al-Assad assumed power. Bashar promised partial economic reforms and a more liberal environment. However, these reforms were insufficient and failed to address systemic issues like corruption and nepotism, leading to growing public disillusionment.
Syria’s economic structure underwent significant changes during the 2000s. Bashar al-Assad’s administration adopted market-oriented economic reforms, reducing the state’s role in the economy and encouraging private sector growth. These reforms failed to meet the needs of the broader population. Privatization and neoliberal policies widened the gap between the wealthy and the poor.
The weakening of the agricultural sector forced rural populations to migrate to urban centers. Between 2006 and 2010, a severe drought devastated agricultural production, displacing hundreds of thousands of people, particularly in eastern regions. This drought exacerbated unemployment and poverty levels. The government’s inability to respond effectively to the crisis further eroded trust in the regime.
Syria’s demographic composition has played a significant role in shaping its social and political dynamics. The country comprises various ethnic groups, including Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen, and Assyrians, alongside religious communities such as Sunnis, Alawites, Christians, and Druze. The Assad regime, relying on the Alawite minority, fostered a sense of exclusion among the Sunni majority, deepening dissatisfaction with the regime.
Additionally, a large youth population contributed to rising unemployment rates. The lack of opportunities for young people further fueled societal unrest. Educated but unemployed youth became one of the most vocal sources of opposition to the regime.
Syria’s situation was also influenced by the regional wave of the Arab Spring. The uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt inspired the Syrian people, reinforcing the belief that similar movements could succeed in Syria.
Regional and global actors also became involved in the Syrian conflict. While Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia supported the Assad regime, the United States, Turkey, and Gulf countries backed opposition groups. These interventions transformed the Syrian crisis into a broader international conflict.
In 2011, the arrest and mistreatment of a group of children in Daraa for writing anti-regime slogans on a wall sparked the first protests. The harsh response by security forces escalated the situation, leading to nationwide demonstrations. Initially focused on demands for reforms, the movement quickly evolved into an anti-regime uprising.
The Baath regime has maintained its grip on power through repressive policies that include mass killings, arbitrary detentions, and the use of chemical weapons. These actions have not only suppressed domestic opposition but also shocked the international community. The regime’s ability to endure has largely depended on external support, extending the impact of its repressive practices to an international dimension.
Following the start of the civil war in 2011, the regime’s repressive tactics intensified. According to the United Nations, attacks on civilians and arbitrary detentions by regime forces displaced hundreds of thousands and led to tens of thousands being imprisoned. Reports by the UN Human Rights Council indicate that over 20,000 people died from torture in regime-run prisons
The Baath regime has been accused of violating international law through the use of chemical weapons. On August 21, 2013, a chemical attack in Ghouta killed over 1,000 people. Both the United Nations and independent observers have reported that the attacks were carried out by the regime, highlighting its oppressive policies against its own population.
During the civil war, the regime received significant support from Russia and Iran. Beginning in 2015, Russia’s military intervention included deploying thousands of troops, warplanes, and S-300 air defense systems to Syria. Iran, in turn, sent approximately 20,000 Hezbollah militants and Revolutionary Guard personnel to the conflict. This external support bolstered the regime’s military capacity and enabled it to maintain and intensify its repressive policies.
The Civil War Period in Syria
The Syrian Civil War quickly evolved into one of the most devastating conflicts of the 21st century. As the conflict deepened, Syria became fragmented among various factions. The main actors included:
- The Assad Regime: Backed by Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, the regime maintained control over significant urban centers.
- The Opposition: A mix of moderate factions, including the Free Syrian Army (FSA), and Islamist groups, some of which later splintered into extremist organizations like Jabhat al-Nusra.
- The Kurds: Concentrated in northern Syria, Kurdish groups, led by the YPG (People’s Protection Units), established autonomous regions under the banner of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
- ISIS: Emerging as a dominant force in 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) captured large territories, implementing a brutal regime and drawing global attention.
This fragmentation turned the war into a complex web of local, regional, and international conflicts.
The humanitarian toll of the civil war has been catastrophic: Estimates suggest that over 500,000 people have been killed since the start of the conflict. Over 13 million Syrians, more than half the population, have been displaced. Around 6.8 million became refugees, primarily in neighboring countries like Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan, while 6.5 million were internally displaced. The war destroyed infrastructure, reduced Syria’s GDP by over 60%, and plunged millions into poverty. Both the regime and other factions have been accused of war crimes, including the use of chemical weapons, indiscriminate bombings, and sieges that starved civilian populations.
A Parenthesis: the Rojava Model
The establishment of the Rojava region during the Syrian Civil War represents a significant initiative led by the Kurdish population. In 2012, as the Assad regime lost control over northern Syria, the Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its armed wing, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), assumed governance of the region. This development was seen as a response to the historical oppression faced by the Kurds and Rojava emerged as a model of democratic autonomy.
The governance model in Rojava, described as “democratic confederalism,” sought to establish a decentralized, grassroots form of governance based on direct democracy. The model emphasized principles such as women’s rights, ecological sustainability, and equality among ethnic and religious groups. These principles were formalized in the Social Contract, often referred to as the Rojava Constitution, which sought to create an inclusive and pluralistic framework.
In 2014, ISIS launched a brutal assault on Sinjar (Şengal), targeting the Yazidi community with genocide. Thousands of Yazidis were killed, women were enslaved, and the community was displaced. The YPG, along with its Iraqi ally, the Peshmerga, responded to this crisis. The YPG played a key role in opening a humanitarian corridor on Mount Sinjar, rescuing tens of thousands of Yazidis. This operation significantly enhanced the reputation of the Kurdish forces both regionally and internationally and marked a crucial victory against ISIS.
Rojava’s grassroots democratic governance model was perceived differently by regional and international actors. Turkey, in particular, viewed the PYD and YPG as extensions of the PKK and considered the autonomous administration a significant security threat. Citing border security concerns, Turkey launched military operations targeting Rojava, the largest being the “Operation Peace Spring” in 2019. These operations aimed to weaken the administrative and military infrastructure of Rojava.
The United States, on the other hand, regarded the YPG as a crucial partner in the fight against ISIS and provided military support. However, the U.S. withdrawal from the region in 2019 left the Kurds to navigate challenges from both the Assad regime and Turkey, revealing one time again that imperialists offer support only out of self interest. Meanwhile, Russia and the Assad regime also viewed Rojava’s autonomy as a challenge to their authority and sought to curtail it. The Rojava model posed a threat to regional actors not only by disrupting the status quo but also by proposing an alternative social and governance framework, albeit still not on a socialist basis.
The Syrian Civil War created a power vacuum that allowed alternative governance models like Rojava to emerge. However, these models were not merely products of the war but also shaped its dynamics. Rojava became a significant player, fighting effectively against ISIS while altering regional power balances. This, in turn, drew the ire of actors such as Turkey, Iran, and others who viewed Rojava’s experiment as a threat to their interests.
The Rise of HTS to Power and the Role of Julani
In the later stages of the Syrian Civil War, the weakening of the Assad regime and the fragmentation of opposition forces created a power vacuum in northwestern Syria. In this context, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) emerged as the dominant force in the region. Formed in 2017 through the merger of various Islamist factions, HTS solidified its authority under the leadership of the charismatic figure, Abu Mohammad al-Julani, a former ISIS militant.
HTS consolidated its power in the Idlib region. By 2024, it had established itself as the de facto governing authority in much of the area. HTS not only relied on its military strength but also sought to establish a localized governance system. Through the creation of the “Syrian Salvation Government,” HTS attempted to provide services such as education, justice, and basic administration.
HTS initially based its governance in Idlib on strict Sharia law, reflecting its ideological stance through rigorous enforcement of religious courts and rules. Over time, in an effort to gain international recognition, HTS has somewhat softened its approach. However, the governance system remains far from democratic; there are no elections or representative structures such as a parliament. HTS is ruled through centralized authority under Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, with decisions being made primarily behind closed doors.
While the Salvation Government has created a bureaucratic framework, it is widely regarded as a tool to enhance HTS’s legitimacy rather than an autonomous governing body. Despite Jolani’s efforts to portray a more moderate image in the media—claiming a shift away from the idea of an Islamic state and focusing on institutionalization—HTS has not entirely severed ties with its jihadist roots.
Abu Mohammad al-Julani, the founder and leader of HTS, played a pivotal role in shaping the group’s military and political strategies. Initially gaining prominence as the founder of the Nusra Front, Al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch, Julani later severed ties with Al-Qaeda to rebrand HTS as an independent force.
Julani adopted a pragmatic approach to consolidate HTS’s power. He engaged in negotiations with regional and international actors to position HTS as a legitimate governing entity. While he maintained strict control over the Idlib region, his repressive measures against dissenting voices within the opposition and civil society drew rather mild criticism.
New Wars in the Middle East
HTS’s control over parts of Syria represents not just a local power shift but also a significant piece of the larger puzzle in the new period of wars in the Middle East.
The rise of HTS under Jolani’s leadership in northwestern Syria is not merely a result of the Syrian Civil War but part of a broader conflict. This ongoing struggle manifests in different forms across regions such as Yemen, Lebanon, and Gaza, and is intricately connected to the global geopolitical order. Within this framework, Israel’s role—particularly its actions in Lebanon and Gaza—has had significant repercussions on the dynamics of the Syrian conflict.
Israel has long viewed the presence of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas’s governance in Gaza as major threats to its security. Since the 2006 Lebanon War, Israel has conducted numerous operations aimed at weakening Hezbollah and reducing Iran’s influence in the region. Hezbollah’s military support for the Assad regime during the Syrian Civil War further served as an excuse for these Israeli strikes. These actions have indirectly influenced the trajectory of the conflict in Syria by targeting one of the Assad regime’s critical allies.
Similarly, Israel’s military operations against Hamas in Gaza have aimed to weaken the group’s military and political influence. These devastating and genocidal operations have also had indirect effects on other Islamist groups in the region, including HTS, by reshaping the regional dynamics and power balance.
During the Syrian Civil War, Israel carried out airstrikes targeting Iranian and Hezbollah assets within Syria. These strikes aimed to disrupt Iran’s supply lines and limit Hezbollah’s capacity to acquire advanced weaponry. While these interventions were focused on countering Iran’s influence, they also affected the balance of power within Syria.
The rise of HTS in northwestern Syria posed an indirect challenge for Israel. Although Israel has not directly targeted HTS, the group’s presence adds complexity to regional security calculations.
Trump’s Role
One of the defining characteristics of Donald Trump’s presidency was its unpredictability, particularly in foreign policy. While Trump articulated a withdrawal strategy for the Middle East during his tenure, the implementation of this strategy was inconsistent and often contradictory. This unpredictability positioned Trump as a factor of uncertainty in the Middle East.
Trump frequently expressed his desire to reduce U.S. involvement in the Middle East, highlighting the financial and human costs of prolonged conflicts. His decision to withdraw troops from Syria in 2019 was emblematic of this approach, creating a power vacuum that significantly altered regional dynamics. Groups like HTS and state actors such as Turkey and Russia sought to capitalize on this vacuum.
However, Trump’s actions often contradicted his rhetoric. While announcing withdrawals in some areas, he simultaneously increased military and economic pressure on Iran, expanded arms sales to regional allies like Saudi Arabia, and intensified support for Israel. This dual approach reflected an administration torn between isolationist tendencies and a need to maintain influence in a strategically vital region. In fact, these contradictions reveal the true dilemmas of western imperialism and especially its leading force, the US. Although they cannot support this huge mechanism of domination, due to their falling relative power, they also cannot wholly disengage from their commitments, as this will have snowballing effects on their power.
Conclusion
The rapid surrender of the Assad regime to HTS (Hayat Tahrir al-Sham) within just 12 days, without significant resistance, reveals the deep decay of this dictatorship, which has long survived through repression. This swift collapse also reflects broader geopolitical dynamics: increased pressure on Iran, Israel’s interventions in Lebanon weakening Hezbollah, and Russia’s focus on the war in Ukraine have significantly reduced Assad’s external support, playing a crucial role in this outcome.
Under the leadership of Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, HTS has transitioned from irregular warfare to a more organized military force, gaining some experience in governance and institutionalization in its controlled territories. However, Syria’s future remains uncertain, and the likelihood of new conflicts emerging is high. Despite Jolani’s remarks in a CNN interview that he has moved away from the idea of an Islamic state and is now focused on institutionalizing efforts in Syria, it does not take a fortune-teller to predict that a “democratic” state will not emerge in the region. The existing structure is dominated by jihadist movements whose priorities are shaped by sectarian and militant agendas, lacking any commitment to democratic principles. This indicates that further conflict and escalating instability in Syrian territories in the coming months are inevitable.
The collapse of a dictatorship responsible for over 500,000 deaths and the displacement of millions exposes the fragility of such regimes and offers no guarantee of progress or justice for the people. The rise of Islamist forces or other reactionary movements cannot lead to meaningful liberation or stability. Our focus must remain on ending proxy wars in the Middle East and breaking free from imperialist blocs that dictate the region’s future for their own gain, which is not possible under capitalism. We should also strive to reveal local actors for what they are: oppressors of the people, fighting for their own interests.
The existing structures lack any character that represents the interests of the working class or the oppressed peoples. The situation in the region is shaped by imperialist interventions driven by conflicting international interests and the competition among regional actors. Reactionary movements, devoid of democratic or progressive programs, continue to undermine the struggle of the peoples for self-determination. In these circumstances, increasing conflicts and deepening instability in the region seem inevitable. It cannot be ruled out that these may end up in the breaking up of existing states at some point of time, which will have knock-on effects in neighbouring countries. A transformative change can only be achieved under the leadership of a revolutionary working-class movement.
The crisis in Syria is a reflection of the profound contradictions of global capitalism. The capitalist system, driven by uneven development and competition over resources, perpetually generates conflict and war. The instability in the Middle East is a direct result of this imperialist struggle for energy resources and strategic dominance. However, national issues or regional contradictions cannot find lasting solutions without an international perspective. The success of national democratic struggles is only possible through the organization of the working class on an international scale, transcending the boundaries imposed by capitalism. Today, the weakness of organized class struggles and the absence of an international socialist movement are the most significant obstacles preventing the peoples of the region from reclaiming their destinies.
Resources
Encyclopedia Britannica. “Baath Party: Historical Overview and Ideological Foundations.” A comprehensive entry outlining the origins, development, and ideological tenets of the Baath Party. Available at: britannica.com.
Carnegie Middle East Center. “From Revolutionary Fervor to Dictatorial Rule: The Baath Party’s Transformation.” An analysis of how the Baath Party transitioned from an ideological movement to an authoritarian regime. Available at: carnegie-mec.org.
Human Rights Watch (HRW). “Syria: Memories of the Hama Massacre.” An in-depth report on the 1982 massacre in Hama, highlighting the regime’s brutal methods to suppress dissent. Available at: hrw.org.
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). “Report on Detention Practices and Deaths in Syria.” A detailed report documenting arbitrary arrests, torture, and extrajudicial killings in Syria during the Assad regime. Available at: ohchr.org.
Wilson Center. “Syria and the Arab Spring: A Forgotten Revolution.” A historical perspective on how the Arab Spring uprisings influenced Syria and led to broader unrest. Available at: wilsoncenter.org.
Amnesty International. “Chemical Weapons Use in Syria: Evidence and Accountability.” A report investigating chemical weapons attacks in Syria, particularly the Ghouta attack in 2013. Available at: amnesty.org.
SAGE Journals. “Ideology in Flux: A Critique of Baathist Ideology.” An academic analysis of the ideological contradictions within Baathism. Available at: journals.sagepub.com.
International Crisis Group. “Drought and Discontent: The Roots of Syria’s Crisis.” A study on how economic reforms and environmental stressors like drought contributed to societal unrest in Syria. Available at: crisisgroup.org.
Brookings Institution. “Economic Liberalization in Syria: From State-Led to Market-Oriented Policies.” A critical review of the economic policies under Bashar al-Assad and their social implications. Available at: brookings.edu.
The Guardian. “The Civil War in Syria: A Timeline.” A comprehensive timeline that traces the key events, factions, and turning points of the Syrian Civil War. Available at: theguardian.com.
BBC News. “The Rise of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham: From Al-Qaeda to Idlib Governance.” An investigative report on HTS’s transformation under Abu Mohammad al-Julani. Available at: bbc.com.
Middle East Institute (MEI). “Rojava and the Kurdish Experiment in Democratic Confederalism.” A deep dive into Rojava’s governance model and its implications for regional stability. Available at: mei.edu.
Al Jazeera. “Turkey’s Military Operations in Syria: Border Security or Expansionism?” A critical analysis of Turkey’s operations in Northern Syria and their impact on the Kurdish population. Available at: aljazeera.com.
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). “Russia in Syria: Strategic Calculations and Long-Term Goals.” An overview of Russia’s intervention in Syria and its implications for global geopolitics. Available at: cfr.org.
Reuters. “Julani’s Pragmatism: How HTS Seeks Legitimacy in Idlib.” A report on Abu Mohammad al-Julani’s strategy to position HTS as a governing force in Northwestern Syria. Available at: reuters.com.
The New York Times. “The Greater Middle East War: Shifting Alliances and New Conflicts.” An analysis of how the Middle East’s regional wars interconnect with global power dynamics. Available at: nytimes.com.
