“Assad or We Burn the Country”: Syria’s Struggle For Liberation

What really happened in the Syrian civil war?

(This is an adapted transcript of a talk I recently delivered to university students)

The Syrian revolution began in 2011 as a grassroots civil society uprising against one of the most tyrannical rulers in the Muslim World. Bashar al-Assad, like his father before him, presided over a state of terror, with mass disappearances, secret police repression and a brutal, corrupt state machinery that governed through fear. Assad had four secret service agencies (mukhabarat) that worked independently. If you got onto a list, your life would become a never-ending Kafkaesque tragedy. All four had to pardon you before you could be absolved of any guilt. Ordinary Syrians talked in hushed tones in case stray criticism of the state would be misconstrued as insurrection. Assad was a ‘god’ who had to be adored by his people.

What has happened over these past two weeks is truly spectacular. But how did we get here? And how do we understand the past 13 years? At the moment, the critical narrative in the West is set by the anti-imperialist political left, many of whom have structural reasons to support Assad and make salacious claims against all the opposition—claiming, without convincing evidence, that they were part of a CIA plot or that the Americans inspired the uprising. This fails to capture the horrors of Assad and the true nature of the rebellion as a response by ordinary Syrians to a horrific regime. We Muslims must not echo the ideological biases that underpin Western narratives, whether that comes from the mainstream media or from those who subscribe to the political left. They want to see the world through an analytical lens that contorts reality.

How did the Civil War start?

In 2011, the embers of the Arab Spring that began in Tunisia were spreading. And Syrians, who had lived under a harsh police state, organised themselves across the country. The trigger for the revolution started in the Southern port city of Darra, where fifteen teenagers were arrested and held in detention for a month for allegedly daubing graffiti on a wall that read, الشعب يريد إسقاط النظام ‘the people demand the fall of the regime’. This was the popular slogan used by then in both Tunisia and Egypt. The slogan was followed by ‘your turn, doctor’, alluding to Bashar al-Assad’s optometrist past. He was an eye doctor in London before he was called back to Syria after the untimely death of his older brother.

The teenagers were brutally tortured, and this led to peaceful protests in Darra that spread to major cities. These were led by regular people, doctors, lawyers, teachers, mothers, nurses, and students – Syrians who had had enough of living under tyranny. The fear of the suffocating torture state was lifted.

Protestors held olive branches and unbuttoned their shirts to show they were not armed. This was a genuinely grassroots uprising; later, the Iranians, Russians, and their proxies in the West would characterise the protest as Western-backed. This was far from the truth; the West was surprised at the intensity of the Arab uprisings. Their preferred policy in the Middle East had always been to support strongmen, its so-called stable authoritarians.

This policy had been a relic from the Cold War, and most ordinary Westerners lived in blissful ignorance. I remember the week the Syrian protests began, a work colleague of mine was disappointed she would have to postpone her family holiday to Damascus, adding, ‘he isn’t as bad as the others’. Some liberals, like Thomas Friedman, had convinced themselves that the Arabs and Muslims were incapable of making appropriate use of freedom because they were at different stages of development. They needed strongmen to keep a lid on their sectarianism and undemocratic impulses.

Assad styled himself as an anti-imperialist when, in reality, he had colluded with the West in past conflicts. After 9/11, Syria became a favoured place for the Americans to render suspects for horrific torture. The authoritarians were also critical to the continued survival of their most vital settler colonial enterprise, Israel. It is what the Jewish historian Avi Shlaim describes as the ‘Iron Wall’ – the notion that the Arab states had to come to terms with their relative weakness in a region where Israel’s borders were impenetrable—forcing these countries to accept its long-term parasitic existence.

The US plotted a Middle East where the balance of power was always in Israel’s favour. Syria, like Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, should never challenge this basic security logic in favour of Israel. This is why Obama would not tolerate Muhammad Morsi, the democratically elected President of Egypt, who, after one year in office, was unceremoniously removed by the so-called ‘deep state’ – a mixture of elite Egyptian liberals and the army leadership.

In Syria, the demands of the people were snuffed out by a deranged dictator who decided he would rather burn his country before giving up power. He did this by turning the conflict into an armed struggle, targeting peaceful protestors and transforming what was a civil uprising into a civil war. Here, he had a monopoly on violence. Unlike Egypt, where the deep state decided to temporarily acquiesce with protestors and conveniently made Hosni Mubarak the fall guy, Assad was not about to leave on a jet or see the inside of a prison cell. He brutally quelled the protests, forcing them into a rebellion.

At one point in the civil war, which had by 2012 spread to most of the country, there were 800 rebel enclaves, autonomous areas where people could breathe freely and where locally appointed councils made decisions. Despite the constant government shelling, the biological weapons, the barrel bombs – a crude munitions device used in heavily populated civilian areas – most people in the liberated zones were happy to live in freedom without the constant fear of the state.

This was when regional powers got involved; amongst them, the Gulf states and Turkey had armed preferred groups to reflect their interests. This turned the conflict into a regional one. Each state was looking to capitalise on the potential fall of the Assad regime.

The United States Backed Rebels

The United States under Barack Obama had long dithered on Syria, waiting to see how the wind would blow. For a while, when it was evident that this was a popular revolution that had traction, Obama decided he would create and fund a militia outfit, using Gulf allies Jordan and Turkey to facilitate training and coordination. Codenamed Operation Timber Sycamore, one billion was spent between 2014 and 2016 by the CIA to fund disgruntled militants of the old Free Syrian Army. Maybe it’s a sign of US decay, but this money was squandered. Essentially, the leaders it co-opted took the money and ran. The US had little battlefield progress to show for its money. The programme failed, and in 2016, Donald Trump, who had entered the White House, shuttered it, calling it ‘massive, dangerous and wasteful’.

In reality, US Syria policy was never aimed at removing Assad without a viable alternative. Obama and then Trump aimed to keep the conflict in balance to disallow any one side to achieve a totalising victory – dragging the civil war out was a favoured policy of all administrations. This also served Israel, which saw a weakened Syria with Assad in power as the best option for its security. The US lent on Turkey to help negotiate civilian relocations across Syria and then to supervise a rebel-held Idlib. Assad, with the help of Iran, attempted to change the demography of these cities, often recruiting Shia from Iran and as far as Pakistan and Afghanistan to relocate to Syria. The aim was to remove a restive, predominantly Sunni rebellion and replace them with more compliant residents. But also to permanently transform Syria into an Iranian proxy.

Iran’s Bloody Role

Assad invited Iranian militias drunk on sectarian hate, including Hizbullah, to fortify his infantry. These partisans acted without restraint or morality, and like the repulsive ISIS that was born in Iraq and swept eastern Syria, they adopted a scorched earth policy, used rape as a weapon of war and pursued a programme of enforced population relocation. These were orchestrated by Iranian General Qassim Soleimani, who had form. In Iraq, he had used brutality to subdue any perceived opposition to the formation of a pro-Iranian bloc in the region.

The US turned a blind eye to Iran’s activities in Syria, probably accepting it as a necessary evil – as long as balancing the competing powers was maintained, enabling the civil war to become perpetual. Barack Obama could have easily placed Iran’s nefarious activity in Syria as a condition to the nuclear deal negotiation, a deal the Iranians desperately needed to lift sanctions. However, in 2015, it signed the JCPOA without obligation to rein in its militias. In reality, Iran had conveniently served US policy not only in Syria but also in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Axis of Resistance has never been about Palestine, as Palestinian historian Rashid Khalidi explained in a recent interview, but rather, it was created by Iran as a deterrent to ‘protect Iranian national interests’.

Russia

But the flailing Assad regime was no match for the popular rebellion. So, in 2015, under the pretext of ‘fighting terrorism’, it invited Russia to use its air power to break the back of the uprising by flattening opposition strongholds. For Russia, this was the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union that it had been involved in a conflict outside its immediate region, and Putin revelled in how this reinforced his strongman image. The day Russian jets began their campaign, Russian television was positively screaming the symbolism, with one weatherlady forecasting ‘perfect conditions to bomb Syria’. Russia targeted the rebel groups, mostly ignoring ISIS. When the West did intervene, after setting illusory red lines on chemical weapons use, it did so by utilising the Kurds as their infantry, who, in exchange for limited autonomy, did America’s dirty work and fought the so-called ISIS ‘caliphate’. Throughout this period, the US and Russia coordinated air strikes to prevent direct conflict, a process known as deconfliction.

The Kurdish SDF

The Kurdish Syrian Democratic Front (SDF) is a Marxist group, partly explaining why the Western left romanticises their ‘heroic’ struggle. In reality, they overlook how these particular Kurdish militias, unrepresentative of broader Kurdish opinion, were happy to fraternise with the Israelis and accept funding and support from America, as well as coordinate with Assad. The same was done in Iraq, where Kurdish groups have been working with the Israelis to consolidate their semi-autonomous state. The West intervened not to remove Assad but rather to stem the expansion of ISIS and secure the all-important oil located in the northeast of the country.

The US ‘bravely’ fought ISIS with every last Kurdish soldier, providing them with air cover as they swept through northeastern and central Syria and Iraq. Despite the rhetoric, the US were never afraid of ISIS and probably found them to be an agreeable entrant into the crisis. Isis’s presence justified previous US inaction; how can you support an opposition if they chop off heads? And ISIS fought against the established opposition more than they targeted Assad.

Idlib - the last rebel stronghold

The rebellion, which had been highly successful in its early days, was pushed out of Aleppo and other major cities, and its fighters were eventually holed up in Idlib and its surrounding countryside, with civilians fleeing to neighbouring countries. Since then, the self-administered rump state has, with the help of Turkey, housed the last stronghold of the rebellion. It was believed, until these past two weeks, that they lacked any tactical advantage and with constant Russian and Assad bombardment, they had been rendered ineffective. The rebel groups in Idlib remained divided, initially carving out mini fiefdoms and acting like warlords. Most of the world accepted that Assad was here to stay. In recent months, he had been reintegrated into the Arab League, and Saudi and UAE had resuscitated his return to the international stage. Assad was riding high, rebuffing any attempts by the Turks and Russians to negotiate with the rebels.

How Did the Rebels Change Their Fortunes?

But the spectacular resurgence of the rebellion surprised everyone. How was it possible for the rebels to walk into an already liberated Damascus? Assad’s forces had melted away. Several factors were at play. Firstly, geopolitical, both Russia and Hizbullah were preoccupied. Russia has been bogged down in Ukraine and could not supply the commensurate air power it had during the peak of the conflict. Putin had also grown tired of Assad’s intransigence in negotiations. The will no longer existed in Moscow to save Assad.

Hezbollah, who had been the real backbone of Assad’s military, had been severely undermined in Israel’s operation in Lebanon. The pager attacks had decimated its leadership, and it was reeling from an Israeli air campaign that had hurt its credibility as a fighting force. For sure, its infantry had halted Israel’s territorial progress in Southern Lebanon, but it was no match for the ruthless bombardment of Israeli jets.

Hezbollah may have also been acutely aware that Assad had been reluctant to support its campaign on its southern border after 7^th October and stay out of the Gaza conflict and that recent document releases show that Assad was communicating with the Israelis. Far from being a critical member of the so-called ‘Axis of resistance’, he had been talking with the enemy to maintain his position. Assad had turned a blind eye to Israel’s bombing of Syria for the past fourteen months because these were principally targeting Hezbollah positions. It is only now, with the new government, that Israel has sought to erode the remnants of Syria’s old military capability.

Israel never feared Assad, preferring, like America, a weak government on its borders and a balkanised Syria and the conflict-ridden status quo had afforded it this. Its intense bombing campaign of Syria’s military capability since Assad’s ousting is evidence for this. It has also been involved in a land grab on Syria’s Western border. Israel is worried about the new government and its ultimate intentions. Israel cannot tolerate a developed Syria.

Challenges For Syria

The weakening of both of Assad’s backers conspired to create a perfect opportunity for the opposition that had set up its government in Idlib. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is the group most responsible for the rebellion's success. Its leader, Ahmad al-Sharra (Jolani), has been on an ideological journey if it is to be believed. He had formally come out of the Iraqi Islamic State group. He had given his allegiance to Al-Qaeda, only to fight the organisation and ISIS and rid his new movement of its elements. Significantly, his most recent actions portray a level of pragmatism missing from such militant groups. According to Syrian rights campaigner Robin Yassin-Kassab, there are promising signs the group has moved away from its exclusivist past and cares more about building a plural Syria. All of these are not antagonistic to any concept of Islamic governance.

The HTS-run administration in Idlib often suffered from poor rights abuses, as documented by Bilal Abdul Kareem. Still, it ran public services extraordinarily well and gained public praise. Turkey, which oversaw this new political enterprise, helped bring trade and development. Within time, HTS-run territories had a better standard of living than many in government-held Syria, which faced economic decline due to international sanctions and poor governance.

He has assured minorities that their rights will be protected and has toned down previous rhetoric to assuage the international community that Syria prioritises redevelopment. His incoming interim government must address whether hostile regional powers and international powers are ready to accept a sovereign Syria.

Turkey has the most to gain from the takeover of HTS as it has the greatest leverage over the new Syrian administration. Erdoğan is utilising its Syrian National Army (SNA) forces, another group that is directly answerable to Ankara, to erode the territories of the Kurdish SDF, which he accuses of terrorism within Turkey. This has set him against US policy, favouring the SDF and their Rojave state. Donald Trump, in a recent press conference, acknowledged and even praised Turkey’s manoeuvres in Syria. Back in 2019, Trump reduced the remaining US troops that were stationed in SDF territory to 500, stating he didn’t care for the Kurds, just the oil. Only to place sanctions on Turkey when Erdogan decided to take advantage of the situation and begin a military operation to row back Kurdish gains. No one knows how Trump will react when he takes office in January. But the parties want to change the facts on the ground before he does.

Israel’s bombardment of the key military infrastructure of Syria and its encroachment on Syrian territory shows that it does not like the idea of a stable and developed Syria. The new government, probably under Turkish advice, has sought to play down Israel’s activities, instead complaining to the United Nations by letter. Its dilemma is apparent: if it strongly condemns Israel, it allows Israel the pretext to widen its bombing campaign, jeopardising the fledgling government. However, remaining diplomatic and publicly avoiding a war of words may allow Israel to consolidate its gains. But it is unmistakeable Israel’s recent activities have at least the blessings of the United States, if not directed by Washington.

Syria has finally been liberated after 13 years of struggle. We mourn the lives of all that have fallen and celebrate with Syrians. But the horrors of Assad’s gulags are coming to light for the world to see. The scenes from Sednaya prison, the human slaughterhouse, have shocked many. Then there are the mass graves, the missing, the grieving mothers and the millions of displaced Syrians around the world who hope to return to rebuild the country. The mood is hopeful, but regional and international forces are conspiring to keep Syria weak and divided.

Syria’s victory is a victory for the Ummah. Let this be a turning point for all the brutal dictators that litter the Muslim world.

Afterthought: If you want to watch the best documentary on the Syrian Civil War from the eyes of one woman, watch For Sama (free for UK viewers here)