Syria’s Next Chapter: A Colonial Reboot?

The fall of Bashar al-Assad in Syria signifies the end of a notorious dictatorship. However, it will not mark the end of colonial influence in the region. This tragic reality highlights how Syria, like much of the Arab world, remains a battleground for global powers intent on maintaining puppet regimes. Despite public condemnations of Assad, the West has played a role in enabling his rise to power and perpetuating the neo-colonial structures that continue to shape the future of nations like Syria.

Bashar al-Assad, often depicted as a self-reliant autocrat, owes much of his early success to the indirect support of Western powers. Educated in London, where he trained as an ophthalmologist, Assad was exposed to Britain’s political elite. This connection was not incidental. Britain and the United States viewed Assad as a potential reformer who could project a modernising image while preserving Syria’s strategic importance.

When Assad came to power in 2000 following the death of his father, Hafez al-Assad, there was cautious optimism from the West. The Bush administration even praised Syria’s cooperation in the early stages of the War on Terror, with the CIA benefiting from intelligence-sharing with Damascus. Such partnerships allowed Assad to build his regime on a foundation of local oppression and international legitimacy.

Like his father before him, Assad ruled Syria with an iron grip. His reign has been characterised by mass surveillance, arbitrary detentions, and brutal suppression of dissent. The infamous Tadmor prison massacre under Hafez al-Assad in 1980 set the tone for how the family dealt with opposition. Bashar continued this legacy during the Syrian Civil War, deploying chemical weapons against civilians and erasing cities like Aleppo and Homs to the ground.

While Assad presented himself as a symbol of resistance against Western imperialism and Israeli aggression, his rule was underpinned by alliances that secured his survival. Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah played critical roles in propping up his regime, demonstrating how external forces can sustain authoritarian leaders for their own strategic gain.

When the Arab Spring reached Syria in 2011, Assad’s grip on power seemed precarious. Inspired by movements in Tunisia and Egypt, mass protests erupted across the country, demanding freedom and justice. Slogans such as “Ash-shaʻb yurīd isqāṭ an-niẓām” (The people want the fall of the regime) captured the hopes of millions.

However, Assad’s regime did not collapse like those in Tunisia or Egypt. Backed by Iran and Russia, Assad weathered the uprising, exploiting military might and sectarian divisions to maintain control. Hezbollah’s intervention in key battles and Russia’s decisive military support from 2015 onwards turned the tide in his favour. These alliances were motivated by shared interests: Iran viewed Syria as a vital link in its “Shia Crescent”, while Russia sought to preserve its Mediterranean naval base in Tartus and reassert itself as a global power.

While the West criticised Assad’s actions, it largely remained on the side lines, ensuring that the revolution would fail. The subsequent destruction and displacement left millions of Syrians without homes, while Assad entrenched his position further.
The fall of Assad is unlikely to result in true liberation for Syria. As seen in Egypt after the removal of Hosni Mubarak and in Morocco during its so-called reforms, Syria risks falling into the hands of elites chosen by Western powers. These regimes, while outwardly independent, serve to maintain economic exploitation and political control, prioritising stability over genuine freedom for the people.

Syria’s tragedy mirrors the broader failure of the Arab Spring. While the uprisings were driven by a desire for justice and self-determination, they were either crushed or co-opted by external powers. In many cases, Western-backed figures replaced local despots, ensuring that neo-colonial systems of control remained intact.

The land of Syria, historically known as Sham, has a deep-rooted connection to Islamic governance. During the Umayyad Caliphate, Damascus was the capital of a vast empire that spanned continents. The people of Syria have consistently displayed a preference for Islamic principles, which have often been more in tune with their aspirations than imported ideologies like socialism or secular nationalism.

Even during the revolution, many resistance groups framed their struggle within an Islamic context, seeking justice and governance rooted in Sharia. While these intentions were sincere, the lack of cohesive plans, clear manifestos, and unified leadership left the resistance fragmented and vulnerable to manipulation by external powers.

The masses in Syria, like many across the Arab world, continue to yearn for an Islamic system that aligns with their identity and offers solutions to their political and economic challenges. However, these aspirations must be supported by actionable strategies if they are to succeed in creating a viable state capable of withstanding internal divisions and external interference.
The fall of Assad will undoubtedly mark the end of a personal tyranny, but it will not guarantee Syria’s liberation from neo-colonial domination. Western powers are likely to manoeuvre to install a pliant regime that serves their interests. True change will require more than noble intentions. It will demand coherent plans, capable leadership, and a commitment to genuine self-determination.

The fall of Damascus to opposition forces is expected to lead to a divided government that lacks true unity. The new Syrian opposition, made up of different groups, will struggle with infighting, which could make governing the country very difficult. Similar to what happened in Libya after Gaddafi or Afghanistan after the Soviets, these groups might split further after assuming rule. Radical groups may take control at first but could later be pushed aside, with others aligning with powerful neighbours like Turkey or Gulf states.

Meanwhile, Israel might use Syria’s chaos to take more land, claiming it needs a safety zone against extremists. This could anger other countries, but Syria’s weakened state might mean little resistance. Some also suggest that people from Gaza could be moved to areas in Syria emptied by the war, which would change the region’s population and politics.
Although Israel might feel safer in the short term by weakening its enemies and creating buffer zones, Syria’s divisions could lead to years of chaos and instability, creating a long-term problem for the entire region.

Syria’s future hangs in the balance. While its history is steeped in the legacy of Islamic governance, its path forward will depend on whether its people can transcend the twin challenges of authoritarianism and external domination to build a system that truly reflects their values and aspirations. Only then can the chapter of Assad’s rule be closed, and a brighter future for Syria be realised.