At a time when most of the international news is full of gloom and doom, the fall of the Assad regime in Syria is a happy surprise, almost a Christmas miracle. Bashar al-Assad, the last scion of the family that ruled Syria for 50 years through fear and terror, is gone.
Assad was a King Herod of our time. He arrested, tortured and killed thousands of Syrians and forced millions more into exile. He used barrel bombs and chemical weapons against his own people. Cities harboring opponents to his regime were leveled with no regard for the cost in civilian deaths, children or adults. Nowhere was safe, not churches, not hospitals. Like Herod, he slaughtered the innocent.
Assad was aided and abetted by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon. The West imposed economic sanctions to try to squeeze him out of power, but in latter years was more concerned about quashing the Islamic State group and al-Qaida than the plight of the Syrian people under Assad. American troops are still in Syria to attack Islamic State group fighters. We also support the Kurds in Syria, who have been one of our most loyal and effective allies.
Meanwhile, Western intelligence and the media failed to see how weak the Assad regime had become. Its economy was in shambles. Its allies were occupied elsewhere: Russia in Ukraine, Iran and Hezbollah with Israel. Its soldiers were poorly paid and unwilling to die for a regime that did nothing for them. In hindsight, the fault lines were evident.
The fall of Assad has rearranged the Middle Eastern chessboard. Turkey, which backed the rebels, will have more influence in Syria and elsewhere. Russia is confined to a narrow strip on the coast of Syria and may soon have to evacuate the country, where they are not welcome.
Iran has lost its most strategic ally in the Middle East. Without a land route through Syria, Iran cannot resupply Hezbollah, which is already crippled because of its war with Israel. With a severely weakened Hezbollah and Syrian refugees departing for home, the politics of Lebanon will now change. Iraq, too, could be safer if Syria is no longer a safe zone for terrorists.
Dangers still lurk
But all is not well in Syria. Soldiers of its new rulers, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, have liberated Damascus, Aleppo and Hama, but they do not control the whole country. Numerous rebel groups will compete for dominance, including pockets of al-Qaida and the Islamic State group. Bringing the country together will not be easy.
The more radical groups will not lay down their arms. The Kurds, who opposed Assad, fear the Sunni Arab majority that has now taken over the country. The Assads belonged to a minority Shia sect called the Alawites. They and other minority groups that allied themselves with Assad also now fear for the future.
Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is labeled a terrorist group by the United States and other Western countries. Its leader, Abu Mohammad al-Julani, has a U.S. bounty of $10 million on his head. In the past, he opposed the Islamic State group’s attempts to take over his forces. He was allied with Al-Qaida but broke with the group in 2016. He is focused on Syria, not on a global jihad.
According to The New York Times, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is described as pragmatic and disciplined by those who have studied it or interacted with it in Idlib Province, the territory it controlled in northern Syria before Assad’s fall.
So far, al-Julani has said and done all the right things. He has disarmed Syrian soldiers and sent them home. He has told civil servants to stay at their jobs and told his supporters not to take revenge on Assad supporters. All religious and ethnic groups are to be left in peace. Looting will not be tolerated. He has told his soldiers not to hassle women about their clothing.
It is as if he learned from the mistakes the U.S. made after conquering Iraq.
On the other hand, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has jailed its critics in Idlib. And Facebook and other social media are full of threats against groups allied with Assad, especially the Alawites.
What the U.S. should do
What should the United States and Western governments do in response to the Syrian revolution?
First, it should immediately suspend the $10 million bounty on al-Julani. Nothing could be more disastrous for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East than an American-backed assassination of the liberator of Syria.
Second, the U.S. should suspend the classification of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham as a terrorist group as long as it does not carry out terrorist activities in the future. It can always be reclassified as a terrorist group in the future if needed.
Third, the United States should welcome the positive words coming out of Damascus and lift economic sanctions if the actions continue to be consistent with what the new rulers are saying. International aid organizations should be allowed to help the Syrian people immediately.
Fourth, we should do all we can to facilitate the safe return of refugees to Syria. Many of these refugees have the skills needed to rebuild Syrian society and its economy.
Most importantly, we should not try to micromanage the future of Syria. We want to ensure the protection of Christians, Kurds and other minority groups, but Syria is unlikely to become a Western-style democracy. We should talk with everyone and be willing to facilitate dialogue but not choose sides.
If Syria maintains peace with its neighbors (including Israel) and rejects global jihad, we should see the new Syria as a potential ally, not an enemy. If it is willing to give up or destroy its chemical weapons, we should be happy to help it root out Al-Qaida and the Islamic State group from Syria with intelligence and logistics, not boots on the ground.
The new Syria provides hope but no guarantees. It may all go up in flames if internal factions war with one another or the victors take vengeance on the defeated. The United States should do what it can to encourage peace and reconciliation but should not pour gasoline on the fire by taking sides.
(The Salt Lake Tribune) Religion News Service columnist Thomas Reese speaks in Salt Lake City in 2015.
(The views expressed in this opinion piece do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)
