By Uche J. Udenka
The fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, after more than a decade of civil war and international sanctions, marks a seismic shift in the Middle East. Assad, who assumed power in 2000, has been a key figure in the region’s geopolitics, maintaining alliances and opposing rivalries that have defined Syria’s strategic position. His regime’s collapse would create a power vacuum, reshaping alliances and intensifying conflicts in a region already fraught with instability. Syria’s geographic and geopolitical significance cannot be overstated. Situated at the crossroads of the Levant, Syria has been a pivotal ally of Iran, a rival of Israel, and a counterweight to Sunni Arab dominance, especially Saudi Arabia.
Assad’s fall would disrupt these dynamics, forcing regional and international actors to recalibrate their strategies.
For Iran, Assad’s fall is a severe blow. Syria has long been a cornerstone of Tehran’s “axis of resistance,” connecting Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon and enabling its projection of power in the Levant. Without a cooperative Syrian regime, Iran would face challenges maintaining its influence, likely pivoting to proxy forces or clandestine operations. However, such efforts could be undermined by increased resistance from Sunni powers like Saudi Arabia and Turkey. A new Syrian government aligned with Sunni or Western interests could actively oppose Iranian interference, further isolating Tehran.
Turkey’s involvement in Syria reflects its concerns over Kurdish autonomy, counterterrorism, and regional influence. Ankara fears that Assad’s fall might empower Kurdish groups like the YPG, which it sees as an extension of the PKK. In response, Turkey could expand its military presence in northern Syria, consolidate control over border areas, and back leadership structures favorable to its interests. However, the prospect of renewed refugee inflows could strain Turkey’s domestic and foreign policy. Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies, long opponents of Assad, view his fall as an opportunity to reshape Syria’s political future. By supporting Sunni factions or tribal leaders, Riyadh could counter Iran’s influence and advance its own strategic interests. Yet, the fragmented nature of post-Assad Syria could ignite rivalries among competing factions, complicating Saudi efforts to exert control. Israel’s primary concern in Syria has been Iran’s military presence and Hezbollah’s activities near its borders. While Assad’s fall might weaken Iran’s foothold, it could also create chaos, allowing extremist groups to exploit the power vacuum. Israel would likely maintain a cautious stance, focusing on border security and preemptive strikes against emerging threats and maybe attempt land grabbing.
The Rise of Non-State Actors. Assad’s fall could exacerbate the influence of militant groups. Over the past decade, Syria has been a battleground for extremist organizations like ISIS and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). In the absence of strong central authority, these groups could regroup and expand. While Kurdish factions like the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have played a key role in combating ISIS, their aspirations for autonomy might spark new conflicts with Turkey and Arab factions.
Global Power Dynamics. Syria has been a geopolitical chessboard for global powers.
Russia’s intervention in 2015 stabilized Assad’s regime and secured its military assets in Syria, including the Tartus naval base. As Assad falls, Moscow would likely seek alternative power brokers to preserve its influence, though its capacity may be constrained by challenges elsewhere, such as Ukraine. The U.S., while supporting anti-Assad forces and Kurdish groups, has avoided deep involvement in Syria’s civil war. Assad’s fall will weaken adversaries like Iran and Russia, but stabilizing a fragmented Syria would require significant resources and coordination with allies—a daunting task.
The humanitarian toll of Assad’s fall could be catastrophic. Over 500,000 Syrians have already died, with millions displaced. A sudden power vacuum would exacerbate violence and displacement, straining neighboring countries like Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan, which already host millions of refugees. Europe, too, could face renewed migration pressures, reigniting debates over asylum policies and border security.
Syria could splinter into zones controlled by rival factions backed by external powers, resembling Libya’s fragmented state. Iranian Retrenchment: Despite losing Assad, Iran might double down on its support for militias and proxies, leading to prolonged asymmetric warfare. Turkish Expansionism:
Turkey could increase its influence in northern Syria to counter Kurdish ambitions and secure its borders. International Stabilization: The international community might attempt to mediate a political transition, though past failures in Syria cast doubt on the success of such efforts.
The reconfiguration of power dynamics in Syria would extend beyond the Middle East. Globally, Assad’s fall could reshape energy markets, influence migration trends, and affect the strategies of major powers like China and the EU.
Regionally, it could redefine alliances, deepen rivalries, and determine whether Syria moves toward stability or further chaos. The fall of Assad represents both a crisis and an opportunity for the Middle East. Whether it leads to hope or turmoil will depend on the ability of regional and global actors to navigate this transformative moment.