British journalist Patrick Seale’s book Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East (1989) offers crucial insight into the domestic, regional, and international forces that have shaped Syria’s trajectory. Seale portrayed Syria as a “prize” in a geopolitical contest, both vulnerable due to internal divisions and significant due to its regional role. This description remains relevant after the fall of the Assad regime, as Syria grapples with fragmentation and competing global and regional ambitions.

The country’s fractured nature, the interplay of regional rivalries, and the evolving role of global powers all suggest that the coming period, rather than marking a definitive break with the past, may instead represent a new phase in Syria’s long history of struggle. In many ways, the post-Assad reality resonates with Seale’s original portrayal of Syria as a battleground, both for domestic political forces and external powers, each pushing their own agendas at the expense of the nation’s sovereignty and stability.

A Legacy of Division

Seale highlights the role of its religious, ethnic, and sectarian diversity in fueling political tensions. These divisions, compounded by decades of authoritarian rule, are even more apparent following the fall of the Assad regime. While many view Assad’s removal as a step toward justice, the power vacuum it leaves behind presents equally daunting challenges for Syria’s future.

Syria’s most pressing challenge is resolving its deep domestic fractures. The fall of Assad has left a country with weak institutions, destroyed infrastructure, and a population divided along sectarian, ethnic, and political lines. As Seale noted, the absence of a strong national identity has made Syria vulnerable to internal strife and external manipulation. These divisions are now more evident, with minorities like the Kurds and Alawites facing an uncertain future.

Moreover, as the country grapples with these divisions, the question arises as to whether Syria will ever overcome its deep-rooted fragmentation or if these fissures will only continue to deepen as various domestic and international forces compete for influence. In this context, the growing power of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a Sunni Islamist faction born from the remnants of Jabhat al-Nusra, exemplifies the volatility of the situation. While its leader, Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa—known by his nom de guerre Abu Mohammed al-Jolani—has made efforts to present HTS as a more moderate force in the eyes of the West, its history of violent extremism and the deep ties it maintains with other militant groups complicate any hopes for a peaceful resolution.

HTS has vowed to show tolerance for Syria’s ethnic and religious minorities, yet the fear of reprisals already has led thousands of Syrians, primarily Shia Muslims, to flee into Lebanon. A key concern now is how the new opposition forces, which have replaced Assad’s regime, will handle the remnants of his Ba’ath Party and navigate the complex relationships with Syria’s diverse minority groups. The treatment of these minorities, especially those that had aligned with Assad, is a critical issue. A pressing question now arises: how will the new opposition forces in power address the remnants of Assad’s Ba’ath Party, and how will they manage the complex relationships with these diverse minority groups moving forward?

Reconstructing a unified national identity and political cohesion from Syria’s fragmented factions is a monumental challenge for any transitional government. With Assad’s regime dismantled, the country now faces the difficult task of rebuilding state institutions amid ongoing divisions. While the new interim government promises reforms and economic recovery, doubts about its ability to govern persist. Additionally, HTS’ time in Idlib, which was marred by internal conflicts, corruption, mismanagement, and the suppression of dissent, raises concerns about its governance methods. 

As Geir Pedersen, the UN special envoy for Syria, pointed out, “We know that, of course, HTS is now the dominant group in control of Damascus, but it’s important also to remember that they are not the only armed group in Damascus.” The struggle for control is ongoing, with multiple factions—each with competing visions for Syria’s future—holding sway over large swaths of territory. In this environment, the prospect of peace remains elusive. Each faction’s aspirations collide with the country’s already fragmented reality.

Furthermore, Syria’s political culture, shaped by decades of authoritarian rule, will not easily transition into a functioning democracy. The societal divisions resulting from more than a decade of brutal civil conflict, economic deprivation, and systematic persecution cannot be healed overnight. While efforts to hold perpetrators of past atrocities accountable and release political prisoners represent steps forward, these efforts must be carefully balanced with the pragmatic necessity of reconciliation and stability. Without a credible and inclusive process that addresses the needs and grievances of all communities—especially the victims of Assad’s regime—there is a significant risk of further entrenching divisions and resentment, undermining any future efforts at nation-building.

A New Regional Contest for Power?

Seale’s depiction of Syria’s regional position emphasized the country’s vulnerability to external interference, given its strategic location at the crossroads of the Middle East. The collapse of the Assad regime has created a power vacuum that is rapidly attracting the attention of regional powers.

Turkey views Syria as vital to its national security and will maintain a military presence there to block the formation of a Kurdish autonomous state along its border. With Assad ousted, his allies weakened, and an incoming American president advocating for a reduced American presence in Syria, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan now finds himself with a free hand to confront the Syrian Kurds.

The situation in the Golan Heights adds another layer of complexity. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described Israel’s incursion into Syrian territory as “temporary” and “defensive,” Yet, his bold declaration that “the Golan will be part of the State of Israel for eternity” suggests a move toward annexation. This raises important questions about Israel’s true intent. Does Israel want permanent control over the region, or is this a tactical maneuver to exploit the ongoing instability for further territorial gains? 

Iran, meanwhile, finds itself in a precarious position. While the collapse of Assad’s regime represents a strategic setback, Iran has long viewed Syria as a critical component of its “axis of resistance” in the region. Although Tehran may be forced to recalibrate its strategy, it is unlikely to abandon its ambitions in Syria completely. Similarly, Gulf states, which had cautiously begun to normalize relations with Assad, must now reconsider their positions as well. The future of Syria’s reconstruction depends heavily on how regional actors behave.

Senior diplomats from the Middle East and Europe convened in Riyadh last week to discuss Syria’s future. Encouragingly, Saudi Arabia’s decision to host the gathering highlights its ambition to play a key role in Syria’s reconstruction alongside Turkey and Qatar. Notably, Saudi Arabia and Turkey had previously supported opposing factions in the conflict. Another positive step has been al-Sharaa’s meeting with the former Syrian National Coalition.

However, concerns persist, including the structure of the new courts, the integration of military factions into the Syrian army, the presence of foreign fighters, Qatar’s involvement, the anticipated dismissal of tens of thousands of Alawites from public jobs, Turkey’s position on whether the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) can negotiate with Damascus, and the broader humanitarian and economic crises gripping Syria.

The Global Reckoning

The fall of Assad’s regime reverberates beyond Syria’s borders, with profound implications for international geopolitics. Seale’s portrayal of Syria as a “proxy battlefield” between Cold War superpowers captures the essence of its present predicament, albeit in a more complex, multipolar world. 

Moscow’s strategic foothold in the Middle East and Africa relies heavily on its expanded naval facility at Tartus, established during Syria’s 1971 pact with the Soviet Union, and the nearby Hmeimim airbase, which has been operational since 2015. Both bases, located in Latakia on Syria’s Mediterranean coast, have been central to Russia’s international ambitions, enabling operations to support the Assad regime and serving as platforms to project influence across the Mediterranean and Africa. However, with the loss of its key ally in Damascus, Russia’s diminished role in Syria not only complicates its regional influence but also raises broader questions about its ability to maintain its global presence and support its allies.

For the United States, the collapse of Assad’s regime presents a new set of dilemmas. Seale critiqued U.S. Syria policy in the 1980s as often incoherent and inconsistent, and this trend has continued through successive administrations. As Syria transitions after Assad’s departure, American officials remain deeply concerned about the potential for extremism to thrive in the power vacuum. General Michael Erik Kurilla, head of U.S. Central Command, warned Syrian groups against supporting ISIS in the aftermath, emphasizing that the United States would not allow ISIS to reconstitute. Officials also remain concerned about the 9,000 ISIS fighters in detention and the tens of thousands confined in the Al-Hol refugee camp, both guarded by the SDF as long as U.S. forces remain involved.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken has expressed U.S. support for Syria’s political transition toward inclusive governance. Still, this stance is complicated by a lame-duck president and the rhetoric of President-elect Donald Trump, who has pledged to keep the United States out of Syria. In fact, Trump’s foreign policy vacillates between isolationism, as seen in his 2019 troop pullback (later reversed under pressure), and regional commitments like containing ISIS and protecting Israel. A withdrawal could embolden actors like ISIS and Iran, potentially undermining counterterrorism efforts and further destabilizing the region. Washington must decide whether to engage more directly and support a fragile political transition or if its priorities will remain fixated on counterterrorism at the expense of a comprehensive strategy for Syria’s future.