The end of Assad rule in Syria may just be the opening for a new chapter in Syria’s history, which has always been a target of conflict between empires.
The end of Assad rule in Syria may just be the opening for a new chapter in Syria’s history, which has always been a target of conflict between empires.
By Islam Farag, Caro / Egypt
In ancient history, the Levant was an important strategic location that empires fought over for thousands of years. None of them was able to decide influence by the standards of those times without imposing its control over it.
In the modern era, after the division of that region into several countries, Syria became the largest and most important from a geopolitical point of view. Its importance in Arab political action increased when it turned into one of the most important countries confronting Israel after the establishment of the Hebrew state.
As a cultural and political center of gravity, its biases became a compass that the countries of the region and major international powers sought to influence its direction.
Historical overview
For example, due to the unrealistic outbidding of its politicians against Tel Aviv in the sixties, Egypt was involved in ill-considered decisions in the 1967 war. When Cairo decided to go to war in 1973, it found military necessity in having the war on two fronts: One being the Egyptian and the other the Syrian.
During the Cold War between the Soviet Union and USA, Damascus was a strong ally of Moscow in confronting the Western powers and received a lot of military and political support in return.
Russia inherited this alliance and in return received military bases in Syria that allow it access to warm waters. This made Moscow see this regime as a treasure worth defending against the hordes of rebels by all means.
Also, as one of the confrontation states that refuses to normalize relations with Tel Aviv, Iran has sought to strengthen its relations with Damascus in recent decades, to the point of Tehran intervening militarily through its agents and military advisors to protect the Syrian regime from falling.
The Gulf States were no exception in realizing the strategic importance of that part of the world, as it represents a strategic depth for those countries. Any disturbances or conflicts in the Levant in general, and Syria in particular, could have an impact on the Gulf States and affect their security and stability.
On the other hand, the Gulf States, which represent the largest producers of oil and gas in the world, want to secure safe export routes for their resources. Syria represents one of the important links whose stability secure the safety of the trade route network in the region, as it is a link between those countries and the Mediterranean and Europe.
Historically, the Levant was a destination for traders from Arab tribes in what is now known as the Arabian Peninsula and was one of the first regions that the early Muslims conquered to secure their expansion against the Byzantines. In Damascus, the capital of the first Islamic empire outside the place of revelation was established.
Given this importance, the Gulf states viewed with great suspicion the close rapprochement between the regime in Damascus and the mullahs’ regime in Iran.
Iran never concealed its desire to export the revolution to its neighbors, of which the Gulf states are one, after its revolution in the late 1970s. These states, by their nature, could be coveted by the larger neighbors, as they are wealthy, newly formed states with a predominantly tribal character, weak, and some of their populations are Shiite minorities. They feared that Tehran would incite these minorities against the rulers using such terms, which would destabilize them.
Therefore, the Gulf capitals decided to stand by Saddam Hussein’s regime in his war against Iran during the 1980s, as a Sunni supporter in the face of the greedy Shiite power. These states became without a regional backer in the Arab East when Saddam transformed from a guard to an invader by occupying Kuwaiti territory.
With the Syrian regime participating in one way or another, and out of spite for Saddam Hussein’s regime, in the war to liberate Kuwait, the Gulf capitals maintained balanced relations with Damascus despite the latter’s support for Tehran in the first Gulf War.
As the alliance between the Assad regime and the mullahs’ regime developed to a dangerous extent, after the role the former played in supporting Hezbollah as a dominant Shiite force that nationalized the Lebanese state for Tehran’s destructive goals in the region, the Gulf capitals became restless to an extent that was clear in the talk of their diplomats and media outlets.
From confrontation to embrace
Therefore, after the outbreak of the Syrian revolution in 2011, these countries supported, in one way or another, the efforts of the opposition, especially the armed ones, in trying to overthrow the Bashar al-Assad regime, considering that replacing it with another regime would reduce Tehran’s influence in the region.
However, with the passing of the years and the failure to remove him and the success of Assad in remaining in power with unlimited Russian and Iranian support, the Gulf capitals changed their policy towards him from confrontation to embrace.
This shift was based on the belief that the Syrian regime could be persuaded to end its international isolation by normalizing relations with them and overcoming its image that was tarnished by the crimes committed by it during the war. Even possible was contributing to any efforts to rebuild Syria and encourage Gulf investments that could strengthen the economy and thus support it politically, in exchange for breaking the alliance between it and the Iranian regime.
These efforts were encouraging for both sides, to the point that Gulf capitals took the initiative to receive and visit al-Assad and contributed to lifting the freeze on Damascus’ membership in the Arab League. Assad himself participated in the last Arab summit meeting in Riyadh last month.
At the same time, the Syrian president has distanced himself from involvement alongside Iran or the Lebanese Hezbollah in their recent war against Israel, even though both parties have been key players in protecting his regime from collapse over the past decade.
A new dilemma
But it seems that the tide has turned, and Syria has once again become a new dilemma of uncertainty for the Gulf states, requiring caution. This has been clearly demonstrated in the course of recent events.
While Syrian cities were falling like dominoes one after the other into the hands of armed opposition factions in a way that surprised all observers, the 45th Gulf Summit concluded its work in Kuwait with a statement that did not include any reference to these developments.
The statement was satisfied with only emphasizing the unity of Syrian territory and supporting the efforts made to reach a political solution, in a revealing indication of clear Gulf confusion in dealing with the new developments, either because the picture is not completely clear and the inability to predict its consequences on the regional level and Gulf interests, or because there is a clear difference in the positions of those countries regarding what is happening.
However, there were two distinct positions, one to help support Assad while the other two to help peacefully resolve the crisis. The first came from the Emirates while the second came from Qatar.
The UAE, whose President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan confirmed during a phone call with Assad Abu Dhabi’s support for Damascus in fighting terrorism and extremism, a term that extends to the main component of the armed Syrian opposition represented by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, which is classified as a terrorist organization.
As for Qatar, the only country that did not rush to the Gulf normalization train with Assad, stressed the importance of reaching a political solution that would end the suffering of the Syrians.
Caution and anxiety
But even with the announcement of Assad’s fall, all Gulf states cautiously welcomed the new changes through official and usual expressions on the importance of the unity and integrity of Syrian territory, without getting involved in supporting Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham as a de facto authority after the evaporation of the Syrian regime.
The statements issued by the Gulf capitals were dominated by a tone of concern about the country slipping into chaos or division that would threaten the unity of Syrian territory.
The Saudi statement stressed that the Kingdom expresses its satisfaction with the positive steps taken to secure peace for the Syrian people and preserve the country’s institutions, but at the same time called for concerted efforts to prevent the country from slipping into chaos and division. The Emirati statement did the same, calling for wisdom to prevail to get out of the critical phase of Syria’s history.
As for the Sultanate of Oman, it called for exercising self-restraint and avoiding escalation and violence, while the Bahraini statement urged all parties and components of the Syrian people to give priority to the supreme interest of the homeland and citizens. The Kuwaiti statement stressed the need to preserve the unity of Syrian territory.
But the tone of anxiety did not appear at all in the statement issued by Doha, whose foreign ministry spokesman expressed his country’s welcome of the positive steps taken by the opposition forces, especially preserving the safety of civilians, the stability of state institutions, and ensuring the continuity of public services.
Qatar’s position seems natural, as it is the only Gulf state that has refused to normalize relations with the Assad regime. It is also a state known for its ties to political and armed Islamic movements, of which Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham is one, and has taken a supportive stance towards all of them in all the revolutions and uprisings of the Arab Spring, of which the fall of Assad is one of the results.
Necessary reassurances
It can easily be said that caution was the dominant feature of the positions of the Gulf capitals towards rapid developments and even after the fall of the regime. This caution cannot be interpreted at all as adherence to the Assad regime as much as it is preliminary positions due to the lack of certainty that can be built upon in the future.
No one could have known exactly how the situation would develop, which can clearly be said to be open to all optimistic and pessimistic scenarios for the future of Syria, some of which could explode in everyone’s face.
The outbreak of battles between armed factions and the control of extremist organizations over the reins of the state are concerns that control everyone. The realization of any of these scenarios may cause the region to be exposed to seismic collapses that its conditions cannot bear.
According to an informed Gulf source, the Gulf capitals are wary of replacing Iranian influence with Turkish influence, which they believe is no less dangerous.
According to another source, with the exception of Qatar, the Gulf states are content to monitor the new situation and analyze the possibilities of its development.
“If these states are reassured by the new situation and that it does not threaten their interests, they may decide to provide support to Damascus, which is in dire need of huge aid to meet the basic needs of the Syrian people, which are expected to increase with the return of refugees and the progress of reconstruction efforts,” the source added.
The source said that the position of most Gulf states is shaped by several determinants, the most important of which is ensuring the unity of Syrian territory and the absence of extremists monopolizing power.
Different positions
Therefore, the success real success for new rulers in Syria is in gaining the trust of the international community in general and the Gulf community in particular and dispelling their fears.
Qatar have rushed to send a delegation to Damascus to communicate with the new rulers, in a position consistent with its previous rejection of the continuation of the Assad regime and its reluctance to rush to normalize relations with it, and its previous and absolute support for any opposition with an Islamic character. Saudi Arabia, however, may take a balanced position for a long time, but the Emirati position is likely to be different.
According to the first source, the UAE opening its diplomatic mission in Damascus after the fall of Assad can never be translated as a welcome to the new situation.
“Abu Dhabi is known for its tough stance against extremist groups and cannot easily respond to any positive signals from a leader who is still classified as a terrorist,” the source added.
He expected the UAE to be active at all levels to reassure itself that what is happening on the ground isn’t a booster dose for movements that were nearing death.
The source said that the UAE may view the developments in Syria as a round it lost to extremist organizations and to its rival Qatar, despite the reconciliation that took place between them about two years ago. This will push it to move with all its capabilities to influence a scene that tempts many regional players to move in.
Anyone who imagines that the end of the Assad family’s decades-long rule in Syria will immediately end the role of regional and international players would be delusional. What has happened now may be the first chapter in a new story for the Syrian people, perhaps not the best for a region that has always been the target of conflict between empires and has never been stable without major agreements.