Introduction
The Syrian Civil War began in 2011 amid the Arab Spring with peaceful demonstrations against the authoritarian regime of Bashar al-Assad. The government responded with violent crackdowns, causing the conflict to escalate into a full-scale civil war.
The conflict drew in major external players, transforming Syria into a battleground for proxy warfare. The Assad regime received support from Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, while the opposition fragmented into various competing factions. Powers including the United States, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar backed different rebel groups, further fueling the conflict. The conflict in Syria has lasted over a decade due to deep political and ethnoreligious divisions, combined with foreign interference and a lack of unified leadership. Ethnic and sectarian splits—among Arabs, Kurds, Sunnis, Alawites, and others—fuel competing visions for Syria’s future. These divisions played a significant role in prolonging the war, making a lasting political solution elusive.
On December 8, 2024, the Assad regime fell following a lightning ten-day offensive by rebel forces. The collapse of the fifty-year Assad dynasty has ushered in a period of political transition in Syria, reshaping not only domestic governance but the geopolitical calculus of key players involved in the proxy conflict.
To achieve lasting peace, a multilateral approach is essential. This includes engaging regional powers, international stakeholders, and diverse Syrian communities to support an inclusive political process, ensure minority protections, and facilitate national reconciliation. Such collaboration is crucial for stabilizing Syria and rebuilding its governance structures.
Post-Assad Syria
As opposition groups take charge of Syrian affairs, several urgent challenges have arisen. First, there is the risk of increasing polarization and sectarian strife, raising the specter of another civil war. Syria’s diverse population, which includes Sunnis, Alawites, Christians, Kurds, and Druze, became increasingly fragmented during the conflict as the Assad regime and regional and international actors exploited divisions to advance their interests. Similarly, the prospect of Islamist rule poses the threat of marginalizing non-Sunni groups, particularly Alawites and Christians. This scenario recalls Iraq’s post-2003 turmoil, where the fall of secular governance led to rising sectarianism and the emergence of extremist groups like ISIS. Yemen and Libya similarly experienced chaos following regime changes, with sectarian divisions intensifying conflicts. Other challenges include stabilizing the country, ensuring the protection of political dissidents, and addressing the status of former Assad regime officials.
Ahmed al-Sharaa, Syria’s interim president, has pledged to form an inclusive transitional government and respect all religious sects. However, concerns remain about his leadership. Formerly known as Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, Sharaa led the Islamist and al-Qaeda-aligned militant rebel group Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), whose insurgency toppled Assad. In recent years, Sharaa has shifted his rhetoric, presenting HTS as a more nationalist entity advocating for Syrian interests. He has sought to reinvent himself by renouncing his ties to al-Qaeda, using his real name instead of his war name, adopting a more Western-style wardrobe, and making moderate public statements in interviews with international media.
So far, the interim government has remained publicly committed to delivering a democratic political transition. Among other measures, Sharaa has launched a national dialogue on political transition and pledged to safeguard various minority communities and enhance religious tolerance. Describing “a new era far removed from sectarianism,” the interim president upheld that no sects would be excluded in Syria.
Sectarian violence, however, has already resurfaced in Syria. In March 2025, following an ambush by Assad loyalists, retaliatory attacks targeted Alawite communities in Syria’s western coastal region. These attacks resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Alawite civilians, marking one of the deadliest episodes of sectarian violence since the regime change. Christian communities in Syria have also faced renewed threats amid the ongoing political transition. Notable incidents include the burning of a Christmas tree in Suqaylabiyah by Islamist fighters and an attack on a church by unidentified gunmen in Hama city in December. These incidents prompted widespread concern among the Christian population and sparked protests in Damascus that demanded protection for minorities and the expulsion of foreign fighters from Syria.
In an effort to avert another civil war, neighboring Arab states have initiated early dialogue with Syria’s new leaders and forces on the ground. Eager to secure stability in the region, Arab leaders have vowed to support a peaceful transition process inclusive of all Syrians, regardless of their ethnic and religious background. Likewise, Arab diplomats aim to see HTS disband and transition into a new political organization that renounces terrorism, a move that would enhance post-Assad Syria’s legitimacy on the global stage.
Geopolitical Futures: The Strategic Gains, Losses, and Considerations of Key Actors
The United States
One of the biggest strategic winners resulting from Assad’s downfall is the United States. The United States finds itself in a better position in the post-Assad era to advance a key interest: curtailing Iranian influence in the region. The fall of Assad, a longtime ally of Iran, poses major setbacks for Tehran and its proxies, weakening their ability to project power and influence in the Middle East.
Additionally, the collapse of the Assad regime has improved the United States’ standing in Syria vis-à-vis another adversary: Russia. Following the ousting of Assad, a key Russian ally, Moscow began a large-scale withdrawal of military equipment and troops from Syria. Not only has its reputation as a reliable ally capable of guaranteeing the survival of its partners been damaged, but it will also have less sway in future negotiations. In contrast, the United States has maintained its military presence in Syria, awarding it leverage to extract concessions from the new regime and reshape the regional order in ways more favorable to its strategic interests. The continued U.S. military presence in Syria furthermore serves as a deterrent to Iran and its proxies, promoting regional stability and safeguarding allies such as Israel.
Syria’s new leadership strives to enhance relations with the West and Arab states like Saudi Arabia while distancing themselves from former allies of Assad, specifically Russia and Iran. Sharaa notably congratulated U.S. President Donald Trump on his inauguration and described him as the leader to bring peace and stability to the Middle East. Despite Trump’s agenda of prioritizing America’s interests and his assertion that Syria is “not our fight,” he still identified America’s core interests as combating ISIS and supporting Israel and Gulf Arab allies, goals that cannot be fulfilled without the assistance of Syria’s new leadership.
Israel
Israel’s main objectives in Syria are to ensure national security, suppress threats from hostile groups like Hezbollah, prevent a permanent Iranian military presence in Syria, and maintain control over the Golan Heights, which it captured from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War.
Assad’s downfall has created new opportunities for Israel to advance these objectives through a preemptive aggression strategy. Almost immediately after Assad’s ousting, Israeli troops seized control of a demilitarized buffer zone in Syria, created as part of a ceasefire agreement between the two countries in 1974. Although Israel has received criticism for allegedly violating the ceasefire and exploiting the power vacuum in Syria, it maintains that such measures are defensive and necessary to prevent armed groups from threatening Israeli territory. For instance, Israeli officials have stated plans to use the incursion to destroy Iranian military assets in Syria and prevent Iran from smuggling weapons through Syria into Lebanon. Yet in addition to serving immediate defensive goals, a continued military presence on Syrian soil would likely also give Israel greater leverage to negotiate more favorable arrangements in the Golan.
The collapse of the Assad regime can also be understood as an Israeli victory against Iran. Israel’s recent attacks in Gaza and Lebanon not only significantly weakened Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas but also limited Iran’s ability to support Assad in the lead-up to his fall. The defeat of another key ally poses a major setback to Tehran’s regional strategy and capacity to confront adversaries like Israel.
Russia and Iran
Russia and Iran, both of which intervened in the Syrian conflict to support Assad’s regime, face significant strategic setbacks following the Assad dynasty’s collapse, especially as Syria’s new leadership distances itself from former Assad allies.
Assad’s resignation has heightened Russia’s concerns about the future stability of its naval bases in the Mediterranean, reducing its ability to challenge NATO’s presence in the region. It has also threatened Russia’s economic interests and investments, as Syria had been a key market for Russian arms sales and oil and gas investments. A pro-Western government would likely favor Western defense contracts and investments, further weakening Russia’s economic leverage. The downfall of Assad also damages Russia’s credibility as a protector of authoritarian regimes, discouraging other allies from relying on Moscow’s support.
Meanwhile, Iran is increasingly concerned about the sustainability of its influence in the Middle East as its “Axis of Resistance” continues to weaken. For Tehran, Syria has been an essential conduit for military and financial support to Hezbollah in Lebanon. A Western-aligned Syria could restrict Iran’s capacity to supply its proxies, further eroding Tehran’s influence.In the post-Assad era, both Moscow and Tehran will encounter greater challenges in maintaining their standing in the region and protecting their interests. This shift would likely compel them to negotiate with a new Syrian leadership or face the potential loss of their investments altogether.
Conclusion
A peaceful transition to a democratic and secular Syria is vital for the country’s future. An inclusive national dialogue among all political factions, led by the Syrian government, is key for representation and peace. Democratization can promote stability and reduce terrorism and sectarian conflict, but it should be driven by Syrians, with external actors providing support without dictating outcomes.
Towards that end, the United States should collaborate with allies and regional partners to support Syria’s democratic transition through a unified strategic framework. Support should include not only immediate financial assistance, such as sanctions relief and humanitarian aid, but long-term peace-building efforts like establishing economic and security partnerships with the new Syrian government and supporting civil society organizations and NGOs. Furthermore, to incentivize continued positive reform, this support should be conditional upon demonstrable progress towards democratization.
A successful democratic transition in Syria would not only benefit the Syrian people, but advance American interests in the region. Inaction or lack of adequate support could grant adversaries like Iran and Russia the opportunity to regroup in Syria and pursue strategic objectives at odds with U.S. priorities, such as preventing the resurgence of the Islamic State and repatriating refugees back to Syria. Similarly, a strategy of non-involvement risks leaving Damascus with little choice but to once again turn to Moscow and Tehran for assistance in addressing its pressing needs, which would likely further result in strategic setbacks for the United States.
To achieve lasting peace and protect minority rights in Syria, the interim government must adopt inclusive policies supported by international stakeholders who promote religious tolerance and safeguard vulnerable communities. Multilateral collaboration is essential to address sectarian divisions, with regional powers, global institutions, and Syrian civil society working together to build inclusive governance, foster reconciliation, and establish independent oversight. International involvement can legitimize the transitional process, balance competing interests, and provide the resources and accountability mechanisms needed to ensure stability and prevent further violence or extremist resurgence.
If sectarianism in Syria is not addressed, a wider regional conflict could emerge, with Iran backing Shia factions like the Alawites and Saudi Arabia supporting Sunni groups to assert influence. This mirrors the Yemen conflict, where Iran’s support for the Houthis has deepened instability. To prevent a similar outcome in Syria, international stakeholders must act to curb sectarian divisions and promote inclusive governance.
. . .
Dr. Widyane Hamdach is a professor of political science and UN programs coordinator at Saint Peter’s University. She earned her PhD in global affairs from Rutgers University, specializing in global governance, Middle Eastern studies, and international relations. With over 17 years of experience as a TV reporter and producer, she has covered international affairs at the United Nations for various media outlets.
Image Credit: Omar Ramadan, Unsplash Content License, via Unsplash.
