The fall of the Assad regime was not a reckless event in the series of dramatic shifts in the region, but rather the beginning of a fateful transformation of a disputed land, floundering between blood-stained injustices and conflicting regional mandates. But does this truly mean the birth of a "New Syria" or merely a superficial conditioning of authoritarian control amid the rising influence of political Islam and the serious decline of the national identity's privileges in a land already mired in a swamp of accumulated contradictions and illusions? Has this become a global burden in the post-Assad catastrophe era? Meanwhile, it is notable that decision-makers worldwide preferred to deal with the "beneficial evil," considering Sharia as part of a winning political deal that ensures their interests and prevents complete collapse.
Conversely, and not based on ambiguous analyses, facts confirm that Bashar Assad’s escape revealed what was hidden deep inside and exposed sectarianism after the savage revenge against minorities with the arrival of takfiri factions to power. One of the consequences is that the image of that "innocent" girl among the Syrian community in "secular" America, moving her fingers with malicious mimicry of the Salafist beard-shaving crime, was a stark reminder. At the bottom of the flooded Syrian realm, scarred and afflicted, hatred has run wild, following protests in Damascus insulting the Egyptian president and others demanding the fall of the Al Saud regime in support of Gaza! What is happening raises urgent questions about Syria’s future while the missile victory turns into a spark for a new phase of burning racism, establishing sectarian battles over the shape and identity of the state. There are no definitive, certain answers amid the decline of moral and human measures in favor of geopolitical necessities.
Based on the previous facts, and considering Syria’s history, it is usual for a totalitarian regime to be succeeded by a similar one. However, the new conservative rulers have an exceptional jihadist background, indicating a new pattern that radically breaks away from the past. The problem is not only the devastating civil war that has completely exhausted Syria but also a people who, once they left the "Assad farm," were deeply shocked, igniting feelings of revenge against others who differ ethnically and sectarian, considering them "Assadists." This is incomprehensible, given the dictatorship’s oppression that extended to Alawites as well as other communities, with Assad’s era distinguished by the distribution of injustice fairly among all Syrian components.
Generally, Ahmed Al-Shar’ issued promising statements about protecting "minorities," but he soon found himself trapped in contradictions. His followers’ political and social backgrounds differ entirely from those before 1963. Another clear paradox is that after Hafez Assad’s death, the Syrian parliament, within hours, amended the constitution to allow Bashar’s succession; today, Ahmed Al-Shar’ is appointed president by jihadist factions at a special conference under the pretext of revolutionary Sharia, fueling a growing belief that the interim president will establish his rule based on the same foundations as the old regime, only changing the political façade.
This article cannot omit the fact that Syrian history is repeating itself today as a farce. The proof is that man from the Syrian diaspora, during the reception of the interim president in New York, shouted: (Someone like you didn’t marry women… nor did she terminate her pregnancy), prompting us to reconsider the role of rhetorical eloquence in supporting thrones. The paternal system built by Hafez Assad and everything constructed on his mysterious control will remain a heavy legacy weighing on Syrians, despite the crushing of the sanctity surrounding the Assad family during the Syrian revolution. The eternal complex still haunts the minds of Syrians who are walking steadily towards the Afghan model, with the description of Al-Shar’ defeating Assad as "a victory from God," a phrase that never mentioned democracy and was called pure disbelief in a 2015 interview. They forget that those drafting the constitution determine the fate of the state forever. Despite all this, optimists believe that shifting from a jihadist stance to politics might open a door to a sustainable civil peace, while pessimists see this as the result of global collusion producing a new tyranny under international cover.
It is also expected that the rule of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham will reveal what remains hidden in international political corridors. This is not a passing accident but a new ground for reshaping, filled with dangerous sectarian motives driving the wheel of peaceful national disintegration toward openly sectarian cantons. Meanwhile, the transitional government faces a glaring legal crisis—lacking a constitutional framework reflecting national consensus—and if it continues to focus on external legitimacy while excluding internal Syrians, Syria may become a catastrophic exception in regional political transitions. It lacks a roadmap for creating a cross-sectarian army, reducing extremist Salafi currents, and most importantly, finding regional security balances to end division. All these indicators suggest that Washington views the Sharia project as fragile unless extremism is shed. Even Thomas Bra.
Abeer Nasr