But the leader, Abu Mohammed al-Golani, who is still sought by the United States as a terrorist, gave no indication of how the group might try to govern. “The most important thing is to build institutions,” he said, suggesting that he now wanted a society to which displaced Syrians would want to return and rebuild. “Not one where a single ruler makes arbitrary decisions.”
As Dan Shapiro, a former US ambassador to Israel and now a senior Pentagon official with responsibility for the Middle East, put it, “No one should shed any tears over the Assad regime.” At least 580,000 people died in the first decade of the civil war that began in 2011, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated three years ago, and millions have been injured or displaced.
But it is one thing to celebrate the ouster of Assad, who Russian state television said arrived in Moscow on Sunday. It is another to manage the vacuum of power that follows – and to make sure that Syria becomes neither a terrorist state of a different kind nor a failed state, as Libya did after Moammar Gadhafi was deposed and killed 13 years ago.
US President Joe Biden acknowledged as much after declaring from the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Sunday afternoon that the “moment of opportunity” facing the world was “also a moment of risk and uncertainty, as we all turn to the question of what comes next”.
“Make no mistake, some of the rebel groups that took down Assad have their own grim record of terrorism and human rights abuses,” he said. He noted that leaders such as Golani were “saying the right things now, but as they take on greater responsibility we will assess not just their words, but their actions”.
That assessment, though, will fall largely to Trump’s administration. And it will test the meaning of his social media postings claiming that the best strategy is for the United States to stay out.
Loading
Trump is unlikely to have that luxury. The United States has a military force of 900 in eastern Syria, hunting down and striking Islamic State group forces. And while Trump’s instinct in his first term was to pull out, he was convinced by his military advisers that a US withdrawal from its Syrian base could cripple the effort to contain and defeat Islamic State group forces.
On Sunday, as Assad fled, the United States targeted gatherings of Islamic State fighters, dropping bombs and missiles in a counterterrorism effort that officials said had no relation to the fall of Damascus. A senior administration official told reporters Sunday that it was a “significant strike”.
And whether Trump acknowledges it or not, the United States has huge interests in whether Russia gets ousted from its naval facility at Tartus, its only Mediterranean port to repair and support Russian warships.
“For Russia, Syria is the crown jewel of their launchpad to becoming a great power in the region, an area that has traditionally been a US sphere of influence,” said Natasha Hall, a Syria expert at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Russia also used a Syrian air base to kill thousands of Syrians who opposed Assad. In an era of new cold wars, where Russia is seeking to expand its influence, the possibility that Moscow might permanently lose access to Syria could be of huge strategic advantage to the United States. It will also be an interesting early test of how Trump handles President Vladimir Putin of Russia at a moment when negotiations over the fate of Ukraine may be about to begin.
Smoke billows as people arrive in Damascus to celebrate the fall of the Syrian government.Credit: AP
But the bigger question is how the incoming president will deal with Iran. In recent weeks, he has expressed interest in a new negotiation with Iran, six years after he terminated the 2015 nuclear deal with the country. The Iranians have shown some interest in engaging, as well – though it is not clear they are willing to give up the nuclear program in which they have invested so much in the past few years.
Loading
The risk is that Iran’s leaders could decide that the country is so weakened – its proxies crippled, its pathway to ship arms through Syria imperilled, its air defences wiped out in recent Israeli strikes – that it needs a nuclear weapon more than ever.
Clearly, the Iranians were as stunned this weekend as everyone else. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, appearing on state television, said Iran had been caught off guard by the speed of events. “Nobody could believe this,” he said.
Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than at any point in the 20 years of Iran’s efforts to build its nuclear capabilities. On Friday, Rafael Grossi, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, said that Iran had undergone a “dramatic acceleration” of its production of near bomb-grade uranium.
It has enough of a stockpile to build four bombs, though fashioning them into a warhead could take a year to 18 months. Grossi’s statement suggested that it was now moving at a pace that would enable the production of many more.
That could just be a bargaining ploy. But clearly the Iranian leadership is under pressure, and the fall of a long-time ally and supplicant like Assad is likely to make some Iranian leaders worry whether the same fate could be awaiting them. Whether that new insecurity leads them to negotiate their way out of a hole, or obtain the ultimate weapon of survival, is one of the many mysteries ahead.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Get a note direct from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for the weekly What in the World newsletter here.
