On 08 December 2024, the longstanding regime of the Assad family came to an end. The Syrian regime is one of the last regimes to fall after several others in the last 30 years following the end of the Cold War.
The fall of Bashar al-Assad, the son of Hafiz al-Assad, came faster than anyone expected, but not as a surprise to those who follow the Middle East geopolitical landscape. The war in Gaza, the weakening of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the near-complete destruction of the Syrian state—economically and socially—aggravated by draconian sanctions imposed by the USA and its Western allies, all contributed to the dramatic fall of the regime. It was surprising how the rebels, HTS, and other factions could conquer vast territories in just a few days without facing resistance from the Syrian Arab Army. Damascus fell without any opposition, and Bashar al-Assad left the country safely under Russian protection.
The Syrian regime has fallen but left behind a black hole of uncertainty and a state with multiple wounds. The healing process could be painful and challenging. Yes, Syrians deserve better, and they are right to be joyful about being rid of the brutal regime run by a family clan. However, the question remains: Who will lead the country, and how?
How Did the Regime Fall?
Countries neighboring Syria, particularly Israel and Turkey, have played a pivotal role in the country’s destabilization through their direct involvement in the prolonged conflict. Turkey has offered financial, political, military, and intelligence support to several Islamic factions within the rebel groups and has acted as a refuge for numerous terrorist organizations. Furthermore, under the guise of combating the PKK, which Turkey classifies as a terrorist group, Turkish forces have entered Syrian territory and established military bases there. There is a general consensus that the sanctions imposed by the West have severely weakened the economy. Moreover, we must acknowledge the United States’ seizure of Syrian oil, framed as a measure to combat terrorism. This action has further diminished the government’s revenue, which could have otherwise been used for reconstruction efforts and the provision of essential social services.
Is It the Change All Syrians Aspired For or Not?
It is too early to predict what the country’s future will look like because many regional and international actors are involved, and every country will work to maintain its interests and presence in Syria. Moreover, it is unclear who will govern the country, their general plan, or how they will lead the people. Almost all the military factions or wings of the opposition are extremist groups with a history of brutality and violence against people, particularly non-Sunni Muslims and other followers of non-Islamic faiths. In addition, there are numerous political factions with different backgrounds and political ambitions. Hence, the future of the country remains uncertain.
Do We Need to Follow the Syrian Path for Change in Eritrea?
A number of so-called opposition groups and regional political analysts have been commenting on the sudden fall of the Syrian regime and trying to correlate it to the intended changes in Eritrea. Though longstanding regimes and dictators must be overthrown by the people under them, sometimes external forces intervene in their interests.
In Eritrea’s case, the country’s history and the leadership’s structural makeup are unrelated to the Syrian regime. However, they might share similarities in their security apparatus and the core beliefs of the country’s non-religious or identity-based political administration. Nevertheless, the way in which the leadership came into power is entirely different. The Eritrean leadership emerged through a hard-fought liberation struggle, not a military coup. Moreover, it is represented by people who have contributed to the state’s independence, not by family or clan members. In addition, Eritrea is not in a civil war where different factions and external actors occupy the legitimate territories of the country.
Furthermore, the people of Eritrea have a deep-rooted national identity cultivated during the long struggle for independence and have been living in internal peace for years. The feeling of pride and honor of being Eritrean serves as the cornerstone for responsible action regarding any domestic political, economic, or other change. Eritrean people always prioritize the existence of their country and state and will never jeopardize the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Therefore, almost all Eritreans would agree that the path for change should and must be indigenous in nature, peaceful, and gradual, with initiatives driven solely by Eritreans both inside and outside the country.
Conclusion
The path for change in Syria was not wholly owned or, better to say, managed by the Syrian people; instead, several regional and international actors contributed, turning it into a combat zone for geopolitical competition and security interests.
In Eritrea, the change must be indigenous and gradual. In this case, the leadership in power must play a significant role in bringing about the desired change without pushing the state toward collapse and chaos, as seen in neighboring countries like Sudan. The opposition parties also need to take responsible action grounded in reality and understand the consequences of their blind desire for change through disastrous and externally manipulated reforms or so-called regime overthrows.