Despite the Syrian regime’s strong desire to retain power, events in Syria are unfolding against Bashar al-Assad’s favor, inching closer to their logical conclusion.
Recently, both political and military structures of the Syrian opposition forces have been consolidated and strengthened, bolstering their position domestically and internationally. Key to this is the formation of the Syrian National Coalition (SNC), which has unified representatives of both external and internal opposition, as well as the “Free Syrian Army.” Numerous countries, including the United States, have recognized the SNC’s legitimacy as a representative of the Syrian people, enabling the international community to provide more extensive external support, including military aid, to the rebels in their struggle against Assad’s regime.
The SNC has already formed a transitional parliament and government tasked with assuming full power to prevent chaos in the country after Assad’s government falls. These bodies now serve as representatives of the Syrian opposition both internationally and domestically.
On the military side, the opposition has established the Supreme Military Council, overseeing the General Staff of opposition armed groups. These forces are organized into territorial “fronts” — Northern, Southern, Western, Eastern, and Damascus — each comprising brigades mainly made up of local fighters.
With international assistance from opponents of Assad’s regime, including the U.S., Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, France, and the UK, the Syrian opposition has achieved notable successes. They have gained control over several regions along Syria’s borders with Turkey and Iraq, creating conditions for external intervention under the guise of establishing “buffer zones” or “no-fly zones,” as seen previously in Libya. The SNC actively advocates for such zones to provide opposition groups with significant advantages in their battle against Assad’s forces, including the capture of key cities like Aleppo and Damascus, as well as central provinces such as Hama.
The capabilities of Syria’s armed forces are rapidly deteriorating due to combat losses, desertions (including high-ranking officers), and decreased production and repair of military equipment, which mainly relies on supplies from Russia and Iran. Funding for the military is also insufficient.
The regime’s combat effectiveness largely depends on elite units of the National Guard and Special Forces, primarily composed of Alawites (Assad’s sect) and bolstered by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, as well as fighters from extremist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. These forces focus on controlling major cities and industrial centers while preventing the expansion of opposition-controlled zones and deterring foreign intervention. The Syrian military extensively uses artillery, rocket launchers, and aviation, resulting in significant civilian casualties.
The prolonged conflict in Syria destabilizes the entire Middle East, increasing the likelihood of external military intervention. This is particularly relevant for the U.S. and its allies, who aim to pressure Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons and to change its anti-Western and anti-Israeli leadership.
However, military action against Syria requires a UN Security Council resolution, which Russia and China oppose to preserve their influence in Syria and the Middle East. Despite this, external intervention could occur under the pretext of addressing urgent circumstances.
Frequent cross-border incidents between Syria and Turkey, including Turkish casualties from Syrian shelling, could justify direct Turkish involvement in the conflict. Turkey, citing NATO’s Article 5, might seek assistance from its allies.
Recent developments suggest this scenario is becoming more likely. The U.S. accuses Assad’s regime of preparing chemical weapons for use against rebels, while reports claim opposition forces have seized chemical components, signaling Damascus’s loss of control over these weapons. NATO has responded by deploying Patriot missile defense systems to Turkey’s border with Syria, provided by the U.S., Germany, and the Netherlands.
A regime change in Syria will have significant regional and global implications. It would enable the U.S. and its allies to increase pressure on Iran, likely resulting in the fall of its government, given the balance of power. Neither Russia nor China would realistically intervene beyond rhetorical support. The fall of Iran would benefit Western energy projects, allowing direct transportation of Caspian and Central Asian resources to Europe via Iran, bypassing Russia, with potentially catastrophic consequences for Moscow’s influence and economy.
Separately, the empowerment of Kurdish nationalist movements aiming to establish an independent Kurdish state could also reshape the region. Ultimately, these developments would consolidate U.S. and allied control over the Middle East while effectively ending Russian influence in the region.
