WHEN Israel was carrying out its military operations against Palestine, I initially believed that the scale and magnitude of Israel’s actions were disproportionate to Palestine alone and that Israel, along with its benefactor, had a larger strategic objective. This objective eventually came into focus: the weakening of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. Interestingly, the US played a crucial role. It first identified the main factors that kept Assad in power: Russia and Iran. On one front, Russia became entangled in a prolonged war in Ukraine, where, with the support of the US and Europe, Ukraine was able to limit Russia’s advance and push it back on multiple fronts. This prolonged war drained Russia of precious resources and whatever resources it had were poured into its own conflict, leaving its allies, like Syria, high and dry.
At the same time, the US, with its ally Israel, sought to stretch Iran’s resources in the Middle East by involving it in a series of regional conflicts. Iran was forced to commit significant resources to supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen and securing its own interests, which left its support for Syria’s Assad regime weakened. This was a critical moment for the anti-Assad militias, supported by some regional powers in the Middle East. These countries provided money and USA and its allies including Israel provided military aid and superior guerrilla tactics and reconnaissance technologies, giving the militias an edge over the forces supporting Assad. Without adequate funding, ammunition and strategic guidance, Assad’s regime and its affiliated militias lost momentum, leading to a decisive advantage for the opposition groups backed by Sunni powers. Donald J. Trump, the USA President-elect, announced on his personal account on X that opposition fighters in Syria had taken control of several cities in a coordinated offensive and were on the outskirts of Damascus, poised to oust Bashar al-Assad. He highlighted Russia’s inability to intervene, given its heavy losses in the Ukraine war and speculated that Assad’s fall might ultimately benefit Russia. Despite reaffirming his isolationist stance with remarks like, “The United States should have nothing to do with it,” it was evident that the US had long been deeply involved in Syria’s conflict, supporting opposition groups and shaping the region’s dynamics.
The situation in Afghanistan mirrors developments in Syria, as both reflect the fragility of externally supported regimes amidst shifting global dynamics. Following the US-led invasion in 2001, NATO forces removed the Taliban, replacing them with Hamid Karzai’s government, later succeeded by Ashraf Ghani in 2014. Despite billions of dollars in aid, extensive military training and a sustained NATO presence, the Afghan government was plagued by corruption, insurgency and internal divisions, allowing the Taliban to regain strength. By 2021, after the US signed the Doha Agreement to withdraw troops, the Afghan government collapsed rapidly. President Ghani fled as the Taliban seized control and the chaotic US withdrawal underscored a humiliating failure of the two-decade effort to stabilize Afghanistan, echoing the struggles of Assad’s regime in Syria.
The Syrian war, which began in 2011, is a complex and devastating conflict involving a mix of internal and external actors pursuing divergent goals. Bashar al-Assad’s government, supported by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, seeks to maintain power, while opposition forces range from moderate groups to extremists like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, with backing from the US, Turkiye, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Kurdish forces, crucial in the fight against ISIS, are allied with the US but face Turkish opposition due to PKK ties. Regional players such as Iran and Russia aim to bolster Assad, while Turkey targets Kurdish ambitions and Saudi Arabia and Qatar support Sunni rebels to counter Iran’s influence. ISIS, though territorially diminished, remains a disruptive force. Global actors like the US and Russia pursue strategic interests, further entrenching the conflict. This multi-dimensional proxy war has devastated Syria, complicating efforts for peace and prolonging human suffering.
Now when rebel forces have freed prisoners and have conquered Damascus and Asad has reportedly fled to Moscow, the future of Syria remains uncertain for decades to come. With Assad’s ouster and taking over Syria by US-backed militia, Syria’s next decade would likely see a fragile transition marked by internal divisions, ongoing insurgencies and regional power struggles. A transitional government, heavily influenced by US and Gulf interests, would face legitimacy challenges, while rebuilding efforts focus on restoring infrastructure and reviving the economy. Kurdish demands for autonomy could heighten tensions with Turkiye and Iran might escalate proxy warfare to undermine the new regime. Though aligned with Sunni Arab states, Syria could remain a battleground for geopolitical rivalries, with external interference stalling democratic reforms. Persistent extremist threats, corruption and sectarian divides would jeopardize stability, leaving the country vulnerable to cycles of unrest and underdevelopment.
First Iraq, then Libya, later Afghanistan and now Syria—nations that were once navigating their own challenges like any other—have been plunged into chaos through entanglement in complex geopolitical rivalries. Once peaceful, these countries now lie in ruins, their physical infrastructure decimated, their economies shattered and their social fabric torn apart. Children have been orphaned, women widowed and countless lives lost, leaving behind rubble where thriving communities once stood. The staggering human cost is a sobering reminder of the price of becoming a pawn in the games of powerful nations. For fragile and impoverished countries, the lesson is clear: steer clear of the battles of giants, or risk being trampled like grass underfoot.
—The writer is a former Press Secretary to the President of Pakistan.
