��������Ƶ

It must be said that very few of us anticipated the developments in Syria that unfolded over a month ago. A 54-year chapter in the history of the country ended in less than two weeks — a massive achievement.
The ease and speed with which the Bashar Assad regime was brought down surprised even the most optimistic observers hoping to see this shift. However, since the temporary military leadership took control of Damascus, we have seen some offer predictable critique of various behaviors. I believe that with more consultation this criticism would have neither emerged nor been justified.
I do not have in mind the criticism from vehement opponents who consistently showed their allegiance to the fallen regime despite its crimes nor the hypocrites who, as they say, greet the bride’s family and leave with the groom’s family. Rather, I am thinking of the anxious silence or apologetic criticism from forces that are keen on seeing this liberation succeed, just as they were hoping that the revolution would win in 2011.
These forces, which represent most of the population — call them the silent majority or ordinary citizens — across class and sectarian lines, have an interest in seeing this change succeed. No one is as keen as they are on ensuring that the transitional phase proceeds with as little pain, complications, skepticism, and retribution as possible. Otherwise, the nation’s body could be left with deep wounds that are difficult to heal and prone to infection.
The mistakes of the past few days have been relatively minor, and can thus be easily overlooked. Through trial and error, lessons can be drawn for the future. However, repeating these past errors in the coming days and weeks could turn them into harmful sins that could hinder the transition. I believe it would be useful to draw attention to some uncomfortable truths.
At the forefront of these is the fact that this liberation is now under intense local, regional, and international scrutiny.
The local scrutiny is from within the country. While the fall of the Assad regime has certainly been welcomed, a broad segment of the population does not want to replace one dictatorship with another. This means that there is a need for consultation, openness, and dialogue rather than replicating the experience of the “Idlib government,” despite all the positives we saw there.
Then there is the regional scrutiny. Syria’s borders with two neighboring countries, Lebanon and Iraq, are clearly still regarded as unsafe by the interim Syrian leadership. This is clear from the escape of several major figures in the Assad regime to these countries, exploiting the de facto control of sectarian armed forces backed by a powerful regional sponsor. 

Most of the population have an interest in seeing this change succeed.

Eyad Abu Shakra

On the other hand, two other influential regional powers not only have a stake in what is happening, but also claim the right to protect their borders and ensure what they consider to be regional security. Indeed, as soon as the regime fell, the significant contribution made by Turkiye to victory in the north became evident.
Meanwhile, in the south, the danger of Israel’s expansionist intentions became apparent as its army breached the ceasefire line in the Golan Heights, occupying the strategic peak of Mount Hermon and launching air raids on dozens of Syrian military targets. This situation speaks volumes about the extent of the Israeli leadership’s seeming confidence in the intentions of the Assad regime, throughout the reigns of both father and son, to secure its northern borders.
Another highly important truth concerns those who benefited from the Assad regime for a long time amid claims that they have indeed been removed or have fled. However, first it must be said that they have not disappeared or been crushed. And second, there are still external entities providing them with support.
Consequently, the longer it takes for the achievement of liberation to mature — with minimal complications — the more opportunities these remnants and their supporters will have to regroup, rebuild their forces, and reformulate their inciting and misleading rhetoric. This could potentially lead to a reversal of the current accomplishments.
On the subject of international scrutiny, Western powers, and global organizations in which these powers wield significant influence, are watching developments closely. Logically, the historical change that ended the Assad family’s rule would not have proceeded as smoothly, given Russia and Iran’s military presence, without the consent of Western powers, primarily the US. They agreed to allow the end of what they saw as an anomaly in a sensitive region and the arrival of a new administration whose intentions remain obscure.
Washington, in particular, and its Western allies generally, have recognized that maintaining the status quo in the Middle East is no longer tenable. There appears to be a belief that there is a need for a new and different approach to political Islam, the aspirations and fears of minorities, and religious-based terrorism.
These Western allies also are not willing to tolerate any blackmail, including through a nuclear program. In addition, there is a need to address the Ukraine crisis more seriously, in particular containing Russia, which is on the agenda of rising far-right entities on both sides of the Atlantic.
In light of these considerations, the message from the US diplomatic mission’s meeting with Ahmad Al-Sharaa, leader of Syria’s Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham, in Damascus was clear. It told us a lot not only about Washington’s vision for the role of this new Syria in the Arab Levant region, but also about what type of Syrian administration would be internationally acceptable, from the US viewpoint.
The new Syria cannot afford to make mistakes as it takes up two main challenges that concern its government and standing in the global economy. The first is hammering out an accord regarding its governing philosophy, especially in dealing with the nation’s diverse communities. The second is determining its economic and financial positions, which includes harnessing its human and natural resources, and gaining international trust.

• Eyad Abu Shakra is managing editor of Asharq Al-Awsat, where this article was originally published.
X: @eyad1949