Bashar al-Assad fell

Mohammad Khajavoyei, head of the Lebanon Studies Group at the Middle East Strategic Research Institute, spoke about the non-military aspect of Assad’s fall in an interview with “Entekhab” news outlet, saying: “What happened over the past ten days was the fall of cities one after the other, and it had no military aspect. The key issue here is that no military transformation occurred in Syria because the Syrian army did not resist anywhere. Without even the opposition reaching those points, they were evacuated. This reflects several issues, including the internal collapse of the government, which had no motivation to resist. Therefore, what happened has no military value. On the other hand, it seems that this movement involved a large deal and agreement, the details of which involve major powers. This level of advancement, lack of resistance, and, in a way, the easy surrender of the government cannot be the result of Syria’s internal equations.”Regarding a potential political deal leading to Assad’s fall, Khajavoyei stated: “The details of the Syria deal are unclear, but we can make some guesses. One of the intervening parties was Turkey, and on the other hand, Russia might be one of the parties to this deal, as it has accompanied this change. Although Russia has gained some benefits, such as securing its strategic presence in Syria and two major military bases in Latakia and Tartus, which are tangible. For such a deal, the cooperation of part of the Syrian army and government is required. The fact that no serious movements took place indicates that the game is being played by the big powers. This deal might involve other parties, but the two most influential ones in recent developments seem to be Turkey and Syria. We can tell from the signs, such as the rapid advance of the opposition and the lack of any resistance from the Syrian government, that the Russians might be accompanying this process.”He added: “It’s likely that agreements have also been made regarding Syria’s political future and Bashar al-Assad’s family, with this change occurring quietly. The events of the last few days bear no resemblance to the developments of the past decade in Syria. The war from 2011 to 2017 was a very brutal one, and nearly 500,000 people were killed. Now, in such a country, when cities fall within ten days and with minimal casualties, it indicates a political agreement. Without such an agreement within the system and among the great powers, this would not have happened.”On Israel’s occupation of parts of Syria, Khajavoyei noted: “We are witnessing a situation in Syria where every regional and international party involved in this process is trying to exploit it. The behavior of Turkey, trying to use this opportunity to change the situation, is tied to Syria’s own circumstances. The economic crisis and the weakening of Assad’s supporters created the conditions for Assad’s fall. The Americans, due to their ties with the Syrian Kurds, have seen Kurdish positions strengthened in recent days. On the other hand, Israel has strategic concerns regarding Syria. Since Syria was part of the resistance axis opposing Israel, Israel has tried to weaken this axis and continued this process. Weakening and the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government with the aim of Syria leaving the resistance axis serves Israel’s interests. In the short term, Israel views it as good news that Assad’s opponents are coming to power. The action Israel took in occupying parts of Syria aims to solidify Israel’s position in future Syrian equations. Israel is looking to detach Syria from the resistance axis, which means that Hezbollah will face a serious crisis, losing its primary weapons supply route. In this case, Israel can implement its desired equation. Currently, Israel is seeking to stabilize its equation in Syria.”

Regarding Iran’s position on developments in Syria, Khajavoyei said: “I think Iran has been shocked. The events of recent days were completely surprising for Iran. The analysis by Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and military forces did not foresee that Assad’s opponents would be able to take over the entire country in ten days. We clearly saw this confusion in Iran’s responses over the past few days. It’s unclear what policy Iran will pursue. At one point, Iran was not using terrorist forces against Assad’s opponents, referring to them as armed opponents, but later, in some reports, they were called terrorists. The comments by Araghchi about the necessity of dialogue between the government and legitimate opposition in Syria, and the rejection of it by Larijani, indicate a lack of proper analysis within Iran’s political system. The developments of the past year, especially after October 7, when a major blow was dealt to the resistance axis, up to Lebanon’s involvement in the war and the events in Syria, all show that Iran’s entire decision-making and cognitive apparatus has not been accurately assessing the developments. The first lesson for Iran is that all decision-making processes in its institutions must be reviewed. When this level of failure occurs in a year, it indicates miscalculations regarding capabilities and vulnerable points. Often, those advising in Iran approach issues with unrealistic and ideological viewpoints.”He emphasized: “The future of developments in Syria remains unclear, and the details of this hidden agreement need to be clarified. Syria does not have a strong opposition that can form a government. The multiplicity of military forces in Syria strengthens the scenario where each part of the country is controlled by a different ethnic group, and internal conflicts between opposition groups increase. The most likely scenario for Syria is the repetition of the Libyan experience. The pessimistic scenario is the division of Syria.”