A Reflection on Syria & Its Future
Foreword
2024 has come and gone. As we venture into 2025, many will look back at the different events that have unfolded in the past year, sometimes with sorrow and sometimes with joy. The consensus seems to be that 2024 has gone by very quickly; despite this, it has been a year forged by many major changes of global significance. Donald Trump defied the odds and reclaimed the American presidency, something that was unthinkable immediately after the inauguration of Joe Biden. The British Tories faced their worst ever election performance, owing more to the rise of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK than to Keir Starmer’s Labour. Irish people went to the polls on three occasions to vote on five separate matters; both of the shoddily proposed constitutional amendments were definitively shot down, and nationalist candidates made impressive electoral gains across the board.
The sudden collapse of the Syrian Arab Republic is the most recent of these developments and was undoubtedly shocking. Over a decade of violent multifactional strife led to various ceasefires and stalemates, however Assad appeared to have held out in the later years of the war. That illusion was shattered when the newfound offensive toppled the government in less than a fortnight. Such a radical reversal inevitably raises some important questions; what happened? Who benefits from this state of affairs? How does the change in the strategic landscape affect Ireland?
An Introduction to Syria
Syria has long been a thorn in Israel’s side, going all the way back to the foundation of the Jewish state. Syria was one of the original objectors to the creation of Israel and fought against them in 1948. Ever since then, Syria has continued to fight Israel in defence of the Palestinian Arabs. Without taking military intervention into account, Syria is still able to threaten the very existence of Israel. Creating an oasis in the desert is a difficult task; creating an oasis without water is impossible. Israel’s only natural freshwater sources originate in the mountains of Lebanon and Syria, and so either country could seriously stifle Israeli access to potable water. Extensive disputes in this area eventually resulted in the outbreak of the ‘Six-Day War’ of 1967. The subsequent Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights was intended to secure the River Jordan and its drainage in the Sea of Galilee downstream (they also secured the local oil reserves for good measure).
The Syrian struggle against Israel was an integral, and often overlooked, aspect of Cold War politics. The success of the Corrective Revolution gave Hafez al-Assad control of the Syrian executive. The new regime maintained good auspices with the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact; Syria and East Germany were particularly close partners. Soviet-Israeli relations were initially acquiescent, but soon they became sworn enemies. The Doctors’ Plot and the Slansky trial cemented not just the Soviet opposition to Zionism, but also their opposition to Jewish presence in their internal affairs. The Soviet Union severed diplomatic relations with Israel and offered materiel support to Arab nations that mobilised against the Jewish state. Although there is no longer a Soviet Union, the Russian Federation has inherited their geopolitical initiatives. It may exist in a less overtly anti-Israel fashion, but Russia’s position vis-à-vis Israel has not changed in principle.
For that reason, the Russian Federation has only expanded their presence in Syria. The naval base in Tartus, first established by the Soviet Union in the ‘70s, provides a hub for the Black Sea Fleet on the Mediterranean Sea. Without the port in Tartus, the Black Sea Fleet’s capacity to project power outside its immediate vicinity would be greatly limited, as passage through the Turkish Straits are strictly governed by the Montreux Convention. The relatively new Russian airbase near Latakia was constructed as part of the effort to eradicate the ISIS insurgency. It should be noted that the formation of ISIS wasn’t the first time that an Islamist uprising took place in Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood declared jihad against the Syrian state in a three-year-long campaign beginning in 1979. The organisation wreaked terror around the country and came incredibly close to killing Hafez al-Assad, Hafez was forced to save his own life when he reportedly kicked away a live grenade that was thrown at him.
Historically, Syria has acted as a bulwark and a coherent fighting force contra Islamic extremism. The never-ending screeching of NATO-adjacent military industrialist mouthpieces would suggest that Syria is a backwater tinpot dictatorship, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Syria has traditionally existed as a modern state, standing out from the absolutist theocratic monarchies it was surrounded by. If you thought this type of government would be attractive to westerners, you would be right. George H.W. Bush was remarkably able to convince the Syrians to join the Gulf War coalition against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Both Syria and Iraq were nominally Ba’athist, but longstanding political differences created mutual enmity between Hafez and Saddam; the same militants that made the attempt on Hafez’s life were backed by none other than Saddam himself. Bush’s crafting of the Desert Storm coalition was probably the last triumph of American foreign policy before it went totally schizophrenic.
How was Syria repaid for their assistance? The US foreign policy apparatus, in conjunction with Israel, would abet another wave of Takfiri jihadists to destabilise, divide, and overthrow the Syrian state. It’s no wonder that fellow Arab countries are more receptive to Chinese overtures when they see how America and Israel treat their ‘friends’. The outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011 was an opportune moment to remove that thorn in Israel’s side, and the United States was all too willing to assist. The opening phases consisted of back-and-forth combat between the Syrian Arab Armed Forces (SAAF) and the multiple rebel groups; Damascus and Aleppo saw multiple large-scale engagements with combined arms. The warfront was generally stable, until the astronomic ascension of the nascent Islamic State in 2014.
At its peak, the Islamic State controlled a transnational landmass exceeding 100,000 km2 (roughly the size of Iceland or Cuba); in 2015/16, the Islamic State had the greatest area of any combatant in the war. An ISIS victory started to become a horrifying possibility, prompting direct Russian and American intervention. The inbound Trump administration, which took a slightly less punitive view of Assad, brought some relief to the Syrian regime. The contraction of the Islamic State allowed the SAAF to reclaim liberated territory and make gains against the rebels. With the Islamic State effectively wiped out, the United States began their withdrawal from Syria, handing over the reins to the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
Neighbouring Turkey has been wary of the expanding Kurdish autonomous regions on its frontier. Throughout the war, Turkey has traded blows with the SDF; 2019 marked the biggest escalation. Turkey has no love for the Syrian state either, both nations have continued to view each other suspiciously since the controversial Turkish annexation of Hatay prior to the Second World War. Turkish proxies were deployed against the SAAF with minimal success. A ceasefire was signed and came into effect on 6 March 2020, one that would hold for more than four years.
The Syrian theatre went quiet, with the exception of minor skirmishes here and there. The more time passed, the more it looked as if the Syrian civil war was a sealed deal. Assad was able to save the Syrian Arab Republic, although in a butchered form. Syria shifted to the back of people’s minds, especially as newer conflicts arose in Ukraine and the Middle East. Although it took some time to materialise, the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023 would spell the end of Syria as we knew it.
What Happened?
Once surrounded by enemies on all sides, Israel has managed to pacify some of its neighbours through a mixture of military and diplomatic means. Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon have all come to some sort of arrangement with the Jewish state, leaving Syria as the last remaining openly anti-Zionist state on Israel’s borders. Israel has also been quite successful in reconciling with the Gulf Arab countries. No doubt, the Palestinians viewed Arab-Israeli rapprochement with grave concern.
In what appears to have been a last-ditch effort, Hamas crossed over the border fence into Israel with support from a barrage of rockets. There was no expectation that Hamas could have capitulated the State of Israel; the purpose was to bait the Israelis into a disproportionately violent response that would turn the tide and disrupt any Arab-Israeli concord. Israel took the bait. Israel ruthlessly retaliated without discretion and without regard for civilian life. As a result of the attack, Hamas has incurred massive casualties, but they achieved a pyrrhic victory. Pro-Palestine sentiment has never been higher, and a wrench has been thrown in the regularisation process between Israel and the Islamic world.
The past year has been a public relations disaster for Israel, but maybe this cloud had a silver lining? With the worst of the damage already dealt, would this be the time for Israel to go ‘gloves off’ on its enemies? Hezbollah had launched attacks of their own against Israel in solidarity with Hamas and Palestine, now Israel had the excuse it needed to kill two birds with one stone. Israel, once again, entered Lebanon with the intention of burying the hatchet with Hezbollah. Two months of fighting ended inconclusively with the signing of a ceasefire. The terms of the ceasefire were uncharacteristically generous to both sides, basically reverting to the status quo ante bellum. Within mere hours of the ceasefire coming into effect, the ultimate Syrian rebel offensive started; you couldn’t help but think that something shady was happening behind the scenes.
In almost two weeks, Syrian rebels spearheaded by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) marched from city to city and swiftly conquered the Ba’athist regime in Damascus. HTS performed a perfect blitzkrieg without having numerical superiority, superior firepower, and no air support. There was a conspicuous absence of any serious engagements, only sporadic firefights. Despite the lack of significant violence, the SAAF was permanently retreating to “defensive lines” where no defending occurred at all. The Russians who bailed out Syria in 2015 were nowhere to be found. All indicators suggested that a coordinated handover of the Syrian state was underway.
Who Benefits?
Turkey will be satisfied with the implosion of the Assad regime; they’ll be gaining an important stronghold on their southern border. Israel will go down as the biggest winners. One of their most proximate enemies has vanished, and the prospective Sunni government has prioritised the expulsion of hostile Iranian influence from the country. Israel has utilised the chaos to expand the Golan Heights buffer zone as far as Mount Hermon, where they can base reconnaissance operations into Lebanon and Syria. Israeli airstrikes have obliterated the abandoned Syrian naval, air force, and air defence equipment. Israel has guaranteed that a future unified and sovereign Syrian state would be unable to reconstitute and pose any threat to the Jewish state.
The United States and its NATO allies have scored themselves a titular victory. While the United States or European NATO members have no discernible interest in removing Bashar al-Assad, strictly speaking, they have achieved their stated goal. After fighting the ‘War on Terror’ for twenty years, the United States now considers the replacement of a secular liberal statesman with an allegedly reformed al-Qaeda guerilla as a win. With a foreign policy agenda like that, we shouldn’t be surprised that the United States has lost credibility on the world stage.
What’s in it for the Russians? This answer to this question is more speculative than the others. Speaking of lost credibility, following the botched American withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the hundreds of billions of dollars dumped into a lost cause in Ukraine, the Pentagon was likely desperate for a win in the face of pending humiliation. Russian concessions in Syria could be one end of a quid pro quo involving NATO concessions in Ukraine. Only time will tell as to why Russia sacrificed Syria to the globalist war machine.
What It Means for Ireland
When Damascus fell and Assad left for Russia, it wasn’t long before the Syrian diaspora filled the streets to celebrate the news. A sea of Syrian opposition flags were being waved in unison across the major cities of Europe, including Dublin. A large group of Syrian anti-Assad protestors assembled across from the GPO on O’Connell Street, and in a now viral video, an Irish man asked one of the protestors a very simple question. The protestor detailed the murderous and torturous tyranny of the Assad regime, and remarked about how the end of the regime meant that Syria is free again. “Does that mean that all of you can go back to Syria now?” asked the Irish man.The answer he received: “The economic situation isn’t good.”
It’s safe to say that we weren’t remotely shocked when we heard that answer, it only confirmed what we knew all along. When we look at the countries of origin for people that have arrived here as ‘refugees’, we see a plethora of countries where there is no war. Where’s the war in Georgia? In Algeria? In Albania? In Zimbabwe? If asylum applications are granted where war isn’t an issue, how could we expect that those who do come from countries at war would go home when the war ends? In Sweden, 79% of refugees have returned to their country of origin on holiday. If refugees are no longer required to exhibit fear of mortal danger, then the word ‘asylum’ is devoid of any meaning. They were never here because of a credible threat to their lives, they’re here because of the money, the consumerism, the lifestyle. This isn’t just applicable to certain nationalities; anybody who can utter the word ‘asylum’ is automatically entitled to bountiful cash handouts and free accommodation at the taxpayer’s expense. A country that behaves this way is asking to be taken advantage of by shysters and welfare tourists.
For fourteen years, we were told that accommodating Syrian refugees was a temporary measure and that it was our moral obligation to share the burden. The mass migration pushers who brought them here are starting to feel the heat, the lie is on the brink of being exposed and they’re beginning to panic. Germany and Austria have announced a stoppage in the processing of asylum applications from Syria, but this is not enough. We must demand the immediate repatriation of all Syrian nationals who arrived through the asylum process, and the immediate repatriation of any asylum applicant who has arrived from a safe country, or has otherwise submitted a fraudulent or frivolous claim.
We have imported a legion of swindlers, enabled by the anti-Irish NGO complex and government-backed gombeen hotelier profiteers, to bleed the system dry. This has caused devastating consequences for the Irish people and their communities. If anything positive is to arise from the destruction of Syria, it ought to be the destruction of the asylum racket and everything that came with it. For those who chanted “Assad must go”- now it is time for them to go as well.
This article was submitted a National Party member. To submit an article for consideration contact us at [email protected]