Syria’s revolution showcases evolving power dynamics, historical relationships, and the persistent role of neoconservative strategies.
Syria’s conflict reflects a shift from authoritarianism toward a possible multiparty system, marked by local resistance and external meddling. U.S. neoconservative policies continue to shape the region, exploiting geopolitical instability, while Türkiye’s support for Syrian opposition highlights a competing vision rooted in historical ties. Trump’s presidency revealed both complicity in neocon agendas and challenges to these strategies, further complicating the balance of power in the Middle East.
“For 61 years, the Baath regime ruled Syria with an iron fist, and for 53 years, the Assad family maintained control, representing the darkest periods in Syrian history. The Baath regime inflicted deep wounds on society not only through political oppression but also in social, cultural, and economic spheres. Understanding Syria requires paying close attention to the historical process and structural nature of this regime.”
To fully comprehend the Baath regime, one must go back to the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 and the San Remo Conference of 1920. These agreements aimed to establish a Western-centric order in the Middle East after the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. This order, shaped by imperialist interests, completely ignored the demands and cultural structures of local populations. In this context, the French established a mandate over Syrian territories, legitimizing their dominance by claiming to protect Christian communities (much like the U.S. has justified its actions in the Middle East under the guise of Israel’s security). However, the “divide and rule” policy they implemented deepened ethnic and sectarian divisions in Syria, exacerbating social unrest.
The French regime monopolized political power in Syria, denying Syrians any say in governance. This policy not only hindered the development of local authorities but also caused lasting societal scars. France divided Syrian territories into five smaller states: the State of Aleppo, the State of Damascus, the Alawite State, the Druze State, and the State of Alexandretta. By creating disputes among these artificial states, France deepened societal polarization, increasing conflicts between groups while facilitating its colonial dominance.
The French strategically placed Alawites, Christians, and Druze minorities in administrative and military institutions, sidelining the Sunni Muslim majority. These minority groups held critical positions during the French mandate and gained significant influence in governance. By the time France withdrew from Syria in 1946, it left behind a fractured society and weakened national consciousness. The minority groups maintained their control over administrative and military positions, strengthening their power in the post-independence era. This legacy has been one of the most significant factors shaping Syria’s post-independence history.
The instability, oppression, and civil wars that have persisted from 1946 to 2024 are, in fact, the result of the foundations laid by the French in Syria. When the French withdrew, they not only left behind seeds of political and social conflict but also established a system that empowered minorities like the Alawites and Christians in strategic positions, exacerbating sectarian divisions. This structure caused major issues in Syria’s governance during the post-independence period.
While the French physically left, the structure they left behind, along with the empowered minority groups, continued to operate as an extension of French policy. The Alawites consolidated their power under the guise of Arab nationalism, building a repressive regime. This regime deepened divisions and subjected the Syrian people to ongoing chaos and instability.
Today, imperialist powers are once again attempting to reshape Syria through ethnic and sectarian divisions, seeking to divide the country into five parts. However, this time, history is witnessing a different resistance. The Turkish military is resolutely opposing these plans to protect the territorial integrity of the region and the future of the Syrian people. Those who aim to resurrect the divide-and-rule policies of a century ago now face Turkey’s active and strong presence in the region.
With France’s withdrawal from Syria in 1946, the country became an independent state. However, this independence was built upon the deep social and political divisions left behind by the French mandate. The advantages provided to minority groups by the French continued to exert influence in the post-independence period. These groups, particularly the Alawites, took control of 65% of officer positions in the military. Economically, the management and exploitation of underground and surface resources were also handed to the Alawites.
The Emergence of the Baath Party
The Baath Party was established to realize the ideal of building a united and modern Arab nation. Founded in the 1940s by Orthodox Christian Michel Aflaq and Salah al-Din al-Bitar, the party was built upon the principles of Pan-Arabism, secularism, freedom, equality, and socialism. Aflaq and Bitar’s ultimate goal was to create a modern, secular, and socialist Arab state free from traditional and feudal structures, uniting the Arab nations in the region under a single banner. With this vision, the party quickly became an ideological hub in the Arab world.
However, the party’s idealistic goals faced numerous challenges in practice. The “divide and rule” policies implemented during the French mandate period, following the Sykes-Picot Agreement, inflicted deep and lasting wounds on Syria’s social and political structure. By placing minority groups in strategic positions within administrative and military systems, the French systematically marginalized the Sunni Muslim majority. The Alawites, in particular, leveraged these advantages during the French mandate period to strengthen their influence even after independence.
This situation undermined the Baath Party’s idealistic principles. Alawites, who held significant positions within the party, steered its direction toward securing their own power. The party quickly diverged from its ideals, influenced by sectarian divisions and the distorted governance system left behind by the French. As Alawites gained increasing power within party and state institutions, the Sunni Muslim majority was systematically excluded. The attempt by a 12% minority to govern 88% of the population further weakened the regime’s legitimacy in the eyes of the public. This imbalance of power laid the groundwork for social unrest in Syria.
The Baath regime pursued a strategy aimed at suppressing public demands, sowing discord among opposition groups, and bolstering its rule through external support. Sectarian-based policies not only deepened societal divisions but also became an effective tool for suppressing demands for equality, freedom, and social justice. During this process, the regime strengthened the Alawite minority, ensuring their control over critical state positions while systematically sidelining the Sunni Muslim majority.
To legitimize its rule and maintain control over society, the Baath regime also co-opted Sunni religious scholars into its policies. Clerics were forced to develop rhetoric that served the regime’s interests, while those who opposed the regime were silenced or violently suppressed. This led to the manipulation of the people’s religious and cultural values to align with the regime’s objectives. Consequently, the sectarian governance approach became one of the foundational elements of the authoritarian structure, restricting the social and political rights of the people.
These strategies allowed the Baath regime to cultivate a culture of deep fear and mistrust among the populace.
Hafez al-Assad Era: The One-Man Regime
In the 1960s, Hafez al-Assad reshaped the Baath Party and laid the foundations of an authoritarian regime. Moving away from the initial collective and socialist ideology, Assad centralized power, consolidating all authority in his hands. By transforming the military into the regime’s main pillar, Assad ensured control by appointing loyal supporters and members of the Alawite minority to key positions. This shift led to internal conflicts within the party and the emergence of a new ideological line called “Neo-Baath,” which prioritized Assad’s personal rule. Under Assad’s leadership, the Baath Party abandoned its ideological goals and became merely a tool for oppression and control, forming the cornerstone of an authoritarian regime that suppressed demands for freedom.
The dissolution of the United Arab Republic in 1961 plunged Syria into political chaos. Seizing this opportunity, Hafez al-Assad and members of the military committee staged a coup to take power. To consolidate his rule, Assad established a system centered around the Alawite minority, filling key positions in the military, bureaucracy, and economy with this group. This deepened sectarian imbalances and systematically excluded the Sunni Muslim majority.
In 1970, following a second coup, Assad assumed full control and formally launched his authoritarian rule. Moving away from traditional Baath ideology, he established a “one-man” regime centered on personal power.
Assad pursued an expansionist policy under the vision of a “Greater Syria,” which aimed to incorporate parts of Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey. However, these policies exacerbated sectarian polarization domestically, undermining social peace, and strained foreign relations. The Assad regime collaborated with terrorist organizations to safeguard its regional interests and strengthen its power. Its relationship with the PKK, used as a strategic tool against Turkey, contributed to the regime’s regional influence but also created deep rifts in its relations with neighboring countries. Assad’s regional policies became a source of instability, affecting not only Syria but the entire Middle East.
Through the 1973 Constitution, Hafez al-Assad concentrated all political power in his hands. This constitution granted Assad unlimited authority as both the president and the leader of the Baath Party. Political opposition was entirely suppressed, while media and freedom of expression were severely restricted. Assad portrayed himself as the “father” of the state and the people, personalizing governance to reinforce his regime.
As Assad consolidated his power, he intensified systematic oppression against Islamic groups, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan). Initially targeting the Brotherhood, this repression eventually expanded to include all opposition groups. While attempting to eradicate Islamic-oriented movements, the regime strategically allied with Sunni clerics and tribal leaders to gain legitimacy. This collaboration became a key tool for strengthening the regime’s control over the populace.
The 1982 Hama Massacre marked the peak of the Assad regime’s oppressive policies. The operation against the Brotherhood aimed to collectively punish the opposition. During the massacre, military operations killed thousands of people, turning violence into a tool of governance. Civilians’ homes were destroyed by tanks, individuals were subjected to mass executions, and the city was virtually razed to the ground.
The Military, Mukhabarat, and Prisons: The Pillars of the Regime
Under Hafez al-Assad’s rule, the military became more than just a defense force; it was transformed into the regime’s most powerful tool for oppression and control. By appointing Alawites to critical positions within the military, Assad further entrenched the sectarian nature of his regime. The military was used as a mechanism of fear to suppress the population and protect the regime.
In addition to the military, the Mukhabarat (intelligence network) was another key tool used by the regime to maintain control over the people. Actively deployed not only against external threats but also to suppress internal opposition, the Mukhabarat fostered a pervasive culture of fear, eroding trust among citizens and weakening social solidarity.
One of the most effective tools in maintaining control under the Baath regime was a network of prisons designed to suppress and intimidate opposition. These prisons were not merely detention centers but hubs for the regime’s systematic policies of oppression, torture, and intimidation. Under the authoritarian rule of the Assad family, these prisons played a critical role in neutralizing opposition and fostering a culture of fear in society.
Over 100,000 people were systematically killed in these prisons during the Baath regime. According to reports from human rights organizations, these prisons became centers of mass executions as well as physical and psychological torture. Hundreds of thousands of individuals were subjected to unbearable suffering in these facilities, often solely for opposing the regime or being perceived as doing so. Inmates endured not only torture but also hunger, thirst, and inhumane living conditions as they struggled to survive.
Bashar al-Assad Era: Civil War and Humanitarian Tragedy
By the late 1990s, as Hafez al-Assad’s health deteriorated, the process of transferring power in Syria began. After suffering a heart attack and failing to fully recover, Hafez called his son, Bashar al-Assad, who was studying ophthalmology in London, back to Damascus to prepare him for leadership. Bashar’s rapid promotion within the military hierarchy, his rise in rank, and his integration into the armed forces were clear signs of this preparation. To strengthen Bashar’s position, Hafez appointed his son-in-law, Asif Shawkat, as head of military intelligence and placed family members and close associates in key state positions, ensuring a smooth transition of power from father to son.
The “one-man” regime Hafez had built over the years solidified as an authoritarian structure centered around his family. After Hafez al-Assad’s death in 2000, Bashar al-Assad’s ascension to power came as no surprise. The system based on the Alawite minority, with their dominance in critical positions within the bureaucracy and military, facilitated this transition. This sectarian structure became a key factor in maintaining the Assad family’s grip on power.
When Bashar al-Assad assumed power in 2000, he intensified his father’s oppressive policies. By deepening sectarian discrimination, he ensured that the Alawite minority maintained their dominance over the military, bureaucracy, and security forces. While these policies reinforced the regime’s power, they further widened divisions and unrest within Syrian society. Public demands for freedom and reform were systematically suppressed through violence and repression.
In 2011, inspired by the Arab Spring, the Syrian people organized peaceful protests demanding freedom and reform. However, Bashar al-Assad responded to these demands with chemical weapons, mass arrests, and torture. The regime’s harsh crackdown turned peaceful protests into bloody conflicts, plunging Syria into a prolonged civil war and condemning the country to a severe humanitarian crisis.
Bashar al-Assad’s leadership is remembered as one of the darkest periods in Syrian history. The oppressive system established during Hafez al-Assad’s rule became even more rigid under Bashar, with sectarian discrimination and systematic violence exacerbating the suffering of the Syrian people. To suppress public demands for freedom and preserve its rule, the regime employed every possible method. Chemical weapons, mass detentions, and executions became core tools of the Assad regime.
During the 14-year-long civil war, over 500,000 Syrians lost their lives, and 12 million people were displaced. Despite these devastating consequences, Bashar al-Assad and the Baath regime prioritized maintaining their grip on power above all else. The humanitarian tragedy experienced by the Syrian people is a brutal reflection of the regime’s oppressive and self-serving policies.
