Syria after Assad: Europe must play a constructive role or risk irrelevance

The fall of the Assad regime marks a key moment for Syria, heralding an era of both opportunity and uncertainty. 

The end of decades-long authoritarian rule has been met with relief and celebration among Syrians, but the road ahead is full of risks that could destabilise both the country and the broader region. 

From internal sectarian divisions and militia dominance, to shifting regional alliances and the roles of global players such as the US, European Union and France, the challenges of Syria’s transition require urgent and wise attention.

While the fall of former President Bashar al-Assad brings hope to Syria’s fragmented society, it also carries huge risks. Sectarian tensions are a key concern though they may not necessarily materialise. 

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which toppled Assad in partnership with Turkish-backed forces like the Syrian National Army, must now govern a multi-sectarian society.

Syria’s fragmented military landscape complicates stability further. Years of conflict and Israeli air strikes have left the Syrian army weakened, and a large part of the population relies on local militias. Ranging from Druze factions in Sweida to Kurdish forces in Rojava, these militias control vast territories, but each is pursuing a distinct agenda. 

The presence of Turkish and US-backed groups adds to the complexity, rendering increasingly unlikely the re-establishment of a unified national military. Israel’s ongoing strikes have further degraded Syria’s military capacity, aligning with Tel Aviv’s strategic goal to disarm a post-Assad Syria, while hindering long-term stability.

Competing for influence 

A federalised governance system at the national level, with authority spread among religious and ethnic communities, might appear viable, but it would come with many challenges. Kurdish autonomy in the north does offer a model, but extending it to other groups (such as Druze, Alawites or Christians) raises important challenges when it comes to coexistence and equitable resource-sharing. 

Without robust frameworks for power-sharing, federalisation would risk fostering the creation of sectarian enclaves, further fragmenting the country.

Syria's trajectory could be dictated by external forces rather than by its own people

Syria’s future will also be shaped by internal as well as external actors. Turkey, the US and Russia are competing for influence, each with conflicting goals. Turkey’s support for militias and opposition to Kurdish ambitions obstructs cohesion, while Iran’s now-reduced role, together with the waning of Russia, creates a vacuum for other powers to fill. 

This interplay risks further instability, as Syria’s trajectory could be dictated by external forces rather than by its own people.

At the same time, HTS’s rise to power highlights the governance challenges that will prevail in post-Assad Syria. The fall of the regime has brought widespread celebration in the country, but HTS must now prove itself capable of a responsible attitude and inclusive leadership. 

Elections, if and when they are held, are likely to reflect Syria’s deep sectarian and communal divisions.

 A representative government could stabilise the country, but this outcome is made very uncertain by the presence of sectarian-driven agendas.

Shifting alliances

Shifting alliances will also influence Syria’s trajectory. The country’s new leadership will most likely strengthen its relations with Turkey and Qatar, two long-time backers of groups with ideological leanings akin to the Muslim Brotherhood, though with nuances.

This alignment, however, does not rule out the possibility of Syria’s new leadership engaging with Saudi Arabia and the UAE, despite their anti-Muslim Brotherhood positions. Finding the right balance among these competing relationships will be critical for Syria’s reintegration into the regional order.

Syria’s relationship with Israel is another important and sensitive issue. Now that it has distanced itself from the Iran-led and Russia-backed “axis of resistance”, Syria will most likely face pressure to normalise ties with Israel in the long run. But the outcome will depend on larger geopolitical dynamics, including the roles of the US and Russia, and the priorities of regional powers.

At the same time, the EU’s response to Assad’s fall symbolises its endless struggle to act like a unified and strong geopolitical player. Some EU officials condemned the roles of Russia and Iran, while other EU statements lacked practical impact.

Josep Borrell, the EU’s former foreign policy chief, had attempted in the past to amplify the bloc’s voice, but implementation often fell short. The incoming European Commission has an opportunity to change course, but it remains uncertain as to how meaningful its progress will be.

Inadequate policies

The EU could find positive ways of being involved in matters such as the issue of Syrian refugees. But several member states have already imposed restrictions on new arrivals, or are considering repatriation, despite Syria’s ongoing instability and the risks of further displacement. 

This stance clearly contradicts the EU’s proclaimed principles of solidarity and human rights, harming its credibility in the region. In contrast, a principled refugee policy, together with an investment strategy for reconstruction, would help the EU establish itself as a reliable actor in Syria’s recovery and future.

Syria after Assad: The winners for now are Turkey and the West

Read More »

Meanwhile, France, once a strong supporter of Syrian opposition forces, now faces the consequences of its past inadequate policies. Under Francois Hollande, France opted to support both Kurdish forces and certain opposition groups with extremist elements, but this strategy did not serve its influence.

President Emmanuel Macron’s recent strong rhetoric against Assad’s overthrown regime has had little impact, as France is overshadowed by more dominant actors, such as the US and Turkey.

If it wants to regain relevance, France must align its diplomatic efforts with clear contributions in fields such as reconstruction, humanitarian aid, or even mediation. Even with such efforts, it is unlikely to be a central player in shaping Syria’s future, because of its diminished standing in the region and beyond.

Both the EU and France face a critical moment, but it remains unclear how they will respond, as they face the prospect of becoming irrelevant to Syria and its needs for recovery and regional stability. A coordinated strategy that combines principles, adequate policies and pragmatic action would benefit them considerably. Without such efforts, competing regional and global powers will cement their grip on Syria’s future.

The fall of Assad offers a moment of both hope and peril. The choices made now by its leaders, its people and the international community will determine whether this fragile transition leads to unity and recovery, or deepens the divisions that have persisted for more than a decade. The stakes could not be higher.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.