Bashar al-Assad has fled, and HTS fighters, backed by Turkey, have taken control of Damascus. It immediately brought to mind the fall of Kabul to the Taliban only a few years ago—how quickly power shifted with little resistance. Afghanistan fell to the Taliban then, and now it seems Damascus may fall to HTS. Yet, this isn’t just a repeat of history; it’s a far more complex situation.
Let me be clear: Bashar al-Assad was no saint. He was a dreadful leader, willing to commit unspeakable atrocities to cling to power. Yet, I genuinely expected him to fight harder to retain his grip. It’s worth noting that Assad wasn’t originally meant to rule; that role was intended for his brother, who tragically died in a car crash. Bashar was thrust into power by circumstance, and his leadership style has always reflected that—a man eager to please but lacking the foresight for the long game.
The timing of this shift couldn’t be worse for Assad’s allies. Iran, preoccupied with Israel and Lebanon, and Russia, entrenched in Ukraine, are in no position to prop him up. In this vacuum, Turkey has made a bold move. I see this as Erdoğan’s masterstroke—a calculated “Ottoman slap,” so to speak. Make no mistake, this wasn’t an HTS-led victory in isolation. This was orchestrated in Ankara, backed by Istanbul, and serves as a clear message to the Middle East: there’s a new sheriff in town.
However, the fall of Assad comes with significant risks. History shows us what happens when iron-fisted regimes collapse without a clear successor. Iraq post-Saddam and Libya after Gaddafi offer grim lessons. Power vacuums invite chaos, and Syria could easily become a breeding ground for ISIS-like groups to reemerge. HTS doesn’t have the monopoly on violence needed to stabilize the region, leaving Syria vulnerable to prolonged instability. I wouldn’t be surprised if Turkey takes further action, possibly carving out a buffer zone to guard against Kurdish aspirations for autonomy.






