Despots Flee Leaving Chaos in Their Wake

Almost everyone agrees that the fall of the "Assad regime" represents a new phase in dismantling the geopolitical order established during the Cold War. This order, artificially constructed by imperial powers after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, was reinforced by the geopolitical competition between Cold War superpowers over control of the region. Even the establishment of Israel as a strategic tool fits into this framework.

By the 1990s, the Cold War had ended, the Soviet Union had collapsed, and the U.S. emerged as the unrivaled global superpower. However, attempts to reshape the Middle East in America's image through force—such as in Iraq and Afghanistan—failed against the socio-political realities of the region. These conflicts highlighted the futility of imposing nation-building from outside.

Why, then, did the Assad regime endure even after the Cold War? The Gulf states, Israel, and the West discreetly supported it because the political vacuum left by its collapse posed risks to their interests. Yet, this support could not last indefinitely. As global power dynamics shifted, it was inevitable that the outdated geopolitical framework of the Middle East would unravel.

The Assad regime ruled over a "kingdom of silence," built on secret prisons and mass graves. Now, those buried horrors are surfacing, exposing the atrocities of a dictatorship propped up by its allies, including the West, which appears indifferent to the unfolding devastation. For 61 years, this system persisted, yet its exposure raises questions about the complicity of those who sustained it.

Western powers, which claim to uphold liberal international norms, bear responsibility for thwarting indigenous movements for reform and renewal in the Middle East and North Africa. By backing oppressive regimes, they undermined the natural evolution of these societies, fostering the extremism that has plagued the region.

Hafez Assad and other Arab regimes exploited the Palestinian cause, using it as leverage while obstructing solutions. They worked to ensure Palestine remained stateless, as seen in the suppression of revolutionary efforts originating from Arab capitals, including Damascus under Hafez. Bashar Assad, like his father, had no genuine commitment to the Palestinian cause; his focus remained on maintaining power through opportunistic alliances.

Now, as conditions shift, Bashar Assad—the last ruler of this inherited dictatorship—has narrowly escaped collapse. Like all despots, he prioritized his survival, betraying those around him. His regime's guards, had they known of his plans to flee, might not have hesitated to turn on him. History shows us that despots abandon their people, leaving chaos in their wake.

For years, loyalists pledged their lives to both Hafez and Bashar Assad, chanting, "Our blood and souls for you." Yet, Bashar’s actions reveal a lack of values worth such sacrifice. History repeats itself: despots laugh as their people weep, flee when their regimes crumble, and leave their inner circles to face the aftermath alone.