The chaos in Syria was inevitable, and we all saw it coming

The recent surge of violence in Syria, marked by deadly clashes between security forces and loyalists of the ousted Bashar al-Assad regime, has shocked many, but it shouldn’t. As reports flood in of hundreds killed, civilians executed, and sectarian tensions boiling over in the coastal regions of Latakia and Tartous, it’s clear that the country is descending into the chaos that many warned was inevitable. For over a decade, analysts, activists, and even ordinary citizens predicted that the collapse of the Assad regime—however desirable to some—would unleash a power vacuum ripe for violence, revenge, and instability. The current bloodshed is not a surprise. It’s the logical outcome of years of foreign meddling, proxy wars, and a failure to plan for what comes after.

The seeds of this chaos were sown long ago, when the United States, alongside its regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, began pouring billions of dollars into arming and supporting rebel groups to topple Assad. The goal was regime change, but the strategy was shortsighted. Critics warned repeatedly that destabilizing a government without a clear, unified alternative would fracture an already fragile nation along sectarian, ethnic, and political lines. Syria’s complex demographics (Alawites, Sunnis, Druze, Kurds, and Christians) held together under Assad’s iron fist, was bound to unravel once that grip loosened. Yet, the warnings were dismissed as support for a brutal dictator.

Now, as the interim government under Ahmed al-Sharaa unmasks itself, we see the consequences of that hubris. The coastal regions, long a stronghold of the Alawite community, have become a flashpoint for revenge killings and sectarian violence. Reports from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights indicate that nearly 200 people have been killed in recent days, with civilians caught in the crossfire of government forces and pro-Assad militias. Adding to the horror, unverified reports and discussions on platforms like X have highlighted videos circulating that depict people—possibly Alawites or Assad loyalists—being forced to bark like dogs by militants, including those linked to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).

The new rulers, led by HTS, promised unity and inclusivity, but their actions tell a different story. The Alawite minority, fearing retribution for decades of dominance under Assad, is now in a state of terror, with no clear protector in sight. Same for the Christian population.

This was predictable not just because of Syria’s internal divisions, but because history has shown us this pattern before. Look at Iraq after Saddam Hussein’s fall in 2003: a power vacuum led to sectarian strife, insurgency, and the rise of groups like ISIS. Look at Libya after Muammar Gaddafi’s ouster in 2011: a nation fractured into warring militias, with no central authority to hold it together. In both cases, Western intervention destabilized a regime without ensuring a stable transition, and the result was years of chaos and suffering. Syria is following the same script, and yet the architects of this policy seem surprised by the outcome. The international community bears significant responsibility here.

But perhaps the most damning evidence that we knew this would happen lies in the voices that were ignored. Activists have long argued that Western-backed regime change would lead to chaos and horrors. Others who witnessed the brutality of groups like ISIS in Mosul warned that the same forces now in power in Syria would not usher in peace. These warnings were drowned out by the drumbeat of war and the simplistic narrative of good versus evil. Now, as civilians are executed in their villages, protests erupt against the new government, and reports of degrading acts circulate, those voices have been vindicated.

The tragedy of Syria is not just the violence unfolding now, but the fact that it could have been anticipated and perhaps mitigated. A more coherent strategy, one that prioritized stability over regime change, might have spared the country this fate. The people, especially minorities, are paying the price for decisions made in foreign capitals. The recent news from Syria is a confirmation of what many feared all along. We all knew it would happen, and yet we did nothing to stop it.

And let’s be clear: this was never truly about human rights. The lofty rhetoric of protecting Syrian civilians and promoting democracy was a convenient veneer for geopolitical interests. If human rights were the priority, the international community would have invested in a transition plan that protected minorities and ensured stability, rather than funneling weapons to rebel groups with questionable motives. The U.S. and its allies wanted Assad gone not because of his human rights abuses—many of their own partners in the region have similar records— but because he was a Russian and Iranian ally in a strategically vital region.

Israel’s strikes, Russia’s maneuvers, and Turkey’s ambitions in northern Syria all point to a scramble for influence, not a crusade for justice. The Syrian people, whose suffering was used to justify intervention, have been left to bear the consequences of a game that was always about power, not principle. The videos of people forced to bark like dogs are not just acts of cruelty. They are symbols of a conflict where human dignity was never the goal.

Image source: Mfa.gov.ua, CC BY 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons