---

[Ali Mohammed Al-Jaber, Shongjog columnist]

---

The recent Op-Ed article published in the Oped Column Syndication provides a compelling analysis of the complex geopolitical dynamics following the ousting of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

This commentary aims to very briefly discuss the points that risk analyst and columnist Bahauddin Foizee, author of the Op-Ed, made about the intricate web of rivalries, both among Middle Eastern nations and global actors like the U.S., all seeking to shape Syria’s post-Assad landscape to their advantage.

One of the key takeaways from the Op-Ed is the deep ideological divide between regional powers, especially regarding the rise of Islamist factions. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE are preoccupied with preventing the expansion of the Muslim Brotherhood or similar Islamist groups, seeing them as a direct threat to their own political stability.

In contrast, Turkey and Qatar, who have historically supported the Brotherhood, are positioning themselves to back factions sympathetic to their own vision for Syria’s political future. This division reflects broader regional tensions and aligns with the longstanding sectarian and ideological conflicts within the Middle East.

Foizee’s focus on Israel’s role is also insightful. Israel’s vested interest in the continued fragmentation of Syria is framed in the context of ensuring its own security, particularly against Iran and Hezbollah.

Israel’s strategy, as the article argues, is to prevent the emergence of a unified, hostile Syrian government that could either align with Iran or pose a direct threat on its borders.

Foizee’s geopolitical forecast that Israel will continue to conduct covert operations and maintain a military presence underscores the enduring fragility of Syria’s sovereignty in the post-Assad era.

The United States’ involvement, especially its support for Kurdish-led forces like the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), introduces another layer of complexity. Washington’s commitment to promoting liberal democratic values and countering groups like ISIS is increasingly challenged by the presence of Islamist factions that may align with groups considered terrorist organizations by the West.

Foizee further highlights the tension between U.S. interests in promoting democracy and the necessity of managing alliances with groups that are not always ideologically aligned with Western values.

The article also explores the daunting task of reconstruction. Beyond military victories, the article stresses the need for economic rebuilding, social reconciliation and political transition.

Given the fractured nature of Syrian society, Foizee suggests that international support for these efforts will hinge on the political direction Syria takes. This introduces the potential dilemma of how Western powers, in particular, will navigate engagement with new Syrian leaders, especially if those leaders have ties to groups like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which are designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S. and its allies.

In sum, Foizee’s analysis paints a picture of a Syria at a crossroads, where internal divisions, regional power struggles, and global geopolitical calculations will determine the country’s future. The road to stabilization, reconstruction and peace remains uncertain, with many external actors weighing in on the outcome.

The situation in Syria is not just a local conflict, but a microcosm of broader regional and global power dynamics, making its resolution all the more elusive.