The fall of Assad: A sobering lesson in pragmatism

The collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria marks a seismic shift in Middle Eastern politics, offering a rare opportunity to reassess the principles that drive American foreign policy. For decades, critics have lambasted the United States for supporting authoritarian regimes, invoking names like Pinochet, Batista, and Suharto to condemn pragmatism as an excuse for moral compromise. Yet, the chaos unfolding in Syria’s aftermath compels us to reconsider whether choosing the “lesser of evils” is sometimes not just pragmatic, but necessary.

To be clear, the Assad regime’s record is nothing short of monstrous. Over the years, it has been synonymous with brutality: mass detentions, chemical weapons attacks, and the relentless suppression of dissent. As the regime falls, new evidence of atrocities continues to emerge, painting an even darker picture of Assad’s rule. Yet, what follows his regime may be even more destabilizing—both for Syrians and for the world.

The Council on Foreign Relations recently convened a roundtable to dissect the implications of Assad’s downfall. Among the key points discussed was the rapid collapse of the loyalist Syrian army, a collapse spearheaded by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and the militant Syrian National Army (SNA). These groups, backed respectively by Turkey and Qatar, have filled the vacuum left by Assad’s forces. While HTS has attempted to rebrand itself as a more moderate entity, it remains ideologically extreme, and its rise signals the potential for Syria to fragment into a medieval-like state characterized by violence and instability.

This fragmentation poses significant risks to regional and global security. Iran’s weakened position—cut off from its vital “land bridge” to Lebanon—and the diminished influence of Hezbollah might initially appear as strategic wins for the United States and its allies. However, the loss of Assad also eliminates a key barrier to the proliferation of extremist factions. Syria now risks devolving into a haven for militancy, with groups like HTS gaining a foothold and threatening the fragile stability of neighboring countries.

For those who remain cynical about such reasoning, Syria’s unraveling offers a stark reality check. As abhorrent as Assad’s regime was, its absence has unleashed forces that may prove equally, if not more, oppressive to their own citizens and dangerously antagonistic to the United States and its allies. The resurgence of extremist ideologies and the fragmentation of Syria into warring factions underscore the complexities of foreign policy decision-making—a realm where absolutes rarely exist and compromises often dictate survival.

While it would be crass for the foreign service community to say, “I told you so,” this moment does warrant reflection. The architects of American diplomacy, often maligned for choosing the “lesser of evils,” deserve credit for navigating treacherous geopolitical waters in pursuit of national and global stability.

The replacement of the Assad regime should not be seen as a vindication of authoritarianism but as a sobering reminder of the complexities inherent in global governance. It is easy to criticize from the sidelines; it is far harder to make decisions in the face of limited options, each fraught with peril. If nothing else, this moment should prompt us to extend a measure of trust to those charged with safeguarding our interests in an unpredictable world. Pragmatism, however unpalatable, remains a cornerstone of effective diplomacy--and as Syria’s descent into chaos illustrates, the cost of ignoring that reality can be devastating.