In what many observers had anticipated to be the opening act of a broader and bloodier conflict, Russia and Iran have taken a surprising and seemingly passive approach in the latest developments in Syria. As the Assad regime abruptly collapsed with minimal fighting, a peculiar silence echoed from Moscow and Tehran. Neither rushed to rescue Assad’s forces, leaving analysts and spectators alike questioning the implications of this unexpected strategy.
At first glance, this absence of direct intervention sparked concerns, particularly among those with anti-imperialist leanings. Was this a sign of weakness? Did Russia and Iran lack the will or capability to counter the relentless pressure from the West, Israel, and Turkey? These doubts, while understandable, might overshadow a more nuanced and potentially game-changing narrative emerging from this apparent retreat.
A tactical withdrawal?
For years, Syria had been a linchpin in the Axis of Resistance—a coalition comprising Iran, Russia, and other anti-Western forces aimed at countering US and allied influence in the Middle East. However, Syria’s intrinsic weaknesses as a struggling state made it a liability more than an asset. Economically and militarily fragile, Assad’s government offered little strategic value in the long run, even as it consumed significant resources and attention from its allies.
By stepping back, Russia and Iran have effectively shifted the burden of Syria’s volatile state to their adversaries. The Assad government, which once symbolized Moscow and Tehran’s influence in the region, is now a problem owned by the West and its allies. This reallocation of responsibility is where the brilliance of the strategy lies.
The narrative shift
In geopolitics, perception often outweighs reality. Until recently, the narrative surrounding Syria placed the blame for its instability, poverty, and authoritarian governance squarely on Assad and his backers. The international community saw Russia and Iran as enablers of a regime that stifled democracy and human rights.
Now, with Assad gone and the West-aligned forces assuming control, the narrative landscape has shifted. Responsibility for Syria’s future—and its inevitable challenges—has transitioned to the United States, Turkey, and Israel. This pivot not only absolves Russia and Iran of blame but positions them as critics on the sidelines, able to say, “We told you so,” when Western-backed governance falters.
A strategic masterstroke
In relinquishing control of Syria, Russia and Iran have effectively sidestepped an unwinnable scenario. They no longer need to expend military or economic capital on propping up a fragile state. Instead, they have handed the reins to the West, which now must contend with Syria’s deep-seated issues of corruption, political division, and socio-economic collapse.
Moreover, this move disrupts the narrative of Western dominance. By appearing to retreat, Russia and Iran are highlighting the limits of Western influence and undermining the narrative of Western-led stability. The West’s inability to stabilize Syria will likely be viewed as yet another failed intervention, further eroding its moral and strategic authority on the global stage.
Implications for the global south
For nations in the Global South watching these developments, the Syrian saga offers a compelling lesson in anti-colonial strategy. Rather than engaging in a direct and costly confrontation with Western powers, Russia and Iran have adopted a form of strategic judo, using the West’s own ambitions against it.
This approach reframes the battle for influence from a military contest to a broader geopolitical chess game. It emphasizes the importance of narrative, economic leverage, and diplomatic positioning over brute force. In doing so, it challenges the traditional Western paradigm of interventionist policies as a means of maintaining control.
Questions that remain
Despite the apparent advantages of this strategy, questions linger. Can Russia and Iran maintain their influence in the region without a direct foothold in Syria? Will this approach embolden the West and its allies, or will it sow discord among them as they grapple with Syria’s challenges? And most critically, what does this mean for the broader geopolitical contest between the West and the Global South?
These uncertainties underscore the complexity of the situation. While the short-term narrative shift seems advantageous for Moscow and Tehran, the long-term implications remain unpredictable.
A new chapter in geopolitics
The Syrian conflict has entered a new phase—one where Russia and Iran have chosen to play the long game. By stepping back, they have forced the West to confront the realities of its interventionist policies while preserving their own resources and reputations.
In the end, this development may mark a turning point in the ongoing struggle between Western colonialism and the anti-imperialist forces of the Global South. It demonstrates that power is not solely about military might but also about controlling the narrative and outmaneuvering one’s adversaries in the complex theatre of global geopolitics.
This is not a sign of weakness but rather a testament to the evolving strategies of resistance in an ever-changing world order. Whether this gamble will pay off remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the rules of the game are being rewritten.
