9 December 2024

Fall of Hama could have dangerous consequences

David Patrikarakos

Once a symbol of Bashar Al-Assad’s power, the Syrian city of Hama has now fallen to rebel forces. That these are led primarily by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a coalition with roots in jihadist movements, makes Hama’s fall not the cause for unadulterated joy it might otherwise have been. The success follows quickly on from the rebels’ capture of Aleppo, and they are, perhaps unsurprisingly, using it as proof that total victory in Syria is now inevitable.

It also, however, raises serious questions about the future of Syria and the region at large.

Hama is important. Situated between Damascus and Aleppo, it is a vital artery linking the north and south of the country. Its capture disrupts government supply lines and further isolates the already embattled Assad regime. Beyond its geography, Hama also carries a symbolic weight. In 1982, the city was the site of one of the Assad regime’s most infamous massacres, when Bashar al-Assad’s father, Hafez, crushed an Islamist uprising, killing tens of thousands in the process. For many, the fall of Hama to rebel forces feels like justice — the wheel turns, even if it takes decades to complete a single revolution.

Images from the ground are accordingly triumphant: social media bursts with scenes of celebration among rebel factions, of prisoners being freed from Hama’s central detention facilities, and of triumphant fighters parading through the streets.

The rapid advances of opposition forces have exposed the vulnerabilities of Assad’s regime, particularly as its allies grow increasingly distracted by other conflicts. Russia, which has effectively propped up Assad for years, has redirected much of its attention and resources to the war in Ukraine, while Hezbollah, another key Assad ally, has been royally beaten up by the Israelis. The result is that the Syrian government forces — never particularly impressive — are now consistently unable to mount an effective defence against coordinated rebel offensives.

No comments: