A Tale of Two Collapses: Syria's Transition After Assad, Iraq's Post-Hussein Struggles

While the change brought an end to two decades-long Ba'athist regimes, the fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, following a 13-year popular uprising, differs from the toppling of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein through the 2003 U.S. invasion.

The contrasting methods of regime change—varying in both the tools used and the way opposition forces engaged with the previous regime and state institutions—have been the subject of many comparisons, particularly among Iraqi observers, who often draw on the post-2003 experience in Iraq.

Points of Comparison

The situation in Syria has sparked extensive debate across Iraqi media and social platforms, particularly in the aftermath of the collapse of a regime that had ruled the country for over half a century, committing some of the most horrific crimes and acts of genocide against its own people.

One of the key points of comparison between the current situation in Syria and the events that unfolded in Iraq after 2003 lies in the conduct of military operations. 

This includes how the various Syrian opposition factions dealt with members of the former Syrian military when they took control of cities and state institutions.

Numerous videos shared on social media showed members of the Syrian regime’s military being released by the joint operations forces, accompanied by the words "Go, you are free," a directive issued by their commander, Ahmed al-Sharaa.

Similarly, the Syrian factions adhered to al-Sharaa's orders not to seek revenge or target members of the Alawite sect, to which the ousted president Bashar al-Assad belongs, whether in Damascus or in his coastal hometown of Latakia.

On the other hand, Iraqis recalled how the political parties and militias that took power following the 2003 invasion began by targeting Iraqi war pilots, particularly those who had fought in the Iran-Iraq War, along with the systematic assassination of academics and intellectuals.

The Badr militia, founded in Iran under the leadership of Hadi al-Amiri, and other armed groups linked to the late Iraqi Shiite politician Ahmad Chalabi, have been accused of orchestrating the assassination of military officers, pilots, and scientists in post-invasion Iraq.

A report published on December 10, 2010, by the U.S. network ABC claimed that “182 pilots who have been hunted down and killed by Iranian agents, the assassination campaign prompted another 800 Iraqi to flee the country, according to statistics released by the Iraqi Defense Ministry.”

The campaign of assassination extended to Iraq’s scientific community as well, with 350 nuclear scientists reported murdered between 2003 and 2008. 

Another 200 academics were killed, while 17,000 specialists fled the country, seeking refuge in countries such as the United States, according to the Iraqi news site Alssaa on October 19, 2023.

One of the key images highlighted by activists was the release of prisoners from Syrian regime jails, alongside the preservation of state institutions in their entirety, while also preventing looting, pillaging, and arson.

In this regard, Iraqis were reminded of the past, recalling how militias and political factions aligned with the occupying U.S. forces informed on resistance fighters, contributing to their killing or arrest. 

This was coupled with the looting and destruction of state institutions, as well as the unleashing of chaos through the proliferation of arms.

Following the U.S. occupation of Iraq, a wave of resistance movements emerged, largely spearheaded by Sunni factions, particularly in Baghdad and the western and northern regions. 

These areas had witnessed intense confrontations and widespread destruction, as American bombings and ground invasions leveled entire cities.

The Spirit of Forgiveness

When comparing the aftermath of the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria to the events that unfolded in Iraq after the 2003 invasion and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, Iraqi researcher Nadir Mohammed believes that "many factors shaped the outcomes in both countries after the collapse of long-standing authoritarian regimes."

Mohammed explained to Al-Estiklal that "the Iraqi opposition, which was largely Shiite and based abroad, was not a victimized group; it was defined by ideological, political, sectarian, and ethnic differences, in addition to a competitive drive for power. In contrast, the Syrian opposition was largely born out of oppression, injustice, and deprivation."

“The Iraqi opposition was vengeful, and that sets it apart from any other opposition. It brought down its country and unleashed global forces that tore at the flesh of its people. There was also a deep-rooted sense of inferiority, driven by a centuries-old grudge, especially among the Shiite components.” 

According to Mohammed, "Only the strong can forgive, and only the generous can show mercy. This was the case in Syria. The Iraqi opposition, however, lacked a revolutionary component. As for the noble character that marked the Syrian revolutionaries, it was absent in Iraq."

Asked whether Syria would descend into the same level of chaos that Iraq did after 2003, Muhammad was cautiously optimistic. "I don’t believe it will reach that point. It won’t, unless the elements of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham engage in actions that backfire and make the world despise them."

"The Syrian people are conscious and educated. If peace holds until a transitional government is formed and a new constitution is drafted, they could emerge from this crisis swiftly and without bloodshed," Mohammed added.

Mohammed expressed concern about the potential for violence, warning that "the real danger lies in the greed of armed factions when they take control of the state. Resistance fighters, especially the local ones—not revolutionaries—are typically not equipped to assume power. However, we hope that religious principles will guide them, or else the temptation to monopolize power, even partially, will be great."

"A wise leader will learn from Iraq’s lessons, but those seduced by media and empty praise are only deceiving themselves. Especially considering they have freed themselves from Iran—a foreign power not even bordering them—while neighboring Turkiye engages with them positively," the Iraqi researcher also noted.

He concluded by emphasizing the historic opportunity that Syria has “the circumstances were ripe to free Syria from a criminal regime and its Iranian allies, which would, in turn, weaken the Iranian axis in the region.”

A Statesman 

The admiration for the new Syrian leadership under Ahmed al-Sharaa was swift among Iraqi media outlets and political analysts, particularly after his statements advocating for the monopoly of arms in the hands of the state, the disbanding of armed factions, and the governance of the country with a mindset of statecraft rather than revolution.

On December 21, Iraqi journalist and Al-Iraqiya TV anchor Saleh al-Hamdani posted a tweet on X saying, "The pace of progress in Syria is accelerating; in just two weeks, they have achieved what we haven't in 20 years in Iraq."

In response to this tweet, which was later deleted, the Iraqi Media Network, the official state broadcaster, issued a decree terminating al-Hamdani’s services. 

The dismissal cited his violation of Article 5 of the network’s regulations, which mandates the promotion and support of democratic principles, the encouragement of diverse opinions, and the fostering of a culture of tolerance.

On December 21, Falah al-Mishal, the former editor-in-chief of the official Al-Sabah newspaper, posted a similar message on X, saying, "Day after day, and speech after speech, marked by moderation, centrism, and a spirit of citizenship and peace, Ahmed al-Sharaa proves himself to be a statesman. The future of Syria's unity lies in his hands."

However, Mishal, who currently serves as an advisor to the Iraqi Media Network, later deleted the tweet following a backlash from Iraqi figures close to Iran and aligned with what is known as the "Axis of Resistance." 

These individuals demanded that Mishal leave Iraq and move to Syria if he was so impressed by the current administration there.

“Why are the Syrians ahead of us in disbanding their armed factions, while we in Iraq continue to defy international will, keeping democracy tainted with arms and accused of militia control? We must reconsider our approach,” Ibrahim AlSumaidaie, political advisor to the Iraqi Prime Minister, noted.

In a television interview on December 17, AlSumaidaie added, "It is neither in our interest nor in the interest of the armed factions in Iraq to defy international will, because that will not be tolerated for another 20 years. Either military pressure will be applied directly, or political and economic tools will be used to exert influence on the state."

He emphasized that the issue of disbanding the factions "is not new; it is an old condition imposed by the United States and Western countries on all previous Iraqi governments," pointing out that this time, the resolution “will be imposed differently. If we do not comply willingly and with our own accord, it may be forced upon us from abroad, and by force.”

He emphasized the need for "a review; Iraq cannot remain a spearhead for the Axis of Resistance after the fall of Assad's regime and the decline of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Today, from a standpoint of our own responsibility, alongside the factions, we must rethink the issue of taking the initiative to dissolve them and integrate them into the political landscape."

Following the controversial and candid remarks made by Prime Minister Sudani’s advisor, the Iraqi government issued a statement on December 18, distancing itself from AlSumaidaie’s comments, describing them as personal opinions and individual interpretations that did not represent the official position of the government.

Prime Minister Sudani then issued a directive that no advisors or officials should speak to the media without prior official approval. They were given a choice: either to continue in their official roles or resign from their advisory positions, at which point they would be free to express personal views, according to the statement.