What is GCC reaction to fall of Bashar al-Assad Regime

Introduction

The sudden fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria has elicited a complex and varied response from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, reflecting the shifting dynamics in the region and the delicate balance of interests among these nations.

Initial Reactions

The GCC states’ reactions to Assad’s ouster have been mixed, with some expressing cautious optimism while others remain concerned about potential instability:

Saudi Arabia

As a key player in the region, Saudi Arabia has taken significant steps towards normalizing relations with Syria in recent years. The appointment of a charge d’affairs to Syria in 2024 and the reception of a Syrian ambassador in Riyadh in late 2023 indicate a warming of ties. However, the sudden fall of Assad may require a reassessment of their position.

United Arab Emirates (UAE)

Like Saudi Arabia, the UAE had been working towards normalizing relations with Syria. The collapse of the Assad regime may present both challenges and opportunities for Emirati interests in the region.

Qatar

In contrast to other GCC states, Qatar has maintained a more critical stance towards the Assad regime. Qatar’s Prime Minister has previously stated that normalization with Syria should be linked to progress in a political solution that fulfills the aspirations of the Syrian people. The fall of Assad may align more closely with Qatar’s position.

Geopolitical Implications

The GCC states are now faced with a rapidly changing situation that could significantly impact the balance of power in the Middle East:

Regional Stability

There is a shared concern among GCC members about the potential for increased instability in an already volatile region.

Iranian Influence

The fall of Assad represents a strategic setback for Iran, which may alter the geopolitical calculations of GCC states.

Turkish Role

Turkey’s long-standing support for Syrian opposition groups may give it increased influence in post-Assad Syria, potentially affecting GCC interests.

Challenges and Opportunities

The GCC states now face several challenges and opportunities in the wake of Assad’s fall:

Humanitarian Concerns

There may be renewed pressure on GCC states to provide humanitarian assistance and support for Syrian refugees.

Reconstruction Efforts

The potential for involvement in Syria’s reconstruction could present economic opportunities for GCC countries, but also risks exposure to Western sanctions.

Political Transition

GCC states may play a role in supporting a political transition in Syria, potentially leveraging their influence to shape the future government.

Evolving Stance

The GCC’s approach to Syria is likely to evolve rapidly in response to the new situation:

There may be a shift from the recent trend of normalization with Assad’s regime to a more cautious engagement with emerging Syrian leadership.

GCC states might seek to balance their involvement in Syria against other regional priorities and their relationships with international partners, particularly the United States.

The collective memory of past conflicts and the desire for regional stability may override internal divisions within the GCC, leading to a more unified approach to the Syrian situation.

Conclusion

The fall of Assad’s regime has caught many GCC states off guard, it presents both challenges and opportunities for the Gulf monarchies. Their reaction is likely to be characterized by cautious engagement, balancing regional stability concerns with the potential to shape Syria’s future political landscape.

No doubt there is a temporary relief from Iran. But threat grows from growing influence of Turkey and Israel.

Economically most in Syria live under poverty level. US controls the oil reserves, which makes Syria very vulnerable economically

Sooner than later, HTS would like US to move out of the region as their is no threat of almost diminished ISIS. However, we think Trump would not care about supporting SDF or PKK as he has openly shared ‘Syria is not our war’

Israel intentions are not clear attempting to take advantage of an unstable country. They have bombed most all of Syria stating they are military depot and concern of weapons falling in wrong hands. But what gives Israel the right to decide the word ‘wrong hands’? Isn’t Israel in same position of having ammunition of mass destruction which they used with help of US destroying Gaza and Lebanon?

What an irony?