The fall of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, after 13 years of brutal war, should be an unequivocal cause for celebration. Assad ruled through torture, fear, and violence, crushing dissent while unleashing atrocities against his own people. From the use of chemical weapons to the horrors uncovered in Sednaya Prison, his reign embodied the darkest side of authoritarian power.
Yet the world hesitates to rejoice. Why? Because the dominant rebel faction in post-Assad Syria is Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), an Islamist group with ties to al-Qaeda. Western governments and much of the world recoil at the idea of a jihadist Syria. This aversion is understandable—but it is also shortsighted.
Under Assad, Syria was a living nightmare. A Syrian military police defector known as “Caesar” smuggled out tens of thousands of photos documenting the systematic torture and killing of detainees in regime prisons. Chemical attacks, sieges, and indiscriminate bombings became tools of governance. Assad’s reign left hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced.
Even a worst-case scenario—an Islamist Syria—would not justify the continuation of such a regime. Yes, HTS’s al-Qaeda roots are deeply concerning, and another Taliban-style government—far from a certainty—would be lamentable. But revolutions are rarely neat, and subsequent revolutions remain possible. Tolerating such regimes for fear of what might replace them is morally indefensible and strategically flawed.
Assad’s fall is a globally resonant message that such despotic regimes cannot endure indefinitely. It is a lesson for other cruel dictators worldwide, such as Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan or Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, to cite two heinous examples.
Aliyev has maintained power through electoral fraud, widespread corruption, and the arrest and torture of political opponents and journalists. His regime, which earns among the lowest grades on earth in Freedom House’s annual index, has also committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the ethnic Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, including their mass deportation from their ancestral homelands in 2023.
Lukashenko, often referred to as “Europe’s last dictator,” has similarly ruled with an iron fist since 1994. His regime is notorious for its brutal crackdowns on dissent, including violent suppression of peaceful protests, arbitrary arrests, and widespread torture. Lukashenko’s government has falsified elections through voter fraud and suppression.
The fate of Assad should give the likes of Aliyev and Lukashenko pause. While dictators may appear unassailable, their regimes are often more fragile than they seem. Assad clung to power during 13 years of civil war, relying on his allies Iran and Russia. But as his support eroded and internal discontent grew, his regime unraveled. The tools of repression can only postpone the inevitable.
The global community should understand that tolerating authoritarian regimes for the sake of “stability” is a losing proposition. The West’s reluctance to fully back Syria’s moderate rebels in the early stages of the conflict allowed jihadist groups to dominate the opposition. This, in turn, enabled Assad to frame his rule as a fight against extremism, prolonging the suffering.
That’s why supporting democratic movements and opposing tyranny is not just a moral imperative; it is a strategic one. Empowering democratic forces early on can prevent the rise of extremist alternatives, reducing the long-term costs of inaction.
Assad’s fall is a moment of accountability in a world where despots often escape justice. Oppressed populations might take not that change is possible, even in places like Belarus and Iran, even under tyrants the likes of Aliyev.
While the road ahead for Syria remains uncertain, the principle that no dictator is untouchable has been reaffirmed: the fall of one dictator can inspire the downfall of others. Dictatorships are inherently unstable, and when they collapse, the ripple effects can reshape entire regions. He may be replaced by another tyranny, which should then also be resisted; but at least there will be hope.
The international community must capitalize on this moment. Assad’s fall should be a catalyst for renewed efforts to promote democracy and human rights. With respect to Azerbaijan, this means holding Aliyev accountable for his actions in Nagorno-Karabakh and supporting Armenia in its struggle against Azerbaijani aggression.
But beyond geopolitics, this moment is about reaffirming the values that dictators like Assad seek to suppress. Freedom, dignity, and justice are not negotiable. The world must stand with those who fight for these principles, ensuring that Assad’s fall is not the end of the story but the beginning of a broader push for change.
Assad’s demise is a victory for humanity, even if the immediate aftermath is fraught with challenges that could lead to a worsening situation. His regime was an abomination that deserved to fall, regardless of what comes next.
Sheila Paylan (@SheilaPaylan) is a human rights lawyer and senior legal consultant with the United Nations. The views expressed here are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations.
The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.
The post Why Even a Jihadist Syria Is Better Than Assad appeared first on Newsweek.
