TEHRAN – A recent article published in the Foreign Policy Magazine attempts to present a narrative in which Iran’s role in Syria has been diminished by Turkey’s growing influence following the fall of President Bashar al-Assad.

Galip Dalay in “How Post-Assad Syria Could Unleash a New Regional Order,” highlights the emergence of an HTS-led government in Damascus, the changing balance of power in the Levant, and the shifting allegiances of regional and global actors. The article suggests that these changes undermine Iran’s role and reconfigure Syria’s place within the broader West Asia. 

However, this narrative not only oversimplifies the geopolitical complexities but also perpetuates a condescending perspective that reduces sovereign nations and their struggles to bargaining chips in the hands of external powers.  

While Assad’s fall undeniably marks a turning point in Syria’s history, it is neither a conclusive victory for Turkey nor a permanent loss for Iran. The ongoing changes in Syria highlight the intricacies of regional politics, where Iran remains a key player with deep-rooted influence.  

The article reflects on the changing alignments in West Asia and renewed Turkish ambitions. These developments have undeniably reshaped the political landscape of Syria and its neighbors. However, framing these shifts as a definitive defeat for Iran fails to account for the resilience and adaptability of Iran’s regional strategy.  

HTS joining the Resistance: substance or show?  

The article argues that an HTS-led government might challenge Israel over its annexation of the Golan Heights and lend organic support to the Palestinian cause, positioning it as a more “authentic” ally to Palestinians than Iran. This claim appears to be both simplistic and misleading.  

Iran’s decades-long commitment to the Palestinian cause is well-documented, marked by consistent support for groups such as Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad that underscore its steadfast opposition to Zionist aggression. 

HTS’s purported alignment with the Palestinian cause is unlikely to translate into meaningful action. Its reliance on Turkey undermines its credibility as an independent actor in the Resistance. Turkey’s history of pragmatic dealings with Israel and its Western ties suggests that HTS’s anti-Israel stance may be more symbolic than substantive. In contrast, Iran remains the central pillar of Resistance, ensuring the Palestinian struggle is not exploited for short-term political gain.  

Limits of external interference

The article suggests that the current regional dynamics mark a turning point in which other powers, particularly Arab states and Turkey, may marginalize Iran’s role in Syria. However, this interpretation overlooks the broader historical and geopolitical context.  

For over a decade, Iran has demonstrated its ability to withstand external pressure and adapt to changing circumstances. Its deep economic, cultural, and military ties to Syria, forged during years of war and reconstruction, provide it with a foundation of influence that cannot be easily displaced.  

Moreover, the divisions between HTS, Kurdish factions in the northeast, and other nationalist groups make it unlikely that any single actor can consolidate control over the country. 

A vision of stability and resistance 

Unlike the opportunistic approaches of some regional players, Iran’s vision for Syria prioritizes stability, sovereignty, and long-term development. Iran has consistently advocated for a political solution that respects Syria’s territorial integrity and empowers its people to rebuild their nation. This approach contrasts sharply with the exploitative strategies of actors seeking to advance their own agendas at Syria’s expense.  

The article’s comparisons between Syria’s current situation and Libya’s fragmentation highlight the risks of external interference. If regional and global actors continue to prioritize short-term gains over sustainable solutions, Syria could face a prolonged period of instability and division. Iran’s commitment to the principles of sovereignty and self-determination offers a viable alternative, one focused on reconciliation and reconstruction.  

The article’s portrayal of Iran’s position in Syria simplifies a complex reality. While the fall of Assad and the rise of HTS may appear to signal a shift in regional dynamics, the broader picture tells a different story. Turkey’s overreach, HTS’s unforeseen future, and Iran’s lasting influence ensure that Syria’s future remains far from decided.  

Iran remains firmly committed to the principles of sovereignty, resistance, and stability. History has shown that external interference cannot bring about lasting stability.