Few could have foreseen Bashar al-Assad’s dramatic ouster as 2024 drew to a close. For years, Syria’s battle lines had been frozen under a fragile ceasefire brokered by Russia and Turkey in 2020. Yet, Assad’s downfall—after his family’s iron grip over Syria for over five decades—has shaken the region to its core. Lina Khatib of London-based think tank, Chatham House, writing in Foreign Policy, likened it to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, calling it “an earthquake in the regional order”.

The reasons for Assad’s collapse are as much about Syria as they are about its ophthalmologist ex-president’s patrons—Russia, bogged down in Ukraine, had neither the resources nor the resolve to back Assad, and Iran’s proxies across the region were severely weakened by Israeli air strikes. Sensing the moment, rebel forces led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a group with roots in Al-Qaeda, mounted a ferocious offensive. Assad’s army, battered by years of corruption, desertions and low morale, folded in the face of the HTS’s blitz. Predictably, Western powers have swooped in to shape Syria’s political future and are now vying to influence the makeup of the next government.

From the relative calm of India or from the peaceful Western European capitals, it’s tempting to ask: why is the Arab world perpetually at war with itself? Why does it spawn so many extremist groups? Why has it been trapped in cycles of violence and instability for decades? To answer these questions, we must look beyond the modern era, all the way back to the 11th century. But for now, let’s stay within the last century to understand how history has shaped the region’s current turmoil.

The Lawrence Syndrome

Years ago, I watched Lawrence of Arabia, a sweeping tale of West Asia’s chaos around the years 1916-17. Hollywood, as we know, isn’t big on sequels. But looking at the current mess in the region, I would certainly say, no, shout, that it’s high time for a sequel to Lawrence of Arabia.

The iconic 1962 film serves as a powerful metaphor for the ongoing struggles in West Asia. The themes of betrayal, tribalism and Western manipulation in the film echo the realities of modern conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya. Set during World War I, the film offers a stark window into the forces that set the stage for the region’s instability. The movie depicts T.E. Lawrence, played by Peter O’Toole, as a British officer cobbling together a front consisting of diverse groups of Arab tribes to fight against the Ottoman Empire, which had governed much of the Arab world for centuries. The British officer on behalf of his government promised the Arabs full independence in return for their support.

However, as history shows, that promise was nothing more than deception. After the war, the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement, signed between Britain and France, carved the region into British and French colonial spheres of influence, betraying the Arabs and ignoring their aspirations for self-determination. This betrayal was not just a diplomatic slight—it planted the seeds of mistrust that continue to shape Arab-Western relations to this day.

The arbitrary borders drawn by colonial powers, with no regard for the region’s ethnic, tribal or religious complexities, created fragile states that were prone to fracture. Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen are glaring examples of this legacy: nations artificially built by outsiders, now disintegrating as factions fight for power in structures never designed to hold.

Fragile Tribal Alliances

Memorable but controversial views about the Arabs uttered in Lawrence of Arabia are believed by many in the West even today: “So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people—greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are.” In the film, Lawrence struggles to unite the disparate Arab tribes against the Ottomans. This reflects the tribalism and factionalism that continue to plague the region. In Libya, for instance, the fall of Muammar Gaddafi exposed deep tribal rivalries, leading to a prolonged civil war. Similarly, in Yemen, the conflict is partly driven by tribal and sectarian divisions, exacerbated by foreign intervention.

It’s All About Oil

“There is nothing in the desert, and no man needs nothing,” said Lawrence in the film. But things dramatically changed in the region with the discovery of vast oil reserves. From “nothing”, the region’s desert became resource-rich. Oil turned deserts into global battlegrounds, amplifying foreign intervention. Another Hollywood movie, Syriana, depicts how mega Western energy companies played kingmakers in the region. Greed led to corruption and manipulation. In our times, the US and its allies have often supported local leaders or factions in ways that serve their strategic interests, only to abandon them later. For instance, the US first supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, but later overthrew him in 2003. In Syria, Western powers have backed various rebel groups, some of which later turned into destabilising forces.

Oil, the region’s most valuable resource, has been both a blessing and a curse. Oil drew intense interest from Western powers, who sought to control these resources to fuel their economies. The oil-rich Gulf states, while benefiting economically, became heavily reliant on Western security guarantees, leaving them vulnerable to foreign influence. The 1953 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-led coup in Iran, which overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he nationalised the oil industry, is a case in point. Similarly, the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, justified on dubious grounds, dismantled state institutions and unleashed a wave of sectarian violence that continues to plague the country.

Israel and Modern Wars

The Balfour Declaration of 1917, in which Britain supported the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, added to the tensions. This commitment conflicted with promises made to Arab leaders by the colonial powers, which had assured support for an independent Arab state in exchange for their rebellion against the Ottomans. The betrayal left deep scars, fuelling resentment that persists to this day. The establishment of Israel following the Holocaust and the UN partition plan displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, leading to the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948. Subsequent wars (1956, 1967, 1973), the Palestinian refugee crisis and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian tensions continue to define the region’s volatility. For many Arab nations, Israel became a symbol of Western-backed injustice and territorial loss.

The Death Of Pan-Arabism

Despite turmoil and crises, or perhaps because of them, Pan-Arabism emerged as a movement to unite the warring Arab world under a shared identity, overcoming tribal and sectarian divisions. Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser was the movement’s most towering figure. Unfortunately for ordinary Arab people, internal rivalries, ideological differences and external meddling stymied the movement.

The United States and its allies, wary of the socialist underpinnings of Pan-Arabism, actively worked to undermine it. For instance, the CIA was reportedly involved in orchestrating coups and supporting conservative monarchies to counter Nasser’s influence. By the 1970s, Pan-Arabism had largely faded, replaced by fragmented nationalisms and chaos.

Hope, Then Disillusionment

The 2011 Arab Spring uprisings briefly raised hopes for democratic change. However, the movements’ outcomes varied widely, with some states descending into chaos. In Syria, peaceful protests against President Bashar al-Assad devolved into a brutal civil war, drawing in regional and international players. The US, Russia, Iran, Turkey and others have all backed different factions, turning Syria into a proxy battlefield. Libya, too, saw its long-time leader Gaddafi overthrown with NATO’s help, only to descend into a protracted conflict among rival factions. Meanwhile, countries like Egypt saw a return to authoritarianism, dashing hopes for meaningful reform.

Echoes Of The Crusades

The Crusades, launched between the 11th and 13th centuries, were actually military campaigns by European Christian powers to reclaim Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim control. Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub, commonly known in the West as Saladin, defeated the Christian army of crusaders at the Battle of Hattin in 1187, which led to the recapture of Jerusalem. Ironically, Saladin hailed from a Kurdish family (non-Arabs in West Asia) but became a hero of the Arabs after the victory. The first sultan of both Egypt and Syria is today hero-worshipped in Muslim societies, particularly in the Arab world, for inflicting a crushing defeat on the European forces. He remains a celebrated figure of resistance, unity, and Islamic valour. His victory symbolises an ability to push back against Western incursions—a legacy still invoked today in discussions of imperialism, foreign intervention and the need for regional unity. Today, Islamist movements and Arab nationalists have, at times, likened Western intervention in the Middle East—such as the US-led invasion of Iraq or European colonial rule—to a “new crusade”, a continuation of Western aggression under different banners.

West Asia is in chaos. Visiting Libya, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq is considered unsafe. It remains a patchwork of conflict zones, authoritarian regimes and fragile states. Over six million Syrians are refugees living in neighbouring countries, and over seven million are internally displaced. Yemen’s civil war, orchestrated by Saudi-Iran rivalry, has created one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. On top of the crises in Iraq and Syria, their people have to grapple with the threat of ISIS. Lebanon’s economy is in free fall, exacerbating social and political tensions. Even Israel’s economy has ground to a halt due to relentless wars in the last 14 months.

The US and its Western allies remain deeply involved in the region, whether through military presence, arms sales, supporting one extremist organisation or another, or through diplomatic manoeuvres. Unfortunately apart from Turkey, no other emerging power or BRICS nations are showing any interest in shaping the region’s future, even though they know they might be eventually affected by the ongoing crisis.

(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with the Western media)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

On December 17, 2010, Mohammed Bouazizi, a Tunisian fruit vendor, set himself on fire to protest against local officials having confiscated his stall. His act ignited the flames of a pan-Arab anti-establishment mass uprising that came to be called the ‘Arab Spring’. On the eve of the 14th anniversary of that incident and in the backdrop of last fortnight’s coup in Syria—the Arab Spring’s longest-running and bloodiest manifestation—an analysis of this rare phenomenon is called for. 

Tunisia To Egypt To Libya, The All-Encompassing Revolution

In the past 14 years, the Arab Spring has jolted several Arab countries, although its net impact remains contentious. Bouazizi’s self-immolation spurred mass demonstrations in Tunisia, toppling, within a month, the autocratic President in power for 23 years. Egypt followed shortly thereafter: the mass demonstrations centred on Cairo’s Tahrir Square forced President Mubarak to leave after 18 days despite having tried all sorts of deflections to stay in power. He was in power for 32 years and was replaced by the Supreme Military Council, which eventually gave way to the country’s first democratically held elections. The Muslim Brotherhood government lasted only a few months and was overthrown by the Army, which continues to wield power even now.

Col Muammar Qadhafi, President for 42 years of oil-rich Libya, also faced anti-government protests from mid-February 2011, which soon morphed into an armed insurrection based in the eastern coastal city of Benghazi. A UN Security Council Resolution authorising “all necessary measures” to protect civilians was weaponised by 27 Western and Middle Eastern powers to launch intensive airstrikes against the pro-Qadhafi forces. This tilted the balance against the government forces and eventually led to President Qadhafi being killed in combat on October 20. Even after massive bloodletting since, the civil war has continued and the country is still split, with a government each in Tripoli and Benghazi. Libya was the first case of foreign interests being strongly involved in influencing the outcome of the Arab Spring; it was not to be the last.

The protests in Bahrain that began in February 2011 were partly spurred by a Shia majority population chafing under a Sunni monarchy. These were initially aimed at achieving greater political freedom and respect for human rights, but the repression by authorities pushed them in that direction. The fellow monarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council were alarmed by the perceived involvement of Iran and Hezbollah in disrupting the smallest Gulf state and intervened militarily to quell the protests. Saudi Arabia and the UAE sought to nip similar protests and reform movements in the bud with strongarm tactics.

Civil Wars In Syria And Yemen

Arab Spring protests in Syria and Yemen, two ethnically diverse and politically frozen republics under dynastic rules, unlocked long-suppressed popular sub-national aspirations. The confrontation did not remain peaceful for long, each morphing into a bitter civil war that brought in neighbouring and global powers resulting in counterproductive outcomes. In Syria, a country of 23 million, 13 years of civil war caused the deaths of nearly half a million people, displacement of nearly 15 million both internally and externally, and destruction put at half a trillion dollars. Yemen continued to be split into the al-Houthis-run north and the UN-recognised coalition in the south—both joined at the hip by disease and malnutrition.

Despite the complicated precedents, the second wave of Arab Spring unfurled 2018 onwards in Algeria, Sudan, Lebanon and Iraq. While all of them had reforms as their leitmotif, the demands were more local and focused: in Algeria, “Herak” agitation was aimed at thwarting President Bouteflika, in power for 19 years, seeking a fresh term despite his physical incapacity. The Sudanese agitated against the 32 years of corrupt and violent rule of a military dictator. Iraqi and Lebanese youth wanted to bring down Muhasasa Taifiyeh, a system of sectarian power-sharing. While this wave of Arab Springers did partially achieve their immediate objectives, all of them are still mired in their respective crises.

Apart from these two waves, the Arab Spring touched almost all parts of the Arab World—from Western Sahara to Jordan and Kuwait.

A New Genre Of Dissent

It is important not to over-contextualise the Arab Spring. Even before 2011, the Arab world had similar protest movements, most prominent among these being the bread riots in Egypt and Algeria as well as the Palestinian Intefadah from the mid-1980s onwards. However, two decades later, the Arab Spring was a new dissent genre—being wild-fired by the spread of satellite television and social media leap-frogging over the state controls. Secondly, such protests also took place in other non-Arab but Islamic countries such as Iran (Hijab Protests), Pakistan (Imran Khan detention) and recently in Bangladesh (Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s ouster), with mixed results. Even Israel, a regional exception, has had recurring mass protests against government attempts to curb judicial powers and to bring Israeli hostages home from Hamas captivity.

The foregone helps us to identify the root causes of the Arab Spring. Among them, the most widely felt reason could be a sense of ‘Hogra‘, a Maghrebi Arabic word roughly equivalent to the powerful’s contempt for a commoner; it could be expanded to envelope oppressive governance, personality cults and pretentious demagogy quite common in the Middle East. When coupled with stagnant, non-inclusive and non-representative polity, it manifests the Nasser-era paradigm of the ruled-adulating-the-benign-dictator that got increasingly out of place with the ethos of urbanised, better-educated and more aspirational modern Arab societies. The demographic reasons came next: the youth bulging to the working age found few worthwhile jobs within the country and faced shrinking opportunities for employment and migration abroad due to the global recession and low oil prices. These frustrations were aggravated by corruption and the skewed wealth distribution. Lastly, the average citizen was far younger than the long-ruling gerontocrats causing political disconnect and alienation. The boiling cauldron of public angst suddenly and conveniently cascaded into the Arab Spring. The top echelons’ recourse to police terror and/or palliatives was insufficient to contain the outpouring, and the shiny but brittle state cracked under pressure.

Why The Revolution Failed

It’s logical to ask why, despite initial success, the Arab Spring almost universally failed to reform the system. There are several reasons to be cited for this letdown.

Firstly, the Arab Spring movements were initially largely spontaneous without any leadership or agenda. Their initial aim was limited to a change at the top. Once that was achieved, they had little clue and unity on how to put in a better structure replacement as all of the Arab world governance models were flawed. Secondly, the long oppressive rule had meant that there was no credible “loyal opposition”—and the void was filled by either the Islamists (who often ran a mosque-based clandestine network) or the military.

Thirdly, foreign interventions often muddied the waters: they dithered between propping up the status quo or backing the democratic aspirations. The Western Powers, quite possessive about this eco-strategic region, also played their games, particularly in oil-rich countries.

Fourthly, the whirling anarchy often beckoned Islamic terrorism to hijack the agenda—as al-Qaeda and Islamic State did. Last, but not least, the national borders straddling ethnic and tribal groups also cross-pollinated the Arab Spring. The result was often a free-for-all, in which the most organised and committed side often won the day.

Whither The Arab World?

On the Arab Spring’s 14th anniversary, it is natural to ask if the Arab world is any better today and what its long-term impact is going to be. As of now, the most tangible takeaway from the Arab Spring is that a lasting socio-political transformation cannot be stillborn—it needs to evolve organically. One can also venture to suggest that the Arab Spring experience has no clear victors so far—at least the masses who are not only duped politically but also materially worse off. For instance, during the first decade of the Arab Spring to 2021, the nominal per capita income of an average Syrian declined by 86%, from $2971 to $421. So, although the al-Assad regime is finally gone 13 years after Arab Springers first demanded its ouster, the epic death and destruction make it a pyrrhic victory. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the succeeding Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)-led Salafi Sunni coalition would be an improvement.

All that one can safely say at this stage about the impact of the Arab Spring phenomenon is that it has shown a harsh mirror to the various stakeholders and made them aware of the limits of their respective powers. While one wishes that this awareness helps them to shift socio-political dynamics towards greater moderation and mutual accommodation, evidence on the ground suggests such hope may remain an ever-receding desert mirage.

(The author is a retired Indian Ambassador who learnt the Arabic language in Damascus. He currently heads Eco-Diplomacy and Strategies, a Delhi-based consultancy.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

Damascus has fallen. Once again. One of the oldest cities in the world has fallen. To rise again from its rubble, heralding a new order. In its rise and fall, Damascus has lessons for all civilisations, all rebels, and all regimes.

It was in July 2012 that rebels penetrated Damascus, hitherto considered inviolable. Both the regime and the rebels understood its importance—military and symbolic. The rebels advanced to the heavily militarised capital of Syria but did not make any real gains. A year later, in August 2013, the Syrian regime launched Operation Capital Shield. The capital had to be shielded, and any amount of force was acceptable to thwart any rebel attack. The city was safeguarded through the use of disproportionate force against rebels operating from around Damascus. Only temporarily so. Eleven years later, the regime has fallen. For the sixth time, at least, since the 1st century AD Roman conquest of Damascus’s Seleucid empire.

The Cycle Of Power

Not only has Damascus seen violent regime changes, it has also experienced ethnic and religious clashes, including the Crusades. But in almost every significant clash—civilisational or political—one thing has stayed common: recapturing of the lost ground. The cyclical nature of power. The centuries-old unabated contestation on the socio-political turf of Damascus has defined its character. The current developments in Syria, therefore, ought to be examined through a more expansive glass of history and culture.

Peter Frankopan’s The Silk Roads underscores the importance of Damascus as an emporium adjacent to one of the most thriving trade routes of the world. Despite no easy access to the Mediterranean Sea, it was in the league of great cosmopolitan cities such as the Byzantine Constantinople (Istanbul), the Greco-Roman Antioch, and the old Chinese capital city of Chang’an. Its early embrace of agricultural practices owing to the natural inland water systems of the Barada River and investments in irrigation infrastructure made Damascus a land of plenty. 

Even at the peak of Christian-Muslim religious clashes around the 10th century AD, traders had a breezy time in Damascus. Muslim traders from Spain, for example, were protected by the Christians of Damascus. For one of the oldest inhabited cities of the world, with no religious underpinnings originating from any religious text, trade was vital. Traders, the outsiders, were therefore immune to the local political and religious strife. Damascene society depended on the “outsiders” to retain its regional power as a seat of sociocultural dominance. Damascus, as perceived today, is essentially a result of four centuries of Ottoman rule that came to an end with the First World War. The city was the seat of the Turkish Wali. 

Lands Of ‘Outsiders’

Damascus, curiously, wasn’t ruled by a local dynasty ever since the overthrow of the Aram-Damascus kingdom in the eighth century BC. This feature makes Damascus closer to Delhi than its Phoenician, Judean, and Arab neighbours. The “outsiders” soon started becoming the insiders, and the city evolved. Delhi has this in common with Damascus and lessons from the latter are, therefore, pertinent to us.

The Assad regime’s rise and fall alerts us to the limitations of liberalism when it stays within the elite confines. It is always prone to crumbling under the weight of popular mobilisation. The mainstay of Syria’s multicultural nature was consociational engagements between different ethno-religious groups at different times in history. The Assad regime’s politicisation of the Syrian society’s multiculturalism was self-serving. After the military coup of 1970 that installed Hafez al-Assad as a totalitarian ruler, all forms of dissent began to be crushed, ironically, by the ruling Ba’ath Party, the regional champion of dissenters in the Arab world.

When liberalism gets weaponised thus, it spells doom for not just the conservatives but also the quintessential liberal values. Bashar al-Assad carried forward this legacy of his father with more zeal and ruthlessness. The rebellion against him, therefore, needs to be seen as not only political but also socio-religious. The Sunni Muslims of Syria, the majority group, clearly had had enough of the marginalisation heaped on them by the Alawite (Shia) Assad family and their acolytes. 

Liberalism And Liberals

This should appear familiar to us. The undermining of liberal values by liberals themselves, the ascent of conservative forces, the politics of exclusion, and the many fires of violent ethno-religious clashes, we have seen it all. Politics of exclusion, even when the most inclusionary players indulge in it, never ends well. The civil war in Syria needs to be seen as another element in the continuum that has the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Islamic Revolution of Iran of 1979, the reactionary overthrow of the Kemalist order in Turkey by Erdogan, and the fall of Sheikh Hasina in Dhaka as landmark events.

Immediately after the fall of Damascus, scenes of celebrations (and looting) started flooding the news and social media. Impervious to them, Israel moved to plant its flag beyond the earlier buffer zone. And this is the lesson Delhi’s regime and rebels must pay heed to.

(Nishtha Gautam is a Delhi-based author and academic.) 

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

Paris, France:

World powers vowed Sunday to work for stability in Syria and the surrounding region after Islamist-led rebels toppled its longtime ruler Bashar al-Assad.

Here is a round-up of key reactions:

High alert: Russia

Assad’s ally Moscow said Russian troops in Syria were on high alert but that the rebels had “guaranteed” the security of its army bases in the country.

Prior to reports that Assad had fled to Moscow, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Saturday that Syria must not be allowed to fall into the hands of a “terrorist group”.

‘Assad should be held accountable’: US

“We will engage with all Syrian groups… to establish a transition away from the Assad regime toward independent, sovereign” Syria, US President Joe Biden said.

Asked by reporters what should happen to the deposed president, who reportedly has fled to Moscow, Biden said that “Assad should be held accountable.”

‘Return to stability’: China

Beijing “is closely following the development of the situation in Syria and hopes that Syria returns to stability as soon as possible”, the foreign ministry said.

‘Friendly relations’: Iran

Iran’s foreign ministry said it expects “friendly” relations with Syria to continue.

It said it would adopt “appropriate approaches” towards Syria in accordance with the behaviour of “effective actors” in Damascus.

‘Heal wounds’: Turkey

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said his country, which has supported rebel movements in Syria, would help “to heal Syria’s wounds and guarantee its unity, integrity and security”.

‘Cautious hope’: UN

The UN envoy for Syria called the rebel takeover “a watershed moment” for the country marred by nearly 14 years of civil war.

“Today we look forward with cautious hope to the opening of a new (chapter) — one of peace, reconciliation, dignity and inclusion for all Syrians,” special envoy Geir Pedersen said.

End to ‘barbaric’ state: France

French President Emmanuel Macron welcomed the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s “barbaric state” in Syria.

“I pay tribute to the Syrian people, to their courage, to their patience. In this moment of uncertainty, I send them my wishes for peace, freedom, and unity,” he wrote on X.

‘Contribute’: Germany

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who welcomed the fall of Assad as “good news”, said Germany was ready to “bring its contribution” to a political solution to bring peace back to the war-stricken country, without specifying further.

“Bashar Al-Assad has oppressed his own people in a brutal manner, he has countless lives on his conscience,” said the German head of state.

‘Work together’: UAE

A senior United Arab Emirates official urged Syrians to collaborate in order to avert a spiral into chaos.

“We hope that the Syrians will work together, that we don’t just see another episode of impending chaos,” presidential adviser Anwar Gargash said at the Manama Dialogue in Bahrain.

‘Peace and stability’: UK

Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer called for a peaceful and stable Syria, urging the protection of civilians and minorities.

Arriving in the United Arab Emirates on Sunday, the premier said he was “talking to regional allies”, calling the removal of Assad a “real opportunity”.

‘Long-awaited’: EU

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen likewise said the EU would help to rebuild “a Syrian state that protects all minorities”.

The EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas hailed Assad’s fall as “a positive and long-awaited development” which “also shows the weakness of Assad’s backers, Russia and Iran”.

Blow to Iran: Israel

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed Assad’s overthrow as the fall of a “central link in Iran’s axis of evil”.

He called it “a direct result of the blows we have inflicted on Iran and Hezbollah”, the group that Israel has been bombarding in Lebanon.

Don’t rely on Putin: Ukraine

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiga welcomed Assad’s departure, saying that authoritarians who rely on support from Putin are destined to fall, while stressing Kyiv’s support for Syria’s people.

‘Relief’: Netherlands

Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof called Assad’s overthrow “a relief to all those who suffered under his cruel dictatorship”. 

Schoof urged a “peaceful transition and the restoration of stability, while ensuring respect for all the country’s minorities”. 

Independent Islamic government: Taliban

Afghanistan’s Taliban government congratulated the Syrian people and rebels, hoping a transition would lead to “an independent and service-oriented Islamic government” and a Syria “free from external interference”.

‘Free will’: Iraq

Iraq urged respect for the “free will of all Syrians and emphasises that the security, territorial integrity and independence of Syria are of paramount importance”, government spokesman Basim Alawadi said.

‘Immense needs’: Red Cross

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) said that Syrians faced “immense and urgent needs” after “immense suffering” caused by more than a decade of conflict.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)