Going back to the Syrian issue, it must be said that few of us had anticipated the developments unfolding today a month ago. The chapter on 54 years has been closed in less than two weeks, a massive achievement in every sense of the word.

The ease with which the Assad regime was brought down and the speed of its collapse surprised even the most optimistic observers hoping to see this shift. However, since the temporary military leadership took control of Damascus, we have seen some here and there make predictable criticisms of various behaviors. I sincerely believe that with more consultation, these criticisms would have neither emerged nor been justified.
Here, I do not have in mind the criticisms from vehement opponents who had consistently shown their allegiance to the fallen regime despite all of its crimes, nor at the hypocrites who "greet the bride's family and leave with the groom's family." Rather, I am thinking of the anxious silence or apologetic criticism from forces that are keen on seeing this liberation succeed, just as they had been hoping that the revolution would win in 2011.
These forces, which represent the majority of the population- call them "the silent majority" or "the ordinary citizen"- across class and sectarian lines, have an interest in seeing this change succeed. No one is as keen as they are on ensuring that the "transitional phase" proceeds with as little pain, complications, skepticism, and retribution as possible. Otherwise, the nation’s body could be left with deep wounds that are difficult to heal and prone to infection.
The mistakes of the past few days were relatively minor, and they can thus be easily overlooked. They can be learned from in the future through "trial and error." However, repeating them in the coming days and weeks could turn these minor mistakes into harmful sins that could hinder the transition. I believe it would be useful to draw attention to some uncomfortable truths.
At the forefront of these truths is the fact that this liberation is now under tight "local,regional," and "international" scrutiny.
To begin with, there is the "local" scrutiny from within the country. While the fall of the Assad regime has certainly been welcomed, a broad segment of the population does not want to replace one dictatorship with another. This means that there is a need for consultation and boarding openness and dialogue rather than replicating the experience of the "Idlib government," despite all the positives we saw from there.
Then there is the "regional" scrutiny. Syria's borders with two neighboring countries, Lebanon and Iraq, are clearly still "unsafe" for the interim Syrian operations leadership. This is clear from the escape of several major figures in the Assad regime to these countries, exploiting the de facto control of sectarian armed forces backed by a powerful regional sponsor.
On the other hand, two other influential regional powers not only have a "stake" in what is happening, but they also claim the right to "protect" their borders and regional security. Indeed, as soon as the regime fell, the significant contribution of Türkiye to victory in the north became evident. Meanwhile, in the south, the danger of Israel's expansionist intentions became apparent as its army breached the "ceasefire line" in the Golan Heights, occupying the strategic peak of Mount Hermon and launching air raids on dozens of Syrian military targets. This situation speaks volumes about the extent of the Israeli leadership's "confidence" in the intentions of the Assad regime, throughout both the father's and son's reigns, to secure its northern borders!
Another highly important truth is that the remnants who benefited from the Assad regime for a long time have indeed been removed, distanced, or have fled... but: firstly, they have not disappeared or been crushed, and secondly, there are still external entities providing depth or support to these remnants. Consequently, the longer it takes for the achievement of liberation to mature—with minimal complications—the more opportunities these remnants and their supporters will have to regroup, rebuild their forces, and formulate their inciting and misleading rhetoric, potentially leading to a reversal of the achieved accomplishment.

Here, we reach the third level of scrutiny, "international" scrutiny. Western powers, and global organizations in which these Western powers wield significant influence, are watching developments closely. Logically, the historical change that ended more than half a century of Assad (father and son) rule would not have proceeded as smoothly, given Russia and Iran’s military presence, without the "consent" of Western powers, primarily the United States. They agreed to allow the end of what they saw as an "anomaly" in a sensitive region before the arrival of a new administration whose intentions remain obscure.

Washington, in particular, and its Western allies generally, have recognized that maintaining the status quo in the Middle East is no longer tenable given the following:

- The need for a new and different approach to political Islam, the aspirations and fears of minorities, and religious extremist terrorism.
- Blackmail, including through a nuclear program, cannot be tolerated.
- The need to address the Ukrainian crisis more seriously. That has reintroduced the question of "containing Russia," especially with the rise of the far-right on both sides of the Atlantic.

In light of these considerations, the "messages" from the American diplomatic mission’s meeting with Ahmad al-Sharaa in Damascus were very clear. They told us a lot about Washington's vision not only for the role of this new Syria in the future of the Arab Levant region but also for what an "internationally acceptable" Syrian regime looks like.

This new Syria will face two challenges where they cannot afford to make mistakes: the first challenge is reaching an accord regarding the nature of the regime and its philosophy for dealing with its different communities, and the second challenge is the economic and financial role Syria has the potential to play, thanks to its human and natural resources and international trust.