لحظة ادراك

"Freedom in suffering is better than comfort in chains."

This is the devil’s law, around which all intellectual philosophies constrained by sacred doctrines have revolved. Human existence on planet Earth began with a curse—rooted in arrogance, then stubbornness, then denial, which ultimately led to defiance of the command of the Creator of all things. It was a refusal to live in the bliss of Heaven, where every blessing existed under servitude, and instead, the choice was made to endure suffering on Earth as a ruler. This led to the first murder humanity ever witnessed, the first act of adultery, and exile to a barren valley—where the first prison and the first burial in human history took place. Then came the floods and the destruction of lands, following the repeated rejection of divine messages sent to Earth's inhabitants—messages of guidance and reassurance. Instead of heeding them, people cursed, denied, and killed their messengers, only believing them when they appealed to their base instincts, convincing them they were the most superior beings to ever walk this planet. A promise was made that those who refrained from earthly sins would return to Heaven in another life—to consume its blessings just as they had consumed the riches of Earth. Meanwhile, those who insisted on indulging in vice would face raging fire. Yet as soon as the messengers disappeared, people reverted to their old ways, twisting the divine revelations to suit their wicked desires—justifying murder, adultery, and theft when in possession of power, all in the name of the sacred. And when they lacked strength, they donned the masks of angels, calling upon the Creator—again, in the name of the sacred.

Laws have been enacted, sometimes based on the sacred and other times on human experiences, but at their core, they are built upon power, the means of acquiring it, and the legitimization of rights in proportion to one's ability to secure them. The lands, beliefs, and lifestyles of others remain vulnerable unless safeguarded by a deterrent force—a force based on direct intervention, deterrence through the observation of historical experiences, forging alliances, or acquiring devastating weaponry. From economic dominance to media control, from drug corruption to sexual exploitation, and so forth—these are all devilish practices that have existed since time immemorial and continue to this day. They have become the unwritten laws of modern life in all human societies—wrapped in ornate slogans and embellished rhetoric, yet ultimately reflecting a singular reality: human groups and their thinkers are in a constant quest to sustain power and its dominance, to fortify themselves and protect their interests above all else. "Good fences make good neighbors," and they will expand them as far as their new instruments of power allow—adhering to the principle that might is right, first, second, and last. Otherwise, living and surviving on this wretched planet would remain mere wishful thinking—"if wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

One of history’s greatest epics was the Second World War, with all its horrors. It was a living testament to this principle, claiming the lives of millions of people, both combatants and civilians alike. It redrew the world map, dismantling empires and dividing their territories among the victors. New kingdoms and mosaics of global order emerged, with the Arab and Muslim lands among its first casualties—falling under colonial rule, mandates, and all forms of human subjugation. Since then, Arabs and Muslims have found themselves in a vast existential labyrinth, torn between different schools of thought. Some lament the fall of the Islamic Caliphate and seek to revive it as the ultimate solution, while others blame the caliphate and its legacy for backwardness and defeat. In between are those advocating nationalism and self-isolation to address internal crises. Many figures rekindled a sense of shared destiny among the masses—from Gamal Abdel Nasser to Saddam Hussein to Khomeini, and countless others in between. Yet all such movements were ultimately crushed for one simple reason: any unification project, whether based on religion or nationalism, inevitably clashes with the interests of global powers that will not allow it to succeed. They possess ample means to thwart it—whether through direct intervention or by exploiting internal contradictions and conflicts, of which there is no shortage in the Arab and Islamic world.

Fifty-four years of Assad family rule in Syria—the longest chapter in the lives of Syrians—have been more than enough for the majority to say, "Enough... let’s take a different path." There was nothing left to convince them to remain on the same course. During these years, global systems collapsed, alliances shifted, and this mode of governance became incompatible with the modern era. Nearly everything in Syria’s neighborhood has changed. While opinions may differ on assessing this family's rule, it ultimately ended with Bashar al-Assad fleeing under the cover of night to the freezing lands of Russia, seeking humanitarian asylum. This placed a thick black line under the reality of a "former president"—a man who, just hours earlier, had strategic alliances with countries now unwilling to grant him refuge. This alone is enough to illustrate how alliances between states are purely interest-driven, and when those interests fade, so do their rulers.

Syria’s new leaders are now cautiously feeling their way toward rebuilding their state, while others remain deeply skeptical of them due to their questionable past. They face a mountain of urgent needs, both domestic and international, regarding the shape of the state, its alliances, and its partnerships. Just as they began rebuilding a crumbling system, they were struck by a military insurrection from Syria’s coastal cities—the very heartland of the deposed regime. The 48-hour bloodbath revealed long-repressed grievances and hatreds. Previous experiences had failed to convince all factions to say "enough" and move forward. Social media broadcast horrifying images of massacres in Jableh, Tartus, and Latakia, committed by armed groups affiliated with the new regime—eerily reminiscent of the atrocities committed by the old regime in al-Qusayr and rural Damascus. Those who once carried their grievances to the world now stand accused of the same crimes.

Syria’s new rulers scrambled to deflect accusations, issuing statements from the highest levels of the new regime to reassure allies in the region. But the allegations, now circulating widely, were primarily directed at international audiences. They announced independent investigation committees, held emergency meetings with neighboring countries to contain the fallout, and sought to stifle international condemnation. But, as the saying goes, the sword had already fallen. The very forces once accused of crimes against humanity had now managed to pin the same charges—backed by audio-visual evidence—on the new rulers. Neutral observers concluded that atrocities had become an ingrained characteristic of all social factions in Syria. Moreover, these events reinforced the narrative of the previous regime’s allies—that for twelve years, they had been fighting bloodthirsty terrorists. The proof? Alawite women and children now fleeing to the Lebanese border carried the same desperate pleas as Sunni refugees at the Turkish border a decade ago.

This was the first true test for Syria’s new rulers. They believed they controlled the game and that doors to Arab and international legitimacy were gradually opening. They failed to realize that the latent power of those who lost everything had not yet surrendered. Hundreds of thousands of former soldiers, security personnel, and public employees of the previous regime now found their lives and families in peril—becoming a formidable tool in the hands of regional powers whose interests had been severely damaged by Syria’s transition. This compelled the new leadership to swiftly offer concessions to factions they had previously struggled to bring into the fold. In a sudden move, they signed agreements with the Kurds and the Syrian Democratic Forces, followed by another with segments of the Druze community in Sweida. These agreements suggested that the armed groups of these factions would be integrated into the Ministries of Interior and Defense but would retain operational control over their respective regions—under local governance structures that required their approval. At the same time, a constitutional declaration was hastily issued by a committee handpicked from among the new ruling elite. In other words, patchwork solutions for a tattered garment.

Conclusion:

Syria’s new regime has learned nothing from Iraq, just as Libya and Yemen failed before them. In times of major upheaval, if an army is not rebuilt on a purely national and professional basis, stability will remain elusive. Token inclusion of various factions to maintain temporary calm is merely a band-aid solution that will not hold. This applies to all aspects of governance and power.