In 2012, then-President Barack Obama declared a “red line,” warning that the use of chemical weapons by Bashar al-Assad’s regime would prompt direct US intervention in Syria’s then-year-old civil war.

Just 12 months later, Assad’s forces unleashed sarin gas on civilians in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, killing over 1,400 people.

Instead of promised military action, a Russian-brokered deal dismantled Assad’s chemical arsenal — but, with American acquiescence, allowed him to survive.

This moment laid bare the deep ambivalence by many world leaders toward Assad’s downfall that has persisted ever since — and led up to Assad’s ousting late on December 7th.

Even as the West decried Assad’s atrocities, there has been no rush to dismantle the fragile, brutal system he represents. 

Behind this uncertainty lies a quiet calculation: Would Assad’s removal lead to a better Syria — or unleash even more chaos and extremism?

That question remained this month as Islamist rebels occupied Aleppo, the country’s second city, and continued on to the large town of Hama before arriving in Damascus. It was a stunning offensive — marking the collapse of a 4-year-old Russian- and Turkish-brokered truce in northern Syria.

While few will mourn Assad himself, many in the world community — perhaps even among his regional adversaries — may not be so enthused about seeing him toppled.

Butcher though he may be, the Syrian dictator has maintained some support both in the region and in his country — especially among Syrian Christians and Druze, who fear persecution under Islamist rule.

Assad’s secular regime had refrained from direct provocations against Israel and seems sanguine about Israel’s continued occupation of the Golan Heights. The Syrian civil war destabilized Lebanon, which took in hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees but has not spread to Jordan — a primary US concern. 

If Assad is now replaced by Islamists sympathetic to Al Qaida, neighboring countries like Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel would be directly threatened. Extremists could gain access to Syria’s chemical weapons and potentially use the country as a launchpad for jihadist recruitment and terrorism.

Such a regime would suppress minorities like Christians, Alawites, and Druze, while women’s rights would suffer.

All that is a far cry from the hopes, early in the civil war that began in 2011. Back then,  the West placed great hope in the Free Syrian Army (FSA),a coalition of defectors from Assad’s military and opposition forces hailed as moderate alternatives. But the rebels with the most momentum right now appear to be Islamists, especially Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which played a leading role in Aleppo’s capture.

This is a Sunni group that once pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda’s central leadership. According to reports in the Middle East Eye and other media, HTS imposed Islamic law on areas it has controlled in northwest Syria since 2015. 

Syria’s civil war, now stretching into its 13th year, has been one of the most devastating conflicts of the modern era. It’s also been one of the most complex, a proxy war that has seen Russia and Iran staunchly back Assad, while Turkey and Gulf states initially supported various rebel factions.

The war has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, displacing millions, and reducing historic cities to rubble.

The current outbreak is a marvel of unintended consequences — apparently sparked by Israel’s thrashing of Hezbollah in the recent fighting in Lebanon that ended last week in a six-week truce.  

The incoming administration of Donald Trump is a wild card. In his first presidency, Trump launched missile strikes on Syrian military targets in response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons in April 2017, acting where his predecessor hesitated.

But Trump also made it clear that his broader strategy in Syria had not prioritize Assad’s removal, but focused on defeating ISIS and countering Iran’s influence in the region. 

This is one more reason why Assad’s choices, this past week, appeared to be limited to whether to ask Iran, which has sent Shiite fighters from Iraq and Yemen to his aid, for even more help — or regain the good graces of the Sunni world and West by dumping Iran.

His choices are limited, while Russia has been distracted in Ukraine to send new troops to Assad, before he was toppled.

Recent reports even suggest the UAE floated the idea of lifting sanctions on Assad in exchange for severing ties with Tehran, and Saudi Arabia; the US, may also have been trying to coax Assad to do so. Such a diplomatic pivot might have providing a late win for President Biden, or an early one for Trump. With Assad now gone — and possibly even no longer alive — the world will likely never know.

Dan Perry is the former Associated Press regional editor for Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Follow him at danperry.substack.com