Once a symbol of Bashar Al-Assad’s power, the Syrian city of Hama has now fallen to rebel forces. That these are led primarily by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a coalition with roots in jihadist movements, makes Hama’s fall not the cause for unadulterated joy it might otherwise have been. The success follows quickly on from the rebels’ capture of Aleppo, and they are, perhaps unsurprisingly, using it as proof that total victory in Syria is now inevitable.

It also, however, raises serious questions about the future of Syria and the region at large.

Hama is important. Situated between Damascus and Aleppo, it is a vital artery linking the north and south of the country. Its capture disrupts government supply lines and further isolates the already embattled Assad regime. Beyond its geography, Hama also carries a symbolic weight. In 1982, the city was the site of one of the Assad regime’s most infamous massacres, when Bashar al-Assad’s father, Hafez, crushed an Islamist uprising, killing tens of thousands in the process. For many, the fall of Hama to rebel forces feels like justice — the wheel turns, even if it takes decades to complete a single revolution.

Images from the ground are accordingly triumphant: social media bursts with scenes of celebration among rebel factions, of prisoners being freed from Hama’s central detention facilities, and of triumphant fighters parading through the streets.

The rapid advances of opposition forces have exposed the vulnerabilities of Assad’s regime, particularly as its allies grow increasingly distracted by other conflicts. Russia, which has effectively propped up Assad for years, has redirected much of its attention and resources to the war in Ukraine, while Hezbollah, another key Assad ally, has been royally beaten up by the Israelis. The result is that the Syrian government forces — never particularly impressive — are now consistently unable to mount an effective defence against coordinated rebel offensives.

The implications of Hama’s fall are serious. Already, the rebels appear to be turning their attention to Homs, another strategically significant city that lies just to the south. Succeed in taking that, and they could well sever Damascus from the coastal regions, cutting the Assad regime off from its remaining strongholds outside the capital. This would probably be a near-fatal blow to a government that, despite years of war, had appeared to be slowly consolidating its power.

For the rebels, the victory in Hama is a coup, but one that carries significant risks. The leading role played by HTS complicates matters. Although HTS has distanced itself from its Al-Qaeda origins, those origins make it a contentious player internationally. Western powers, long reluctant to engage directly with HTS, now face a dilemma: support the opposition’s momentum or risk ceding influence to groups whose ideology they find distasteful.

Turkey, while it does not officially support HTS, is clearly supporting the group with cash, equipment and training, which could strain its already fragile relations with its (supposed) Western allies and put it at loggerheads with Russia.

The United Nations has reported mass displacements from Hama. Humanitarian organisations are struggling to provide aid amid the chaos, and it is now likely that yet more Syrians will flee the country, heading into Turkey and Europe, and heralding the possible beginnings of a new migrant crisis.

The fall of Hama underscores two things: the loathsome Assad’s regime weakness but also the Middle East’s continuing instability. As the rebels push forward and the regime attempts to regroup, the dangers increase, not only for Syrians but for everyone across the broader Middle East. The battle for Hama may be over, but the fight for Syria is far from finished.

---

David Patrikarakos is UnHerd‘s foreign correspondent. His latest book is War in 140 characters: how social media is reshaping conflict in the 21st century. (Hachette)

dpatrikarakos

---