The Hamas ‘terror blow’ of October 7, 2023, was intended, in the eyes of the initiator, Yahya Sinwar, to serve as a trigger that would undermine the foundations of the State of Israel. The hope was that such an act would unite the battlefields of the Shiite Axis and its combined military action against the Jewish State, eventually leading to its collapse.
However, more than 20 months after the ‘Swords of Iron’ War outbreak, the trend reversed. Israel gained a comparative advantage over Iran and its proxies. The destruction of Hamas’s military capabilities and its civilian infrastructure, along with a significant blow to Hezbollah, marked the opening phase of a new geopolitical reality in the region. These developments created the conditions for a central and transformative event in the area—the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria due to a decisive ‘terrorist blow’ launched by the rebel group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) at the end of November 2024 and continuing into the following month.
Historical Shocks and the Failure to Change the Order
The Middle East has experienced significant shocks in recent decades: the 9/11 terrorist attacks that led to US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Arab Spring that destabilized long-standing regimes, the rise and fall of ISIS, and the brutal struggle against its reign. Even the October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas against Israel—a monumental event in itself—did not fundamentally change the regional order. Instead, these events often triggered desperate and failed attempts to restore the previous flawed governance systems.
However, the latest developments in Syria have emerged at a moment when the Middle Eastern arena is ripe for substantial transformation. The collapse of Assad’s regime in late 2024 has set the stage for change that no longer corresponds to the familiar arrangements of the past—namely, the artificial and arbitrary borders imposed by the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) over a century ago.
A Solution Beyond Sykes-Picot
The voices stemming from post-Assad Syria increasingly call for a radical rethinking of sovereignty: no longer maintaining the territorial integrity of Syria within the outdated borders drawn by colonial powers but instead dividing the country along ethnic and sectarian lines. Several key indicators underscore this sentiment: the demand for annexation to Israel by representatives of the Druze villages in the Syrian Golan and the intensification of the Kurds’ long-standing demand for independence and autonomy.
Within the geographical boundaries of Greater Syria (Ash-Shām)—encompassing present-day Syria and Lebanon—there exist ethnic minorities whose self-affiliation with Syria is purely geographical. These minorities have little loyalty to the centralized state that existed under the Assad regime and are unlikely to align themselves with any new centralized state emerging under a rebel government led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).
The Greater Syrian Emirates State: A Viable Alternative
The collapse of the Assad regime offers a unique opportunity to address these longstanding grievances. Rather than attempting to impose a singular political entity on disparate ethnic and sectarian groups—a model that has repeatedly failed—a more pragmatic solution lies in establishing an emirate-based system. This proposed Greater Syrian Emirates State would consist of semi-autonomous regions aligned with the ethnic and sectarian makeup of the territory.
The proposed entities could include:
§ The Kurdish Emirate: Encompassing Kurdish-dominated areas in Syria and parts of Iraq. However, Iran and Turkey—both non-Arab Muslim states—will fiercely oppose any attempt to carve Kurdish territories from their lands.
§ The Sunni Emirate: Dominating much of central and northern Syria and parts of Lebanon.
§ The Alawite Emirate: Positioned along Syria’s Mediterranean coastline.
§ The Druze Emirate: Centered on Jabal al-Durūz (Mountain of the Druze) in southern Syria and extending into parts of Lebanon.
§ Shiite and Christian Emirates: Carved from Lebanese territory where these groups hold significant demographic and political influence.
This model reflects the reality on the ground. Despite a century of efforts to promote nationalism across Arab states, tribal and sectarian affiliations remain the dominant force driving political and social dynamics in the region. Attempting to rebuild a unitary Syrian state would amount to repeating past mistakes—like digging deeper into a pit rather than finding a way out.
Breaking Free from the Past
The Sykes-Picot Agreement, imposed by Western powers following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, ignored the complex ethnic, tribal, and sectarian fabric of the Middle East. The artificial nation-states it created have repeatedly failed to foster unity and stability. Instead, they have exacerbated conflict by forcing incompatible groups into centralized governance structures.
It is, therefore, both possible and desirable to embrace a new political reality—one that moves away from the legacy of failed centralization and toward localized governance. The emirate model proposed here would allow each group to govern itself under the broader framework of the Greater Syrian Emirates State, creating a more stable and inclusive political order.
The Role of Western Powers
The Western powers that imposed the flawed Sykes-Picot arrangement bear a historical responsibility to lead this transition. Their involvement in reshaping Syria’s political future is not just a moral obligation but also a strategic necessity. A successful transition to the emirate model could stabilize a region long plagued by conflict, reducing the threats of terrorism, refugee crises, and regional wars.
Conclusion
The collapse of the Assad regime in Syria marks a turning point in Middle Eastern geopolitics. For the first time in decades, the region has had the opportunity to break free from the outdated and artificial divisions imposed by colonial powers. By establishing a Greater Syrian Emirates State, the various ethnic and sectarian groups can achieve self-governance while contributing to a broader, more stable regional framework.
This solution, while ambitious, aligns with the realities on the ground. Tribal and sectarian identities remain central to the region’s political dynamics, and attempting to impose a centralized state would be unrealistic and counterproductive. The time has come for a new approach—one that addresses past failures and paves the way for a more sustainable and peaceful future in Syria and beyond.
