The Assad regime's Dec. 8 collapse marked an unforgettable turning point for millions of Syrians, including myself. After 54 years of oppressive rule marked by brutal and widespread human rights abuses and repression, opposition forces swiftly captured Damascus and forced Assad to flee to Russia. Syrians worldwide rejoiced, declaring victory for the revolution and freedom from tyranny after nearly 14 years of conflict and many more decades of sacrifice under one of the world's worst dictatorships.
Yet, this jubilation quickly transformed into cautious contemplation, raising critical questions: Is Syria re-emerging as the same nation permanently seared into our memories? Or can it become the homeland we long to rebuild for all Syrians?
As a Syrian refugee who fled my home in 2012 amid the devastating horrors of war, my dream of returning to Syria has been a persistent, daily hope. Yet today, this dream is clouded with profound uncertainty. The ongoing international intervention in Syria risks creating a country unfamiliar to me and to the millions of displaced Syrians worldwide. Instead of fostering a nation shaped by Syrians' genuine aspirations and collective visions, external powers influence our fate, pursuing agendas that deepen divisions and prolong conflict.
The international community often justifies continued intervention in Syria by citing the need to protect minorities, implying Syria is inherently divided along ethnic, religious or sectarian lines. This oversimplified narrative ignores the deliberate tactics of the former regime, which manipulated fears and fostered sectarian divisions to maintain power. Accepting these artificial divisions as inherent realities fundamentally misunderstands Syria's social fabric, which has thrived for centuries precisely because of its interconnectedness and diversity.
Historically, Syria was never merely a mosaic of isolated minorities, but a vibrant tapestry bound together through familial, economic and cultural connections spanning generations. Our communities coexisted in harmony precisely because of these resilient, intricate relationships.
Recent tragic events underscore the dangers of misunderstanding and oversimplifying this history.
Four months after Assad's downfall, remnants of his regime launched a deadly ambush, killing 15 members of the new Syrian Interim Government's General Security Service. Their violent attempt to regain power with Russian intervention sparked severe retaliation, killing approximately 200 security officers and upwards of 1,400 Alawite civilians and disarmed fighters, including women, children and the elderly. Alawites constitute one of Syria's largest minority groups, with the Assad family claiming leadership over the historically marginalized community—sparking much of the retaliatory violence that led to the civilian massacres.
Similar tensions have impacted other groups. The Druze community in southern Syria continues to struggle between internal autonomy and external pressures amid recent attacks on its communities—not limited to Israeli strikes on interim government forces and infrastructure in a claimed defense of the ethnic group. Such actions utilize valid Druze fears for their security, with the primary intention of dividing Syria along ethnic lines to keep it weak.
In parallel, the Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration in Syria's northeast is slowly negotiating complicated agreements with the interim government in Damascus to secure constitutional rights. Turkey continues to threaten the U.S.-backed group amid the talks after persistent fighting with form Syrian National Army opposition factions after the Assad regime collapsed.
Both minority groups cite these incidents in their concerns to hand over weapons and fully join the central government.
These tragic incidents underscore the catastrophic consequences of defining communities based solely on ethnic or religious backgrounds, rather than recognizing their diverse political and social aspirations for a unified, inclusive Syria. Investment in communities based solely on ethnicity or religion unintentionally validates and perpetuates the divisive narratives of the previous regime.
The ongoing international intervention in Syria risks creating a country unfamiliar to me and to the millions of displaced Syrians worldwide.
- Ghada Rifai
Externally imposed divisions have consistently failed to produce lasting peace or stability—a fact evident from recent experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Foreign interventions in these countries intensified existing conflicts and entrenched sectarian divides, proving that externally dictated solutions rarely foster genuine reconciliation or sustainable peace. Such lessons are critical for Syria, emphasizing the need for inclusive approaches that Syrian voices and leadership inside and outside the country drive.
In that regard, and as someone deeply acquainted with displacement, I know firsthand that resolving Syria's refugee crisis requires much more than merely halting violence. A real solution involves actively including displaced Syrians in reconstruction and reconciliation processes. Refugees offer invaluable insights and possess profound commitments to peace, cultivated through personal experiences of suffering and hope.
Excluding these voices deprives Syria of critical resources and alienates those most invested in its recovery. Experiences from post-conflict nations like Bosnia and Herzegovina and Rwanda demonstrate that inclusive processes, where displaced communities actively participate, are essential for lasting peace and national reconciliation.
Critics may argue that immediate territorial divisions can reduce violence and bring rapid stability. Such perspectives are dangerously shortsighted. Temporary stability achieved through imposed divisions harm Syria's social cohesion, undermine genuine reconciliation efforts and weaken the nation's long-term prospects for unity and peace. Absolute security for minorities means security for all Syrians. That outcome can only come from inclusive governance, equitable representation and meaningful dialogue—not externally imposed segregation and artificial boundaries.
International actors must recognize the substantial risks inherent in reshaping Syria's borders or internal governance structures without genuine Syrian consent. That recognition requires addressing fundamental and deeply personal questions for refugees: To which Syria will we return? Will external powers reshape our homeland into something foreign and unfamiliar, or will we return to Syria authentically, reflecting our diverse aspirations and shared identities?
My dream, shared by countless Syrians, is straightforward but powerful: To pack my bags once more—not to flee—but to return and actively participate in rebuilding a Syria that embodies our collective hopes and identities. Achieving this vision requires the international community to recognize its supportive role in enabling Syrians to lead reconstruction and reconciliation.
If the international community genuinely aims to resolve the Syrian refugee crisis, one of our era's most profound humanitarian tragedies, it must actively support inclusive, Syrian-led reconstruction and reconciliation. Without this fundamental shift, we risk perpetuating cycles of instability and displacement, prolonging a crisis the world urgently seeks to resolve.
Syria presents a unique and critical opportunity to atone for the failures that led to the Syria crisis. How the world responds will define Syria's future and the legacy and effectiveness of global efforts to end one of the gravest humanitarian moments of our time.
