Governments are often portrayed as mere façades, while the state itself is said to be run by hidden networks of bureaucrats and military men. This image, though widespread, is exaggerated. Political science instead offers the concept of the “deep state” to analyse the existence of informal networks within the army, security services, and bureaucracy that influence political decision-making to varying degrees – without implying a single, secret organisation pulling all the strings.
This perception spread in the Arab world due to the nature of regimes historically built on security and military apparatuses, family and sectarian loyalties, patronage economies, and the absence of transparency. Such contexts encouraged the interpretation of events through simplistic conspiracy narratives that reduce everything to shadowy networks. The very language of the “deep state” itself has also become a political tool – used either to justify failures or to discredit rivals.
The concept of the “deep state” in political literature refers to informal networks embedded within state institutions, particularly the army, security services, and bureaucracy. These networks shape official decisions while operating under an existing institutional framework.
The Ba’ath Legacy
Understanding the Syrian case requires tracing the trajectory of Ba’ath Party rule. The party seized power in 1963, and its dominance solidified after Hafez al-Assad’s “Corrective Movement” of 1970. In this era, Syria witnessed profound changes: the militarisation of the state through the army and security agencies’ grip on power, the restructuring of the economy in favour of patronage and corruption networks, the intensification of sectarian polarisation despite secular nationalist rhetoric, and the elimination of political pluralism, which stripped citizens of any real capacity for accountability.
The conflict after 2011 fractured the aura of the official state while parallel power structures emerged. Pro-regime militias and economic networks –many under international sanctions – took control of key resources such as oil, wheat, and border crossings, relying heavily on external support, particularly from Iran.
Read also: From Deep State to “New Ottomans”: Is Erdoğan Shaping His Own Version?
Iran’s Role: Engineering a Parallel Deep State
Iran’s involvement in Syria evolved from diplomacy and military support into a full-scale restructuring of power networks. Beyond its direct military role through the Quds Force and IRGC, Tehran helped create parallel security and economic institutions operating independently of official state bodies.
It oversaw the formation, training, and command of dozens of sectarian militia, such as Zeinabiyoun brigades, Lebanese and Iraqi factions, and Afghan fighters, that exercise autonomous security and military authority, often in competition with the Syrian army itself.
Iranian-linked networks also penetrated the economy: controlling strategic sectors such as telecommunications (through plans for a parallel Iranian-backed mobile network), energy (oil imports and fuel distribution), and border trade (notably the al-Tanf crossing). Banking channels were also targeted to establish parallel financial flows. These economic levers deepened regime dependency and secured Iran long-term influence beyond immediate military needs.
Demographic engineering further reinforced this dominance, as Iran sponsored housing projects, religious and cultural centres, and resettlement schemes in strategic areas, creating a loyal social base tied to its interests.
This multi-layered strategy made Iran a co-decision-maker in Syria, to the extent that many pivotal security and economic choices cannot be made without Iranian approval or coordination.
Russia, meanwhile, has carved out its own sphere of influence, prioritising direct military control and resource extraction. This has produced a fragmented, multi-polar structure within the Syrian system, with Russian and Iranian networks sometimes competing over spoils and leverage.
On the media front, the conflict has fuelled disinformation and conspiracy narratives, widening the gap between reality and public perception, and reinforcing popular notions of hidden “deep” networks.
Despite this, the official Syrian state continues to exist and provide limited services in regime-held areas. The tension between formal institutions and parallel domestic and foreign power structures sustains the perception of a “deep state” in Syria.
Read also: From Trauma to Illusion: Why Syrians Cling to ‘Saviours’
The “Sheikh” and Hidden Authority
Fadel Naufal, a member of the General Secretariat of Syrian Democratic Committees, told +963 that the current government is merely a collection of figures carrying the title of “minister” to present an image of governance through institutions.
In reality, he argues, the real orders and instructions are issued by figures behind the scenes:
- Military faction leaders who consolidated power after seizing control and provided the formal legitimacy for Ahmad al-Shara’s presidency.
- Religious sheikhs, who he claims wield the actual authority to implement decisions; whether officially issued by government or by themselves directly.
According to Naufal, no Syrian knows what legal mandate allows this group to issue and enforce such orders independently of official government bodies.
Examples abound: daily insecurity and assassinations; forced evictions in certain areas (notably Alawite districts such as Soumariyya), carried out under orders from a sheikh rather than government; and even gender segregation in schools, which investigations revealed was imposed by an “envoy of a sheikh” within the Ministry of Education, rather than by the ministry itself.
He laments that citizens who once defended decisions under Assad-era governments have now become mere endorsers of the edicts of this de facto authority. Sporadic protests, he adds, have little effect against its dictatorial practices.
The most striking example, he says, is the decision to schedule parliamentary elections for next month despite insecurity in regime-controlled provinces and the exclusion of others such as Suwayda, Hasakah, and Raqqa. For Naufal, these cases reveal the true nature of this authority, with institutions reduced to hollow façades that serve only to beautify its image.
The Hidden “Kitchen” of Decision-Making
Syrian researcher and military expert Dr. Muhammad Abbas told +963 that governments worldwide act as façades for the state. Policies are often crafted away from public scrutiny, and the “deep state” is what sets strategies and steers governance.
He argues that the deep state consists of institutions such as the army and individuals holding the real levers of power. They design policies to serve specific agendas. The crucial question, he asks, is whether such structures act in service of the nation and its people, or as proxies for external powers.
Abbas underlines that the actors formally governing, whether army, bureaucracy, or civilian institutions, may or may not be part of the deep state. What matters is the hidden “kitchen” where real decisions are drafted and executed.
Those seen in public, politicians, ministers, or leaders, are not necessarily the true decision-makers. Instead, a “small elite” dominates and entrenches itself at the core of decision-making.
He points out that this hierarchical pattern exists globally: power is inevitably concentrated in the hands of a few, regardless of transparency or accountability. The visibility of decisions only comes after they are announced; the process of making them depends on transparency levels, media scrutiny, and the balance between executive, legislative, and judicial authorities.
He highlights the vital role of parliaments, which should be able to veto harmful decisions affecting national sovereignty and security. But, concluding, he raised a question: do legislative authorities in fact act transparently and in the public interest?
