Throughout Syria’s modern history, since independence until the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024, issues such as economic development, mutual investments, societal recovery, and the protection of freedoms and rights never formed the foundation of governmental legitimacy. Successive governments were driven by two persistent obsessions: first, the Arab Israeli conflict, which regimes used as a justification to sideline all other societal obligations; constitutional, economic, and social. Second, these regimes promoted utopian slogans rooted in pan-Arabism, Islamism, or socialist internationalism, such as Arab unity, Islamic unity, or socialism as a new creed.
These two obsessions were externally driven and served more as symbolic tools to manipulate public sentiment rather than address the concrete struggles of daily life. While effective in mobilization and emotional exploitation, they ultimately impoverished citizens materially and socially. These distractions were further fuelled by international and regional dynamics: global superpowers competing for control over the Third World, colonial-style hegemonies, and military alliances like NATO and the Warsaw Pact, all of which kept populations in a constant state of fear, reinforcing authoritarian policies under the guise of protecting national sovereignty.
Assad’s regime, for over five decades, did not merely exploit the Arab Israeli conflict like other authoritarian Arab regimes, it institutionalized it as a vehicle for power. The supposed resistance to external threats became a justification for emergency laws, suppression of freedoms, political repression, the rewriting of the constitution, and the restructuring of the military based on loyalty. The security apparatus became an unchecked force, effectively turning Syria into a fiefdom governed by an unaccountable elite. In this framework, the Syrian citizen was expected to relinquish all rights, including dignity and basic living needs, in exchange for protection from fabricated external enemies.
The consequences of Assad’s policies were catastrophic. Beyond hoarding the country’s economic resources and pushing most Syrians into poverty, the regime triggered escalating international condemnation and economic sanctions, beginning in the 1980s and continuing until its fall, due to its violations of international law and support for terrorism. This rendered Syria an inhospitable environment for investment or sustainable economic activity.
Toward a Structural Break with Assadism
The devastation left by Assad’s rule cannot be patched or reformed, it demands a total structural break, particularly in politics, economics, and state governance. This recognition led Syria’s new government to prioritize economic revival as the cornerstone for state-building. Economic development would not just support politics; it would lead it.
Over the past few months, the new administration has focused its political and diplomatic efforts on lifting the decades-long sanctions. Following President Trump’s decision on May 13 to lift U.S. sanctions, followed by a similar move from the EU, Syria’s economic suffocation began to ease. Recovery starts with breathing room, and that means unlocking foreign investment in a country where the economy had hit rock bottom.
Investment, however, cannot proceed without establishing parallel structures: legal, administrative, and security frameworks that offer confidence and transparency to foreign investors. This shift toward economic openness wasn’t born from luxury or abstract theory; it was shaped by critical realities:
- With no military solution in sight for the Arab Israeli conflict, channelling national resources into building military strength no longer makes sense, especially after the devastation wrought by the “Axis of Resistance.” Syrians are now largely convinced that investing in development offers a more meaningful path forward.
- International and Arab support for Syria’s transition is conditional on turning the country from a hotspot of terrorism and chaos into a source of stability and security. That begins with economic sufficiency and basic service provision, conditions essential for long-term peace.
- Totalitarian ideologies have proven incapable of embracing modernity or addressing basic human needs. The only valid metric for government legitimacy now is its ability to materially and morally satisfy its citizens, something only economic growth and development can deliver.
- Opening Syria to foreign investment and building balanced economic partnerships based on mutual interests is the most effective way to develop long-term political alliances, especially within the Arab and regional spheres.
- The world is pivoting from military confrontation to economic competition. Since the 2010s, major powers like China and the U.S. have refocused on financial markets and strategic industries. Even America’s recent approach to Syria, under President Trump, has leaned toward economic diplomacy over military intervention, especially after Iran’s defeat and the collapse of ISIS. This signals a willingness to support Syria’s reconstruction through “soft power” and investment.
Saudi Arabia, too, has championed this shift. Riyadh has led the region in redefining security not through militarism but through development, prosperity, and cross-border investments.
Will Economic Security Bring Lasting Stability?
The Assad regime’s security-based policies failed to deliver safety, dignity, or economic stability to Syrians. The only path forward is a clean break from those methods. Will the new government’s approach, anchored in economic security, openness, and development, offer a chance to build a stable, forward-looking state?
