“The experiences of Libya, Egypt, Yemen, and Syria reveal the harsh truth that regime change alone does not guarantee peace, stability, or democracy. Without addressing the root causes of discontent and ensuring inclusive governance, revolutions risk becoming mere power shifts. As George Bernard Shaw aptly remarked, ‘Revolutions have never lightened the burden of tyranny; they have only shifted it to another shoulder.’ The burden, unfortunately, continues to weigh heavily on the people of these nations.”
By Danish Alam Pathan:
Syria has been grappling with a brutal and prolonged crisis since 2011, commonly referred to by media and political analysts as the Syrian Civil War. It is widely regarded as an offshoot of the Arab Spring—a wave of uprisings that brought regime changes significant political and administrative changes across the Arab world. The Arab Spring began in Tunisia and spread to Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain, under the unifying slogan: “The people want to bring down the regime.” While some countries experienced smooth regime changes, others descended into chaos, mis-governance, and systemic collapse, while in a few cases, the uprisings were brutally suppressed.
The Libyan Case
Let us first analyze the Libyan case. Until 2011, Libya was ruled by Muammar Gaddafi, a controversial figure and one of the stalwart leaders of the Arab world whose legacy is disputed. Gaddafi’s regime controlled Libya’s vast oil wealth, which made it one of the wealthiest countries in Africa. With abundant oil, gas, and mineral reserves, Libya’s economy was booming. Its strategic location on the southern coast of the Mediterranean Sea enabled flourishing trade, placing Libya among the most prosperous nations in the Arab world.
Despite economic growth, Gaddafi’s rule was marked by authoritarianism and the suppression of dissent. The Arab Spring began in Tunisia in 2010, where its President Zine El Abidine was removed from power. The movement within no time spread to its neighbor Libya. Initially, its leader Gaddafi responded with promises of reforms but soon resorted to a harsh repression on protests, triggering a nationwide uprising against Gaddafi. The situation escalated into a full fledged civil war.
The conflict led to NATO’s intervention, by imposing a no-fly zone. Following months of conflict, Gaddafi was captured and killed by rebel forces in October 2011. However, the crises in Libya did not end with his death. As of 2025, it still remains stuck in political instability and economic collapse. Once one of the most prosperous countries in Africa, it now ranks among the most deprived. This highlights the harsh reality that not all wars or revolutions end the misery and oppression of the people.
The Egyptian Case
First in Tunisia, then in Libya the Arab Spring eventually took root in Egypt where its President Hosni Mubarak was dethroned from power by pro-democracy demonstrators. However, the dream of democracy never became a reality. After Mubarak’s fall, Egypt witnessed a brief period of elected civilian rule under President Mohamed Morsi, who was removed in 2013 by a military coup. Since then, the country has been ruled by military leader Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, raising questions about the actual outcomes of the revolution. From a historical perspective, a deeper analysis of these so-called revolutions reveals that the United States has consistently played a key role in regime changes whether in Libya, Iraq (where Saddam Hussein was ousted), Afghanistan (during the Taliban’s fall and subsequent return to power), Syria, or Egypt. This pattern of its involvement emphasizes the geopolitical motivations of the United States in influencing the political landscape of West Asia, often leading to prolonged instability rather than the promised democratic reforms.
Syria’s Unique Struggles
Syria presents a unique case, being a country at the crossroads of Asia and Europe, with a geostrategic location in West Asia, strong ties with Russia, part of Iran led Axis of Resistance, and long-standing hostility toward the so-called state of Israel. When the civil war erupted in March 2011, following anti-government protests during the Arab Spring, several regional and international players quickly intervened, backing their respective allies. This conflict evolved into one of the most complex wars in modern history, marked by overlapping alliances, ideological rivalries, and shifting battle lines.
For instance, both the United States and Turkey supported and armed various rebel groups while simultaneously combating ISIL. On the other hand, Russia and Iran backed the Syrian government, fighting both the rebels and ISIL. Meanwhile, Turkey clashed with Kurdish forces in Syria, which were backed by the U.S. This intricate web of alliances and rivalries transformed Syria into a battleground for competing geopolitical interests, with sectarian and ideological divisions playing a crucial role.
In the early stages of the war, rebel groups advanced rapidly, capturing major cities. However, the tide turned in favor of the Syrian government by 2015, following a decisive military intervention by Russia, which provided air support and strategic aid. Iran also played a critical role by mobilizing Shia militias, including Hezbollah, to fight alongside Assad’s forces. The turning point came when government forces took control of Aleppo in December 2016, which marked a major victory for the Assad government and a significant blow to the rebels.
Many political analysts argue that one of the primary motivations behind the war was to weaken the Iran led Axis of Resistance, given its strong influence in Syria and across the region. The U.S. and its allies were determined to topple Bashar al-Assad and limit Iranian expansion. This strategy was openly discussed during the U.S. presidential debates, where Donald Trump criticized Barack Obama’s policy of arming and supporting Syrian rebel groups. In an interview, President Bashar al-Assad claimed that the conflict in Syria was largely a result of the country’s alliance with Iran. He further suggested that if Syria were to align with the policy of the United States and sever ties with Iran, the war would end swiftly and vanish in no time. Beyond the geopolitical struggle, Syria also became a theater for the contest of ideologies: secular authoritarianism, religious extremism, and nationalist aspirations, particularly from the Kurdish forces seeking autonomy.
As the Middle East endured one of its worst humanitarian crises in Gaza, Syria’s main allies found themselves weakened. Iran, having faced significant setbacks, Hezbollah similarly weakened, as many of its senior leaders were killed during the prolonged Israel-Palestine conflict. Meanwhile, Russia, deeply entangled in its own conflict in Ukraine, was unable to provide substantial support. Taking advantage of this situation, a sudden rebel offensive coordinated by various rebel factions quickly diminished Bashar al-Assad’s control over key cities. Within days, the rebels advanced toward the capital, delivering a decisive blow to Assad’s government. For years, rebels fought even to hold key Syrian cities. Despite maintaining his grip on power for years through military strength and strategic alliances, Assad’s regime ultimately disintegrated under the pressure of a well-coordinated and united rebel front.
This is not the first time a country has fallen. In recent years, several nations have faced regime changes whether it was Afghanistan, where the Taliban regained power, or Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. Change is a law of nature, and no country is immune to it. Regardless of the form of government be it democratic, dictatorial or monarchy. It can occur anywhere, in any part of the globe where people become obsessed with the functioning of the state. However, the critical question is about the nature of the transition and how smooth it can be. If we examine the countries in the West Asian region where leaders were removed, almost all of them remain in turmoil, with no signs of lasting peace or effective governance. Take Yemen, for example. Despite the people’s fight against the regime, the country remains divided. Some regions are controlled by groups like the Houthis, while others are under the control of different factions. This highlights the harsh reality of political transitions in such nations. The primary reason behind these crises is the deep diversity in these countries different groups with varying ideologies and interests often clash, making unity difficult. Syria, too, is no exception. It is a nation fractured along religious, ethnic, and ideological lines.
Amid all these conflicts, the real victims are the civilians whether in Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, or Libya. The question remains: who is responsible for their suffering? The lessons of Libya, Egypt, and Yemen should not be forgotten, and it is imperative to prevent a repeat of such chaos in Syria. We can only hope that the transition in Syria will be smooth, and that this ancient land once known for its rich civilization will rise again. Perhaps, in time, those who have lost their loved ones may at least find solace in peace and stability.
“The experiences of Libya, Egypt, Yemen, and Syria reveal the harsh truth that regime change alone does not guarantee peace, stability, or democracy. Without addressing the root causes of discontent and ensuring inclusive governance, revolutions risk becoming mere power shifts. As George Bernard Shaw aptly remarked, ‘Revolutions have never lightened the burden of tyranny; they have only shifted it to another shoulder.’ The burden, unfortunately, continues to weigh heavily on the people of these nations.”
