Regional Repercussions: The Struggle for Influence and Reshaping Alliances

With the formation of the new Syrian army, the region is entering a new phase of geopolitical competition. Iran, which lost its main ally (the Assad regime), is trying to maintain its influence by supporting loyal militias in areas such as the Syrian coast and the Damascus countryside. In contrast, Turkey seeks to strengthen its position as a key player in regional security by training the new army and linking it to defense alliances, while Russia maintains its military interests at Hmeimim Airport and coastal bases, despite its reduced direct role following Assad’s escape.

As for Israel, it is watching developments cautiously, especially with rising talk about arming the new army with advanced weapons that could shift the balance of power in the Golan. On the other hand, Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, show clear support for the new army through financing reconstruction projects, in an attempt to compensate for the vacuum resulting from the collapse of the former regime.

International Responses: Between Reservation and Conditional Support

• United States: Welcomed the steps toward forming a professional army, but emphasized the need to separate any entities linked to “Hayat Tahrir al-Sham” classified as a terrorist organization.
• European Union: Announced its readiness to gradually lift sanctions in exchange for guarantees of a democratic transition and withdrawal of foreign militias.
• United Nations: Called for integrating the new army into future peacekeeping operations, with emphasis on the importance of holding war criminals accountable.

Future Steps: From Formation to Activation

1. Specialized Training: Turkey has pledged to train 50,000 soldiers annually in Turkish military academies, with international oversight to ensure impartiality.
2. Strategic Armament: Contracts with European arms companies are expected to be signed for the supply of air defense systems and armored vehicles, while maintaining a balance that avoids provoking neighbors.
3. Infrastructure: Rehabilitating military bases in Homs and Aleppo, and establishing local ammunition factories with technical assistance from Arab countries.
4. Institutional Reform: Issuing the military “White Paper,” which clearly defines the army’s missions, away from political powers.

Economic Challenges: Funding the Army and Reconstruction

The estimated cost of forming the new army is approximately 5 billion dollars annually, at a time when Syria suffers from destruction of its infrastructure and accumulated debts. Here, the importance of the following becomes apparent:

• International Aid: Conditioning financial support on achieving political reforms.
• Gulf Investments: Especially in the energy sector, to finance weapons purchases.
• Resource Management: Exploiting gas fields in the Mediterranean, which may become a major source of funding.

Restoring Trust: The Army Between Past and Future

To ensure the success of the new army, the stereotypical image of the army as a tool of repression must be broken. The plan includes:

• Awareness Campaigns: Military commanders overseeing community dialogues to explain the army’s role in protecting civilians.
• Women’s Participation: Opening recruitment for women in non-combat units as a step toward empowerment.
• Transparency of Trials: Prosecuting elements of the former army involved in violations, under independent judicial supervision.

Expectations: An Army for Syria or Syria for the Army?

If Syria succeeds in forming a professional army free of sectarian loyalties, it may become a model for Arab Spring-stricken countries. But concerns remain about:

• Militarization of the State: The transformation of the military elite into a new ruling class.
• External Dependency: Control of supporting states over Syrian security decisions.
• Internal Polarization: Division of society over the army’s role in the transitional phase.

Conclusion: Between the Hammer of Challenges and the Anvil of Hope

The new Syrian army is not merely a military institution, but a national project to restore the torn Syrian identity. Despite the enormous challenges, success in building it may redefine Syria’s future as a unified state, capable of transcending the legacy of bloodshed toward a dawn of stability. The question awaiting an answer: Will this army be destined to be a guardian of nascent democracy, or another failure in the history of Arab militarization?