This situation really highlights just how difficult it is to gauge the true stability of a regime.

Two weeks ago, anyone predicting what we’ve just witnessed would have been dismissed as delusional or lunatic.

I followed the Syrian war closely from its beginning until 2020, and like many others, I eventually moved on, resigned to the belief that Assad had secured his grip on power for good.

From the outside, the regime seemed solid. The Syrian armed forces had been reorganized with Russian support, most rebel factions had been crushed or “reconciled,” and no external or internal opposition appeared capable; or even willing, to mount a serious challenge.

Sure, there were warning signs: economic reconstruction was virtually nonexistent, Russia’s commitment was strained by the war in Ukraine, and Hezbollah and Iran were really weakened by their war in Lebanon against Israel. But even with these weaknesses, the regime still seemed entrenched.

And yet, in hindsight, it turns out Assad’s government was little more than a paper tiger. There wasn’t even a dramatic, last-ditch defense by a handful of loyalists. Once Aleppo fell, with what could almost be called “light” fighting in comparison to the earlier stages of the war, the dominoes followed. Hama, Homs and Damascus collapsed in mere days. Maybe 10-30k lightly armed but motivated fighters dismantled what was once thought to be an immovable regime in just ten days.

It’s shocking when you consider that this was the same regime that had managed to endure so many years of grinding warfare, deploying units that, while not stellar in their military capabilities, had shown a tenacious loyalty to Assad’s rule. All of that loyalty, all of that cohesion, seems to have evaporated almost overnight.

I’m both thrilled and utterly baffled.