DAMASCUS—The Syrian government’s removal of the Ya Zaynab flag from the Zainab Mosque, a prominent Shiite pilgrimage site near Damascus, underscores the declining fortunes of Iran’s decade-spanning campaign to establish influence in postwar Syria. The symbolic act, quietly enacted as part of Damascus’s attempt to assert autonomy and appease regional Arab powers, signals a striking shift—one with far-reaching consequences for the balance of power in the Middle East.
Iran’s Intervention: Motives, Scope, and Strategy
Iran’s engagement in Syria began in earnest in 2011, as the civil war threatened the Assad regime’s survival. Tehran quickly framed its military presence—primarily organized through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and a constellation of Shiite militias—as a defensive mission to protect holy sites vulnerable to Sunni jihadist threats, particularly Islamic State (ISIS) advances around the Zainab Mosque. However, the scope of deployment soon revealed a broader Iranian ambition: securing a land corridor to the Mediterranean, projecting power into the Levant, and entrenching the Axis of Resistance, which includes Hezbollah in Lebanon and other regional proxies.
Iran’s war effort involved continuous transfers of money, arms, and tens of thousands of fighters from Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, operating under the IRGC’s guidance. According to military analysts and regional sources, these forces took on both frontline and rear-echelon roles, from defending shrines to suppressing Sunni-majority opposition areas, contributing to a sectarian character of the violence.
Syrian Reassertion and the Strategic Ebb of Tehran
The timing of the flag’s removal is significant. With the Assad regime having largely survived the civil war and facing the need to rebuild the country’s shattered economy, Syria has sought renewed ties with Sunni Arab neighbors—specifically Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—by signaling its willingness to reduce overt Iranian presence. Arab states have conditioned reconstruction aid and regional normalization on Syria’s curtailment of foreign militias and the reassertion of national sovereignty.
This effort has found support among wide swathes of the Syrian population, who have seen the Iranian-backed militias as agents of sectarian change, responsible for forced population transfers, and entrenchment in local security structures. The diminishing visibility of Iranian symbols is thus both a diplomatic overture and a reflection of deep-rooted societal discontent.
Israeli Self-Defense and the Regional Equation
Throughout Iran’s involvement, Israel has repeatedly acted in direct self-defense, targeting Iranian depots, IRGC bases, and arms convoys inside Syria to prevent the transfer of advanced weaponry to Hezbollah and the establishment of a permanent Iranian front bordering Israel. These operations, acknowledged by successive Israeli governments and military leaders, have impeded Tehran’s plans and underlined Israel’s determination to counter any threats emanating from Iranian-aligned forces in Syria. The Israeli approach—anchored in intelligence-based precision strikes—demonstrates the state’s legal and moral prerogative to safeguard its population against Iranian-backed terror networks.
Humanitarian Toll and the Costs to Iran
The Iranian intervention has come at immense humanitarian and economic cost. Iran’s proxies, including IRGC units, have been implicated in forced displacement, property seizure, and participation in counterinsurgency actions that devastated civilian populations. For Iran, the campaign has drained state resources, cost thousands of lives among its foreign fighters, and contributed to widespread domestic discontent over foreign entanglements amid internal economic hardship.
Western sanctions on Iran have further compounded the difficulty of sustaining its efforts and have emboldened protest movements, with Iranian citizens repeatedly questioning the rationale for continued involvement in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen at the expense of the domestic economy.
The End of an Ambition?
The removal of the Zainab flag, after years of symbolic and material investment, is poised to become a defining moment of Iranian strategic retreat. With Damascus pursuing pragmatic diplomacy with Gulf and Arab states, and Russia occasionally at odds with Tehran over postwar influence, Iran’s project appears increasingly untenable. The inability to achieve lasting gains after years of sacrifice and expenditure underscores the limits of Iran’s capacity to project power through military proxies.
For Israel, the security stakes remain high, but Iran’s diminished operational latitude represents a validation of its defensive strategy and ongoing campaign to degrade hostile infrastructure in Syria. For the region, the episode reaffirms that enduring stability and recovery depend on sovereign choices—to reject external militias and terror organizations in favor of political solutions and reconstruction.
Iranian policy in Syria now stands as a warning. Attempts to impose foreign-backed sectarian rule in a fractured society have not yielded influence but resistance, not security but uncertainty. As Syrian decision-makers move to restore ties and rebuild trust with regional powers, the lesson to all is stark: oppression by foreign proxies invites only ongoing suffering and, ultimately, defeat.
