The Gulf states were surprised by the fall of Assad’s regime in Syria. Oman’s diplomatic stance remained consistent during the civil war, favoring engagement with Assad until his ouster. While the government adopts a pragmatic approach toward the new rulers, societal reactions are mixed, reflecting diverse narratives about regime change and the rise of Islamist governance. Oman emphasizes non-interference while condemning Israeli actions amid rising public sentiments regarding their military aggression.
The abrupt end of the Baathist rule in Syria on December 8 caught the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states off guard. The swift collapse of the Assad regime and the rise of rebel forces, led by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), prompted a pragmatic shift in engagement with the newly established Islamist leaders by the Gulf monarchies. The objective now is to ensure regional stability, preserve Syria’s territorial integrity, and avert emerging power vacuums amidst a sensitive political transition.
Oman’s response to these developments is noteworthy, given its unique stance throughout the Syrian civil war. Unlike other GCC nations, Oman maintained diplomatic connections with Damascus, reinstating its ambassador in 2020 after having withdrawn it in 2012. With a commitment to equidistant foreign relations, Oman is assessing the HTS rule’s implications while trying to align its policies with the GCC. This approach aligns with Oman’s historical posture of diplomatic engagement and neutrality, balancing relationships regardless of the ruling government.
Throughout the civil war, Oman advocated for dialogue, engaging with Assad’s regime, and ultimately hosted the Syrian leader for official visits and discussions pertaining to Syria’s reconstruction. These actions underscored the Sultanate’s intent to support Assad’s emergence as a legitimate state leader and facilitate Syria’s reintegration into the Arab community. The recent regime change compelled Oman to adapt to the new political landscape by embracing pragmatic policies toward Syria’s transitional governance.
Omani society, however, exhibits a complex response to the regime’s change, interweaving three primary narratives. The first narrative, championed by pro-Iran segments, frames Assad’s fall as detrimental for the resistance against Israel, perceiving the Syrian regime’s relationship with Iran as vital. The second narrative regards the revolution against Assad’s oppressive rule as a justified and necessary change, expressing optimism for future governance under HTS leadership. A third viewpoint acknowledges the legitimacy loss of Assad yet raises concerns about potential Islamist tyranny that may emerge post-Assad.
Moreover, recent Israeli military actions against Syria post-Assad’s ouster have unified the Omani public’s sentiment against Israel, reflecting rising anti-Western sentiments. The Grand Mufti of Oman, while not supportive of Assad, has condemned Israeli incursions in Syria, underscoring a broader sense of solidarity with the Palestinian cause.
Simultaneously, Oman’s government aligns closely with public sentiments by criticizing Israeli military behavior and advocating for the lifting of sanctions against Syria. While Oman condemns external military aggression, it maintains a cautious approach regarding internal Syrian affairs, in line with its traditional foreign policy framework.
Given the potential risks of renewed conflicts in Syria, Oman emphasizes the necessity for the international community to foster stability while allowing the Syrian people to lead their own political journey. This principled stance is consistent with Oman’s historical diplomatic practices aimed at preserving regional integrity and minimizing external interference.
The article explores Oman’s distinctive foreign policy approach in response to the political upheaval in Syria following the ousting of Bashar al-Assad. It highlights Oman’s historical diplomatic relationship with Syria, its commitment to non-interference, and the country’s delicate balance in responding to the shifting geopolitical landscape in the Middle East. The complexity of public sentiment in Oman regarding Assad’s fall underscores the nuanced societal perspectives in the context of regional alliances and ideological affiliations.
In summary, Oman’s diplomatic stance reflects a commitment to maintaining positive relations with the new Syrian leadership while advocating for a careful assessment of local dynamics amidst a transitional phase. The varied narratives within Omani society regarding Assad’s removal highlight the complexities surrounding regional politics, including the responses to external actors such as Israel. Ultimately, Oman’s policy seeks to balance national interests with a dedication to stability and respectful engagement in regional affairs.
Original Source: arabcenterdc.org
