Exeter, UK (Special to Informed Comment; Feature) – The Arab revolutionary wave that began in 2011 presents two of its most significant, yet fundamentally divergent, case studies: Egypt and Syria. While both nations experienced the overthrow of long-standing authoritarian regimes, the mechanisms, actors, and ultimate outcomes of their revolutions differed significantly. A comparative analysis reveals that Egypt’s revolution, born from a civilian square, was ultimately contained by a resurgent deep state. In contrast, Syria, forged in the crucible of a protracted civil war, achieved a military victory that fundamentally dismantled the old regime. This divergence can be attributed to the distinct nature of revolutionary actors, the role of regional alliances, and the shifting calculus of global powers.
The Anatomy of Revolutions
The Egyptian Revolution of 2011 was the perfect example of a mass civil uprising. Powered by old fashioned grass roots organizing and pamphleteering as well as social media and digital platforms such as Facebook, it rapidly transformed into vast street demonstrations. The movement was characterized by its youthful, secular, and liberal vanguard, operating without centralized leadership or a significant armed wing. The pressure exerted by these relentless protests ultimately forced President Hosni Mubarak to resign, paving the way for the country’s first democratic election in 2012. The Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi victory represented the pinnacle of this civilian-driven process.
However, this parliamentary triumph was short-lived. The Egyptian military, along with the secular and liberal elites, grew increasingly uneasy with Morsi’s governance, fearing that the rule of law and democracy were in danger. In 2013, the army, under General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, orchestrated a coup that deposed Morsi. This event marked a classic “counter-revolution,” where the revolutionary will expressed at the ballot box was subjugated by the entrenched power of the military bureaucracy. The revolution, which had begun with such promise in Tahrir Square, was stalled, demonstrating the perils of a revolutionary process that fails to dismantle or neutralize the old regime’s coercive apparatus.
Or by check:
Juan Cole
P. O. Box 4218,
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-2548
USA
(Remember, make the checks out to “Juan Cole” or they can’t be cashed)
In stark contrast, the Syrian revolution followed a trajectory of rapid and brutal militarization. What began as peaceful protests in Daraa in 2011 was met with extreme state violence, compelling the opposition to take up arms. The emergence of the Free Syrian Army and numerous other factions transformed the uprising into a full-scale civil war. This prolonged conflict created a complex and fragmented landscape of militants. The decisive blow to the Assad regime was not delivered by a civilian movement but by a powerful military coalition, the Syria Liberation Coalition, spearheaded by Idlib-based Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). In a decisive campaign on December 8, 2024, this coalition, in coordination with Turkish-backed groups, captured key cities and laid siege to Damascus, culminating in the regime’s collapse on December 8, 2024.
The post-revolutionary settlement in Syria further highlights the military’s primacy. HTS was formally dissolved, and its fighters were integrated into the country’s national army. Ahmed al-Shara, who emerged from the armed opposition, became interim president. This institutionalization of revolutionary forces stands in direct opposition to Egypt, where the military bureaucracy co-opted and then crushed the civilian political process.
Theda Skocpol’s theories on social revolutions are instructive in this context. She argues that state crises, often exacerbated by international pressures and wars, create opportunities for the seizure of revolutionary power. In Syria, the 13-year war critically weakened the central regime of the Al-Assad family, while the opposition evolved into a formidable, organized military force capable of exploiting this weakness. Egypt lacked such a militarized front; consequently, the revolution remained vulnerable to a counter-offensive from the very institution it relied upon.
The Regional Chessboard
The regional response to these two revolutions further cemented their different fates. In Egypt, the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood was viewed with alarm by established powers such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Their ideological opposition to political Islam led them to openly support and finance the 2013 coup, seeing al-Sisi as a bulwark against regional instability. This created a clear regional polarization, with Turkey and Qatar backing the legitimate Morsi government against the Saudi-Emirati axis. However, the tangible support from Ankara and Doha proved insufficient to reverse the military’s power grab.
Never miss an issue of Informed Comment: Click here to subscribe to our email newsletter! Social media will pretend to let you subscribe but then use algorithms to suppress the postings and show you their ads instead. And please, if you see an essay you like, paste it into an email and share with friends.
The Syrian theater presented a more complex and fluid regional dynamic. Initially, support for the opposition was contentious. However, from 2015 onwards, Turkey and Qatar significantly intensified their military and logistical backing for various factions. Turkey’s military interventions in northern Syria against the PKK’s Syria branch, PYD, and ISIS, and its role in the Astana process, partially checked the Russia-Iran alliance. This aligns with the balance-of-power theory: Turkey, seeking to counter Iranian and Russian influence, actively bolstered the Syrian opposition to reshape the regional balance in its favor.
Crucially, the regional calculus regarding Syria evolved. The perceived threat of Iranian expansionism eventually led traditional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, to adopt a more pragmatic stance. By 2023-24, a tacit understanding emerged, whereby these powers were willing to tolerate, if not openly support, a Turkish-Qatari-backed effort to topple Assad, viewing the removal of an Iranian proxy as a greater strategic priority than concerns about the specific nature of the opposition. This realpolitik stands in stark contrast to their actions in Egypt, where the preservation of the authoritarian state was deemed the superior interest.
The Global Context
Global powers further underscore Egypt and Syria’s divergent paths. During the 2013 coup in Egypt, the United States and European powers offered tepid calls for democracy but took no concrete action against the Sisi regime. Their tacit acceptance, driven by a desire for regional stability and counter-terrorism cooperation, granted the counter-revolution the green light. The hegemony of the U.S.-led order in the post-Cold War era meant that its tolerance for authoritarian changes was a decisive factor.
Syria, however, unfolded in a newly emerging multipolar world. While Russia’s military intervention in 2015 largely helped rescue the Assad regime, its strategic priorities shifted dramatically following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. This forced Moscow to scale back its military footprint in Syria, creating a critical window of opportunity for the opposition. A realist assessment suggests that Russia, preoccupied with Ukraine, may have struck a bargain with Turkey. This bargain involves securing guarantees for its remaining assets in Syria in exchange for limiting its defense of the Assad regime.
Left: “Egypt’s Abelfattah al-Sisi in the White House, 2017” (Public Domain, Wikimedia Commons); Right: Ahmad al-Shara in the White House, 2025 (Public Domain, Wikimedia Commons)
Concurrently, the United States, pivoting its focus towards the Indo-Pacific, demonstrated no appetite for deep involvement in another Syrian imbroglio. This confluence—Russian distraction and American disinterest—created a permissive international environment for the opposition’s final offensive that was absent in 2011. The rapid international recognition of the new Damascus administration post-December 2024, including from regional powers and even the re-establishment of an EU delegation, confirms this global realignment. The international community, prioritizing stability and Iranian influence rollback, quickly moved to legitimize the new status quo—a noticeable departure from the prolonged isolation that followed Egypt’s coup.
In conclusion, the Syrian and Egyptian revolutions represent two archetypes of modern political upheaval with drastically opposed outcomes. Egypt’s was a civilian-led, urban mobilization that achieved an initial political victory through elections, only to be reversed by a military-backed counter-revolution. Syria’s was a brutally militarized conflict that, after 13 years of bloodshed, culminated in the military defeat of the old regime and its coercive structures.
The critical differentiating factors were the nature of the revolutionary actors themselves, the strategic choices of regional powers driven by evolving interests rather than ideology, and a transformative shift
© 2025 All Rights Reserved.jpg ){kind=link}
