The Dictatorship
How much should Americans fear the man who just toppled Bashar al-Assad
For 83 years, Dec. 7 has been remembered as a day of infamy. After this weekend, that day will have a new legacy — a day of freedom, as one of the most brutal and repressive regimes in modern history disappeared.
The liberation of Syria from the clutches of President Bashar al-Assadafter his family ruled the country for 50 years, is an unqualified good. How did it happen so quickly and so unexpectedly? And what comes next? I reached out to the New Yorker’s Anand Gopalwho has reported extensively from Syria over the past several yearsto help make sense of the extraordinary events of the past two weeks.
According to Gopal, three external factors loomed large. Under Assad, Syria’s biggest regional benefactor was Iran, but since the Oct. 7 attacks, it has withstood Israeli military strikes and watched its Palestinian ally, Hamas, also weakened by Israel.
Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah, had also been an important provider of military resources and fighting men for Assad — but the Islamic group has been severely diminished after weeks of Israeli attacks in Lebanon.
Finally, and perhaps most decisively, with Russia bogged down in Ukraine, Assad could no longer rely on Moscow’s direct military engagement in fighting the rebels, particularly Russia’s close air support that had become crucial for Syria’s army.
Perhaps the most striking thing about HTS, under Jolani’s leadership, is the group’s outreach to the international community.
However, perhaps the most critical factor was internal: the slow-motion decay of the Assad regime. Massive corruption, economic stagnation and the utter dysfunction of the government hollowed out the country and tested the loyalty of the military rank and file. When the rebels finally mobilized from their area of control and captured Aleppo, the country’s second largest city, on Nov. 29, the low morale of Syria’s army, combined with the lack of Russian air support, doomed Assad’s regime. Rather than fight for the country’s leader, government forces abandoned their posts — and, in some cases, also their uniforms and equipment.
Ironically, all this was happening at the same time there’d been a steady and slow move toward regional normalization. Just weeks ago, Assad attended a meeting of the Arab League in Saudi Arabia, a year after his Arab opponents had given back Syria’s seat in the organization.
Now he’s in Moscow, likely forever.
What comes next? Since the outbreak of civil war in 2011 — and even after Assad largely put down the rebel uprising — Syria has devolved into sectarian conflict.
Even before Assad’s fall, a host of rebel factions controlled much of the state’s territory, including the Syrian National Army, which is basically a Turkish proxy; the Syrian Democratic Forces, an American proxy consisting of Kurdish and Arab elements that controls around 30% of Syria’s territory; and now Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the group responsible for the final nail in the coffin of the Assad regime. How these groups interact and cooperate (or don’t) will be crucial to Syria’s future.
Much has been made of the fact that HTS grew out of Al Qaeda’s Syria offshoot and that the United States has designated its leader, Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, a terrorist. But Jolani has gone out of his way to disown Al Qaeda, purge HTS of more extremist elements and publicly moderate his views.
Gopal, the New Yorker’s reporter, believes the ideological shift is “genuine,” and Jolani appears to be “very pragmatically minded.” Indeed, Jolani seems to be saying all the right things in the run-up to Assad’s fall and after the president’s flight to Moscow.
He’s beseeched his supporters to avoid reprisals against Assad loyalists and has consistently preached a message of unity, dignity, and justice. He’s even extended an olive branch to Syria’s Christian, Kurdish and Alawite minorities. The latter is most notable because, through the Assads, it was the Alawites that ruled Syria with an iron fist for the past five decades.
Jolani has played things well so far, but the real work begins now.
Gopal, who has watched HTS’s growth over the past several years, is less surprised by the group’s political and diplomatic success than its military capacity, which seemed to catch much of the world off guard as well. “They’ve thought about the politics of this in ways that are impressive,” he said. Indeed, after HTS’s takeover of Aleppo, Syria’s second-largest city, in late November, the group immediately moved to establish security, protect civilians and provide basic services to the city’s residents. According to Middle East analyst Aaron Zelin, this is consistent with HTS’s rule in the parts of Syria they controlled before the events of the last few weeks. These governing efforts and outreach to civilians contrasts with the Islamic State, which seemed more interested in ideological purity than institution building.
Perhaps the most striking thing about HTS, under Jolani’s leadership, is the group’s outreach to the international community. “They are very serious about wanting rapprochement with the West and refashioning themselves as a national movement, not a transnational jihadist movement,” Gopal said.
He noted that, usually, the prime audience for a rebel group is their domestic constituencies, but “HTS is different,” he said, adding, “They are attuned to the international community — and see it as a very important audience.” HTS has been in direct contact with Iran’s government and agreed to requests from Tehran to protect the country’s embassy and Shiite religious shrines. In addition, HTS has avoided antagonizing Russiaeven going so far as to leave the country’s naval bases in Syria untouched. Jolani seems to recognize that he cannot afford to alienate the various external groups who have been meddling in Syria’s affairs during its bloody civil war — even those who have caused so much needless death and destruction.
Whether Jolani and HTS stay on a moderate course remains to be seen. The potential for further sectarian conflict or score-settling is high. Moreover, there is always the possibility that Jolani is talking a good game but will change his stripes once HTS achieves power. Even in an ideal world, consolidating their rule, forming a stable, representative government, and ensuring harmony among Syria’s grab bag of militias and external actors are herculean tasks. Jolani has played things well so far, but the real work begins now.
The U.S. and the rest of the international community should offer its support to HTS and the new government taking root in Damascus while also holding the group’s feet to the fire when it comes to distancing from jihadists and upholding human rights. But patience is also required: Under Assad’s rule — and particularly since the 2011 civil war began — Syria has experienced untold suffering. Large swathes of the country lie in ruins, and millions of refugees have fled their homes. The economy is in tatters, and the Syrian people are impoverished and hungry. The trauma of those imprisoned and tortured by Assad’s henchmen — or have seen firsthand the destruction wrought by his soldiers — is profound.
But after decades of darkness, the Syrian people are finally experiencing the first rays of freedom. The scenes on the streets of Damascus — and the elation of political prisoners freed from Assad’s hellish prisons — are wonderfully joyous. It is a moment for celebration and a reminder that the desire for freedom and recognition is unquenchable. Syria’s neighbors, along with the international community, must do everything they can to help the country stay on the right path.
Michael A. Cohen is a columnist for BLN and a senior fellow and co-director of the Afghanistan Assumptions Project at the Center for Strategic Studies at the Fletcher School, Tufts University. He writes the political newsletter Truth and Consequences. He has been a columnist at The Boston Globe, The Guardian and Foreign Policy, and he is the author of three books, the most recent being “Clear and Present Safety: The World Has Never Been Better and Why That Matters to Americans.”
The Dictatorship
Judge orders restoration of Voice of America
NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Trump administration to restore the government-run Voice of America’s operations after it had effectively been shut down a year ago, putting hundreds of employees who have been on administrative leave back to work.
U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth gave the U.S. Agency for Global Media a week to put together a plan for putting Voice of America on the air. It has been operating with a skeleton staff since President Donald Trump issued an executive order to shut it down.
A week ago, Lamberth said Kari Lake, who had been Trump’s choice to lead the agency, did not have the legal authority to do what she had done at Voice of America. In Tuesday’s decision, Lamberth ruled on the actions she had taken to respond to Trump’s order, essentially shelving 1,042 of VOA’s 1,147 employees.
“Defendants have provided nothing approaching a principled basis for their decision,” Lamberth wrote.
There was no immediate comment on the decision by the agency overseeing Voice of America. Lake had denounced Lamberth’s March 7 ruling, saying it would be appealed. Since then, Trump nominated Sarah Rogers, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, to run USAGM. That requires Senate approval, a step that was not taken with Lake.
Patsy Widakuswara, Voice of America’s White House bureau chief and a plaintiff in the lawsuit to restore it, said she is deeply grateful for the decision.
“We are eager to begin repairing the damage Kari Lake has inflicted on our agency and our colleagues, to return to our congressional mandate, and to rebuild the trust of the global audience we have been unable to serve for the past year,” she said.
“We know the road to restoring VOA’s operations and reputation will be long and difficult,” she said. “We hope the American people will continue to support our mission to produce journalism, not propaganda.”
Voice of America has transmitted news coverage to countries around the world since its formation in World War II, often in countries with no tradition of a free press. Before Trump’s executive order, VOA had operated in 49 different languages, broadcasting to 362 million people.
The Dictatorship
Trump delays China trip to focus on war in Iran
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is delaying a diplomatic trip to China that had been planned for months but began to unravel as he pressured Beijing and other world powers to use their military might to protect the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump said Tuesday while meeting with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin in the Oval Office that he would be going to China in five or six weeks’ time instead of at the end of the month. He said he would be “resetting” his visit with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
“We’re working with China — they were fine with it,” Trump said. “I look forward to seeing President Xi. He looks forward to seeing me, I think.”
Trump’s visit to China is seen as an opportunity to build on a fragile trade truce between the two superpowers, but it has become tangled in his effort to find an endgame to the war in Iran. Soon after pressing China and other nations to send warships to secure access to Middle Eastern oil over the weekend, Trump indicated his travel plans depended on Beijing’s response, though he added Tuesday that the U.S. didn’t need help from the allies who rebuffed his request.
AP AUDIO: Trump postpones his China trip to focus on the war in Iran
Speaking with reporters, President Trump says he’s postponing this month’s planned trip to China.
In a Sunday interview with the Financial Times, Trump said he wanted to know whether Beijing would help secure the strait before he departed for the late-March summit. On Monday, he told reporters that he had requested a delay of about a month because of the demands of the war.
“I think it’s important that I be here,” Trump said. “And so it could be that we delay a little bit. Not much.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who met with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng in Paris this week for a new round of talks meant to pave the way for Trump’s trip, said any changes to the schedule would be because of logistics, not because Trump was trying to pressure Beijing.
Trump is urging other nations that rely on Middle Eastern oil to help police the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which about one-fifth of the world’s traded oil usually flows. He has singled out China, noting that it gets much of its oil from the strait while the U.S. gets a minimal amount. He also made appeals to Japan, South Korea, Britain and France. There have been no takers so far, and China has been noncommittal.
“We strongly encourage other nations whose economies depend on the strait far more than ours,” Trump said at the White House on Monday. “We want them to come and help us with the strait.”
Trump is framing the war as a favor to the world being carried out by the U.S. and Israel, saying it’s now time for others to do their share to protect the strait. Some world leaders have directly rebuffed the notion and objected to the U.S.’ military approach.
Trump’s trip to China carries major geopolitical consequences as the two nations seek stability in the wake of a trade war that led to soaring tariffs before both sides eased off. Trump and Xi agreed to a one-year trade truce last fall, and Trump later agreed to a state visit to Beijing. He also went to China in 2017, during his first term.
China’s foreign minister said last week that the country looks forward to a “landmark year” in its relationship with the U.S. He added that China’s attitude “has always been positive and open, and the key is for the U.S. side to meet us halfway.”
Trump’s priorities have shifted as the war sends oil prices skyrocketing during a tough midterm year in which affordability was already a chief concern for American voters. In addition to postponing his China trip, he has given Russia a boost by lifting sanctions on its oiland he tapped into the nation’s oil reservessomething he previously objected to doing.
The Dictatorship
Why Judge Boasberg’s ruling on DOJ’s Jerome Powell investigation is bigger than one case
The most important part of Chief Judge James Boasberg’s ruling quashing Justice Department subpoenas served on the Federal Reserve was not simply that he blocked them.
It was that he refused to suspend common sense. He read the subpoenas against the public record that produced them. He took President Donald Trump at his word. That is what made the opinion so important.
Judge Boasberg did not begin with dry procedural throat-clearing. He began with Trump’s own attacks on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and the broader campaign of presidential and White House pressure on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates.
For too long, courts have often maintained an artificial separation between presidential rhetoric and executive action.
He quoted Trump calling Powell “TOO ANGRY, TOO STUPID, & TOO POLITICAL, to have the job of Fed Chair.” He cited another post calling Powell “one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government.” He noted Trump’s statement that “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough!” and his threat that if the Fed did not cut rates, “I may have to force something.”
That was not decoration; it was the architecture of the opinion. From page one, Judge Boasberg made clear that motive was not some side issue here. Motive was the case. The subpoenas arose from a Justice Department investigation into supposed cost overruns in the Federal Reserve’s multiyear headquarters renovation project and into Powell’s congressional testimony touching on those renovations. On paper, that was the inquiry. In reality, Judge Boasberg concluded, something else was going on.
Judge Boasberg wrote that there was “abundant evidence” that the dominant, if not sole, purpose of the subpoenas was to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the president or resign and make way for someone who would. On the other side of the scale, he said the government had offered “no evidence whatsoever” that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the president. By the end of the opinion, that judgment hardened even further: The government had produced “essentially zero evidence” of criminality, and its stated justifications looked like “a convenient pretext” for another unstated purpose.
That is an extraordinary thing for a federal judge to say about the Department of Justice.

This was not a close call. It was not a case in which prosecutors pushed the envelope and got reined back in. It was a finding that criminal process had been used as pressure rather than law enforcement.
And the way Judge Boasberg got there was the real story. He did not invent improper purpose. Rather, he looked at what was already in plain view. Trump spent months attacking Powell, demanding lower rates and making his desired outcome unmistakable. He said, “Anybody that disagrees with me will never be the Fed Chairman!” He said, “I want to get him out.” He said he would “love to fire his ass.” He said Powell “should resign.”
A political appointee then floated the Fed renovation issue as a path toward investigation and possible removal. After that, the U.S. Attorney’s Office opened a criminal investigation on that very theory and served subpoenas on the Federal Reserve.
Judge Boasberg looked at that sequence and refused to act naive.
He was right to.
For too long, courts have often maintained an artificial separation between presidential rhetoric and executive action. The president says what he says. Prosecutors do what they do. Judges examine the narrower legal record and resist attributing too much significance to the political atmosphere outside the courthouse. But there comes a point where that posture stops looking disciplined and starts looking unserious.
From page one, Judge Boasberg made clear that motive was not some side issue here. Motive was the case.
When a president has repeatedly identified the official he wants pressured or removed, made his desired outcome unmistakable and then his Justice Department shows up with a paper-thin theory aimed at that same target, a court does not have to pretend those events are unrelated. Judge Boasberg’s opinion suggested that at least some courts may be losing patience with that formalism.
What made the opinion important was not just that Judge Boasberg drew that inference here. It was that he did so openly, in a way that may signal a broader judicial willingness to read executive motive more realistically in politically saturated cases.
That is not judicial activism. It is common sense.
And Trump’s response since the ruling only reinforced the point. In a post after the decision, Trump attacked Judge Boasberg personally, called him a “Wacky, Nasty, Crooked, and totally Out of Control Judge,” said he has been “‘after’ my people, and me, for years,” claimed the ruling had “little to do with the Law, and everything to do with Politics,” and said Judge Boasberg should be removed from cases involving Trump and his administration.
That mattered because it underscored the precise interpretive move Judge Boasberg made in the opinion. The judge treated Trump’s public words not as background noise, but as evidence reasonably bearing on motive and pretext. Trump’s reaction did not undercut that reasoning. It strengthened it.
It also said something larger and more troubling about the DOJ.

The government was given the chance to substantiate its claims and chose not to. Judge Boasberg was left, as he put it, with “no credible reason” to think prosecutors were investigating suspicious facts as opposed to targeting a disfavored official.
That is not just a loss. It is a collapse of confidence.
And it matters all the more because of what a subpoena is. A subpoena is the point where political pressure becomes legal compulsion. It is the government bringing the authority of criminal process into the room.
That is why misuse of subpoena power is so dangerous. It can impose burden, stigma, cost and fear long before any indictment, and it can intimidate even when no charges are ever filed. Judge Boasberg understood that. He did not treat these subpoenas as some technical skirmish over records. He treated them as part of an effort to pressure the chair of an independent central bank and, in his words, to “bulldoz[e] the Fed’s statutory independence.”
That is why this ruling matters beyond Powell and beyond the Federal Reserve.
Judge Boasberg did not just quash subpoenas.
He modeled a more realistic way for courts to evaluate politically freighted exercises of state power.
And if more judges start doing the same, this opinion will be remembered as more than a rebuke in one ugly case. It will be remembered as an early sign that courts were no longer willing to separate presidential coercion from the legal machinery deployed to carry it out.
Duncan Levin is a criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor who serves as a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School and is a frequent contributor to MS NOW.
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship6 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics11 months agoDemocrat challenging Joni Ernst: I want to ‘tear down’ party, ‘build it back up’
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week






