The title above is not my invention. I did not craft it, nor did I ask artificial intelligence to generate it. It is a real question — with real people behind it — posed by a member of a Facebook page whose participants see themselves as an opposition front against the Syrian authority. The page never stops issuing statements, debating the Syrian reality, and, quite often, chasing rumors: adopting positions, expressing sharp opinions, then quietly deleting posts once it becomes clear the entire story originated from a fake account.

To avoid misunderstanding, I write none of this out of hostility toward the group’s members or irritation with their activity. I follow their posts and, when time allows, read what they write. I do not mock them. In fact, I respect some of what they publish. It is true that I do not engage with them — neither positively nor negatively — but I have learned not to judge people or put them on trial.

Let us return to the question. It may sound jarring to read it in a government newspaper, and it may provoke ridicule from some. Yet it is a question repeated widely in circles that classify themselves as opposed to the authority and embrace the idea of overthrowing it. This ranges from explicit calls for the authority’s departure — voiced repeatedly in livestreams, tweets, and social-media posts — to more extreme appeals, including open calls for Israel to occupy Syria.

In milder form, the question appears in demands to implement UN Security Council Resolution 2254, issued in 2015 — a resolution that time has long since passed. One could almost say the Security Council itself has folded it away and placed it in its archives for documentation purposes and little more. A review of the Council’s sessions devoted to Syria — the latest held on June 22, 2026 — offers clear evidence: the resolution is no longer mentioned at all. The Council’s focus now is on supporting the transitional phase and helping Syria reach safe shores.

Who exactly is this “opposition”?

Only days after the liberation, some voices began presenting themselves as more entitled to power than others. They placed their historical credentials on the table. One “prominent figure” even called on the liberators to hand over power immediately to what he termed “the national forces” and return to Idlib. Literally.

Since the overthrow of the regime — as they claim — had been within reach, diminishing the achievement of liberation became a working method for those who regard themselves as the opposition. Any passing statement issued by the new government, or any decision that displeases a segment of the public, is seized upon as evidence that the authority is unfit to administer Syria.

Naturally, the same tune of democracy will continue to be played in every matter, great or small, as though democracy were a ready-made meal ordered through a delivery app rather than an integrated social endeavor. The amusing part is that those making such demands are the very people who insist we must learn from the experiences of other nations — as though those nations reached where they are now at the press of a button.

Why overthrow — instead of working with — the authority?

Why does the “opposition” think in terms of overthrowing the authority rather than working with it to achieve what it claims to want: what it believes is safest for the country, and what it sees as the only path toward development and transforming Syria into a modern state? And is overthrowing the authority even within its grasp, such that the person who posed the question could ask why it has not happened “so far”?

In October 2011, only months after the revolution began, former U.S. President Barack Obama said during a presidential debate with Mitt Romney: “Bashar al-Assad’s days are numbered.”

That phrase was repeated dozens — even hundreds — of times by Western and Arab officials. Yet those numbered “Obama days” stretched beyond fourteen years. The defunct regime did not fall until a real, organized military force emerged, capable of bearing responsibility for the entire country. This is not praise for the authority; it is a description of reality. The traditional opposition, like all of us, woke up at dawn on December 8 to the surprise that the regime had fallen — while it had been sleeping soundly, waiting for those “numbered days” to expire.

Opposition is not a Facebook page

Across the world, opposition forms a parallel entity to power. It is a real force whose influence on the street cannot be dismissed, and whose ability to make a difference is not theoretical. It can pressure the authority and obstruct decisions it believes are unsound. In times of war and disaster, however, it is present on the ground, close to the people, doing its work rather than merely theorizing.

An opposition that is not on the ground will remain nothing more than a suspended account on social media.

Long ago, Lenin said that politics means wading into the mud of reality. Is the Syrian opposition prepared to wade into that mud — to help remove rubble, clean streets, assist those living in tents, and donate toward building a clinic in a remote village? Or does it believe that a solidarity post on Facebook is enough to feed the hungry?

This article was translated and edited by The Syrian Observer. The Syrian Observer has not verified the content of this story. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.