Today, Syria is mentioned in humanitarian reports as a country in need of “reconstruction.” At the head of this “new Syria” stands a former jihadist militia leader who, until recently, had a $10 million bounty on his head. Western chancelleries now speak of “transition,” “stability,” and “political compromise.” But this is a paradoxical narrative.
How did we get here? And what really was the so-called Syrian revolution?
To answer, we must rewind history and confront an uncomfortable truth: the Syrian war did not start as a spontaneous popular uprising, but as a systematically planned destabilization project, externally supported and executed. A strategy that exploited real grievances — corruption, authoritarianism, inequality — even though President Bashar al-Assad had already begun introducing significant reforms in governance.
In 2010, during an official state visit to Damascus, then–Italian President Giorgio Napolitano publicly acknowledged Assad’s efforts toward modernization and openness, noting the development of a climate of international cooperation and dialogue.
Far from being frozen in repression, the Syrian state was cautiously evolving. But this trajectory was violently derailed. The dominant media narrative deliberately ignored these reforms, portraying instead an unchanging, brutal regime — a convenient caricature used to build public support for regime change. A familiar script, previously played out in Iraq and Libya, with the same justifications and consequences.
A Manufactured Narrative, A Manipulated Public
As early as the spring of 2011, images of Syrian “rebels” in the streets were already framed by ready-made storylines. Entire neighborhoods of Syrian cities were reconstructed in Qatar to produce propaganda footage. Eyewitness accounts were fabricated. Numbers were inflated. Public opinion was shaped by selective reporting and emotive storytelling. The result: passive consent for an indirect intervention aimed at toppling the Syrian government.
In the near-total silence of the media — including much of the Catholic press — the Syrian people’s suffering was filtered through an Atlanticist geopolitical lens. Alternative sources were dismissed as “pro-regime.” Those who called for listening to the voices of local communities were ignored.
But reality is stubborn: Syria did not fall into chaos on its own. The conflict was armed, financed, and orchestrated by external powers — the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the Gulf monarchies. The CIA’s “Timber Sycamore” program funneled weapons and jihadist fighters into an already fragile country. Diplomatic initiatives were systematically undermined. Reconciliation efforts were discredited and sabotaged.
“Liberators” and the End of Freedom
The so-called “Free Syrian Army” committed unspeakable crimes: public executions, sectarian persecution, imposition of sharia law, destruction of infrastructure. Yet the narrative labeled them “freedom fighters.” In truth, residents of the so-called ‘liberated’ zones fled en masse. Hundreds of thousands sought refuge in government-held areas — protected by the very state the West wanted to destroy.
One essential question has never been asked — and still isn’t: Why did the international community starve the Syrian people in the name of their “liberation”? Why were sanctions imposed that targeted civilians, blocked medicine, and obstructed reconstruction? Why were jihadist groups legitimized, while those defending their homes were criminalized?
Silence as Complicity
In 2025, silence has become the new form of complicity. The media no longer speak of Syria — because doing so would require confronting ten years of lies. The crimes committed by Western-backed militias don’t make headlines. Nor do Turkish bombings in the north, or the illegal presence of U.S. troops in Syria’s oil-rich regions.
Meanwhile, Syria continues to suffer from a war it never chose. The international embargoes — which strangled the economy and devastated civilian life for years — have only recently been partially lifted, now that their consequences have become impossible to ignore. But the social fabric is torn, young people emigrate, families barely survive, and infrastructure remains in ruins.
Yet the UN now speaks of “reconstruction.” What kind of reconstruction is possible, without first acknowledging the truth? How can peace be built on a lie — when the war was not a tragic accident, but a deliberate geopolitical operation, backed and defended to the end by powerful Western states and their media?
The Media’s Role Today: Silence, Omission, and Complicity
More than a decade into the conflict, the international press — including the Catholic press — has abandoned Syria to the shadows. When not distorting, it remains silent. Death tolls are no longer newsworthy, the mass killing of Alawites goes unreported, and Syrian children no longer evoke sympathy unless they serve a narrative.
And yet, what lies ahead for Syria may make the Assad government — at least wise in governance — appear far more just in retrospect.
Where is the outrage now, from the same editorialists who once preached democracy through missile strikes? Where are the reports from neighborhoods still under rubble or still under siege from sanctions? It’s as if Syria only exists when it confirms the victors’ agenda.
Reconstruction is now dictated by outside powers. “Reconciliation” is forced. Economic concessions serve geopolitical goals. But none of this appears in mainstream coverage — because it would expose previous lies.
The real scandal is not only the war itself, but the narrative that accompanied it, and that still continues — through omission, distortion, and selective memory. Information has been weaponized, and the result is widespread moral indifference. Censorship is no longer needed when silence is enough.