The title “Iron Woman” has never before been ascribed to Asma al-Assad, a designation that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher exclusively held throughout her tenure. Thatcher rightly earned this title for her domestic and foreign policies.
However, the term seems ill-fitting for Asma in any positive sense. Instead, it signifies something entirely different here.
Syrians are aware that since the passing of Hafez al-Assad’s “shadow ruler” wife, Anisa Makhlouf, Asma al-Assad has blacked out her mother-in-law’s legacy from existence. She has taken an iron grip on the state’s levers and dominated the economy, pushing even Bashar al-Assad himself into the background.
Publicly, whenever Assad appears and wishes to speak in her presence, his refrain is: “Asma and I.” The First Lady’s name must precede his in all matters addressed to the public.
Asma al-Assad, through a meticulously planned long-term strategy, has managed to dominate the state, tackling all her rivals, including those previously under Anisa’s mantle, whether by kin, like “Rami Makhlouf and his father,” or purely through business ties—of which the extended Assad family and their affiliates are many.
After consolidating her power over her adversaries, confiscating their wealth, removing them from the economic spectrum, and controlling everything, Asma has become a target of a fierce campaign of criticism. It started with individuals whose interests had been harmed and spread to include activists seeking a scapegoat for the nation’s disasters, absolving Assad from blame. It appears Asma has become the sacrificial lamb.
However, this lamb is neither small nor weak, but more formidable than any opposition could have imagined; her sovereignty in governance nearly reduces Assad to her shadow or, at best, a subordinate.
Oppression: The Policy of Both the Strong and the Incapable
Syrian politics have been characterized by the oppression of the people since the Ba’ath Party’s rise to power under Hafez al-Assad. The Syrian historical narrative has known only this singular language, entrenched and propagated by the regime for over half a century.
Asma al-Assad has not deviated from this system in dealing with her opponents, regardless of their status, strength, or standing among the populace.
Recently, lawyer (and businessman) Samer Rijab, married to a distant Assad relative, was arrested for his Facebook insults towards Asma. Within pro-regime circles—steeped in sectarian rather than patriotic motives—the consensus is that Asma controls the country’s fate.
Samer Rijab seemingly underestimated Asma’s true power when he berated her due to his personal grievances and mistakenly believed (though to suspect is often morally wrong) that the Assad family he relied on could shield him from harm.
Samer is not alone in his same reasoning. Loyalists hold Asma responsible for the country’s economic downturn and the ensuing hunger across regime-controlled areas, attributing it to her greed and longstanding resentment due to previous marginalization and hatred within the family before Anisa’s death.
Some activists outright claim that Asma’s current actions are purely vindictive, and no one knows to what end the state’s affairs, especially the economy, will turn due to her penchant for revenge. The conflict, once contained within the presidential palace between the mother and wife of the president, has spilled into public life, highlighting Asma’s ferociousness in seeking revenge under Anisa’s former stronghold.
“Emma Tel”
A manifestation of this vengeance is Asma al-Assad’s appropriation of all telecommunication companies once owned by Rami Makhlouf, renamed “Emma Tel.”
Choosing the name Emma wasn’t arbitrary; it was Asma Akhras’s favored nickname among her London friends before marriage. Some have drawn parallels between her name and the protagonist of French novelist Flaubert’s “Emma Bovary,” whose notoriety eclipsed Flaubert himself and led to legal charges.
The tale of Emma in the novel is not identical to that suggested for Asma by many, including international observers. However, the traits shared between the characters are plentiful, beginning with greed, avarice, a love for money, prominence, and fame.
Scenarios for Asma al-Assad’s Fate
Activists on social media speculate about the potential outcomes of the harsh campaign against Asma al-Assad. They envisage scenarios that may seem improbable, yet in the context of Syria’s chaotic state, where madness dictates the country and people’s destiny, anything is conceivable. One wonders: (Could this campaign actually have an impact?)
These scenarios are not unfounded. Throughout history, the fates of women who ruled people in this manner have not ended well, with most meeting untimely, unnatural deaths.
Yet, Asma seems to follow the footsteps of “Imelda Marcos,” who returned to the Philippines and obtained numerous privileges despite her extravagance, avarice, and the acts committed during her husband’s rule.
However, the fate of Elena Ceaușescu, Nicolae’s wife, is evidently dismissed from her mind. Although the situations of repression, despotism, and a wife dominant in governance in Syria resemble those in Romania, which ended with the Romanians’ execution of the couple.
Will the international community continue to crush the Syrian people and allow her the means to remain?
