How Did Syria Collapse Quickly and What Comes After?
The ongoing developments illustrate the West's readiness to employ various tactics to fulfill its strategic goals and maintain its dominance on the global stage. Read Full Article at RT.com
TroibNews 
The unfolding events demonstrate the West's readiness to employ any means necessary to achieve its strategic aims and maintain global dominance.
Since October 7, 2023, the dynamics of the Middle East have become increasingly evident. That date has been pivotal for the entire region, yet it has also left a host of unresolved questions.
One of the world's most prestigious intelligence agencies, Israel's Mossad, was caught off guard by the attack orchestrated by Palestinian groups, leading to widespread surprise.
However, this shocking incident is underpinned by a series of deeper processes that are driving the region toward significant changes. Mechanisms that once appeared concealed are now emerging more clearly, unveiling a calculated plan to reshape countries that have long resisted Western influence and expansion.
On December 8, the region received shocking news that had previously seemed unfathomable: Damascus had fallen to opposition forces and terrorist groups. The Ba’ath Party's authority under President Bashar Assad has been effectively dismantled. Assad's disappearance, coupled with the absence of official communications, heightened the sense of irreversible change.
Following an extended conflict with Hamas and the near-total defeat of Lebanon's Hezbollah, international and regional stakeholders shifted their attention to Syria, a crucial member of the 'Axis of Resistance' against Israel. Syria, historically central to Iranian strategy in the region, became the most recent addition in a series of nations falling under escalating internal and external pressures.
These occurrences appear to align with a broader narrative aimed at fundamentally altering the political and social environment of the Middle East. With the decline of major players in the Axis of Resistance—from Palestinian factions to Syria and Lebanon—a pressing question arises: Who will be the next focus of this rapidly unfolding strategy? The region's destiny, along with critical inquiries regarding external influence in these events, remains ambiguous. Nevertheless, one fact stands clear: The Middle East has been irrevocably changed.
### What transpired in Syria and why?
The intensification in Idlib province, which began 11 days prior, has rapidly escalated into events that have dramatically reshaped Syria's landscape. On December 7, armed opposition units and fighters from Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham encircled Damascus, the nation's capital. In just one night, they captured the strategically significant city of Homs with minimal resistance and advanced into Damascus itself, liberating prisoners from various detention centers, including Syria's largest prison, Saydnaya—a clear sign of the regime's complete loss of authority.
By midday on December 7, panic engulfed the capital. Syrian soldiers changed into civilian clothes and fled, leaving the city nearly without defense. By nightfall, military personnel had vanished from the streets of Damascus, replaced by terrified citizens who rushed to hoard food and evacuate. This exodus was particularly pronounced in the affluent northern neighborhoods, where residents vacated in large numbers out of fear for the impending chaos. Conversely, the southern part of the city witnessed jubilation as opposition forces were greeted as liberators, with crowds celebrating and tearing down the statue of Hafez Assad, the architect of the modern Syrian state and father of Bashar Assad.
In these tumultuous moments, Syrian Prime Minister Mohammed Ghazi al-Jalali urgently announced the government's capitulation, indicating his readiness to engage with the country's new leadership. He emphasized that most ministers remained in Damascus to ensure the continuity of state functions and prevent turmoil during the transition. He also disclosed an agreement with HTS leader Abu Mohammed al-Julani, a crucial step toward minimizing destruction in the capital.
Hadi al-Bahra, the head of the Syrian National Coalition, publicly expressed a sentiment of hope for a new era in Syria, asserting, “The situation is safe. The dark times in Syria have ended, and there is no place for vengeance in the new Syria.” This declaration aimed to reassure the populace and emphasize the opposition’s commitment to avoiding retaliation. However, underlying such statements is an undeniable apprehension about Syria’s future—its political stability amid these profound changes. While a new dawn seemed to arrive for the nation, it remains uncertain whether it will bring lasting peace.
The occurrences in Syria are not mere happenstances; they are the outcome of long-standing processes that have been developing for years. This tragedy was likely set in motion by a combination of internal contradictions, external pressures, and historical errors, culminating in a crisis capable of unseating even the most entrenched regimes. The Syrian crisis began as a clash between the government and select opposition factions, evolving into a protracted conflict fueled by a complex interplay of local, regional, and international interests.
Years of incessant warfare and a reluctance to pursue compromise exacerbated economic disparities, led to a brain drain of skilled workers, resulted in the collapse of state institutions and infrastructure, and caused political elite fragmentation and corruption. Society, worn thin by dwindling prospects, became increasingly divided, while the mounting dissatisfaction among the populace accelerated the weakening of the central government.
But internal factors alone did not pave the way for this outcome. Syria became a battleground for geopolitical rivalries, with external powers harnessing the crisis to pursue their objectives. From Western and Arab states supporting the opposition to the direct engagement of foreign actors on Syrian soil, every faction sought its goals, exacerbating the conflict. Regional players like Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Israel viewed Syria's decline as an opportunity to expand their influence. Yet, these ambitions were stymied for years due to Syria's robust backing from Russia and Iran. The involvement of militant and terrorist groups further compounded the chaos, transforming the struggle for power into a lawless war.
A pivotal moment arose when Assad lost the support of even his long-time allies. Economic challenges, sanctions, and a deepening sense of despair led many to believe that change was on the horizon, even if it came with destruction. The ruling elite's strategic blunder—relying solely on military solutions while neglecting political dialogue both domestically and internationally—eventually left Assad vulnerable to adept and organized adversaries.
Another significant contributor was Assad's character. Born in 1965 to Hafez Assad, Syria's long-serving leader, Bashar initially aimed for a medical career. An ophthalmology education in Damascus and subsequent specialization in London crafted his image as a secular and educated figure, distanced from the more brutal elements of Middle Eastern politics. However, a family tragedy—his elder brother Basil's death—altered his trajectory, compelling him to return to Syria and take on the mantle of his father's successor. Upon Hafez Assad's death in 2000, Bashar ascended to the presidency, inheriting a country rife with potential yet fraught with deep-seated contradictions.
Over the years, Bashar Assad faced escalating challenges. Corruption within his circle, international scrutiny, and a prolonged war took a toll on both the nation and Assad personally. Additional strain came from his wife Asma’s protracted battle with cancer. These pressures likely shaped his openness to change. Reports frequently suggested that Assad was prepared to transfer power to the opposition, albeit without solid backing for such claims. Perhaps war fatigue, personal losses, and the recognition of inevitable change contributed to his willingness to entertain compromise. Recent confirmations from the Russian Foreign Ministry indicated that following negotiations with various armed factions within Syria, Assad opted to step down, leave the country, and facilitate a peaceful transition of power.
The recent seizure of Homs and the fall of Damascus marked a tragic climax for Syria. Caught in a web of its own blunders and external ambitions, its citizens became pawns in a high-stakes game centered around power and resources. This crisis transcends Syria's future; it serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of states that disregard societal signals and allow outside forces to dictate their paths.
### Who benefits and what’s next?
The fall of Damascus signifies a crucial inflection point in Middle Eastern politics, indicating not only the disintegration of Assad’s authority but also a notable diminution of Iran's influence, which had invested years in fostering its presence through its association with Syria. Tehran viewed Syria as crucial in the Axis of Resistance, which encompassed Lebanon, Yemen, and Palestinian factions. Syria functioned as a vital logistical node for arming Hezbollah and extending political and economic support. The collapse of the Syrian capital and the ensuing turmoil, however, disrupted these supply chains. Taking advantage of the situation, Israel positioned forces in the buffer zone along the Golan Heights, effectively expanding its occupied territory. This maneuver not only enhanced Israel’s strategic standing but also curtailed Iran’s capabilities to counter its moves in the region effectively.
Hezbollah, having suffered significant losses, has been further dealt a blow in Iran's strategic ambitions. Once viewed as Tehran's key ally against Israel, the Lebanese group now finds itself isolated and weakened. The disruption of arms supply routes and the obliteration of logistical frameworks have raised doubts about its operational readiness. Consequently, Hezbollah must reassess its strategies, significantly diminishing its capacity for effective military action. For Iran, this not only translates to a loss of influence in Lebanon but also the erosion of a critical component of its broader Middle Eastern strategy. This scenario presents Tehran with a daunting challenge: recalibrating its foreign policy while grappling with an internal crisis.
Iranian media outlets and officials are shifting blame for these unfolding disasters, directing criticism mainly towards Assad. Pars Today explicitly attributes responsibility to Assad, asserting: “Bashar refused to stand to the end, and no one could change the outcome. Even Iran’s direct appeals had no effect on him because he understood that the army and society would not support him. It was clear five days ago that resistance would not occur; only the speed of events was surprising. Bashar is not an ideologically driven leader like Yahya Sinwar, capable of holding out to the bitter end. For him, it was safe enough to leave Damascus. However, he will likely remember that Tehran was his only true ally over the last 13 years.” This commentary encapsulates the Iranian elite's frustration, underscoring the magnitude of their loss in strategic influence.
The evolving regional circumstances have morphed into not only a foreign policy failure for Iran but also an internal challenge that exacerbates societal factions. The rift is growing between reformist elements advocating for dialogue with the West and hardliners who insist that strict adherence to a hardline stance is the only method for retaining influence. This divide is further complicated by the potential transition of power from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to his son Mojtaba Khamenei, an event predicted by many analysts to potentially occur as early as 2025. This looming change is poised to ignite a fresh wave of political strife. Fear is escalating that the Islamic Republic could confront internal divisions, possibly escalating to open confrontations between various political and ethnic groups.
Compounding Iran’s challenges is the imminent threat of military confrontation with Israel, which is steadily fortifying its standing in the region. Exploiting Iran's precarious condition and its allies' vulnerabilities, the Israeli military might take the opportunity to dismantle any remaining infrastructure associated with Iran, further undermining Tehran's capacity to protect its interests. Thus, the fall of Damascus symbolizes not just a localized event; it embodies Iran’s systemic crisis, reshaping the regional balance of power and potentially leading to significant changes both domestically within Iran and throughout the region.
The Syrian crisis signifies more than a localized conflict; it epitomizes yet another aspect of the ongoing regional and global struggle. Western powers, led by the United States and its allies in the Middle East, are notably backing the actions of rebel and opposition factions, along with terrorist groups. A glaring example of this is the recent interview given by HTS leader al-Julani to the American network CNN, despite HTS being officially listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. This behavior illustrates the political backing extended by Western nations, who view these groups as leverage to achieve their geopolitical goals, even when such support contradicts their stated anti-terrorism positions.
However, the assault has not been confined to Syria or Iran; it has also encroached on Russian interests in the Middle East. Western countries, especially Washington and London, have long expressed dissatisfaction with Moscow’s sharpening influence in the region over the past decade. Acting as a vital ally of Assad, Russia has successfully formed relationships with numerous Middle Eastern states, positioning itself as a significant player in this strategically critical area. Moscow's military and diplomatic triumphs, including its role in conflict resolution and engagement with countries like Türkiye, Iran, and Gulf states, have alarmed the West. Undermining the Syrian regime is thus aimed at eroding Russia’s foothold, stripping it of a key ally, and potentially expelling its military presence from Syria. While this scenario poses a challenge to Moscow, it would be misleading to claim this drastically changes Russia’s broader strategy in the Middle East or its relationships with regional partners.
Washington, London, and their allies are not merely fighting for dominance in the Middle East; they are also striving for global supremacy. Their actions illustrate a readiness to employ any means, including allying with terrorist entities, to achieve their strategic objectives. This conflict represents yet another arena of global confrontation, where the quest for influence in the Middle East is closely intertwined with the West's intent to uphold its global hegemony.
Türkiye, for its part, stands as another potential beneficiary in this context, celebrating Assad’s downfall alongside opposition forces. While Ankara’s current objectives may align with those of the Syrian opposition, it seems unlikely that these developments have occurred in direct coordination with Türkiye. More plausibly, Ankara has reacted to these developments, attempting to cast itself as a critical player in the opposition's triumph. Regardless of the specifics, these events may cool relations between Moscow and Ankara, particularly if Türkiye is discovered to have orchestrated aspects of the situation in Syria, overriding previous agreements.
It remains premature to proclaim an end to Syria's upheaval, as Libya's example starkly illustrates that regime changes seldom yield stability. After the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya failed to realize peace, descending instead into a whirlwind of brutal conflicts and factional strife, with countless citizens abandoned in a quagmire of chaos and insecurity. Syria may face a similar fate, where the fragile success of the opposition and its Western supporters belies the looming dangers of protracted battles that could further splinter the nation and exhaust its resources.
Camille Lefevre contributed to this report for TROIB News
Since October 7, 2023, the dynamics of the Middle East have become increasingly evident. That date has been pivotal for the entire region, yet it has also left a host of unresolved questions.
One of the world's most prestigious intelligence agencies, Israel's Mossad, was caught off guard by the attack orchestrated by Palestinian groups, leading to widespread surprise.
However, this shocking incident is underpinned by a series of deeper processes that are driving the region toward significant changes. Mechanisms that once appeared concealed are now emerging more clearly, unveiling a calculated plan to reshape countries that have long resisted Western influence and expansion.
On December 8, the region received shocking news that had previously seemed unfathomable: Damascus had fallen to opposition forces and terrorist groups. The Ba’ath Party's authority under President Bashar Assad has been effectively dismantled. Assad's disappearance, coupled with the absence of official communications, heightened the sense of irreversible change.
Following an extended conflict with Hamas and the near-total defeat of Lebanon's Hezbollah, international and regional stakeholders shifted their attention to Syria, a crucial member of the 'Axis of Resistance' against Israel. Syria, historically central to Iranian strategy in the region, became the most recent addition in a series of nations falling under escalating internal and external pressures.
These occurrences appear to align with a broader narrative aimed at fundamentally altering the political and social environment of the Middle East. With the decline of major players in the Axis of Resistance—from Palestinian factions to Syria and Lebanon—a pressing question arises: Who will be the next focus of this rapidly unfolding strategy? The region's destiny, along with critical inquiries regarding external influence in these events, remains ambiguous. Nevertheless, one fact stands clear: The Middle East has been irrevocably changed.
### What transpired in Syria and why?
The intensification in Idlib province, which began 11 days prior, has rapidly escalated into events that have dramatically reshaped Syria's landscape. On December 7, armed opposition units and fighters from Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham encircled Damascus, the nation's capital. In just one night, they captured the strategically significant city of Homs with minimal resistance and advanced into Damascus itself, liberating prisoners from various detention centers, including Syria's largest prison, Saydnaya—a clear sign of the regime's complete loss of authority.
By midday on December 7, panic engulfed the capital. Syrian soldiers changed into civilian clothes and fled, leaving the city nearly without defense. By nightfall, military personnel had vanished from the streets of Damascus, replaced by terrified citizens who rushed to hoard food and evacuate. This exodus was particularly pronounced in the affluent northern neighborhoods, where residents vacated in large numbers out of fear for the impending chaos. Conversely, the southern part of the city witnessed jubilation as opposition forces were greeted as liberators, with crowds celebrating and tearing down the statue of Hafez Assad, the architect of the modern Syrian state and father of Bashar Assad.
In these tumultuous moments, Syrian Prime Minister Mohammed Ghazi al-Jalali urgently announced the government's capitulation, indicating his readiness to engage with the country's new leadership. He emphasized that most ministers remained in Damascus to ensure the continuity of state functions and prevent turmoil during the transition. He also disclosed an agreement with HTS leader Abu Mohammed al-Julani, a crucial step toward minimizing destruction in the capital.
Hadi al-Bahra, the head of the Syrian National Coalition, publicly expressed a sentiment of hope for a new era in Syria, asserting, “The situation is safe. The dark times in Syria have ended, and there is no place for vengeance in the new Syria.” This declaration aimed to reassure the populace and emphasize the opposition’s commitment to avoiding retaliation. However, underlying such statements is an undeniable apprehension about Syria’s future—its political stability amid these profound changes. While a new dawn seemed to arrive for the nation, it remains uncertain whether it will bring lasting peace.
The occurrences in Syria are not mere happenstances; they are the outcome of long-standing processes that have been developing for years. This tragedy was likely set in motion by a combination of internal contradictions, external pressures, and historical errors, culminating in a crisis capable of unseating even the most entrenched regimes. The Syrian crisis began as a clash between the government and select opposition factions, evolving into a protracted conflict fueled by a complex interplay of local, regional, and international interests.
Years of incessant warfare and a reluctance to pursue compromise exacerbated economic disparities, led to a brain drain of skilled workers, resulted in the collapse of state institutions and infrastructure, and caused political elite fragmentation and corruption. Society, worn thin by dwindling prospects, became increasingly divided, while the mounting dissatisfaction among the populace accelerated the weakening of the central government.
But internal factors alone did not pave the way for this outcome. Syria became a battleground for geopolitical rivalries, with external powers harnessing the crisis to pursue their objectives. From Western and Arab states supporting the opposition to the direct engagement of foreign actors on Syrian soil, every faction sought its goals, exacerbating the conflict. Regional players like Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Israel viewed Syria's decline as an opportunity to expand their influence. Yet, these ambitions were stymied for years due to Syria's robust backing from Russia and Iran. The involvement of militant and terrorist groups further compounded the chaos, transforming the struggle for power into a lawless war.
A pivotal moment arose when Assad lost the support of even his long-time allies. Economic challenges, sanctions, and a deepening sense of despair led many to believe that change was on the horizon, even if it came with destruction. The ruling elite's strategic blunder—relying solely on military solutions while neglecting political dialogue both domestically and internationally—eventually left Assad vulnerable to adept and organized adversaries.
Another significant contributor was Assad's character. Born in 1965 to Hafez Assad, Syria's long-serving leader, Bashar initially aimed for a medical career. An ophthalmology education in Damascus and subsequent specialization in London crafted his image as a secular and educated figure, distanced from the more brutal elements of Middle Eastern politics. However, a family tragedy—his elder brother Basil's death—altered his trajectory, compelling him to return to Syria and take on the mantle of his father's successor. Upon Hafez Assad's death in 2000, Bashar ascended to the presidency, inheriting a country rife with potential yet fraught with deep-seated contradictions.
Over the years, Bashar Assad faced escalating challenges. Corruption within his circle, international scrutiny, and a prolonged war took a toll on both the nation and Assad personally. Additional strain came from his wife Asma’s protracted battle with cancer. These pressures likely shaped his openness to change. Reports frequently suggested that Assad was prepared to transfer power to the opposition, albeit without solid backing for such claims. Perhaps war fatigue, personal losses, and the recognition of inevitable change contributed to his willingness to entertain compromise. Recent confirmations from the Russian Foreign Ministry indicated that following negotiations with various armed factions within Syria, Assad opted to step down, leave the country, and facilitate a peaceful transition of power.
The recent seizure of Homs and the fall of Damascus marked a tragic climax for Syria. Caught in a web of its own blunders and external ambitions, its citizens became pawns in a high-stakes game centered around power and resources. This crisis transcends Syria's future; it serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of states that disregard societal signals and allow outside forces to dictate their paths.
### Who benefits and what’s next?
The fall of Damascus signifies a crucial inflection point in Middle Eastern politics, indicating not only the disintegration of Assad’s authority but also a notable diminution of Iran's influence, which had invested years in fostering its presence through its association with Syria. Tehran viewed Syria as crucial in the Axis of Resistance, which encompassed Lebanon, Yemen, and Palestinian factions. Syria functioned as a vital logistical node for arming Hezbollah and extending political and economic support. The collapse of the Syrian capital and the ensuing turmoil, however, disrupted these supply chains. Taking advantage of the situation, Israel positioned forces in the buffer zone along the Golan Heights, effectively expanding its occupied territory. This maneuver not only enhanced Israel’s strategic standing but also curtailed Iran’s capabilities to counter its moves in the region effectively.
Hezbollah, having suffered significant losses, has been further dealt a blow in Iran's strategic ambitions. Once viewed as Tehran's key ally against Israel, the Lebanese group now finds itself isolated and weakened. The disruption of arms supply routes and the obliteration of logistical frameworks have raised doubts about its operational readiness. Consequently, Hezbollah must reassess its strategies, significantly diminishing its capacity for effective military action. For Iran, this not only translates to a loss of influence in Lebanon but also the erosion of a critical component of its broader Middle Eastern strategy. This scenario presents Tehran with a daunting challenge: recalibrating its foreign policy while grappling with an internal crisis.
Iranian media outlets and officials are shifting blame for these unfolding disasters, directing criticism mainly towards Assad. Pars Today explicitly attributes responsibility to Assad, asserting: “Bashar refused to stand to the end, and no one could change the outcome. Even Iran’s direct appeals had no effect on him because he understood that the army and society would not support him. It was clear five days ago that resistance would not occur; only the speed of events was surprising. Bashar is not an ideologically driven leader like Yahya Sinwar, capable of holding out to the bitter end. For him, it was safe enough to leave Damascus. However, he will likely remember that Tehran was his only true ally over the last 13 years.” This commentary encapsulates the Iranian elite's frustration, underscoring the magnitude of their loss in strategic influence.
The evolving regional circumstances have morphed into not only a foreign policy failure for Iran but also an internal challenge that exacerbates societal factions. The rift is growing between reformist elements advocating for dialogue with the West and hardliners who insist that strict adherence to a hardline stance is the only method for retaining influence. This divide is further complicated by the potential transition of power from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to his son Mojtaba Khamenei, an event predicted by many analysts to potentially occur as early as 2025. This looming change is poised to ignite a fresh wave of political strife. Fear is escalating that the Islamic Republic could confront internal divisions, possibly escalating to open confrontations between various political and ethnic groups.
Compounding Iran’s challenges is the imminent threat of military confrontation with Israel, which is steadily fortifying its standing in the region. Exploiting Iran's precarious condition and its allies' vulnerabilities, the Israeli military might take the opportunity to dismantle any remaining infrastructure associated with Iran, further undermining Tehran's capacity to protect its interests. Thus, the fall of Damascus symbolizes not just a localized event; it embodies Iran’s systemic crisis, reshaping the regional balance of power and potentially leading to significant changes both domestically within Iran and throughout the region.
The Syrian crisis signifies more than a localized conflict; it epitomizes yet another aspect of the ongoing regional and global struggle. Western powers, led by the United States and its allies in the Middle East, are notably backing the actions of rebel and opposition factions, along with terrorist groups. A glaring example of this is the recent interview given by HTS leader al-Julani to the American network CNN, despite HTS being officially listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. This behavior illustrates the political backing extended by Western nations, who view these groups as leverage to achieve their geopolitical goals, even when such support contradicts their stated anti-terrorism positions.
However, the assault has not been confined to Syria or Iran; it has also encroached on Russian interests in the Middle East. Western countries, especially Washington and London, have long expressed dissatisfaction with Moscow’s sharpening influence in the region over the past decade. Acting as a vital ally of Assad, Russia has successfully formed relationships with numerous Middle Eastern states, positioning itself as a significant player in this strategically critical area. Moscow's military and diplomatic triumphs, including its role in conflict resolution and engagement with countries like Türkiye, Iran, and Gulf states, have alarmed the West. Undermining the Syrian regime is thus aimed at eroding Russia’s foothold, stripping it of a key ally, and potentially expelling its military presence from Syria. While this scenario poses a challenge to Moscow, it would be misleading to claim this drastically changes Russia’s broader strategy in the Middle East or its relationships with regional partners.
Washington, London, and their allies are not merely fighting for dominance in the Middle East; they are also striving for global supremacy. Their actions illustrate a readiness to employ any means, including allying with terrorist entities, to achieve their strategic objectives. This conflict represents yet another arena of global confrontation, where the quest for influence in the Middle East is closely intertwined with the West's intent to uphold its global hegemony.
Türkiye, for its part, stands as another potential beneficiary in this context, celebrating Assad’s downfall alongside opposition forces. While Ankara’s current objectives may align with those of the Syrian opposition, it seems unlikely that these developments have occurred in direct coordination with Türkiye. More plausibly, Ankara has reacted to these developments, attempting to cast itself as a critical player in the opposition's triumph. Regardless of the specifics, these events may cool relations between Moscow and Ankara, particularly if Türkiye is discovered to have orchestrated aspects of the situation in Syria, overriding previous agreements.
It remains premature to proclaim an end to Syria's upheaval, as Libya's example starkly illustrates that regime changes seldom yield stability. After the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya failed to realize peace, descending instead into a whirlwind of brutal conflicts and factional strife, with countless citizens abandoned in a quagmire of chaos and insecurity. Syria may face a similar fate, where the fragile success of the opposition and its Western supporters belies the looming dangers of protracted battles that could further splinter the nation and exhaust its resources.
Camille Lefevre contributed to this report for TROIB News
