They ‘didn’t look the type’: how the media was fooled by Bashar and Asma al-Assad | Zoe Williams

With Bashar al-Assad removed from power as Syria's harsh leader, his wife Asma and their children fled to Russia just in time. The events unfolding are hard to believe. While we can't declare the revolution over, we can certainly say that Assad's rule has come to an end, signaling the conclusion of the Syrian civil war. This conflict has lasted 13 years and resulted in horrific violence, with 580,000 lives lost – over 230,000 of whom were civilians, as reported by the Syrian Network for Human Rights. They attribute around 90% of these civilian casualties to Assad's military forces.

Foreign correspondents often remark that he didn't match the typical image. Adrian Blomfield from the Telegraph describes Assad as "clumsy and tall, with humble mannerisms." John Simpson noted that he appeared "timid and eager to impress." And who could ignore how surprisingly gentle and out of place Asma al-Assad seemed? She presented herself in a tidy and understated way, reminiscent of a character from a television drama.

When the Syrian uprising began in 2011, Vogue featured an article about Asma al-Assad, calling it A Rose in the Desert. At that time, her husband had already taken the lives of over 5,000 civilians, including many children, yet Asma was portrayed as “the most vibrant and captivating of first ladies.” The writer, Joan Juliet Buck, remarked that “her fashion is not the flashy glamour associated with Middle Eastern leadership but rather a purposeful simplicity.”

The situation sparked significant controversy at the time. Initially, Vogue supported the article, but later removed it from its online archive. For a while, the only place it could be found was on a now-defunct fan site dedicated to Assad. The journalist, Buck, distanced herself from the piece, explaining that she had submitted her work in January, before Assad's brutal actions — which sparked international demands for his resignation — began in February. This justification felt a bit flimsy, considering that Assad had been ruling Syria as a repressive regime since he took power in 2000. However, the backlash wasn't solely directed at Buck, who later referred to Asma al-Assad as “the first lady of hell.” Instead, it was a shared acknowledgment that the carefree spirit of the 1990s had come to an end. The world had shifted to a more serious tone, and the previous style of storytelling, which was heavily influenced by postmodernism, no longer suited the new reality. Observing the wife of a tyrannical leader and commenting on her fashion choices, such as her lack of accessories — “no watch, no jewelry except for Chanel agates around her neck, and no wedding ring, but dark blue-green nails” — was no longer appropriate.

Initially, it seemed that the scandal surrounding Asma al-Assad was simply about the controversial nature of her portrayal. However, looking back, it turned out that this profile was both a conclusion to one phase of history and the beginning of another. We later found out that the Assad family had hired an American public relations firm, Brown Lloyd James, for $5,000 a month to manage the creation of that article. Even though it wouldn't be until 2013 that Assad resorted to using chemical weapons against his own people—a move that sparked further international condemnation with little impact—it was clear that he understood his regime was anything but democratic or commendable by global standards. This act could be seen as a challenge to the global liberal elite, as reflected in their media: how much will you ignore for the sake of getting exclusive access? There was never any claim that Vogue was financially compensated to publish the article; rather, the allure of the Assad family's immense wealth—being allowed a glimpse into their lives—seemed enough for the magazine to overlook human rights abuses and focus instead on the allure of glamour.

Around the same time, Vladimir Putin was attempting to present himself as a tough, adventurous figure. He shared images of himself riding a horse without a shirt, cruising on a Harley, and interacting with a tiger. Who cares about the issues of corruption when it seems so entertaining? If a dictator appears relaxed and does not fit the typical image of an authoritarian leader—like when people compared Bashar al-Assad to a giraffe, or labeled others as jokers or reality TV stars—it can create the illusion that life under his rule might not be too terrible after all.

The lack of consequences is strikingly clear now; tyrants appeared to mock the global democratic system, showing just how fragile and flexible its principles could be. However, back then, it was truly confusing.