Russia in Global Affairs

Since December 8, 2024, Syria has transitioned from one situation to another that is completely different from its previous state. The overthrow of the Syrian regime coincided with pivotal events in the Middle East. The regime  change in Syria was brought  by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham[1], an organization classified as a terrorist group globally. Its leader, Muhammad al-Julani, has a complex history; he was initially part of al-Qaeda[2] before breaking away, later being involved with ISIS[3] and then also separating from it. Al-Julani previously led Jabhat al-Nusra[4] and currently heads Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham. Since 2003, he has held several positions within organizations that share a common classification: terrorism, recognized not just by Russia but also by the United States, the West, and the United Nations. Remarkably, despite the global community’s divisions on nearly every issue, even those as pressing as climate change, There is a consensus regarding one aspect of the Syrian crisis today: that Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and its leader, Muhammad al-Julani -there was a $10M  bounty on his head set by the US- are universally regarded as terrorists.

Numerous Syrian opposition figures to the ousted Assad regime, including Dr. Haytham Manna, Dr. Kamal al-Labwani, and Nedal Malouf, have expressed concerns about what they perceive as the early signs of establishing a radical Islamic rule in Syria. They highlight a concerning trend of orchestrating virtual public opinion and ground-level initiatives aimed at manufacturing consent for the current trajectory of the country. Notably, the normalization of al-Qaeda’s[5] presence as a governing authority in the capital is becoming increasingly evident.

The current situation in Syria resembles an open wound in the healing process, where any disturbances in the surrounding environment could lead to catastrophic repercussions not only for Syria but also for the entire region and the international community at large.

The Game of Identifying in Politics

The scene in Syria under Ahmed al-Sharaa “al-Julani” presents a blend of positive statements, reassurances, and concerning practices at the same time. By monitoring and analyzing the political discourse of Ahmed al-Sharaa, we observe that since his first speech from the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, where he donned his military uniform, al-Julani has identified himself as the conqueror of Damascus and its liberator from injustice and tyranny. Some have interpreted this as an exclusionary discourse because, throughout his address, he attributed the victory solely to the «mujahideen,» neglecting to acknowledge the political opposition abroad and downplaying the contributions of the Syrian revolutionaries as a whole. By characterizing the victory as «a new history for the Islamic nation and the region,» he employed the rhetoric of jihadist discourse, sidelining the concept of homeland in favor of elevating the notions of group, organization, and doctrine.

Following his transition to the Presidential Palace in Damascus, Ahmed al-Sharaa, “al-Julani” swapped his military attire for a formal suit and tie, identifying himself as a civilian political figure, a professional in governance, and claiming the title of interim president for the transitional period. He participated in television interviews with various media outlets, both Arab and international. His political discourse during these meetings exhibited a thoughtful and more pragmatic tone, aimed at reassuring both at the regional and international levels , fully cognizant of the sensitivities surrounding the current state of the region and Syria.

Through this discourse, he seeks to forge a new identity for Syria in its regional context and international relations, notably excluding Iran with its previous role.

It appears that Israel was the first to scrutinize the proclamations of this new de facto government in Damascus. It has undertaken an immediate action  by declaring the collapse of the disengagement agreement signed in 1974, occupying the Syrian buffer zone in Quneitra Governorate, and seizing 500 square kilometers of Syrian territory. Additionally, it has inflicted unprecedented damage on the infrastructure of the Syrian army through extensive military assaults. Nonetheless, Ahmed al-Sharaa and his interim government did not  perceive these developments as threats to Syria’s sovereignty, security, unity, or territorial integrity. Al-Sharaa has noted that Syria is currently in a weakened state and is unable to engage in conflicts with any party. So can he maintain this pragmatic approach, or the situation is more complicated than what some media portrays to the public?

It is often asserted that Ahmed al-Sharaa, also known as Mohammed al-Jolani, defected from al-Qaeda[6] and ISIS[7] with the intention of revising his ideological stance and transitioning his organization’s focus from transnational jihad to a localized dimension within Syria. He even went as far as to portray himself as a force combating religious extremism, represented by ISIS[8] and other factions. This development led many to label him a “pragmatic radical” representing a novel case in the history of figures and leaders within extremist Islamic movements.

Ahmed al-Sharaa, «al-Jolani», is being promoted and portrayed by the media as a heroic figure, different from what he was in the past; something that contradicts the conventional wisdom, which says that radical Islamic ideologies tend to become more extremist and more radical over time. This particular scenario has been observed before in Afghanistan, where the Taliban said that they had initially presented themselves as tolerant and moderate before seizing control of the country during the summer of 2021. Following their takeover, they established an iron-fisted rule that is equally as misogynistic as their previous regime, which was in power prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks. This phenomenon also occurred with the «Brotherhood»[9] in Egypt, which ultimately issued the constitutional declaration and  promoted the “Brotherhoodization” of the Egyptian state.

Therefore, many remain cautious about the interim rule model that has emerged in Syria. They are uncertain about the sincerity of Al Sharaa’s  proclaimed pragmatic approach, which has been discussed in various interviews, and whether he can genuinely distance himself from the extremism rooted in his background and the nature of the groups from which he originates.

However, the images and videos circulating from Syria are particularly concerning, as they depict members of the HTS organization[10] launching attacks against what they called them as a «war criminals and those involved in crimes who refused to hand over their weapons and go to the settlement centres» but also «hidden. These actions are justified by their claims of seeking revenge against those they label as «shabiha,»[11]  loyalists and Agents to the ousted Assad regime.

It appears that this extends beyond mere political differences; it might evolve into a sectarian vendetta. Some fighters of HTS derogatorily refer to individuals belonging to religious minorities as «infidels» or «rejectionists,» particularly targeting those from the Alawites, Christians and Shiite sects. This raises alarming prospects for the emergence of a civil war or campaigns of ethnic cleansing against the minorities Alawites and other minorities, who may find themselves increasingly vulnerable to extermination. In this precarious situation, these minorities might turn to external forces in search of international protection, or might launch a counter- revolution.

Al-Sharaa Dilemma, Pragmatism or Sectarianism?

There is clearly a division between Ahmad al-Sharaa and his government on one hand, and the factions on the ground on the other. This is evidenced by the disconnect between their promises of a Syria that represents all sects and religions and the government he formed as an interim government with a single ideology, he  claimed that “harmony” among them is necessary for facilitating the work However, on the ground, factions within the organization are committing violations and establishing field courts in minority areas just one month after the overthrow of the Assad regime, leading to a collapse of security and a state of uncontrolled chaos.

Manifestations calling for radical Islam have proliferated on social media, including the distribution of «the niqab,» for women, alongside promises that an Islamic state will gradually be established in Syria. The Sharaa’s government dismisses all these violations as “individual cases” poised to be addressed. This rhetoric echoes Bashar al-Assad’s statements at the outset of the events in Syria in 2011 regarding the brutal actions of his forces against opponents of his regime, the consequences of ignoring such practices are more evident than ever.

According to a Syrian opposition figure, there are 25,000 fighters from different nationalities within Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham^[12], which facilitated al-Julani’s transformation into Ahmed Al-Sharaa. In recognition of their loyalty and contributions, he rewarded these fighters by appointing some of them to leadership positions within the current military and intelligence authority.

In addition to the approximately 12,000 ISIS prisoners of diverse nationalities currently incarcerated in prisons in northern Syria, this file is reportedly in the hands of the SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces) as a leverage point (pressure card) to exert pressure on the Tahrir al-Sham government in Damascus, aiming to secure guarantees that safeguard their interests.

It remains unclear yet how many will be assimilated and recruited from around the world through various channels, by creation of a conducive environment in Syria, ultimately allowing Europe and the United States to mitigate the threat of extremist crises within their respective nations. The underlying plan may revolve around utilizing these groups to further the interests of certain parties, who perceive them as a threat to their national security, against rival parties worldwide. All scenarios are possible in such a case.

«Human Biological Weapon»!

History suggests that most extremist Islamic groups, regardless of their categorization — whether Sunni or Shia — and those that appear on international terrorism lists, are clandestinely funded. This financial support creates an environment conducive to their growth, enables their proliferation, and often serves as a means to further the interests of the countries providing the funding. In the Afghan context, the United States covertly supported both the Afghan Mujahideen and the «Islamic Mujahideen»[13] operating in neighboring Pakistan. These groups were armed and financed to wage war against Soviet forces in Afghanistan as part of the CIA’s classified «Operation Cyclone» — a clandestine endeavor to arm and finance fighters within Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989, with the ultimate goal of turning Afghanistan into a ‘Vietnam’ equivalent for the Soviet Union. This ultimately led to the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.

However, subsequent events have escalated and went out of control, as the Taliban regime led by Mullah Omar came to power in 1996, these extremist groups became increasingly radicalized. Al-Qaeda[14], led by Osama bin Laden, then thrived under the Taliban’s[15] leadership. Ultimately, this led to the pivotal September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, led by bin Laden, marking a devastating shift in the nature and scope of international terrorism.

The United States declared a comprehensive war on terrorism—seeds of which it had sown—condemning all those who did not stand alongside it in this conflict and accusing them of being opposed to its values.

The world witnessed a unified response, with numerous countries lining up behind America in its war on terrorism.

This led to a military invasion in Afghanistan in 2001, deep within the Asian continent, and temporarily expelling the Taliban regime. However, this action set the stage for further military endeavors, including the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent fall of the Saddam Hussein/Baath regime. Meanwhile, Israel embarked on its own campaign against terror, culminating in the Al-Aqsa Intifada in Palestine in 2000, and the Middle East became engulfed by an unending series of conflicts. By 2011, following the announcement that Osama bin Laden had been killed, the Taliban regime surprisingly returned to power in Afghanistan in 2021. This marked the end of the longest war for the United States, which had lasted a staggering twenty years without achieving any tangible objectives. Instead, the U.S. witnessed the expansion of Al-Qaeda[16] in Iraq under Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s leadership and the subsequent invasion of Syria, leveraging the chaos unleashed by the Arab Spring wave in 2011.

It was in this tumultuous backdrop that a new jihadist terrorist faction emerged in 2012 under the leadership of Muhammad al-Julani, initially known as “Ahmad-Asharaa”[17] and later recognized as ISIS—the Islamic State in the Levant and Iraq[18], affiliated with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in Iraq. Notably, Mohammed al-Julani would later announce the establishment of the “Al-Nusra Front”[19] as an offshoot of Al-Qaeda[20], only to subsequently sever ties with it in July 2016 and rename his organization to Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham[21]. Since 2018, he has headed the government of the Idlib Governorate, which is controlled by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham[22], despite his efforts to project an image of moderation. Nonetheless, a substantial number of jihadist factions operating under his command continue to maintain close ties to the fundamentalist ideology, which remains a persistent concern.

Today, Al-Jolani is positioned before the international community as a representative of Syrian society, even as that very society rejects all forms of dictatorial regimes, particularly the Assad regime,  Al-Qaeda with its remnants, including ISIS, Al-Nusra, and Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham[23], as well as the Iranian presence manifested through its militia affiliations, such as Hezbollah and others.

It is also noticed in Israel’s interest to maintain the ‘fragile balance’ in the Middle East until the region is more fully arranged to serve its interests that protect its security in the Middle East. Perhaps the Abrahamic peace Accord based on ‘peace of power’ is coming, but the question is whether the Syrian and Arab people will pay more in blood for that?

If the goal is to pit the powers against each other, and that is why Syria has been allowed to become a magnet for all the jihadists from around the world to come and train, then it is necessary to be suspicious that they may be used again to serve the interests of the countries that fund these groups against the parties they see as enemies and threats.

Shifting Demographics

Given the nature of the conflict that has raged in Syria since 2011, most of the refugees who came to Europe were Sunni Muslims. Some reports mentioned that some of them have suffered  to integrate into the Western societies to which they moved, especially after the implementation of  bills that are not accepted by them, such as interference in the upbringing of refugee children, social programs, and other measures. However, with the fall of Assad, most of these refugees may return to Syria if they find themselves safe. This seems to serve the EU countries’ interests, as they have witnessed an increase in the rise of the far right, which opposes their countries’ policies on the issue of refugees. In addition to the rise of  the rate of extremism .in their societies.

Therefore, the scenario observed in Syria today, if continued on this basis, may lead to the migration of religious minorities to the Western countries, in a process that some may consider a replacement of refugees from Sunnis Muslims to other religious groups. This process may be perceived as Shifting demographics, evacuating Syria of  minorities. Such a change not only threatens Syria but also poses a risk to the security of Lebanon and the unity of its territory, where 60% of the population are Sunnis. According to the aspirations of some of HTS factions in the areas where they preach their religion, they seek to expand and eliminate the period of «ignorance» in which people live in misguidance.

From Being Labelled a Supporting Terrorism State to Being Ruled by It

The United States has designated Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1979. The U.S. government cited Syria’s support for several organizations that the United States considers terrorist, including Hezbollah and Palestinian militant groups (Hamas and others), as the basis for this designation. The United States first imposed sanctions on Syria on this designation.

Before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States re-designated Syria as an ‘axis of evil’ for the same reasons. The Syria Accountability Act of 2004 was passed, which increased sanctions against Syria. Today, the regime that the United States considers a «terrorist»  has been toppled and replaced by the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) government, which is also designated a terrorist organization by all countries of the world and the United Nations. How will the United States deal with this new form?

As the former regime is no longer in Syria, The U.S. The Treasury has temporarily relaxed certain sanctions on Syria, providing a six-month reprieve aimed at facilitating humanitarian aid and ensuring access to essential services like electricity and water. However, the United States and the West and UN continue to maintain sanctions related to terrorism, which are associated with HTS, the de facto government in Syria. These sanctions would need a UN Security Council decision to be lifted. Meaning that  it would require the approval of all 5 permanent members.

From this angle we could understand Ahmed al-Sharaa’s pragmatic stance, as he is fully aware of the significance of gaining international recognition in the UNSC. This was evidenced by his comment on Russia as he said: “Russia is an important country and the second most powerful country in the world.» «There are deep strategic interests between Syria and Russia. There are also great cultural ties between Syria and Russia. We do not want Russia to leave Syria in the way that some desire.”

The presence of defacto Ahmed al-Sharaa “al-Jolani” and his current government, which emerged from Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, still listed on  as a terrorist group internationally, is the reason for the presence of US sanctions on Syria, as the ones related to Assad is no longer valid, It is also the reason why many countries are hesitant to open up to this form of government. This means, the Syrian people have returned to the same vicious circle of classifications that they can do without, such as terrorism, alliances, and sanctions. If the Jolani government really came to liberate the Syrian people from everything they have suffered, then it must step down from running Syria, even in its interim phase, and make way for a normal government, and a political opposition or others who are not on the terrorism or sanctions lists, and begin a real political phase that represents all components of the Syrian people.

The scene in Syria highlights the fine line between pragmatic and extremist ideologies in a region already plagued by turmoil. The situation risks exacerbating a cycle of violence and sectarianism, threatening to undermine any potential for peace and recovery. Given the current power dynamics in Syria, meaningful reform and broader representation appear necessary to break the cycle of violence, which in turn would improve the nation’s chances of achieving lasting peace. In this complex context, the international community faces a significant challenge, providing humanitarian assistance while maintaining regional security, amidst the intricate web of alliances, rivalries, and opposing interests that will shape Syria’s future.