Rewind to the Syrian government’s crackdown in 2011 and it seemed as if all forms of protest would be quashed. Civil war followed in Syria, whilst the legacies of America’s intervention in Iraq continued, in turn establishing two Sunni Islamist groups of similar origins. Both came under the umbrella of Al-Qai’da yet each one differed in ideology and appeal.
Differences Between Al-Qai’da offshoots: Al Nusra Front & Daesh
The ANF, under the leadership of Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, tended to local dynamics at play in Syria unlike Jolani’s comrade in Iraq: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Both organisations brought Sunni Islamism into play yet Jolani disagreed with Baghdadi’s extreme interpretation of Islamism: Takfiri ideology.
Whilst the ANF designated Shia Muslims ‘apostates’, the ANF conducted a localised jihad against the Syrian regime unlike Daesh whose leadership committed to fighting jihad at a global level, in turn, waging a war until the establishment of a global caliphate predicated on the removal of every minority group.
The Moderation of HTS after 2016
Jolani’s ideology became moderate, over the years, even before HTS’ capture of Idlib from the Syrian regime in 2018. In 2016, Jolani severed ties with Al-Qai’da and rebranded the group as Jabhat Fatah al-Sham later known as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham in 2017.
HTS’ appeal grew in the coming years as Daesh supported pan-Islamism at a global level rather than Islamism as an alternative for an a sectarian, corrupt, and oppressive regime in Dimashq. Both groups believed in similar Islamist ideology yet one focussed on regime change rather than the extremes of Daesh in ideology and ambition.
Jolani’s moderation came as HTS established firm control in Syria’s north-west province of Idlib. Active engagement with the Syrian people, housing displaced Syrians, whilst actively combating Daesh and foreign-backed mercenaries, under Russian and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps sponsorship, helped Jolani win popular support amongst Syrians.
Normalisation with Assad and the Arab League
Fast forward to 2022 and it seemed that any momentum, on the side of the rebels, wained in the face of Russian, IRGC, and tacit support amongst Khaleeji states for the Syrian regime; the Arab League welcomed Assad back into the fold whilst the Gulf Cooperation Council, with the exception of Qatar, visited Dimashq as a sign of rapprochement.
GCC states remained committed to the removal of Islamism, both in Syria and the wider region, as Islamism presented a reoccurring security threat amongst Sunni-majority populations across the GCC. Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and Manama preferred regional stability than the unknown of regime change at a time of GCC modernisation, rebranding, and visionary leadership in ‘Vision 2030’.
HTS’ Military Success: Necessary Next Steps
Naturally, HTS’ recent military success in Syria comes as a surprise to those who worry that Syria may replicate Afghanistan as a ‘Taliban 2.0.’ There is some weight to this as recent statements, made by Jolani, applauded the Taliban’s return to power in 2021 as an exemplar of jihad and true governance. The Taliban even gifted out sweets on the streets of Kabul as news broke of Jolani’s military success across Syria. However, international politics has a way of shifting group ideology once in power.
International politics has a way of shifting group ideology once in power.
Above all, Syrians seek a accountable and visionary leadership. Opposition-led calls for feminist politics are out-of-touch with the reality on the ground. Any long-term stability in Syria depends on international support, conflict mediation, and genuine support for all communities in Syria. Failure to do so risks a new civil war, similar to Libya, with competing canons of influence fragmented across Syrian territory.
International Rapprochement
The international response to the rebels’ success is indicative of the trajectory of the Syrian state.
Earlier this week, the Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office reported to be reviewing the status of HTS whilst U.S Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, confirmed that Washington is in contact with Jolani. The European Union also confirmed reports that it is monitoring the situation in Syria, however, the EU stated that it will not initiate contact until the United Nations removes HTS’ designation as a proscribed terrorist organisation. It seems that any solution depends on the removal of sanctions on HTS in return for a visionary plan of stability under HTS’ leadership.
UN talks in Dimashq indicate that events on the ground are shifting towards change. A removal of sanctions, in return for assurances on the safety of all ethno-sectarian communities in Syria, a promise to fully disassociate with any Al-Qai’da affiliates, and security assurances against Hizb’allah, Israel’s security, and Jordanian security in the border regions, would likely meet the requirements of the international community.
Syria’s exiled secular opposition and US-backed Peshmerga, in north western Syria, are unlikely to form any government despite EU support for either party. The international community should support any solution with any party that provides stability, governance, and reconstruction in Syria without repeating the mistakes of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.
Intervention in any form must eliminate the roots of the Syrian civil war and the subsequent rise of Daesh after 2011. Providing stable leadership, irrespective of historical affiliations, that supports the dignity, inclusivity, and safety of all Syrians – irrespective of ethno-sectarian identity – is the way forward if Syria is to govern again.
