How is an Extremist Marketed in Syria?

As the Syrian regime collapsed, Israel shifted its efforts towards redrawing the security geography and penetrating deeper into Syrian territory in an attempt to establish a future reality where some strategic Syrian land would remain under Israeli control and surveillance. These efforts included targeting Syria’s military infrastructure and dismantling its army’s arsenal, with the aim of creating a demilitarised Syria and rendering its geography unusable in any future equation that might target Israel.

While the world has been preoccupied with tracking the movements of the leader of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), Abu Mohammad al-Jolani (Ahmad al-Sharaa), his transformation in presence and rhetoric has drawn attention. This appears to be part of a strategy to market him as a suitable political option for the next stage. Despite his repeated assertions about respecting diversity within Syrian society, maintaining the country’s unity, and ensuring a democratic transition, doubts remain about HTS’s ability to translate these statements into practical action.

Al-Jolani, who currently leads the Syrian scene as a figure representing an ideological stance, may face serious challenges in accepting others, managing differences, or embracing the principle of power-sharing. His initial steps, forming a homogeneous government and attempting to dominate power, indicate a lack of a genuine strategy to address Syria’s social complexities and political legacy. The regime’s collapse may lead to significant difficulties in dealing with this legacy, both in its security and bureaucratic aspects. Such an approach could provoke expected reactions from various internal factions, such as the Druze and Kurds, or even within Idlib itself, who see this monopolisation of political decisions as a threat to their interests and future.

While simplifying al-Jolani and HTS’s rise to power by emphasising the oppressive image of the previous regime may make the Syrian scene appear clearer, the complexity of the current reality cannot be ignored. International support from the US and regional backing from Turkey may not fully guarantee a political transition, as the real challenge lies in how HTS handles extending its influence over the entirety of Syrian territory, a goal yet to be achieved. Additionally, integrating all segments of Syrian society into a national project remains nearly impossible for an ideologically driven organisation that struggles to embrace political diversity or power-sharing principles.

In recent years, the Biden administration took a notable step in Afghanistan by withdrawing and leaving the country to the Taliban, later marketed desperately as a reformed, moderate movement. Today, this phenomenon is being repeated with HTS, as promises to remove it from the terrorist list, distinguish it from other extremist groups, and present al-Jolani as a progressive, politically competent figure gain traction. However, removing HTS from the terrorist list warrants careful consideration of the potential repercussions. Most extremist groups may adopt escalation and rebellion as a primary strategy in the coming phase, particularly in their competition with each other and in their efforts to gain recognition as viable governing entities. This trend could extend beyond Syria’s borders.

Additionally, this development may reignite aspirations among Islamic parties, which retreated after the Arab Spring, to resume their pursuit of power. The symbolism of certain actions since the Syrian regime’s collapse, such as al-Jolani’s speech at the Umayyad Mosque, framing the event as a victory for the Islamic nation rather than a triumph for Syria’s opposition, and the newly appointed Prime Minister Mohammad al-Bashir delivering his first address from a Friday sermon pulpit at the same mosque, reflects an ideological agenda being marketed as the product of a political rather than religious revolution.

Political transition in Syria remains a challenging and complex process due to historical, social, economic and institutional factors. The risk of internal conflict remains significant, as many Syrian factions have yet to express their stance or acceptance of current developments. Furthermore, ceding control of their areas of influence will not be easy. The position of Daesh also remains ambiguous, with its movements since the regime’s fall unclear.

The region may be on the brink of significant repercussions resulting from what has happened and how things will develop in Syria, both politically and in terms of security. The next phase may also see Israel advancing practical measures on the ground before the Trump administration returns to the White House, including annexing areas of the West Bank, securing its borders with Lebanon and Syria, and striking farther targets which Israel considers to be fronts of Iranian influence extending from Iraq to Yemen and even inside Iran.

Dr Amer Al Sabaileh, a professor in the University of Jordan, is a columnist in The Jordan Times

CrossFireArabia

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

Related Posts

A Middle East Whirlpool! View From Amman

By Saleem Ayoub Quna

Unlike the grey terrain of the Middle East, known for its harsh aridity and barren landscapes, the region’s still-unsettled, multi-front conflicts that erupted after the 7 October, 2023 surprise Palestinian assault on Israeli settlements around Gaza Strip, almost literally, become associated in the public imagination with the colour blue: The sea, its waves, its vessels and its strategic waterways.

The Palestinians called that watershed event Al-Aqsa Flood. Israel described 7 October as a second Holocaust. If the Palestinians deliberately chose the word flood for its religious and symbolic connotations, the Israeli way of describing it, indicated how serious and tough their losses and injuries were.

What followed was a succession of milestones and unprecedented developments across the Middle East. They continue to unfold dramatically, resembling the abrupt and unpredictable movements of hurricanes and tempests on the high seas.

Yet the side-conflicts and mini-wars that followed 7 October have neither followed a single pattern nor obeyed the same rules. Instead, events have moved in different, sometimes opposing directions — unlike the orderly circular motion of an actual whirlpool. It is almost as though every confrontation has chosen a course of its own: The predictable alongside the unpredictable, the rational alongside the seemingly illogical.

It therefore takes more than intelligent guesswork or clever political analysis to determine which direction these events will ultimately take, and which may prove more dangerous — not only to the region and its inhabitants, but also to the many international powers with interests at stake.

If we were to capture the current Middle Eastern scene in a single frame, we might portray it as an extraordinary, almost unbelievable collision of man-made tides, currents and sub-currents, all moving simultaneously through one increasingly turbulent sea.

Because the first shots fired on 7th October around Gaza strip, from a Palestinian point of view, came as a last desperate call and reminder of the injustice they are suffering, they soon found their echoes in the four corners surrounding it: In south Lebanon, Yemen to the south and Iraq and Iran to the east. Even to the west, there were international sailors who belonged to the Peace Flotilla, trying to bring medicine and food to the starving children of Gaza!

One of the most significant currents emerged on Israel’s northern front.

What initially appeared to be a relatively “controlled” confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah steadily intensified until September 2024, when Israel killed the party’s leader Hassan Nasrallah. Only a few months later came another geopolitical earthquake: The collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s government in Damascus in December 2024.

Each development sent another powerful current through the already boiling waters of the wider Middle Eastern whirlpool.

Then came an even larger artificial wave.

In June 2025, the United States launched Operation Midnight Hammer, striking Iran’s three principal nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan while diplomatic efforts surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme were still underway.

Washington described the operation as an attempt to inflict decisive damage on Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Tehran responded with retaliatory action against American military interests in the Gulf.

But that was not the end of the storm.

On 28 February, 2026, the world witnessed another major escalation when the United States and Israel launched coordinated, large-scale attacks against Iran. The two allies acted jointly but gave their military campaigns different names: Washington called its operation Epic Fury, while Israel called its campaign Roaring Lion.

The strikes hit Iranian military infrastructure and senior leadership and inflicted substantial damage. Yet they failed to produce one of the most far-reaching political outcomes sought by US-Israeli advocates of the military campaign: The toppling of the Iranian regime.

And so the whirlpool continued.

Iran responded not simply through missiles and military retaliation, but by shifting the struggle towards one of the most strategically sensitive waterways on earth: The Strait of Hormuz.

Through restrictions on shipping, attacks on vessels and increasingly assertive claims over the waterway, Tehran transformed Hormuz into another major front in the confrontation. The strait — through which a substantial share of the world’s energy supplies traditionally passes — became yet another current dragging regional powers and the wider international community deeper into the turbulence.

Here, the metaphor of the whirlpool becomes more than literary.

Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Iraq, the Red Sea, the Arabian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz are no longer easily separable theatres. Each produces currents that flow into the others. A military strike in one location generates political pressure somewhere else; an assassination changes the balance of power hundreds of kilometres away; a blocked shipping lane reverberates through global markets thousands of kilometres beyond the Middle East.

And all the while, new currents are being created faster than old ones can disappear.

What begins on the shores of Gaza does not remain in Gaza. What happens in Beirut, Damascus, Tehran or the Strait of Hormuz does not remain there either.

The Middle Eastern whirlpool has become too wide, too violent and too interconnected to contain its turbulence within the region itself.

And as it keeps spinning, its waves will continue to splash far beyond the shores of the Middle East — reaching, sooner or later, virtually every corner of the globe.

Conclusion: As long as the waters surrounding the Middle East remain crowded with warships, missiles, blockades, retaliatory strikes and the debris of foreign intervention, the region’s old whirlpool will continue to spin.

Continue reading
‘No Need For Your Crocodile Tears’
  • HebaHeba
  • August 13, 2026

By Ismail Al Sharif

“I’ll say it frankly: We should have exerted more pressure on Israel to adopt a different approach in Gaza” – Jake Sullivan, National Security Advisor to ex-President Joe Biden.

A striking phenomenon is recurring in American politics: Some presidents, cabinet members, and senior officials become more outspoken in their stances toward the Israeli occupation entity after leaving office, expressing regret for decisions that contributed to the injustice inflicted upon the Palestinian people.

This may be due to their liberation from diplomatic and partisan constraints, the pressures of Zionist lobbies, and the influence of tainted money, or perhaps their consciences awaken belatedly as they feel closer to death, realizing the enormity of the injustice they participated in or condoned.

Examples of this are numerous. Among the most prominent is former US President Jimmy Carter, who, after leaving office, shifted from a traditional pro-Zionist rhetoric to criticizing the Israeli occupation and its policies. Then there is Chuck Hagel, former US Secretary of Defense, who held the United States responsible for the Zionists’ continued aggression and described their practices as terrorism— but only after his retirement, of course.

Robert Gates, the former Secretary of Defense, also criticized war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu, calling him ungrateful.

More recently, Jake Sullivan, former National Security Advisor, and Antony Blinken, Biden’s lackluster Secretary of State, joined the ranks of those who have expressed regret. Both men have blood on their hands from the blood of Palestinian children and played a shameful role in supporting the Israeli entity during one of the greatest acts of genocide in modern history.

This was revealed in a lengthy investigation published in The New Yorker magazine last 20th July, titled “How Biden Enabled Israel’s Aggression Against Gaza – and Iran,” with the subtitle: “Top officials from the previous Administration now express regret over their failure to rein in Netanyahu.”

However, this regret will not absolve them for they knew full well that the Zionists were committing genocide in Gaza. On 5 March, 2024, five months after the start of the genocide, Mirjana Spoljarić, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), sent a confidential letter to President Biden. The ICRC, in addition to its humanitarian mission, is obligated under the Geneva Conventions to provide states with information and advice to help them avoid committing war crimes.

In her letter, Spoljarić reminded President Biden that the organization had condemned the “horrific” massacre perpetrated by Hamas against Israelis on 7 October 2023 and that it had continued to press the movement “tirelessly” for the release of the “hostages” it was holding.

However, this time she appealed to Biden with “grave concern,” warning that Israel, which had continued to bombard Gaza with heavy munitions since that October, was ignoring the ICRC in an unprecedented manner.

In her letter, she wrote: “The way Israel conducts hostilities is inconsistent with the laws of armed conflict, particularly the obligations to protect civilians, to distinguish between military objectives on the one hand and civilians and civilian infrastructure on the other, to ensure the humane treatment of detainees and the dead, to protect medical facilities and personnel, and to provide and facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid.”

Despite these clear warnings, the United States remained a key partner in the genocide, providing weapons, money, and political and international cover to Israel. And now some of its officials come to shed crocodile tears for the children of Gaza!

I say to them: You have no right to repent now, after all these martyrs, after all these tragedies, to say: “We are sorry, we made a mistake.” You knew, and you had the power to pressure and prevent, but you chose to support, arm, and cover up. You bear the burden of what happened, and the blood of the children of Gaza will haunt you and pursue your names to the dustbin of history.

This piece by Ismail Al Sharif was originally published in the Arabic Addustour daily and reprinted in English in Crossfirearabia.com.

Continue reading

You Missed

Join The Queue For The Drops

Join The Queue For The Drops

‘My Way Out of Insanity’

‘My Way Out of Insanity’

The Child, Tree and The Dark

The Child, Tree and The Dark

Palestinian Dr Held Over Social Media Posts Suffers Heart Attack in Israeli Detention

Palestinian Dr Held Over Social Media Posts Suffers Heart Attack in Israeli Detention

Israel Violated The Ceasefire 4379 Times in 315 Days

Israel Violated The Ceasefire 4379 Times in 315 Days

Gaza’s Kites Return — and Israel Katz Threatens Revenge

Gaza’s Kites Return — and Israel Katz Threatens Revenge