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

Oslo: Strangling The Dove

By Dr Khairi Janbek

When we do a recap of the Oslo Agreements, they were a series of accords between Israel and the PLO signed in 1993. It was a process meant to lead to a permanent settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict within five year, including decisions on borders, refugees, security, Jerusalem and settlements.

But right from the start, voices were divided over the process, while for others, the whole idea had a built-in mechanism for failure from the start. The Palestinians started seeing that the Oslo Agreements were neither ending the establishment of Israeli settlements nor the end to occupation, while for the Israelis it didn’t seem to end their security concerns.

Indeed, it is pointless to think which comes first, the chicken or the egg, because two different fears and logistics persisted from the start.  But also, it is important to think about the circumstances which brought about the idea of launching the process, and which did put the PLO in a tough position for being perceived as supporting the wrong side which lost; Iraq.

The room for manoeuvre for the late Yasser Arafat was very tight as he stood to lose the legitimacy of the PLO.

What one is trying to say is that, right from the start, outside official circles, many on the Palestinian side were against Oslo probably as many as was the case on the Israeli side.

The gradual erosion of Oslo mainly through the continued Israeli actions kept feeding extremism on both sides.  Nevertheless, the concept was not revoked by any Israeli government because of its effect on Arab public opinion, pressure which is likely to block any peace initiative. Moreover, the international atmosphere was not conducive for such an initiative.

Having said that, one cannot claim that the international atmosphere is currently more indifferent to the abrogation of the Oslo, rather Israel seems to have more leeway in undertaking unilateral actions with more impunity.

Of course, it is not international law that can be counted on in this respect but rather, at least for the time being Donald Trump’s disapproval of the idea of annexing the West Bank by Israel. This is despite the fact that all the Israeli actions of dividing the West Bank from north to south first and currently from west to east, goes unnoticed. But the important thing has been till now, and don’t say the magic word, end of Oslo.

However, the recent development is that Israeli political parties, the partners in Netanyahu’s government are all pushing openly, for the abrogation of the Oslo agreements and cancelling out all the Israeli obligations towards it.

One can only say such an open declaration is a matter of principle by the Israeli government, because the changes on the ground are there for all to see. One supposes all parties are playing for time to see the end of the Palestinian national aspirations.

The columnist is a Jordanian writer based in Paris, France

Continue reading
How Trump Burned Western Friendships

By Jassem Al-Azzawi

Something remarkable is happening today in the corridors of western powers. America’s closest allies are no longer whispering their frustrations behind closed doors; they are now shouting them from the podiums of their parliaments and in press conferences. And US president Donald Trump is responding in kind. The transatlantic alliance, painstakingly built over eight decades, is now fracturing in a live broadcast.

The immediate cause is the American-Israeli war on Iran, launched on 28 February, 2026, without consulting NATO partners, United Nations, or even Washington’s closest friends. But the rift runs deeper than a single conflict; it reflects a strategy that is indifferent to its allies, or even openly contemptuous of them.

“The Americans clearly lack a strategy.”

The breaking point was starkly illustrated in the frank remarks made by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to students in Marsberg, northwest Germany. Merz likened the conflict with Iran to past US failures in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“It’s clear the Americans don’t have a strategic plan,” he said, describing Washington’s approach as “ill-conceived.”

He went even further, suggesting that the US was being “humiliated” by Tehran’s negotiating tactics which is a stunning public accusation from a Chancellor who, until recently, was one of Washington’s most hawkish European allies.

Trump reacted furiously, writing on his TruthSocial platform that Merz “doesn’t know what he’s talking about” and threatening to reduce the number of US troops stationed in Germany, currently at 36,436. He then told the German chancellor to mind his own business:

“The Chancellor of Germany should spend more time ending the war between Russia and Ukraine, where he has been completely ineffective, and fixing his own battered country… rather than meddling in the affairs of those who are eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat.”

This verbal sparring is transcending all diplomatic norms and is shakening the foundations of the US-European axis.

Starmer: “I’m fed up,” he says publicly.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer invested considerable political capital in cultivating a working relationship with Trump, but that investment has now proven costly. When asked about Trump’s threats to destroy Iran, Starmer told ITV:

“These are not words I would ever use, because I speak from our British values ​​and principles.”

The harshest language came when Starmer placed Trump alongside Vladimir Putin as partners in causing British economic hardship, telling Talking Points:

“I’m fed up with seeing families and businesses across the country struggling with fluctuating energy bills because of Putin’s or Trump’s actions around the world.”

On British military involvement, Starmer was unequivocal: “I will not change my mind, and I will not back down. It is not in our national interest to join this war, and we will not do so.” Trump rewarded this initial stance with a statement to The Sun newspaper: “Starmer has not been cooperative. The relationship is clearly not what it used to be,” he said.

Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund underscored the scale of the material risks by lowering its 2026 growth forecast for Britain to 0.8 percent. This is a direct consequence of the energy shock Trump’s trade war has inflicted on British households.

Sanchez and Carney: Europe and Canada Draw a Line

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has emerged as the most vocal European leader in his criticism of Trump and his uncompromising stance. After Trump threatened to sever all trade ties with Madrid following Spain’s refusal to allow US troops to use the Rota and Morón air bases, Sanchez did not back down. When the ceasefire was announced, his judgment was scathing:

“A ceasefire is always good news, but this temporary relief cannot make us forget the chaos, destruction, and lives lost. The Spanish government will not applaud those who set the world ablaze just because they have finally appeared with a bucket of water.”

For his part, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney offered a broader structural indictment, stating in a speech at the Lowy Institute in Sydney:

“Geostrategically, dominant powers are increasingly acting without restraint or respect for international norms and laws, while others bear the consequences.”

He described the war as “a failure of the international order,” adding that “the United States and Israel acted without engaging the United Nations or consulting allies, including Canada.”

The alarm bells were not only ringing abroad; Senate Democrats launched a fierce campaign to reclaim congressional authority over a war they deemed illegal, unauthorized, and a diplomatic disaster.

Senator Tim Kaine’s diagnosis was accurate: “There was no clear justification, no clear plan, and no effort to engage allies or Congress. When you make diplomacy impossible, you make war inevitable.”

Senator Chris Murphy was even more blunt.

“We have never seen a foreign conflict so publicly mismanaged. We have become a laughingstock around the world, while hurting Americans who are now paying billions more in fuel prices.” Senator Tammy Duckworth linked the current disaster to America’s post-World War II pattern, saying:

“Our duty is to ensure that our nation never again slides into an endless, self-serving war.” Despite this, all six war powers resolutions introduced by the Democrats failed due to Republican loyalty to Trump, even as the war cost the lives of 13 Americans in its first month and the price of a gallon of gasoline reached $4.30.

Time for reckoning has come…

Whether Trump’s antagonism toward allies is a strategic dismantling or simply the impulsiveness of a leader who confuses aggression with strength, the result is the same. He threatened to withdraw from NATO, imposed trade sanctions on Spain, threatened to withdraw troops from Germany, and pushed the “special relationship” with Britain to the brink of collapse. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s warning also came to light.

Trump will “re-examine” Washington’s commitments to allies who did not support the war, as a declaration of “conditional friendship.”

America’s friends are being pushed away, its adversaries are watching, and the West, for the first time since 1945, is genuinely unsure whether it can rely on Washington.

Jassem Al-Azzawi is an Iraqi writer and journalist who contributed this article to the Arabic website, Al Rai Al Youm and appears in Crossfirearabia.com.

Continue reading

You Missed

An Egyptian House in a German Town

An Egyptian House in a German Town

Nakba Art

Nakba Art

Palestinian Population Tops 15.5 Million

Palestinian Population Tops 15.5 Million

‘All I Want is to Bury My Family in Dignity’  

‘All I Want is to Bury My Family in Dignity’  

Israeli Army: 18 Soldiers Dead, 910 Injured in Lebanon

Israeli Army: 18 Soldiers Dead, 910 Injured in Lebanon

Watch Out: Israel is Secretly Filling The West Bank With Settlements

Watch Out: Israel is Secretly Filling The West Bank With Settlements