(The Conversation) – Rahaf Aldoughli, Lancaster University
The fall of the Assad regime after more than 50 years and the rise of the militant group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) has brought Syria to a critical turning point.
Decades of Ba’athist rule entrenched deep ideological and emotional divides within Syrian society. Aside from the massive job of rebuilding the war-torn country’s infrastructure, the militarised nationalism and sectarianism of Assad’s regime have left the country with lasting social and political scars. These must be addressed as a matter of urgency if his successors truly wish to build a unified national identity.
The 13-year civil war deepened sectarian fragmentation, particularly between the ruling Alawite and majority Sunni communities. HTS’s Sunni-centric background now presents it with the considerable challenge of navigating these divides. Further to that, the group’s historical ties to ideological extremism and its origins as a militant and militarised movement contribute to a significant trust deficit both domestically and internationally.
Meanwhile the old order has been shattered. This was already happening. By the time of Assad’s downfall, the regime’s army was severely compromised. Systemic corruption, sectarian favouritism and organisational inefficiencies had crippled its effectiveness as a military force.
Before the war began with the popular uprising of 2011, the Syrian army was a sprawling institution with hundreds of thousands of personnel across various branches. By and large, loyalty to the regime was prioritised over professional competence.
A web of competing interests, deeply tied to sectarian and tribal allegiances and entrenched nepotism further eroded the army’s integrity. It had also largely lost the respect of the bulk of the Syrian people and was seen by most as a tool of Assad, rather than a defender of the people.
This image was cemented in many people’s minds by the savagery directed against peaceful civilian protesters during the uprising.
More than a decade of conflict further eroded the army’s effectiveness. Reports highlight the loss of over 75% of its combat capabilities due to defections, desertions and the capture of weapons by opposition forces.
The job of the next generation of leaders will be to rebuild. HTS leader Ahmad al-Shara, has said he envisions that the Syrian army will transition from conscription-based recruitment to a professional, volunteer force equipped with advanced training and modern technology. But this strategy remains vague and inconsistent, particularly as the full disarmament of armed groups – a critical prerequisite for forming a unified national army – has yet to be agreed upon with al-Shara.
Challenges ahead
Adding to this complexity are the regional dynamics that pose significant challenges to the new leadership under HTS. Convincing armed groups, including factions within the Turkey-backed Syrian National Army (SNA), to formally disarm remains a major hurdle. This issue is further exacerbated by Turkey’s role in maintaining factionalism in northern Syria.
“Ahmad al-Shara,” by Juan Cole; Digitally enhanced, 2024.
Turkey’s policies in northern Syria have long been aligned with its national security and geopolitical interests. This is particularly the case when it comes to countering Kurdish autonomy movements in northeast Syria. While this may serve Ankara’s strategic goals, it risks undermining Syria’s sovereignty and its efforts to establish an independent future.
The new regime, whatever shape it takes, must ensure it addresses regional interests. But it must avoid compromising the broader objective of building a unified and inclusive Syrian state.
Balancing external support with the need to rebuild trust within the population will be critical. Achieving this balance will be a formidable challenge. But it’s essential for building a Syria that is both stable and sovereign.
Initial statements from Syria’s new leadership about military restructuring and its commitment to transitional justice signal an intent to break with the oppressive practices of the Assad regime. But these declarations have already been overshadowed by alarming incidents that raise questions about accountability and the broader implications of this transition.
In areas such as Latakia and Homs, Arabic-language videos have surfaced showing acts of brutal retribution. These have included torture of Alawites. There is also evidence of the summary execution of some remnants of the Assad regime. Thus far there appears to have been no sign of due process or indication that the perpetrators will be held to account.
Delicate transition
Interviews with former senior regime officers by some media channels, incuding al-Jazeera have revealed a mix of cautious optimism and uncertainty. Officers described the process of disarmament as relatively smooth. But many appeared uncertain about their future roles and whether they would be integrated into the restructured army or sidelined entirely. This sense of limbo has the potential to destabilise the transition.
An additional layer of complexity arises from HTS’s ongoing efforts to legitimise itself in the eyes of the international community. Since taking power, the group has actively sought to be delisted as a terrorist organisation. It presents itself as a pragmatic and stabilising force capable of filling the power vacuum in post-Assad Syria.
In its few weeks in charge, the new regime has welcomed a number of Arab and other foreign delegations. This shows a calculated effort by HTS to portray itself as a legitimate political organisation, ready to lead the next chapter of Syria’s future. While this engagement could help al-Shara and HTS improve the way it is seen on the international stage, it is fraught with challenges and contradictions.
On one hand, the participation of international delegations in dialogue with HTS could be seen as a necessary, if controversial, step toward stabilising Syria and preventing prolonged chaos. But there’s a risk that by doing this too rapidly it will be granting al-Shara and HTS unchecked authority before addressing key concerns about governance, inclusivity and the group’s ideological legacy.
The absence of concrete guarantees for a transition to power-sharing and institutional pluralism raises the spectre of a new form of authoritarianism, cloaked in the rhetoric of reform and stability.
Rahaf Aldoughli, Lecturer in Middle Eastern Politics, Lancaster University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved