DAMASCUS: Syrian Arab Republic’s President Ahmed Al-Sharaa has a lot to prove to win over Western powers. If the first few weeks of his rule are anything to go by, he may be heading in the wrong direction.
The West is watching Syria’s leaders closely to ensure they rein in the Islamist militants who killed hundreds of Alawites, create an inclusive government with effective institutions, maintain order in a country fractured by years of civil war and prevent a resurgence of Daesh or Al-Qaeda.
To hammer home the message, three European envoys made clear in a March 11 meeting with Foreign Minister Asaad Al-Shibani in Damascus that cracking down on the militant fighters was their top priority and that international support for the nascent administration could evaporate unless it took decisive action.
The meeting has not previously been reported.
“The abuses that have taken place in recent days are truly intolerable, and those responsible must be identified and condemned,” said French Foreign Ministry spokesman Christophe Lemoine, when asked about the message delivered in Damascus.
“There is no blank check for the new authorities.”
Reuters spoke to the three European envoys as well as four regional officials during a trip to Damascus. They all stressed that the authorities must get a grip on security across the country and prevent any repeat killings.
“We asked for accountability. The punishment should go on those who committed the massacres. The security forces need to be cleaned up,” said one European envoy, who was among the group of officials who delivered the message.
Washington has also called on Syria’s leaders to hold the perpetrators of the attacks to account. US State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said they were monitoring the interim authority’s actions to determine US policy for Syria.
The problem for Sharaa, however, is that his Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) group only comprises around 20,000 fighters, according to two assessments by Western governments.
That makes him reliant on the tens of thousands of fighters from other groups — including the very hard-line militant factions he is being asked to combat – and moving against them could plunge Syria back into war, five diplomats and three analysts said.
Thousands of Sunni Muslim foreigners, from countries including China, Albania, Russia and Pakistan, joined Syria’s rebels early in the civil war to fight against the rule of Bashar Assad and the Iran-backed Shiite militias who supported him, giving the conflict a sectarian overtone.
One of the reasons Sharaa now depends on a relatively small force of some 20,000 fighters from several disparate groups, including the foreign militant, is because he dissolved the national army soon after taking power
While the step was meant to draw a line under five decades of autocratic Assad family rule, diplomats and analysts said it echoed Washington’s decision to disband the Iraqi army after the fall of Saddam Hussein — and could lead to similar chaos.
Sharaa’s move, along with mass dismissals of public sector workers, has deepened divisions in Syria and left hundreds of thousands without income, potentially pushing trained soldiers into insurgent groups or unemployment, worsening Syria’s instability, according to five European and Arab officials.
Neither Sharaa’s office nor the Syrian foreign ministry responded to requests for comment for this story.
STUCK IN A PARADOX
In addition to the challenge of quelling sectarian violence, Sharaa must also contend with a host of foreign powers from the United States to Russia, Israel, Turkiye and Iran — all turning Syria’s territory into a geopolitical chessboard.
Turkiye holds the north, backing opposition forces while suppressing Kurdish ambitions. US-backed Kurdish-led forces control the east with its vital oil fields, while Israel capitalized on Assad’s fall to bolster its military foothold. It now controls a 400-square-km demilitarised buffer zone, supports the Druze minority and is opposed to the Syrian leadership.
In response to the massacres of civilians, Sharaa has established an investigation committee and promised to punish those responsible, even those close to him.
But any action against the militants who carried out the killings could ignite factional infighting, purges and power struggles — leaving the new government stuck in a paradox, the diplomats and analysts said.
“Obviously Sharaa doesn’t control the foreign militants and does not call all the shots,” said Marwan Muasher, vice president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “What is clear is that the massacres were carried out by people who are Salafi militants, and are not listening to what he’s saying.”
While diplomats recognize that the inquiry is a step in the right direction, they said its credibility would have been far stronger with UN and international observers.
Ultimately, they said, the true test of Sharaa’s leadership lies not just in the commission’s findings but in how he deals with the fighters responsible for the atrocities.
The massacres were, however, a stark reminder of the forces at play in post-Assad Syria, signalling a brutal reality that toppling a dictator is the beginning of a larger, more perilous battle to shape the country’s future.
Abdulaziz Sager, founder of the Saudi-based Gulf Research Center, said the presence of “rogue groups” — the foreign militants — operating outside the law would lead to a collapse in security and undermine the state’s authority.
“Therefore, the new leadership has no choice but to take firm action against such violations,” he said.
An Arab diplomat said political support from Arab states was also not unlimited, and would need to be matched by concrete steps, including inclusive governance, protection of minorities and real progress on the ground.
That means genuine power-sharing with Alawites, Christians, Kurds and other minorities — and only then can the new leadership stabilize Syria and garner US and European support, the Arab diplomat said.
Washington and European states have tied the lifting of sanctions, imposed under Assad, to the new authorities proving their commitment to inclusive governance and the protection of minorities. Removing these sanctions is crucial to reviving Syria’s shattered economy, Sharaa’s most pressing challenge.
SAME PLAYBOOK?
But despite promises of reform, the five-year constitution Sharaa unveiled this month gave him absolute power as president, prime minister, head of the armed forces and chief of national security, as well as granting him the authority to appoint judges, ministers and a third of parliament — dashing hopes for democratic reforms.
The constitution also enshrines Islamic law as “the main source” of legislation.
Critics argue that the constitution swaps autocracy for Islamist theocracy, deepening fears over Sharaa’s roots as the leader of a hard-line Islamist faction once allied with Al-Qaeda.
Kurds, who control northeastern Syria and recently agreed to integrate with the new government, criticized the temporary constitution for “reproducing authoritarianism in a new form.”
Syria’s dilemma, analysts say, mirrors the trials faced by Arab states a decade ago when, in 2011, a wave of uprisings ousted dictators in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen.
The “Arab Spring” upheavals promised democratic revival, but takeovers by Islamists, military coups, and violent fragmentation turned these hopes into setbacks. The victories were short-lived, with states such as Yemen and Libya descending into violence and chaos.
Syria, having endured a far longer and bloodier conflict, now stands at a similar crossroad.
Analysts say if Syria’s rulers adopt exclusionary policies that ignore the cultural, religious, ethnic diversity of its citizens, they are bound to fail.
In Mursi’s case, his divisive constitution failed to meet the people’s diverse demands and led to his toppling by the army. Such a policy in Syria, the analysts add, would fuel domestic resistance, antagonize neighbors, and prompt foreign intervention.
“Some internal and external forces wanted a secular state, while the constitutional declaration reaffirmed the state’s religious-Islamic identity, stating that Islamic law (Sharia) would be the primary source of legislation,” said Sager. “A possible compromise could have been a model similar to Turkiye’s — a secular state governed by an Islamic party.”
Muasher at the Carnegie Endowment said Assad’s fall should serve as a warning to those who replaced him in Syria.
He said Sharaa must decide whether to adopt the same playbook that made Assad vulnerable and led to the mass Sunni uprising that eventually ousted him — or adopt a different course.
“Syria’s new rulers must recognize that the brutal authoritarian model of the regime they replaced was ultimately unsustainable, as is any political system based on exclusion and iron-fisted rule,” Muasher said.
“If they fall back on repression, they will subject Syria to a grim fate.”
