2/8 – International News & Analysis Piece

On January 29th, Ahmed al-Sharaa self-proclaimed himself the President of Syria, assuming the leadership of a nation shattered by over a decade of civil war. His rise to power marked an unprecedented transition, as the former leader of al-Qaeda in Syria—previously known as Abu Muhammad al-Jolani— is now the country’s official head of state. In his first interview as president, he sat down with The Economist to outline his vision for Syria’s reconstruction, governance, and international relations. His statements sparked a mixture of cautious hope and deep skepticism both within and beyond Syria’s borders.

Sharaa’s presidency presents a paradox. Despite his claims of steering Syria towards democracy, his past affiliations and tactical maneuvering indicate a consolidation of power rather than a genuine shift towards inclusivity. Upon taking office, he declared his commitment to drafting a new constitution and holding presidential elections, but these plans have been deferred by “three or four years,” leaving his immediate governance strategy uncertain. He has also insisted on unifying Syria’s militias into a national army, yet rival factions remain deeply entrenched, controlling key border regions and economic hubs.

Sharaa’s leadership team is equally controversial. His cabinet is composed mostly of figures from his Idlib-based Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) faction, a jihadist group previously linked to al-Qaeda. While he claims that all militias, including HTS, have been dissolved, his control remains tenuous, and armed groups continue to hold sway over different parts of the country. His efforts to assert centralized power face resistance, particularly from Kurdish forces, who refuse to acknowledge his rule, and from rival factions reluctant to surrender their autonomy.

Sharaa’s ideological stance is another source of contention. While he has made gestures towards democratic governance, his language remains ambiguous. He has spoken of a “diverse government” and the possibility of including non-Sunni representatives, but his rhetoric often veers towards Sunni Arab majoritarianism. His reluctance to clarify Syria’s stance on sharia law further fuels doubts about his intentions. Although he has deferred the decision to a governing body, his vague response—stating that his role is to enforce whatever decision is made—leaves room for speculation about the extent of religious influence in his administration.

His treatment of Syria’s minorities, particularly the Alawites who previously held power under the Assad regime, remains a sensitive issue. By dismantling the remnants of the Assad-era Baathist government and security structures, he risks alienating former state employees and exacerbating sectarian tensions. The parallels with Iraq’s post-Saddam de-Baathification, which led to widespread instability, are hard to ignore.

The biggest immediate challenge for Sharaa is Syria’s economy. The country faces a crippling liquidity crisis, exacerbated by delays in currency shipments from Russia. Power shortages are rampant, with electricity available for only an hour per day in many regions. Reconstruction costs are staggering, and without significant international aid, economic recovery seems unlikely. Sharaa has sought financial assistance from regional players, meeting with Qatar’s emir and visiting Saudi Arabia in a bid to attract investment. However, his reliance on Russia and Iran, coupled with his harsh rhetoric against American “illegal” military presence, complicates his diplomatic outreach to the West.

Despite attempts to signal openness, Sharaa’s foreign policy remains combative. He has warned Israel against further incursions into Syria and reaffirmed that the occupation of the Golan Heights remains a major obstacle to any peace agreements. His stance on Palestinian displacement reflects his alignment with broader regional sentiments but offers little in terms of pragmatic policy solutions. While he has expressed a willingness to normalize relations with various global powers, his credibility remains undermined by his association with designated terrorist groups and his appointment of former jihadists to key positions.

For now, Syria is experiencing a relative calm compared to the turmoil of previous years. The Assad regime’s totalitarian grip has been replaced by Sharaa’s rule, but whether his leadership represents a genuine transition or merely a shift in authoritarianism remains an open question. The country’s political and economic landscape is still deeply fractured, and Sharaa’s ability to unify its disparate factions remains doubtful.

His presidency has opened a new chapter in Syria’s history, but whether it leads to a stable and inclusive future or merely prolongs the cycle of conflict and instability depends on his actions in the coming months and years. While he has spoken of democracy, governance, and economic recovery, his track record and strategic choices suggest that he may be more focused on consolidating power than delivering on his promises. For now, Syria remains in limbo, caught between the remnants of its brutal past and the uncertainty of its future.