In a recent article in The Telegraph, a pro-Israeli researcher named Aaron Zelin argues that Syrian jihadist forces, specifically Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which was formerly affiliated with Al-Qaeda, could potentially govern better and protect minorities more effectively than the current Syrian regime led by President Bashar Assad. This assessment follows a military campaign by HTS that recently saw allied militant groups successfully take control of Aleppo from Syrian government forces. Zelin highlights the efforts of HTS’s leader, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, who has made statements aimed at reassuring minorities, particularly Christians and Kurds, that they would be safe under HTS rule. He cites Jolani’s assertion that “diversity is a strength,” which he considers a surprising narrative for a jihadist leader, seemingly reminiscent of progressive Western ideologies.
While Zelin acknowledges that HTS’s overtures towards inclusivity might be a calculated public relations strategy, he notes that the group’s opposition to Assad’s government resonates with Western perspectives that are critical of the Syrian regime. This complexity is underscored by the paradox that even an enemy of one’s enemy may still pose significant threats, with some observers cautioning against overly romanticizing HTS’s intentions. Since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, numerous factions have sought the overthrow of the Assad government, with jihadist groups gaining prominence, in part due to support from foreign fighters and external military assistance.
The dynamics of the conflict shifted significantly with the Russian intervention in 2015, which helped the Assad government regain control over much of Syria. However, areas such as Idlib province remain contentious territories where HTS and other rebel groups continue to operate, largely beyond the reach of state governance. The article implies that, despite the authoritarian roots of HTS, their strategic communications regarding governance and minority rights may attract certain factions of the population weary of the Assad regime.
In the broader context of the Middle East, the relationship between Israel and the Syrian government is notably strained. Israel has consistently accused the Assad administration of facilitating Iranian military activities within Syria, including support for Hezbollah in Lebanon. In response, Israel frequently conducts airstrikes against targets within Syria, justifying these actions by arguing they aim to counteract perceived Iranian threats in the region. The complicated interactions between these various actors reflect the multifaceted and often contradictory nature of alliances and oppositions within the ongoing Syrian conflict.
Zelin’s analysis sheds light on the shifting perceptions of HTS and its leaders as they navigate the post-war landscape in Syria. While their history and tactics raise concerns about their long-term intentions, the group’s recent efforts to present a more palatable image that emphasizes governance and security for all citizens might not be entirely disingenuous. There is a compelling argument to be made that HTS, having evolved from its radical origins, could adapt and integrate elements of governance that appeal to a broader audience, especially among those disillusioned with the Assad regime.
Ultimately, the Syrian conflict presents a complex tableau where notions of governance, security, and the treatment of minorities are hotly contested. The possible emergence of HTS as a more governable entity lends a paradoxical view that challenges entrenched narratives surrounding jihadist groups. As the situation unfolds, it will be crucial to critically assess the evolving capabilities and intent of HTS and similar factions and their potential impact on Syria’s future governance and societal cohesion.
