Syria: Will it be Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde?

It’s a cataclysmic change. An easy overthrow of the ruling regime in Syria headed by President Bashar al-Assad was unforeseen. Yet, in less than a fortnight, rebels — hitherto largely restricted to the country’s north-western Idlib governorate — overran the government forces.

Now, a new, more Islamic group is in charge in the capital, Damascus. West Asia has become even more complicated as a result. Besides, the development is a definite setback for Russia, in addition to being a more serious one for Iran.

Syria’s political landscape has long been one of Alawite clans — who are about 10 per cent of the population and lean towards Shia Islam — ruling Sunni Muslims, who constitute at least 70 per cent of its people. The Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party led by first Hafez al-Assad and later his son Bashar has held hegemony over the country in a totalitarian manner for 53 years. They were comparatively secular; but grossly inattentive to human rights and oppressive towards their political opponents.

Bashar, who trained as an ophthalmologist in London before succeeding his father in 2000, did not enjoy the loyalty his father attracted. Indeed, he evoked frequent discontent. Resistance to him began to increase in 2011, including disaffection in his own extended family.

In 2015, government forces suffered debilitating defeats in northern and southern Syria at the hands of Islamic State militants (who benefited from sophisticated leftover American hardware in neighbouring Iraq), following which — with Bashar’s survival on the line — Russia was invited to intervene militarily.

By the end of 2016, Bashar’s troops, benefiting from the blistering Russian air cover, had re-taken at least half of the territory they had ceded to the rebels.

The Russian bombings certainly achieved more and in a much shorter period to subdue Islamic State than what the Americans had managed over a considerably longer phase.

At the same time, in 2017, a United Nations investigation accused the Bashar government of using chemical weapons (which are strictly banned under the 1997 UN Chemical Weapons Convention) in airstrikes in rebel-held Idlib.

Russian president, Vladimir Putin, however, defended Assad and said it had been ‘done by people who wanted to blame him for that’ — meaning it was skulduggery by the West.

Eventually, all of a sudden, rebels spearheaded by the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) began to advance from the north along Syria’s heartland. Cities fell like nine pins. Damascus was captured on 8 December; Assad fled to Russia, where he was granted political asylum.

The Syrian Army caved in without a fight.

In the Arab world, where authoritarian states abound, security forces are monstrous at oppressing their own unarmed civilians, but often incapable when confronted by an armed adversary, whether external or internal. This is what happened.

That said, the astonishing potency of the HTS and the speed with which it accomplished its mission raises questions. Analysis suggests the US, Israel and Turkey (a NATO ally of the US) may have conspired to conjure the lightning coup.

Did the trio extend intelligence, logistical and special forces support? Did money change hands for the Syrian armed forces to meekly throw down the towel? Had Assad’s administration been infiltrated to pull the rug out from under him? Whatever the circumstances, it was a conspicuously successful operation.

At Turkey’s request, the HTS was earlier spared a pounding from a Russian–Syrian counter-offensive. Turkish president Recep Erdogan’s assurance to Russia and Syria that he would rein in the HTS was actually designed to use the group as a buffer against the Kurdish rebels in Turkey who have long been a headache for Ankara.  

The HTS’ and now Syria’s de facto new leader is 42-year-old Ahmed al-Sharaa, alias Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, a Sunni Muslim man who in green military fatigues can well pass for a Fidel Castro lookalike. But that is where the resemblance ends. In a public speech at a Damascus mosque, he underlined Assad’s ouster as ‘a victory for the Islamic nation’.

Said to be, according to Britain’s Guardian newspaper, from a ‘progressive’ household in the same city, Sharaa too studied medicine. He then joined the jihadists in Iraq to fight the Americans between 2003 and 2006, before being captured and imprisoned for five years.

In 2011, he returned to Syria to team up with the Islamic State and al-Qaeda to combat Assad. Since 2017, he has been at the apex of the HTS and his writ has run over an estimated 2 million Syrians in Idlib. On 10 December, he appointed a colleague with administrative experience, Mohammed al-Bashir, Syria’s interim prime minister.

There is a US$ 10 million bounty on Jolani’s head, for he is designated a terrorist by the US, the United Kingdom and other Western countries. But the al-Sharaa incarnation has in recent years gone out of the way to indicate that HTS will not be hostile to the West.

Indeed, upon arriving at Damascus, Jolani — possibly by deliberate design — introduced himself as Sharaa, eschewing his popular nom de guerre.

The question, though, remains whether ultimately it will be Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde who will hold sway in Syria.

Regardless of the answer to that question, Britain was already considering removing him from the terrorist list, while the UN contemplated erasing the same stigma for the HTS as an organisation.

Shiraz Maher, an expert on extremist Islam at London’s King’s College was quoted as saying, “From what we can see, he is a genuinely changed person. He has been on a journey, and in Idlib, he developed a pragmatic theology.”

Al-Sharaa’s position on Israel, is of course, less clear.

His family are originally from the Golan Heights in south-western Syria, which have disputably been annexed by Israel. So, his switch to the nom de guerre of Jolani is interpreted as his commitment to end this.

Israel was warned this week about trespassing into a UN-monitored demilitarised zone dividing the two countries. It has wantonly carried out hundreds of bombing raids on military installations in Syria and on a Syrian naval fleet — all amid the controversial Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu being in the dock in a corruption trial. 

As for what Sharaa means for Syria itself, Maher added, “Is he (al-Sharaa) creating a secular state? I don’t think so. My guess is that it is going to be Taliban-lite in terms of what he is going to implement.”

The HTS’ guerrilla forces have included Central Asians, who are wedded to a core jihadi ideology. Sharaa himself told the US TV news network CNN, “Don’t judge by words, but by actions.”

Moscow, meanwhile, has moved swiftly to mend fences with the HTS. Russia possesses air and naval bases in Syria, providing it a strategic presence in the eastern Mediterranean region. A pragmatic Sharaa should seize the olive branch. This, therefore, is a test of his mindset and vision.

What the US outreach (or otherwise) will be under an imminent Donald Trump presidency is a matter of conjecture. Incumbent president Joe Biden hailed Assad’s exit as a ‘historic opportunity’ and his aides were already engaged in secret talks to bring home Austin Tice, a US marine turned journalist who has been held hostage in Syria since 2012 — if he is still alive.

The Biden administration has also conveyed to Sharaa that it wants him to completely sever links with the Islamic State. 

A consolidation of diplomatic relations — which hit rock bottom during the Assad era — could be Washington’s only option though. However, if Trump’s approach to West Asia is excessively Israel-centric — which seems to be on the cards — this may well prevent an improvement in US–Syria ties.

However, with Assad and his regime no longer at the helm, the axis of resistance — or, the anti-Israel frontline created in West Asia by Iran — has crumbled. First Hamas in Palestine and then Hezbollah in Lebanon have been hammered, though not obliterated, by Israel in the past 14 months. Now, a pillar of a pro-Iran nation-state in the region has collapsed. This leaves Tehran without a forward defence and thus more exposed to offensives against it.  

Israel's primary desire is to destroy Iran’s nuclear bomb-making capability. America’s wish is to unseat the Iranian mullahs. The combination of the two could result in an emboldened ambition and uncomfortable fireworks not far from India.

The Indian ministry of external affairs’ position on Syria is that it advocates ‘a peaceful and inclusive Syrian-led political process respecting the interests and aspirations of all sections of Syrian society’. Nothing wrong with that.

But Narendra Modi abandoned India’s historical neutrality towards West Asia the day he entered South Block. His overt tilt towards Israel has displeased Iran and New Delhi’s relations with Tehran are thus much watered down today — including our energy cooperation.

Iran, meanwhile, has strengthened its relationship with China — which is not exactly India’s friend.

Concurrently, India’s ties with Pakistan are at a nadir.

In this state of continuous tension, Iran is a potential partner for New Delhi. Tehran has its problems, too, on its frontier with Pakistan. But with India preferring to toe Washington’s line, will solidarity from Iran — if needed — be forthcoming?

Views are personal. Ashis Ray can be found on X @ashiscray. More of his writing can be read here