Syria's Day After

Written by Anthony Trad (MSc Conflict Studies & Comparative Politics), Julien Chevalier (MSc Political Economy of Europe) and Erik Alexander Dorfman (MSc LSE-Fudan Double Degree in the Global Political Economy of China and Europe)

The end of Assad’s brutal half-century dynasty marks a moment of reflection and, undeniably, relief. Yet, as Syria steps into an uncertain transition, a sobering reality emerges: the fall of a dictator has merely cleared the path for the rise of Mohamed Al-Joulani—a former Al-Qaeda affiliate and self-styled jihadist leader—poised to consolidate power amidst the chaos through Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). Make no mistake; this grim exchange feels less like progress and more like trading the plague for cholera. As La Fontaine’s fable warned, “The wolf may shed its coat, but never its nature”; the instincts of tyranny persist, merely cloaked in new guises.

A Backlash Gamble: The West’s Bet on Al-Joulani

In their rush to end Assad’s reign, Western powers risk repeating a perilous mistake: placing faith in a rebranded jihadist with a bloody history. Once an Al-Qaeda affiliate, Al-Joulani—aka now Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa—is being recast as the “lesser evil” compared to Bashar al-Assad. Placing Syria’s future in the hands of a figure once notorious for beheadings is both deeply ironic and dangerously shortsighted. After all, if it interests anyone, the US State Department still designates Al-Joulani as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist,” with a $10 million bounty for information leading to his capture…

This gamble mirrors the West’s catastrophic miscalculation of the 1980s when it armed radical mujahideen like Osama bin Laden to counter Soviet influence in Afghanistan. The strategy sowed decades of terror, leading to the rise of Al-Qaeda and culminating in 9/11. Today, Israeli, Turkish, and American strikes have strategically neutralised Assad’s infrastructure and other rebel factions, clearing his path to power. By sidelining his opposition, this shortsighted approach legitimises another extremist force under the guise of pragmatic politics, risking further entrenchment of Syria’s cycles of tyranny and insurgency.

The most alarming consequence of this gamble is the potential creation of precisely what the West spent years combating: a de facto state for ISIS and its ideological successors. Al-Joulani may now don a suit and speak of moderation, but let us not forget that his armed factions remain rife with radicals deeply tied to extremist networks. The recent release of over 20,000 prisoners from Syria’s horrendous detention camps—many freed by HTS forces—only heightens this. Severed from families who either fled or assumed them dead, these men emerge into a reality marked by despair and detachment. By orchestrating their liberation, HTS has strategically positioned itself as their liberator, tying these men emotionally and ideologically to their “benefactors.” Such loyalty creates fertile ground for recruitment into jihadist ranks, providing HTS with a steady stream of manpower. With territory, a cause, and disillusioned recruits left unaddressed, HTS has all the makings of a renewed extremist base—a factory for terror poised to destabilise Syria and far beyond. 

The repercussions of this gamble extend far beyond Syria. History shows that fighters radicalised in conflict zones rarely remain confined to them. Many will inevitably return to their home countries, posing direct threats to European and global security. The presence of French nationals among HTS forces serves as a chilling reminder of the looming risks. By empowering Al-Joulani, the West inadvertently sows the seeds for future insurgencies, risking a new wave of terrorism that could spill across borders and reignite instability far from Syria’s battlefields. As the power vacuum deepens, regional actors have begun shaping their own strategies to secure their interests—none more prominently than Israel.

Israel’s Strategy in Syria: Securing Borders or Redefining Them?

The risks of radicalised fighters spilling into other regions reflect the local chaos unfolding in Syria. As Assad’s fall has created a vacuum, Israel’s calculated actions to dismantle Syrian defences reveal a broader struggle to redefine borders in a time of profound regional crisis.

Israel’s destruction of Syria’s air defences and the reported neutralisation of 80% of the Assad regime’s former military capabilities underscore Israel’s goal of uncontested control over the region. By weakening the Syrian army and seizing strategic positions, Israel ensures that Damascus remains too weak to pose a credible threat, regardless of who governs Syria in the future. But threats to Israel are not confined to Damascus. Iran may respond to this setback by intensifying efforts to complete its nuclear program, potentially heightening tensions and triggering a regional arms race, particularly with Saudi Arabia and Türkiye.

At the same time, while Assad’s ousting represents a tactical victory for Israel, it also creates a volatile power vacuum. By occupying the buffer zone and advancing into Syrian territory, Israel is pursuing actions that go beyond mere preemptive measures. Though the outcomes remain uncertain, these moves seek to gain leverage over Syria’s future direction. Netanyahu’s statements indicate that Israel will indefinitely maintain its new positions, reflecting a familiar pattern in its territorial strategy. Much like the Golan Heights—occupied in 1967 and annexed in 1981—the newly seized Syrian areas risk becoming another permanent expansion under the guise of security. Netanyahu’s assertion that the Golan Heights “will remain part of Israel for eternity” exemplifies this and casts doubt on any plans for withdrawal. Coupled with rising rhetoric around annexing the West Bank and potentially Gaza, Israel’s actions reveal a broader ambition to redefine its borders under the pretext of defence.

Indeed, Israel’s invasion of the Syrian demilitarised zone, including the strategic seizure of Mount Hermon, marks a significant escalation in its larger ambitions to reshape the Middle East. Through these actions, Israel aims to establish hegemony in a fractured region, pursuing objectives that are not merely political or military but also deeply religious. These ambitions are driven by the messianic aspirations of certain Israeli representatives whose true goal is the restoration of Greater Israel. Backed by unwavering support from the United States and most Western countries, these maneuvers enable Israel to pursue a broader strategy aimed at redrawing regional boundaries, once again at the expense of international norms and stability. The pressing question remains: what event, if any, will put an end to such actions? Especially as the war in Gaza, now in its fourteenth month, has claimed at least 45,000 lives without halting the Netanyahu government’s actions. Yet, while Israel continues to pursue its goals, another key player in Syria, the Kurdish population, faces its own precarious future in the aftermath of Assad’s overthrow.

The Kurds in a New Syria: Threats and Opportunities 

The fate of Kurdish people in Syria in the wake of the overthrow of the government of Bashar al-Assad is uncertain. On the one hand, the democratic autonomous administration of North Eastern Syria (DAANES) has raised the new Syrian flag in Rojava, signaling unity and hope for the new government forming in Damascus, and on the other, fierce battles have been taking place as the Turkish backed Syrian National Army (SNA) pushed Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) out of the northern city of Manbij. Further violence against the Kurds is on the horizon as a Turkish military build-up along the border appears to forecast an imminent invasion of the Kurdish-majority city of Kobane. This move aligns with Turkish National Defense Minister Yasar Guler's statement that dismantling Kurdish forces is Ankara’s “primary issue in Syria.” As Fawaz Gerges, Professor of International Relations at LSE, has correctly pointed out, Türkiye is the largest geostrategic winner right now, and the Kurds, therefore, stand the most to lose in terms of autonomy and security.

The U.S. has been seeking to mitigate conflict between Türkiye and the Kurds because the SDF has been the most effective U.S. partner in the fight against the Islamic State and other Islamist-jihadist groups, and the U.S. maintains about 900 troops in the area. But the incoming Trump administration seems to be poised to remove U.S. troops from Syria, and already in 2019, Trump gave Erdoğan the Green light to invade SDF positions in Syria. However, Trump's rhetoric may be misleading given that he has also boosted that he left troops in Syria to “take the oil.”

While the future of the Kurds in Syria seems bleak, it is crucial to understand precisely who the Kurdish forces in Syria are that Türkiye is targeting and, more specifically, what DANNES is.

The main component of the SDF are Yekîneyên Parastina Gel (YPG) forces, also known as the People's Protection Units. Türkiye views the YPG as part of the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), considered a terrorist organisation by Türkiye, the EU, and the U.S., that has been in conflict with the Turkish state for over four decades. Another force in the SDF is the YPJ- the Women’s Protection Units, an elite all-female fighting force that scares Islamic State fighters to their core because they believe that if a woman kills them, it will prevent them from going to heaven. These collectively are the Kurdish forces in Syria that Türkiye is targeting.

Furthermore, DANNES emerged from the power vacuum of the Syrian civil war when North Eastern Syria achieved autonomy from the Assad government in 2012. This area of Rojava, referring to Western Kurdistan, was then reorganised into a non-state direct participatory democracy based on two pillars: feminism and ecology. The emerging political experiment supported pluralism beyond sectarian divides and, therefore, changed the region's name of Rojava to the more inclusive title of DAANES. Former LSE Anthropology Professor David Graeber, who visited the area multiple times, claimed that democratic confederalism, the guiding political school of thought in Rojava, “should be considered one of the most important events in recent world history.”

Unsurprisingly, the authoritarian leadership of Erdoğan despises the democratic institutions in DAANES. Women’s empowerment in DAANES is also looked down upon, in particular since Türkiye withdrew in 2021 from the Istanbul Convention, whose primary aim is to combat violence against women.

The new Syria that is emerging after the fall of the brutal Assad government has an opportunity to learn from the success of DANNES in forging a more egalitarian society for all Syrians. As the most secular Arab country in the world with a highly diverse population of different ethnicities and faiths, it would be a mistake for the new Syria to force any one religion or ideology on its people. The Syrian people deserve democratic transformation based on pluralism, and DANNES is a Syrian-made role model for that transformation.