Terror past vs. stability: the Syria question

New president of Syria, al-Sharaa, is calling on Western countries and the USA to remove sanctions that were placed on the previous regime and allow his new government to create a stable Syria at a time when a dramatic reshaping is taking place throughout the Middle East.

According to the New York Times, al-Sharaa is asking for military assistance and foreign financing to bring the Syrian economy back from devastation and to prevent any more civil wars in the country.

Having ousted the Assad regime on December 8th, 2024, the new transitional Syrian government has become a key talking point in geopolitics, as influential countries such as the UK, Italy, the US, Russia, and Turkey have engaged in discussions with the new state to determine whether this government can be trusted.

The issue of trust arises from the link between Al-Qaeda and the new government’s president.

Al-Sharaa was formerly known as Abu Mohammed al-Jolani and was the longtime commander of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a group designated as a terrorist organisation by the United States, United Nations, and European Union.

While this connection to terrorism remains a significant deterrent to financing the new state by world powers, the new government has also taken actions that damage their image during their time in power.

On the 7th of March, civilians and the minority group of the Alawites were murdered by government loyalists in North-Western Syria. Al-Sharaa condemned the attacks, but it has left a very sour taste in the mouth of many in the international community.

Despite this the government has made positive strides to counteract such actions by securing Kurdish allies from the SDF forces in the south of the country peacefully, integrating an armed force in the country in order to further stability is a big move, so much so that Marco Rubio US secretary of State gave his praise to the “non-sectarian governance as the best path to avoid further conflict.”

With a mixture of destructive and peaceful actions, the current understanding of the new Syrian government has remained complex for world governments to make a quick decision as to whether they should be stabilising the country through financing.

The key issue with regards to stabilising the country is reducing the sanctions, which “the economy was systematically being destroyed” by, according to al-Sharaa.

In his New York Times interview, a key takeaway was that the sanctions must be relieved as “The sanctions were implemented as a response to crimes committed by the previous regime against the people.”

The UK has begun to remove some of these sanctions, and the US has issued a temporary carve-out to allow humanitarian aid into Syria; however, neither can feel completely just in removing the sanctions and empowering an economy in the hands of al-Sharaa, who has too many questions about his legitimacy.

It is clear it is going to take time for Al-Sharaa to answer the questions over his head, if he can.

Even in the region he does not have the support of many as Egypt have been cautious to interact with their neighbour as they fear the spread of revolutionary sentiment and over 50 Iraqi MPs have submitted complaints against the leader as they look to halt any “legitimising” of the leader by his attendance at the Arab League summit in Baghdad on May 17th.

This criticism and caution appear more than just yet, Al-Sharaa has a clear message to counter these worries.

His clear sentiment is that Syria’s stability affects the Middle East, and more, “Any chaos in Syria will damage not just neighbouring countries but the whole world”.

This is the pressing issue that complicates the decision for world powers regarding whether to support this new regime. They must determine if an unstable Syria is worth the risk of endorsing a terrorist-linked leader and the wider implications this could have on the world if they do not.

New York Times, Maghrebi.org, U.S. Embassy & Consulates in Türkİye