The New Rulers of Syria and Ideological Change Under Western Support

The developments in Syria over the past decade have been one of the most complex and significant geopolitical challenges in the Middle East and the world. Since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, the country has witnessed extensive changes in political, military, and social domains. Among these, the interaction between the West, particularly the United States, and the new Syrian government is a sensitive and significant issue that could shape the region’s future in the coming years.

As evident from the outset of the rise of rebel groups, these factions, with full support from Turkey, the U.S., and the West, managed to overthrow the previous Syrian government in the short term and seize power. The new rulers of Syria, initially labeled as extremist Islamist entities and listed as terrorist organizations by many countries, surprisingly shifted their stance upon gaining power. They presented themselves as moderate, flexible, and acceptable to the international community, defying expectations by refraining from establishing a strict Sharia-based government.

On the other side, the European Union and the U.S. have shown willingness to engage diplomatically with the new Syrian regime. They aim to quickly pave the way for greater interaction and eventual recognition of the new government.

Recently, numerous diplomatic delegations from various countries have visited Syria to negotiate with the ruling leadership. A notable instance was the meeting between Mohammad al-Jolani and the UN’s special representative for Syria, a clear indication of the emerging global and international interaction with the new government.

Turkey’s position, led by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is particularly significant. Having fully supported the opposition forces that came to power in Syria, Turkey reopened its embassy in Damascus and is now seeking to establish new governance mechanisms in the country. This effort is intended to further expand Turkey’s regional influence and enhance its impact on regional politics.

Meanwhile, the U.S., which pursued a regime-change policy during Syria’s prolonged crisis and supported opposition groups, failed to achieve its initial objectives following Russia’s intervention in 2015 and the resulting shift in the balance of power. While the U.S. had supported Syrian Kurds as a tool to secure its influence and interests, it is now exploring engagement with the new Syrian government to carve out a larger role for itself.

The U.S. still maintains a military presence in parts of northeastern Syria under the pretext of combating ISIS. However, the real goal of Washington appears to be controlling Syria’s oil resources and preventing the expansion of Iranian and Russian influence in the region.

The new Syrian rulers’ passive response to Israel’s destructive attacks on their military facilities further reflects their alignment with the West and the U.S. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether the new Syrian leadership, once heavily focused on Islamic ideology, has genuinely undergone a fundamental transformation in its worldview or is merely deceiving the West. They may be using this approach to stabilize their government, gain international legitimacy, and later return to their foundational ideology, potentially forming a Sharia-based government that opposes Western teachings and interests in the region and beyond.