The recent events in Syria overwhelmed international news agencies and coverage of Ukraine, Gaza, Korea, Sudan and elsewhere.
Arab satellite news channels, especially in the Gulf and Lebanon, for the first time, all described the Syrian events as “a popular revolution” and Sunni Islamist group Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham’s (HTS) leader, Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, as having “special qualities”, as if he were one of God’s righteous saints, and the elite imams, scholars, and mujahadeen gathered around him.
The world witnessed an organised handover of Syrian military sites without a fight. It is as if the real deal took place at the bargaining table between the leaders of the Syrian army, the governments of Turkey and Israel — with US sponsorship and Qatari funding, and with Russian approval and Iranian acceptance.
This is a new phase for a Middle East that will be redrawn soon.
Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham
The United States administration called on concerned Arab countries to recognise the legitimacy of the transitional leadership in Syria, led by interim President Dr Ahmed Al-Sharaa, the most popular figure in the Arab region at present.
Al-Sharaa made important official statements about his political ideas, declaring his complete neutrality in foreign policy and that the Syrian people are tired of wars.
He said his government will not interfere in the internal affairs of any Arab country, especially Lebanon. He also accepted the Kurdish community within the social, political, cultural and political fabric of Syria, but rejected any foreign activities hostile to Turkey.
Commenting on the Israeli army’s invasion of southern Syria, Al-Sharaa said he will seek to solve this problem through political means and will not fight the Israeli army. In addition, he does not see the time as appropriate to remove the US and Russian bases or liquidate the remnants of ISIS forces.
As for the Iranian forces and other Shiite militias, they withdrew from Syria before the beginning of the HTS’ Operation Deterrance of Aggression (rade’a al udwan), carried out in cooperation with Syrian armed factions and direct military coordination from the Turkish army, with support from the Israeli army, to oust President Bashar al-Assad.
Certainly, a handover deal was concluded with senior leaders in the Syrian Arab Army and the Ba’ath Party. High-ranking members of the Arab Socialist Party, all security, military and political leaders left before the operation began.
Likewise, Assad, who requested humanitarian asylum in the Republic of Russia, left his position, but did not step down as President. When incoming US President Donald Trump was asked what he will do with Assad, he said: “I have not thought about this matter yet.”
The scenes of the Syrian masses rejoicing at the end of the civil war brought relief in Arab countries and internationally. People were hopeful of liberating political detainees from Syria’s torture prisons.
Some international observers were surprised by the ugly reality of torture inside Syrian prisons. Political detention is the greatest crime against freedom of expression, but there is not a country in the entire Middle East — including Israel — that does not have political prisons, some of which may be more horrific than Syria’s.
Assad’s fall was followed by the formation of an interim government under Prime Minister Muhammed al-Bashir, who previously held the position of PM of the Syrian Salvation Government — the HTS’s civilian administration.
In al-Bashir’s first speech, he quoted Sheikh Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Despite this, Russia was the first country where the flag of the Syrian revolution was flown above the Syrian embassy building in its capital.
Refugees
European countries are striving to find safe ways to deal with the interim government because they want to solve the problem of Syrian refugees in their countries — perhaps the hottest issue in Syrian-European relations.
Turkey also wants to repatriate Syrian refugees, but in addition it aspires to crush the Kurdish resistance inside Turkey and over the border in Northern Syria, under the pretext of classifying the Kurdish militia as hostile “foreign forces”.
Other Arab countries — which saw the changes in Syria occurring too rapidly for them to adjust their own priorities — are negotiating with the interim government regarding the repatriation of refugees. They are aiming to achieve this while avoiding an economic crisis due to the withdrawal of Syrian funds and investments.
In the case of non-Syrian militants still in Syria, some Arab countries are demanding that these Arab mujahadeen be handed over to the country whose nationality they hold.
They are also calling for an end to jihadist calls for changing the ruling systems in the Arab and Islamic countries. Some are also calling for a clear position on the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Arab and Islamic countries.
The Muslim Brotherhood is widespread in most Arab and Islamic countries and has a professional internal and external communications network, operating in an organised way internationally.
Hence, it is difficult to assert that the Syrian interim government is capable of separating the Muslim Brotherhood organisation in Syria from its international organisation, and this worries the Arab countries.
Within the Muslim Brotherhood there is also a doctrine based on the ideas of political theorist Sayyed Qutb that sees the necessity for armed struggle to change regimes. HTS shares this doctrine, but says it does not intend to carry out any actions outside Syrian borders at the present time.
What next?
Some are optimistically calling on the Arab countries to take advantage of the opportunity to achieve peace and stability in Syria through political dialogue with the interim government, and to place the country in the embrace of “peaceful” Turkey and far from “quarrelsome” Iran.
This optimism is based on Turkey’s role in the fall of Assad and its reassurances that Turkish sponsorship will prevent any Iranian influence in Syria.
This is also the basic demand of the Israeli government.
The US administration, for its part, is demanding the signing of a peace treaty between Israel and Syria, ending the state of conflict, and beginning the process of building a new Syria.
Others are more pessimistic and do not believe that the calm will last long, as external parties will begin to finance internal fighting between the armed factions, bringing with it the necessity of keeping international forces in Syria: such as US forces to protect the Kurds and the oil; Russian forces to protect the Alawites Mountains in the north west; a safe zone to protect the Turkish border; and a safe zone to protect the Israeli border.
ISIS will work to facilitate the entry of Shiite forces into central Syria to control the city of Homs, all the way to Al-Qusayr, to maintain communication with Hezbollah in Lebanon for supply and support.
Incoming Trump says that the policy of economic and political principles is over forever and we are now at the table of interests. Either you accept the deals offered to you or leave the table forever.
Will the Syrian interim government agree to implement everything that is asked of it by the US, Turkey, Israel, Europe, the Arab nations and international community? Or will it procrastinate until insecure elections are imposed on it? Could the Ba’ath Party return to rule Syria again?
There are no comfortable options for Syria because it is too big to digest and difficult to contain.
Perhaps the Israeli occupation army’s strike on all Syrian military sites after the end of the operation to oust Assad was aimed at destroying Syrian military power, regardless of who rules Syria?
[Khaled Ghannam is a Palestinian activist, author and journalist based in Gadigal/Sydney.]