The Syrian conflict has reached a critical juncture with the fall of Bashar Al-Assad’s regime, which has been a major shift in the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. The defeat of Assad’s government, long supported by Russia and Iran, marks a significant moment in the region’s political dynamics. However, this development is far from straightforward, especially given the rise of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a militant group with origins in Al-Qaeda. HTS, supported by Turkey and, most recently, allegedly in direct contact with Israel, which is now positioning itself as a dominant force within Syria, directly challenged Assad’s regime.
What stands out in this complex scenario are shifting alliances between regional powers. The rise of HTS appears to align with the interests of Israel and the USA, both of whom view Assad’s regime and its backers— particularly Iran and Russia— as major threats to their strategic interests. While these nations have long opposed Assad’s government, seeing it as a bastion of Iranian influence, they now seem to support HTS as a viable alternative to the Assad regime, which they view as an extension of Iran’s hegemonic ambitions in the region. This strategic alignment may seem paradoxical, especially considering HTS’s radical origins as an Al-Qaeda affiliate, but it underscores the pragmatism that often defines Middle Eastern geopolitics.
Historically, Israel has opposed all forms of radical Islamism, particularly the Al-Qaeda network. However, Israel’s alleged contact with HTS signals a pragmatic shift in its foreign policy. As Assad’s regime consolidates power in Syria, bolstered by Iranian and Russian support, Israel finds itself increasingly isolated in the face of Iranian influence in its immediate neighbourhood. Given this threat, Israel’s engagement with HTS appears to be a strategic manoeuvre aimed at countering Iran’s growing foothold in Syria.
Israel’s support for HTS, even if indirect, is in stark contrast to its policy towards other Islamist groups, such as Hamas. The paradox is glaring— while Israel and the West have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization, they are now seemingly willing to engage with a group that has similar ideological underpinnings. This hypocrisy exposes the reality that the West, Israel, and the USA prioritize containment of the war and the prevention of Iranian expansion rather than a genuine resolution to the Syrian conflict. HTS’s rise is seen as an opportunity to weaken the Assad regime, which is tightly aligned with Iran, and to curb Iran’s regional ambitions.
Ultimately, the Syrian conflict remains a power struggle rather than a battle for ideological or moral high ground. The true goal of the international powers involved is not the resolution of the conflict but the containment of rival powers like Iran and Russia. As long as this remains the case, Syria will continue to serve as a battleground for foreign interests, with no clear path to lasting peace or stability.
The response from Western powers such as France, Germany, and Britain has been notably celebratory in the face of HTS’s gains. These countries, while traditionally aligned with the USA and Israel in their opposition to Assad, have been reluctant to fully engage with or support the Syrian opposition for fear of empowering extremist factions. However, with HTS emerging as a significant force, they have seemingly endorsed the group’s victory. This celebration, however, is laced with contradictions. If these Western powers are so quick to endorse the fall of Assad, it raises the question of why they have not similarly acted against other Islamist groups in the region.
One of the central contradictions is the West’s designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Hamas, like HTS, operates in the context of political Islam and has employed violence in pursuit of its goals. Yet, while Western nations have relentlessly pursued counterterrorism policies against Hamas and similar groups, they are now turning a blind eye to HTS’s radical roots. This discrepancy suggests that the West’s stance is not purely ideological but rather deeply tied to their geopolitical interests. The key here is that the West’s celebration of HTS is motivated not by an endorsement of their ideology but by their desire to limit Iran’s influence in the region and prevent the consolidation of Assad’s power.
A critical perspective on this situation reveals a larger theme in the Syrian conflict: the lack of interest in genuine resolution. While the West may frame its actions as part of a broader effort to bring peace and stability to Syria, it seems clear that containment is the primary goal. The West, Israel, and the USA have all adopted a strategy of managing the conflict, ensuring that no one side— whether it be the Assad regime, HTS, or ISIS— gains full control. The preference is for a fragmented, weak Syria where no single power is strong enough to threaten Western interests or shift the regional balance in favor of Iran.
This approach, which favors containment over resolution, has led to a prolonged conflict with no end in sight. The reality is that the Western powers, despite their rhetoric about peace and democracy, have not been invested in finding a sustainable solution to the war. Instead, they have embraced the idea of an ongoing, controlled conflict that allows them to maintain influence in the region while avoiding the risks of committing to a full-scale intervention or reconciliation process. In this context, the rise of HTS can be seen as part of a broader strategy to keep Syria divided and under the thumb of competing external actors, preventing any one power from establishing dominance.
The fall of the Assad regime and the rise of HTS mark a pivotal moment in the Syrian conflict, but it also exposes the cynicism of international politics in the region. Israel, the USA, and the West have demonstrated a willingness to work with groups like HTS, despite their extremist roots, in the pursuit of their broader geopolitical objectives. This support for HTS underscores the pragmatic nature of regional geopolitics, where ideological purity is often sacrificed for strategic interests. Meanwhile, the Western celebration of HTS’s rise, despite their simultaneous designation of similar groups like Hamas as terrorist organizations, reveals the underlying contradictions in Western foreign policy.
Ultimately, the Syrian conflict remains a power struggle rather than a battle for ideological or moral high ground. The true goal of the international powers involved is not the resolution of the conflict but the containment of rival powers like Iran and Russia. As long as this remains the case, Syria will continue to serve as a battleground for foreign interests, with no clear path to lasting peace or stability.
