The Syrian scene raises several fundamental questions about recent developments. The most prominent of these revolves around what happened in Idlib, with the seamless entry of "Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham" (HTS) and the swift withdrawal of the Syrian army without any notable resistance. This scenario is reminiscent of the fall of Baghdad, when Saddam Hussein's army unexpectedly collapsed. The critical question here is why there seems to be consensus on positioning Abu Mohammad al-Jolani as a replacement for Bashar al-Assad. Al-Jolani, with his new attire and different image, appears to have been groomed for this role. But why him? And why has the idea of retaining Assad's Prime Minister, Mohammad Jilali, for a short transitional period been floated? Furthermore, what has made al-Jolani suddenly emerge as the apparent ultimate authority in Syria?

These developments raise suspicions about the nature of power and who holds the ultimate decision-making authority regarding Syria's political future. Another intriguing point is the behavior of the armed opposition that ousted Bashar al-Assad. Unlike what happened in Iraq and Libya, the opposition seems to have avoided repeating past mistakes, where the complete collapse of the state led to prolonged instability. This new behavior reflects, perhaps, the opposition’s lessons from history, aiming to prevent the collapse of Syrian institutions, which could mitigate the consequences of the regime's downfall on the state as a whole.

Among the most pressing questions is how the transfer of power will occur. Al-Jolani has chosen Mohammad al-Bashir, with Islamic leanings, to head the government. However, concerns arise over ensuring a smooth transition amidst the complexities of the Syrian regime. Syria has over 16 security agencies, each with overlapping influence and authority. Handling these institutions and figures from the former regime will be the most significant challenge. Monitoring how these agencies deal with the new government and the potential power struggles will be crucial.

The political rhetoric adopted by al-Jolani appears reassuring on the surface. However, it is likely dictated by international and regional parties overseeing the Syrian file. The goal of this rhetoric is to calm regional parties, especially since any escalation in Syria will directly impact the entire Middle East, including Lebanon and Gaza.

Key Regional Players:

Turkey

Turkey has emerged as a major player in Syrian developments. Some describe Erdogan as the unofficial president of both Turkey and Syria, given his military and political support for al-Jolani. The failure of Erdogan and Assad to meet reflects Assad’s miscalculation of regional developments, leading to his swift downfall. The U.S. support for al-Jolani aligns with the goal of toppling Assad, highlighting a convergence of American and Turkish interests, particularly regarding the Kurdish issue.

Iran

Iran has suffered significant losses in Syria, despite its substantial investment in the Assad regime. Tehran provided Assad with the resources and backing he needed to survive, using Syria to advance its regional interests. However, successive defeats have reduced Iran’s influence in the region. This is particularly evident in its waning influence in Lebanon and strained relations with Hamas, which persist.

Russia

Russia, too, finds itself in a weakened position. Preoccupied with its war in Ukraine—a top priority—it has been unable to provide sufficient protection for the Assad regime. Consequently, Syria has diminished in importance on Russia’s list of priorities, despite Moscow’s efforts to maintain its military foothold through its strategic base in Syria.

Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham’s Evolution

A noteworthy point is the transformation of armed groups, particularly "Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham" (HTS). Observers have noted significant changes within HTS, the largest organization encompassing several factions. The shift is most evident in its leader, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, who has transitioned from extremist rhetoric to a pragmatic approach, moving from rejecting the concept of the state to embracing and working to strengthen its institutions. Even his appearance, rhetoric, and behavior have undergone drastic changes, reflecting HTS’s evolution from a militia to a more organized entity resembling an army.

This transformation appears to have the backing of Turkey and the United States, which aim to reshape HTS from an armed militia into a structured force capable of playing a central role in Syria's future governance. Al-Jolani himself remains a controversial figure, having undergone significant ideological shifts—from al-Qaeda to Jabhat al-Nusra, then ISIS, and now HTS. His transformation from a radical leader to a political figure advocating state-building raises questions about his true motives. Notably, his interview with CNN marked a turning point, presenting him as a prominent statesman, despite being listed on U.S. terror watchlists with a $10 million bounty for information leading to his capture.

Future of Armed Groups in Syria

The existence of 126 armed groups in Syria raises pressing questions. Will all these groups accept al-Jolani as their sole leader? Will they lay down their arms and submit to his authority? Or will they redirect their weapons toward other goals, possibly targeting separatist groups that threaten neighboring states like Turkey?

Key International Stakeholders

The United States and Turkey are central players in this narrative, alongside Israel, which remains another influential party. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech at the United Nations, featuring maps labeled "The New Middle East Project,” adds to the list of unanswered questions.

Politically, Assad’s fall coincides with the end of the Democrats' tenure in the White House. The Democrats may have sought to secure this achievement before transferring power to the Republicans, raising questions about the timing's connection to the ongoing transformations in Syria.

Conclusions

1. The rise of "Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham" as a dominant force and its evolution into a structured army suggests that it will play a central role in the next phase of Syria's future.
2. The rebranding of extremist groups and their potential roles in the region appear to be an intentional effort following the failures of moderate Islamist projects in Egypt and Tunisia. These rehabilitated militant groups may be presented as viable alternatives for future leadership.
3. Iran and Russia have failed to provide adequate protection for the Assad regime. Iran, having lost influence in Gaza and Lebanon, now faces a clear retreat in Syria, signaling a decline in its regional dominance. Meanwhile, Russia’s preoccupation with Ukraine has limited its ability to support Syria as it once did.
4. The functional role Iran played in the Middle East for decades seems to be ending, marking the decline of its regional expansion and influence.
5. The search for a new balancing force against U.S. dominance continues. In the past, this balance was achieved through the roles of Iran and Israel. Today, efforts may be underway to create a new framework or alternative force, possibly in the form of moderated extremist groups.