Syria, a nation devastated by over a decade of civil war, stands at a critical juncture. The choices before it are grim: continue under the authoritarian grip of Bashar al-Assad or risk falling under the control of Abu Mohammad al-Jolani and his extremist group, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). While Assad’s regime has been marked by brutal repression, war crimes, and corruption, it has maintained a semblance of governance in the regions under its control. Jolani’s rise, on the other hand, threatens to usher in a new era of ideological extremism and chaos, potentially leaving Syria worse off than it is today.
For more than two decades, Assad has ruled Syria with an iron fist. His government, inherited from his father Hafez al-Assad, has been accused of widespread human rights violations, including mass detentions, torture, and chemical weapons attacks on civilians. The civil war that erupted in 2011 only deepened the brutality of his rule. Entire cities were levelled, hundreds of thousands were killed, and millions were displaced. Yet, amid this devastation, the Assad regime maintained its grip on key institutions. Schools, hospitals, and infrastructure in government-controlled areas continued to function, albeit under immense strain.
Assad’s regime, while oppressive, operates as a centralized authority. Its secular governance structure, however flawed, has managed to keep some semblance of order in a deeply fractured nation. This centralization has also allowed the regime to foster alliances with powerful international backers like Russia and Iran, ensuring its survival and dominance over most of Syria. These alliances, however controversial, have kept the country from descending into total anarchy, even as Assad’s rule has come at an extraordinary human cost.
The rise of Abu Mohammad al-Jolani and HTS presents a different, and potentially graver, challenge. Jolani first gained prominence as a commander of Jabhat al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria. In recent years, he has sought to rebrand himself as a legitimate political leader, shedding overt ties to Al-Qaeda and positioning HTS as a governing authority in Idlib, the last major rebel-held enclave in Syria. Jolani’s attempts to present himself as a pragmatic leader have included public appearances in Western-style suits and interviews with international media. However, this polished image cannot obscure his extremist roots and the repressive rule of HTS.
Life in HTS-controlled Idlib offers a stark warning of what a Jolani-led Syria might look like. The group imposes strict Sharia law, curtails freedoms, and suppresses dissent with brutality. Reports of extortion, forced taxation, and public executions paint a bleak picture of governance under Jolani. While HTS has tried to provide basic services, it lacks the infrastructure, resources, and expertise required to govern effectively. Its rule relies heavily on coercion and exploitation, leaving local populations in a state of fear and poverty.
Jolani’s leadership also poses a significant threat to Syria’s multicultural fabric. Unlike Assad’s secular regime, HTS is rooted in an extremist ideology that promotes sectarian division. Religious and ethnic minorities, already marginalized by the war, would face even greater persecution under HTS rule. Syria, historically a diverse nation with a mosaic of cultures, religions, and ethnicities, risks being reduced to a monolithic state under Jolani’s leadership, with disastrous consequences for its social cohesion.
Moreover, a Syria under Jolani would likely become a haven for extremist groups. HTS’s control of Idlib has already attracted jihadists from around the world, and its rise to national power could embolden other extremist factions. This would not only destabilize Syria further but also pose a security threat to the broader region. The proximity of Idlib to Turkey and Europe raises concerns about increased radicalization and potential terrorist attacks beyond Syria’s borders.
Economically, the impact of Jolani’s rule would be devastating. Unlike Assad, who has maintained some level of economic activity in government-controlled areas, HTS relies on extortion and illicit trade to fund its operations. This approach is unsustainable for national governance. Without a coherent economic strategy or international support, a Jolani-led Syria would face even deeper poverty, unemployment, and displacement. Millions of Syrians, already struggling to survive, would be pushed further into desperation.
In contrast, Assad, despite his pariah status, has managed to maintain relationships with key global players like Russia, Iran, and even some Arab states. These alliances have allowed Syria to secure military and financial support, preventing the complete collapse of the state. Jolani, with his extremist background, would isolate Syria entirely. Western powers and regional allies would be unwilling to engage with a government led by HTS, cutting off any hope for international aid or reconstruction efforts.
The dilemma facing Syria is a painful one. Assad’s authoritarianism has inflicted immense suffering, but it has also provided a degree of stability. Jolani’s rule, however, risks plunging the country into ungovernable chaos, deepening the humanitarian crisis and further destabilizing the region. Choosing between the two is akin to deciding between the devil and the deep blue sea, a choice that offers no real hope for a brighter future.
Ultimately, Syria’s path forward cannot lie in endorsing one flawed leader over another. The international community must recognize that the root causes of Syria’s conflict—sectarianism, economic inequality, and external meddling—need to be addressed. A sustainable solution requires an inclusive political process that prioritizes the needs of the Syrian people over the ambitions of authoritarian rulers or extremist ideologues.
Syria’s future should be one of unity, peace, and prosperity. Under Jolani, the country risks losing even the fragile stability it retains under Assad. The international community must act decisively to prevent Syria from falling further into despair, offering its people a chance at rebuilding their shattered nation.
