In the midst of war and crisis, promises of peace and stability are attractive, but do these promises truly come to fruition? The new rulers of Syria, led by al-Jolani, have come forward with appealing slogans and promises of reforms, yet the bitter reality of recent massacres shows that these new rulers lack the tolerance needed to create a broad political consensus in Syria. Whenever they feel threatened, weapons are their first and last resort. Such an approach brings the risk of another civil war in Syria, a war in which the western and regional allies of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham will not be able to avoid responsibility.
In recent days, intense clashes and tensions have erupted in western Syria, particularly in the provinces of Latakia, Tartus, and Hama, between forces loyal to the new rulers of Syria under the leadership of Mohammad al-Jolani and those protesting the policies of this government. Many civilians have been brutally killed during these clashes. The recent massacres and killings in Syria not only highlight the weakness of the new rulers in ensuring security, but they also reflect the inefficacy of their policies. Over the past months, numerous reports of mass killings and severe repression have emerged, showing that instead of creating secure and stable conditions, the new rulers continue to suppress opponents and escalate violence. The scale of these massacres, particularly against minority groups in Syria, especially in Alawite areas, is horrific. This is in stark contrast to al-Jolani and his supporters’ initial promises to protect minority groups and establish fair justice. Field reports from northwestern Syria, particularly in areas like Idlib and Hama, indicate extrajudicial executions, destruction of cultural symbols, and targeted suppression of opposition. For instance, following recent clashes in western Syria, al-Jolani’s government attributed responsibility to “volunteer groups,” but evidence suggests these actions were carried out with the coordination or at least the complicity of his forces. This pattern is reminiscent of the behavior of al-Nusra Front—a group al-Jolani once led—when it responded to opposition not through dialogue, but with bullets.
Despite al-Jolani’s promises of establishing a political consensus and forming an independent government in Syria, he has yet to secure the necessary agreements regarding the political identity and structure of the future state. Many political and military opposition groups still protest his leadership and policies, especially regarding the form of government that is supposed to be established. Some factions emphasize the need for a democratic and decentralized state, while others insist on Islamist policies and a religious identity for the government. This lack of agreement, combined with regional and international interventions and the new Syrian rulers’ lack of tolerance, has made the promise of forming an inclusive government in Syria seem very distant. Political tolerance requires mechanisms such as negotiation, independent institutions, and respect for minority rights. However, the transitional government has resorted to old methods: intimidation, weapons, and the streets. This approach is evident in its dealings with Kurdish groups, Alawites, and even Sunni protesters demanding transparency and participation. Instead of accountability, al-Jolani and his forces have chosen to silence dissent, whether through imprisonment or field executions. This is not a sign of a legitimate government, but a characteristic of a militia group that holds power through force.
Despite claims of forming an independent government, the military and economic dependence of the new rulers of Syria on Turkey strengthens the notion that the new Syria will become a tool in Turkey’s hands. Abu Mohammad al-Jolani’s dependence on Turkey has not only been a lever for his survival in power but has also severely undermined the claimed independence of his transitional government. Since the presence of al-Nusra Front in Idlib, Turkey has turned al-Jolani into a tool for advancing its own interests—from suppressing the Kurds to dominating trade routes in northern Syria—by providing financial, military, and logistical support. This support continues in the transitional government; from Ankara’s military intervention in Kurdish areas to dictating economic policies that favor Turkish traders over the Syrian people. This one-sided relationship shows that al-Jolani is less an independent leader and more an executor of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s orders, whose priority is not the reconstruction of Syria, but the expansion of Turkey’s influence in the region. When a government is so dependent on a foreign power, its claim to national sovereignty is little more than a political courtesy, further weakening its internal trust and legitimacy.
Moreover, al-Jolani has effectively turned the Syrian government into a passive observer of Israel’s repeated attacks on the country. Since Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham came to power in Syria, Israel has launched more than 300 airstrikes, targeting mainly military centers, weapon depots, and facilities related to Syria’s missile and defense programs.
In addition to internal problems, Syria faces international and regional challenges. The legitimacy of the transitional government remains in question due to the history of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and its complex relations with other groups and countries. Regional powers and global forces, such as Turkey, Russia, and Iran, view Syria’s developments from their own perspectives. This situation has prevented Syria from gaining full international support, adding to the political instability within the country. In these circumstances, foreign interventions and shifting the balance of power in favor of groups and countries pursuing their own interests could exacerbate the crises and lead Syria toward a new civil war. In such conditions, the only hope for the Syrian people may be for the international community to put more pressure on the transitional government and force it to make real reforms. Without such pressure, it seems that Syria’s situation will continue as before, and the promises of the transitional government will remain mere words.
Overall, contrary to the initial promises of Abu Mohammad al-Jolani and his supporters to solve Syria’s problems through political and peaceful means, the recent violence shows that they have practically relied only on violence and weapons, tools they have long been trained to use as a terrorist group. This situation places Syria on the brink of a far more destructive and complex civil war, one in which a terrorist group holds the upper hand. Al-Jolani’s promises of tolerance and pluralism are like a mirage in Syria’s war-torn desert—beautiful, but unattainable. He, who rose to power through weapons, seems to know no language other than violence.
