The Syrian landscape is far from stable, weeks after the fall of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime and the ascension of new rulers.

Despite the high hopes placed on them, it has become evident that the challenges ahead are highly complex—whether in governance or, more critically, in maintaining Syria’s social cohesion, territorial integrity, and national geography.

The scene depicts a convoluted intersection of internal and external forces, with unclear regional and international stakes. This reality emerged hastily following the swift takeover of power by Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which previously ruled Idlib. The group's leadership was caught off guard as it suddenly found itself at the helm in Damascus.

The most decisive factor behind HTS’s rise was the blow dealt to Iran’s regional axis, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, and the broader strikes against Iran itself. This was facilitated by Turkish oversight, intelligence operations on the ground, and a U.S.-Israeli green light, positioning Turkey and Israel as the two dominant forces in Syria today.

Regardless of how the new rulers ascended to power or how Assad fell, partly due to Iran and Russia’s distractions, with Russia fighting a war in Ukraine, the fact that they now hold power does not mean they have full control, nor does it guarantee their long-term survival. Their ambitions for prolonged rule were made clear in a statement by Ahmad al-Sharaa, the new head of Syria’s administration, who outlined a roadmap: drafting a constitution within three years, followed by elections a year later, which means a four-year delay of any democratic process.

Yet, recent weeks have exposed a state of governance turmoil, which may be expected given the transitional period. Turkey played a key role in containing much of the disorder, notably through its intelligence chief İbrahim Kalın, a constant presence in Syria, and a close protégé of Hakan Fidan, Turkey’s current foreign minister and the chief architect of the recent developments.

This instability, however, was overshadowed by more alarming acts of retribution. HTS dismissed these as "excesses," although they targeted minorities, former regime figures, and so-called "remnants of the ousted regime" who refused to reconcile with the new authorities.

Such events were particularly severe in Alawite-majority areas, in the coastal area in western Syria, as well as in Homs and Hama in central Syria. Christians and Kurdish-majority regions in northeastern Syria were also targeted. The Druze-majority areas in the south are especially on alert since some Druze who were deported to Idlib have been targeted there.

HTS does not have absolute field control, nor does it fully dominate all factions, especially foreign fighters. Oppressed communities believe there is a tactical role-switching between HTS and other groups, allowing the group to maintain a more "moderate" appearance on the international stage.

While some observers have exaggerated these incidents, describing them as "roaming massacres" and "sectarian" or "ethnic cleansing," the situation remains deeply troubling.

Pro-Assad loyalists continue to resist the new regime, refusing to surrender. Meanwhile, resistance cells have become active, particularly in the coastal and central regions, extending eastward in some cases. They are forming what they call a "popular resistance"—a grassroots rebellion against the new rulers, who now face a dilemma: either suppress dissent with brute force and risk appearing brutal, or attempt to appease public anger, which could embolden insurgents.

De Facto Partition

Regardless of the regime change, today's Syria is fractured into multiple "Syrias." A de facto partition is taking shape:

- The eastern regions, rich in oil resources, are dominated by a powerful Kurdish force backed directly by the United States and Israel.

- The coastal areas, Syria’s gateway to the Mediterranean, are witnessing growing calls for international protection.

- The Druze-majority areas in Suwayda refuse to submit to the new regime without concrete guarantees and negotiations.

- The Israeli-occupied territories, home to vital water resources, remain at constant risk of further annexation.

Regional and International Reactions

The Arab world and Iran were unsettled by Syria’s dramatic upheaval. Damascus’s new rulers wasted no time in sidelining Tehran from their diplomatic overtures, a move that could have dangerous consequences—potentially including armed operations.

While Arab states remain discontent, they are pragmatically engaging with the new reality in Syria. Each country assesses the situation based on its interests and constraints.

- Neighboring states (which could soon become "frontline states") such as Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, and Jordan are wary of Syria’s shifting Islamist landscape and its potential regional impact.

- Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain—which previously sought Assad’s reintegration into the Arab fold and reconstruction efforts—are displeased but are keeping a close eye on opportunities to challenge the new rulers when the moment is right.

- North African countries (e.g., Tunisia, Algeria, Mauritania) have adopted a wait-and-see approach, refraining from offering support while closely monitoring developments.

Meanwhile, the new leadership in Damascus has managed to present a more "polished" image, despite the reality that the Idlib-based government, led by Islamist-leaning figure Mohammad al-Bashir, has effectively relocated to the capital. Al-Sharaa has reassured the international community that Syria will not export its revolution, a stance that has helped calm concerns over minority rights and the transition of power.

The Western Position

Western powers want Syria’s new rulers to maintain this "civilian façade" and are expected to provide measured economic relief—such as partial sanctions relief—without rushing to remove the "terrorist" designation from HTS leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani (Ahmad al-Sharaa).

The Biden administration has already offered concessions by suspending certain sanctions and allowing limited imports of essential fuel-related products. Infrastructure improvements—including electricity, hospitals, and humanitarian aid—are now being gradually facilitated through conditional financial assistance.

However, Western support remains tied to key geopolitical concerns:

- Israel’s security and the future of the ceasefire—Sharaa has carefully avoided inflammatory rhetoric against Israel, signaling that the new rulers are not seeking conflict.

- The Kurdish question—Western nations insist on maintaining support for the Kurdish-controlled zone, complicating Turkey’s ambitions.

The West is also pushing for political inclusivity, advocating for:

- A broader, non-sectarian government

- A national reconciliation process

- An end to “transitional justice,” which has morphed into retaliatory justice

Winners and Losers

The new rulers have won the land but not full control of governance. Meanwhile, former regime allies have lost their grip on power but have begun discreet negotiations with the new authorities—most notably Iran, which has historic ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the ideological backbone of the current leadership.

Turkey emerges as the biggest winner, even surpassing Israel. As the patron of the armed opposition, Ankara remains the guarantor of Syria’s new rulers under the Astana Agreement, despite the paradox that HTS is officially designated a terrorist organization by Turkey itself.

However, Turkey’s greatest fear remains Kurdish separatism. The (SDF), backed by the United States, pose a direct threat to Turkish territorial integrity. Although Ankara has managed to push Kurdish forces east of the Euphrates, it cannot eradicate them due to American red lines.

The Kurdish issue remains the most pressing. The Kurds control nearly a third of Syria, 80% of its oil reserves, and key energy resources. They are committed to autonomy, though full independence remains out of reach.

Syria’s future will look vastly different from its past. The country is undergoing a profound and uncertain transition, burdened by economic woes and deepening sectarian and ethnic divisions. While the new rulers have secured power for now, their long-term stability remains far from guaranteed.