Understanding Syria’s pleasantly surprising new ruler Sharaa

In its second week after Assad, Syria continues to ride a wave of euphoria and hope, bolstered by pleasant surprises from its new de facto leader Ahmad al-Sharaa, formerly al-Jolani.

Over the weekend he told journalists that in the Middle East the Islamist Iran regime is the problem, and that he chooses diplomacy to settle disputes with Israel. And while the hardships of government will certainly complicate, and may even derail, Sharaa’s journey toward his stated goals, his start has been nothing short of excellent.

To understand Sharaa’s thinking, one can parse his different statements, from when he beat competing armed factions to emerge on top in Idlib, then from his time as the northern province’s ruler and, lastly, from his media availabilities since the rebels, mostly Islamists, swept the part of Syria that had been under the control of the Assad dynasty since 1972.

While governing Idlib, Sharaa’s cabinet tried, in January, to pass and enforce a social engineering law, with 128 articles, that was supposed to impose a strict code on public space and behavior. In addition to banning the sale and consumption of alcohol, the law stipulated complete gender segregation in public places, outlined an Islamic dress code for girls in schools, and banned such mundane social habits as smoking (including the popular hookahs in coffeeshops) and fortunetelling.

The law caused a stir, and that might have prompted its authors to shelve it. Sharaa tried to defend it by selling it as a law that “favored preaching Islam over imposing it,” but he did not seem to insist on the law.

While defending it, Sharaa showed one of the important ideas that set him apart from Islamist rulers. “If we scare people into living by Islam, they will pretend to be Muslims when we show up, and stop believing when we leave,” he said.

Sharaa seemed aware of the uselessness of religious coercion, a conclusion that Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman had arrived at, and started implementing, in 2015, thus socially liberalizing Saudi Arabia at a breakneck speed.

During his rule of Idlib, Sharaa took pride for his team’s ability to run a government that proved to be successful in collecting taxes, balancing its books, reconstructing war-damaged infrastructure and maintaining adequate services – from trash collection and supply of water and electricity to management of public schools and colleges. It is this success that Sharaa has been promising the rest of Syria, ever since he emerged as the new de facto leader since Assad fled to Moscow and his regime collapsed.

Because Sharaa is a man with a plan, and because he is someone who believes in his ability to transform Syria into a successful state, he seems to have given up on Islamist populism that stands on the promise of endless Jihad, liberation and warring against non-Muslims, especially Israel.

In his earliest media hits, Sharaa told CNN that he had joined Al-Qaeda because at the time he was still young and immature, and that his views have evolved and changed since. He also said that he believed in democracy and pluralism.

In that interview, like in the first appearance of Sharaa’s Idlib Prime Minister Muhammad Bashir as the chief of a transitional Syrian cabinet, both men erected behind them two flags – the Syrian revolution and the Jihadist flag of their Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) militia. The HTS flag caused an uproar on social media. The next day, Syria’s new rulers nixed their faction’s flag and stuck to the Syria one only. Sharaa and his lieutenants had a plan, but they also listened.

Sharaa’s most encouraging statements, so far, have come during his meeting, over the weekend, with Arab journalists, in which he said that Syria under him had no problem with the Iranian people, but only with the “dangerous project” of the Iran regime. He added that Syria would not opt for war with Israel, that Israel’s strikes on Syria are no longer justified (since the Iranian militias are gone) and that he would instead seek diplomatic solutions for any problems with the Jewish state.

And by opposing the Iranian “project,” Sharaa also seemed adamant on rejecting the Iranian model of encouraging the formation of armed non-state militias that allow a “spiritual leader” to control the usually weaker government, thus creating failed states in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen.

Sharaa said he planned to disband all militias and have the Syria government be the only sovereign that monopolizes the use of violence and stands responsible for deploying it when need be.

He showed maturity in dealing with Moscow, saying Syria’s new rulers could have struck Russian bases in Syria but preferred to turn the page, instead. London is now in touch with Sharaa and so is Washington.

The future of Syria is still fraught with danger. Governing all of Syria might prove much harder than handling just one of its provinces and might cause the popular mood to sour on Sharaa and the new rulers – which might in turn prompt them to engage in Islamist populism by re-igniting national fervor and engaging in destructive wars.

Until they do so, we have to take Sharaa and his guys for their word and remain cautiously optimistic, helping them build a new Syria and giving them advice whenever we think they’re heading in a wrong direction.

Hussain Abdul-Hussain is a research fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD). Follow him on X @hahussain