What role do regional allies and external forces play in fueling the rise of HTS
As Syria grapples with a new chapter following the collapse of Bashar Assad’s regime, Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa – known as Abu Mohammed al-Jolani – has emerged as a key power broker in northern Syria. Leading Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a group with roots in Al-Qaeda, al-Sharaa has shed his militant image, donning tailored suits in a calculated bid to rebrand himself as a pragmatic leader. Yet, this transformation masks a bloody history, and the international support enabling HTS raises critical questions about the broader dynamics of the Syrian conflict.
From jihadist operative to pragmatic strategist
Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa began his career as a devoted jihadist operative, rising through the ranks of Al-Qaeda under the mentorship of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and later Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. His establishment of Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria in 2011 marked the beginning of his journey as a key player in the Syrian Civil War. By 2013, al-Sharaa broke from Baghdadi, positioning his group as an independent force.
His leadership was defined by calculated pivots. In 2017, he rebranded Jabhat al-Nusra into HTS, severing formal ties with Al-Qaeda and presenting the group as a local governing entity. While these rebranding efforts were widely dismissed as superficial, they successfully allowed al-Sharaa to attract both regional support and a degree of international tolerance.
HTS’ rise to power has been accompanied by relentless violence, particularly targeting ethnic and religious minorities. Under al-Sharaa’s leadership, the group orchestrated campaigns of terror that cemented its dominance while devastating communities:
The Yazidi genocide (2014): During al-Sharaa’s alignment with ISIS, fighters played a role in the systemic massacre of Yazidis in Sinjar. Thousands of men were executed, while women and children were enslaved in a campaign later recognized as genocide. Survivors described the dehumanizing brutality. “They treated us as animals,”said one Yazidi survivor. “They killed my father and brothers and sold me in a market like I was nothing.”
The Afrin campaign (2018): In northern Syria, HTS targeted Kurdish civilians in a campaign of destruction and displacement. Villages were burned, men executed, and women subjected to widespread sexual violence. “They erased us,” a Kurdish survivor who refused to be identified said in testimony . “Not just our homes, but our history and our future. They call it governance, but it’s just war by another name.”
These atrocities reveal a leadership style rooted in the use of fear and sectarian division as tools of control. They also raise questions about the regional and international support that has sustained HTS despite its violent history.
The role of regional and international backers
While al-Sharaa’s HTS rebrands itself as a governance-focused entity, the group’s operations continue to be bolstered by external support. Regional neighbors, including Türkiye and Qatar, have reportedly played a significant role in funding and arming HTS. Intelligence-sharing and logistical backing have enabled the group to maintain its stronghold in Idlib and expand its influence.
Türkiye’s role: Türkiye, a NATO ally of the US, has been accused of providing weapons, funds, and tactical support to HTS under the guise of countering Kurdish militias. Turkish intelligence has reportedly worked closely with HTS leaders, leveraging the group as a proxy force to advance its geopolitical objectives in northern Syria. This relationship has drawn sharp criticism from human rights groups, who warn that Türkiye’s involvement risks normalizing HTS’ control.
Qatar Funding: Long accused of funding extremist groups under the guise of humanitarian aid, Qatar has also been linked to HTS. The Gulf state’s financial backing has enabled the group to maintain its operations and expand its control over territories in Idlib. While Doha officially denies direct ties to HTS, leaked intelligence reports and statements from opposition groups point to substantial financial flows from Qatari networks to jihadist factions, including HTS.
American complicity via allies: While the US has officially designated HTS as a terrorist organization, its indirect support via allies like Türkiye has sparked controversy. Washington’s reliance on regional partners to counter ISIS and Iranian influence has, intentionally or otherwise, contributed to HTS’ survival. By turning a blind eye to its allies’ backing of HTS, the US risks undermining its own counterterrorism agenda.
These dynamics reveal a troubling pattern: The strategic use of jihadist groups by regional powers as tools for advancing geopolitical goals. While these alliances may serve short-term objectives, they often come at the expense of local populations who bear the brunt of HTS’ rule.
From fatigues to a suit: The pragmatic rebrand
In recent years, Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa has transformed his public image, trading his fatigues for Western suits and adopting the rhetoric of a statesman. His media appearances emphasize governance and stability, positioning HTS as a counterweight to ISIS and a force capable of managing northern Syria.
Al-Sharaa’s calculated transformation mirrors the principles laid out by Niccolo Machiavelli in ‘The Prince’, where Machiavelli argues that leaders must balance fear and virtue to secure power. Al-Sharaa has applied this pragmatism with remarkable precision, maintaining his grip on Idlib through violence while presenting himself to the outside world as a pragmatic actor.
But this rebranding effort raises critical questions: Can a leader whose power is built on the suppression of dissent and the persecution of minorities ever create lasting peace?
“They wear suits now, but nothing has changed,”
a displaced Christian from Idlib said. “They rule through fear, and anyone who doesn’t conform disappears.”
The human cost of HTS rule
For many Syrians, HTS’ rise represents not stability but a continuation of persecution. Yazidis, Kurds, Christians, and secular communities remain vulnerable under HTS’ rule. Even Sunni Muslims who reject the group’s rigid theocracy face brutal consequences.
Secular activists have been silenced, women are subjected to harsh restrictions, and dissenters live in constant fear. A Kurdish survivor captured the stakes succinctly:
“They erase you – not just your body, but everything about your existence. Your culture, your history, your identity.”
HTS’ dominance has also complicated humanitarian efforts in northern Syria. Aid organizations struggle to navigate the group’s demands, with reports of resources being diverted to sustain HTS’ operations rather than reaching the civilians who need them most.
The illusion of stability
While some regional powers view HTS as a pragmatic tool to counter ISIS and Iranian influence, this approach risks legitimizing a group whose history is defined by fear and violence. Normalizing HTS could entrench its theocratic vision, alienating local populations and undermining long-term stability in Syria.
The rise of al-Sharaa and HTS underscores a deeper challenge for the international community: How to balance immediate geopolitical interests with the ethical imperative of protecting vulnerable populations. Can peace and governance ever be achieved under the leadership of a man who sanctioned atrocities and built his power on the persecution of minorities?
A fragile crossroads
Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa’s transformation from a jihadist leader to a self-styled statesman epitomizes the complexities of Syria’s fractured landscape. While his narrative of moderation may appeal to those seeking short-term solutions, his legacy tells a different story.
For Syrians who have suffered under HTS’ rule, the promises of stability ring hollow. Any peace built on fear and division is no peace at all. The question for the international community is not just how to manage HTS’ rise but whether empowering such groups sacrifices the very values needed to rebuild a fractured nation. As long as regional powers and global alliances prioritize tactical gains over long-term justice, Syria’s future will remain uncertain – and its wounds will remain unhealed.
