How Al-Sharaa Led Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham to the People’s Palace

Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham leader Abu Mohammad al-Jolani (Ahmad al-Sharaa’) in Aleppo on December 4, 2024 (Telegram). 
Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham leader Abu Mohammad al-Jolani (Ahmad al-Sharaa’) in Aleppo on December 4, 2024 (Telegram). 
TT

How Al-Sharaa Led Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham to the People’s Palace

Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham leader Abu Mohammad al-Jolani (Ahmad al-Sharaa’) in Aleppo on December 4, 2024 (Telegram). 
Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham leader Abu Mohammad al-Jolani (Ahmad al-Sharaa’) in Aleppo on December 4, 2024 (Telegram). 

Since the Syrian revolution transitioned into armed conflict—after the regime ruled out negotiations and used excessive force to suppress protests in 2011—the country witnessed a surge in armed factions. These ranged from jihadist Islamist groups to more moderate ones, differing in their levels of extremism and religiosity.

In late 2011, one of the largest factions, Harakat Ahrar al-Sham, was established, blending jihadist and Muslim Brotherhood ideologies with a local agenda. Ahrar al-Sham was the first faction to merge global jihadist thought with local objectives, even preceding Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in this approach. HTS, originally affiliated with al-Qaeda, upheld global jihadism until its formal split from the organization in July 2016.

Throughout its various transformations and ascents—culminating in the “Deter the Aggression” battle that propelled HTS and its leader Abu Mohammad al-Jolani (Ahmad al-Sharaa’) to power in Syria—the group maintained a precise internal structure, resembling a military academy, as described by a former HTS leader who spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat.

Ahrar al-Sham: The First Hybrid Jihadist Faction

At its peak, Ahrar al-Sham was among Syria’s most ideologically driven and organized factions. Its leaders, such as Hassan Abboud and Abu Yazan al-Shami, held strong charisma and influence within the revolutionary circles, alongside figures like Abdul Qadir al-Saleh, the leader of Liwa al-Tawhid.

This dominance continued until September 9, 2014, when a mysterious explosion targeted Ahrar al-Sham’s Shura Council meeting in Idlib’s Ram Hamdan, killing its leader Abu Abdullah al-Hamawi (Hassan Abboud) and nearly 40 other senior figures. This incident marked the beginning of the faction’s decline. Within a short period, Ahrar al-Sham shrank into a minor faction, fragmented between larger groups such as the Syrian National Army (SNA) and HTS.

The Syrian National Army (SNA) itself was formed on December 30, 2017, comprising 36 armed factions, including the Sham Front, Jaysh al-Islam, Faylaq al-Majd, and Sultan Shah Division, which was predominantly Turkmen.

Liwa al-Tawhid: A Brief Yet Powerful Force

Another major faction that enjoyed significant strength and popularity—more than Jabhat al-Nusra (HTS’s predecessor) at one point—was Liwa al-Tawhid, established on July 21, 2012. This group brought together various local battalions primarily operating in northern Aleppo’s countryside.

At its height, Liwa al-Tawhid was the largest opposition formation, embodying a “moderate Islamist” trend that blended Salafism, the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology, and nationalist rhetoric. It was one of the few factions that initially attracted a diverse spectrum of fighters, from moderate jihadists to nationalists.

The group fought on multiple fronts, including a notable battle against Hezbollah in Qusayr (2013). However, after its leader Abdul Qadir al-Saleh was killed in an airstrike on November 18, 2013, Liwa al-Tawhid quickly disintegrated, with its members dispersing among various factions based on their ideological leanings.

Jaysh al-Islam: A dominant power in Damascus’ suburbs among the most prominent factions that played a key role in the war was Jaysh al-Islam, headquartered in Douma (Eastern Ghouta, Damascus countryside). The group established control over most opposition-held areas surrounding Damascus, including Eastern Ghouta, Qalamoun, and even neighborhoods inside the capital such as Qaboun, Barzeh, and Jobar—reaching as far as Abbasid Square, one of Damascus’ key landmarks.

Jaysh al-Islam was a declared Salafi-jihadist group, which, by 2013, had amassed over 25,000 fighters. It possessed medium and heavy weaponry, including tanks, armored vehicles, and short- to mid-range missiles—as showcased in its 2015 military parade, where 1,700 fighters graduated.

Despite its Salafi-jihadist ideology, Jaysh al-Islam engaged in fierce battles against Jabhat al-Nusra (HTS’s predecessor), Faylaq al-Rahman (an ally of Nusra), and even ISIS. These internal conflicts weakened the group, yet it maintained cohesion until its leader, Zahran Alloush, was assassinated in a suspected Russian airstrike on December 26, 2015.

Like many other factions that collapsed after losing their leaders, Jaysh al-Islam failed to maintain its influence, despite receiving external support. It ultimately lost its territories, especially compared to HTS, which proved more resilient.

How HTS Survived Where Others Failed

Many factions, including Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh al-Islam, and Liwa al-Tawhid, once outnumbered HTS (then Jabhat al-Nusra) and enjoyed greater material, media, and popular support. However, Nusra was designated a terrorist organization early on, leading to its international isolation. While this seemed like a disadvantage, it allowed HTS to consolidate power away from external interference.

Over time, as other factions splintered due to leadership losses, internal strife, and external pressure, HTS remained intact, strategically evolving. This resilience and adaptability—under Abu Mohammad al-Jolani’s leadership—ultimately positioned HTS as the dominant force, culminating in its rise to power in Syria’s new political landscape.

While most leaders of the armed opposition factions—such as Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh al-Islam, and Liwa al-Tawhid—were preoccupied with competing for power in areas outside the control of Bashar al-Assad’s forces, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani (Ahmad al-Sharaa’) operated quietly and behind the scenes. He remained out of the public eye until 2016, when he announced his split from al-Qaeda, after which he once again withdrew from the spotlight.

Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra, was formed through both voluntary and forced alliances among several militant factions, including Jabhat Ansar al-Din, Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement, Jaysh al-Sunna, and Liwa al-Haqq. It also absorbed a wide range of smaller al-Qaeda-linked factions, such as the Caucasus Emirate, the Turkistan Islamic Party, Jaysh al-Izza, and Jaysh al-Nasr. Like other militant groups, HTS underwent major transformations, splits, and internal shifts. However, what set it apart was its ability to adapt ideologically in response to local, regional, and international realities.

Unlike other factions that were forced into mergers for survival—such as Ahrar al-Sham, which combined with Nour al-Din al-Zenki under the name “Syrian Liberation Front”—HTS managed to maintain its organizational independence. In fact, rather than dissolving into other groups, it continued to absorb smaller al-Qaeda-affiliated factions, including Jabhat Ansar al-Din and Jaysh al-Nasr. As time passed, HTS grew stronger. By early 2019, after intense battles against Ahrar al-Sham, Nour al-Din al-Zenki, and other factions, it secured full control over Idlib Province, along with large parts of Aleppo, Hama, and Latakia.

Sami Mohammad, a former religious and military leader within HTS, explained that the most important factor behind the group’s survival was its independent decision-making, the charisma of Ahmad al-Sharaa’ (Jolani), and the strong discipline within its ranks. He emphasized the personal trust that Jolani built with both his commanders and fighters, noting that Jolani knew all his field commanders, even the lower-ranking ones, and met with them regularly. This personal involvement strengthened his position within the organization and fostered loyalty, unlike other factions that suffered from chaos and disorganized leadership.

Mohammad described HTS as a “true military academy,” in contrast to most Syrian opposition factions, which were structured around local or tribal affiliations. HTS, he explained, had a clear organizational hierarchy and centralized decision-making, ensuring strategic consistency.

Mohammad Ibrahim, also known as Abu Yahya al-Shami, a former military commander in an Islamist faction, noted that the key to HTS’s rise was its relative independence and its ability to break established political boundaries. He explained that most armed factions were directly tied to foreign states, forcing them to adhere to external agendas, whereas HTS was not directly controlled by any state. This allowed it more freedom to act in its own interests, even if that meant eliminating rival factions. He also pointed out that HTS’s designation as a terrorist organization worked in its favor, as it prevented major countries from openly engaging with it like they did with other factions. This, in turn, gave HTS greater flexibility in its decision-making, allowing it to maneuver more effectively and eliminate competitors.

Yahya emphasized that Jolani always pursued his own faction’s interests ruthlessly, unlike other rebel groups that often compromised or sought partial solutions. He argued that while Jolani fought with extreme determination and always aimed to win, many other factions settled for half-measures.

A leaked audio recording of Hassan al-Daghim, a former moral guidance officer in the Syrian National Army, further supports this view. In the recording, Daghim states that Jolani is a pragmatic leader who will sacrifice anything or anyone to achieve power. Abu Yahya concluded that Jolani’s practical experience came from Syria itself, as he was not originally this skilled. However, his ambition, ability to capitalize on victories, and lessons learned Abu from the mistakes of both ISIS and Nusra contributed to his success.

HTS’s dominance was not only due to military strategy but was also aided by religious legitimacy. Several influential clerics and political figures played a key role in legitimizing Jolani’s rule through religious rhetoric. Among them were Zaid al-Atar (Abu Aisha), a former HTS political liaison who later became Foreign Minister under the name Asaad al-Shaibani, and Abu Ahmad Hudud (Anas Khattab), a former security chief who is now head of HTS intelligence. These figures helped consolidate Jolani’s leadership, ensuring that HTS eliminated all potential challengers, leaving only its own government—the “Salvation Government”—as the ruling authority.

Ultimately, HTS’s tactical flexibility, military discipline, and ruthless pragmatism allowed it to outlast and surpass all other opposition factions. Unlike groups that were either fragmented by infighting or constrained by foreign backers, HTS retained control over its own fate. With the fall of the previous regime, it successfully transitioned from an opposition faction to the dominant force in post-war Syria, with its leadership now firmly established in Damascus.

Victory... A Shared Triumph

Alaa al-Din Ayoub, known as “Farouq Abu Bakr,” a former commander in the Free Syrian Army who led negotiations for the withdrawal of opposition factions from Aleppo in 2016, reflected on the past conflicts with Jabhat al-Nusra—later known as Fatah al-Sham and eventually Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). “We had our differences regarding how they dealt with the Free Syrian Army factions,” he said, “but we cannot deny that they were the most organized and well-trained among us. HTS focused on structuring its ranks and training its fighters, yet the recent victory cannot be attributed solely to them.”

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, Ayoub emphasized that the success in repelling aggression resulted from multiple factors, both external and internal. International power struggles and geopolitical conflicts played a role, but so did the resilience of tens of thousands of fighters across revolutionary factions. However, he acknowledged that HTS stood out for its ability to seize opportunities better than others.

“We all remember the phase before HTS took control of Idlib and the battles it fought against other factions,” he continued. “In my opinion, the main reason it succeeded where others failed was the fragmentation of the opposition factions and their inability to present a unified, cohesive model.”

Fragmented Alliances

Regarding political formations, particularly the Syrian National Coalition—the political wing of the armed opposition that was tasked with negotiations before the fall of the regime—Ayoub pointed out that its creation was backed by Türkiye and other regional powers. As a result, most of its members and factions were beholden to the interests of the states that helped establish it.

Reflecting on the Syrian revolution’s fourteen-year history, Ayoub noted the emergence of various influential leaders with religious, grassroots, and revolutionary backgrounds. Figures like Zahran Alloush, Abdel Qader Saleh (leader of Liwa al-Tawhid), and Hassan Abboud (leader of Ahrar al-Sham) along with Abu Yazan al-Shami left a significant mark. Others, such as Jamal Maarouf, who led the Syria Revolutionaries Front before being eliminated by HTS in 2014, were eventually removed from the scene—either through assassination or political marginalization.

“In contrast,” Ayoub concluded, “Jolani was the luckiest of them all. After a period of hiding, he not only survived but ultimately prevailed. His past experience in Iraq, along with his security and military acumen, were key factors in his rise to power.”

 

 

 



Undoing the ‘Tangled Nest’ of Iran Sanctions Won’t Be Easy or Quick

A veiled Iranian woman walks past an anti-US mural, depicting an Iranian and US negotiation table, next to the former US embassy in Tehran, Iran, 22 June 2026. (EPA)
A veiled Iranian woman walks past an anti-US mural, depicting an Iranian and US negotiation table, next to the former US embassy in Tehran, Iran, 22 June 2026. (EPA)
TT

Undoing the ‘Tangled Nest’ of Iran Sanctions Won’t Be Easy or Quick

A veiled Iranian woman walks past an anti-US mural, depicting an Iranian and US negotiation table, next to the former US embassy in Tehran, Iran, 22 June 2026. (EPA)
A veiled Iranian woman walks past an anti-US mural, depicting an Iranian and US negotiation table, next to the former US embassy in Tehran, Iran, 22 June 2026. (EPA)

Tehran stands to gain billions of dollars from a 60-day reprieve from US sanctions announced on Monday, but unwinding more than four decades of restrictions poses legal, political and commercial challenges that could take years.

At issue is whether an interim US deal with Iran can translate into lasting economic relief, given the complexity of dismantling a sanctions regime that spans US law, international measures and private-sector risk concerns.

The United Nations, the US and the European Union have imposed sanctions and trade embargoes and have frozen assets since the late 1970s over Iran's nuclear program, human rights violations and support for armed groups around the region.

Under a 14-point memorandum of understanding signed by the US and Iran last week, Washington is to start abolishing all types of sanctions using a schedule to be forged in a final deal within 60 days, a period that can be extended.

On Monday, the US Treasury issued a temporary general license allowing the production, delivery and sale of crude oil and petrochemical and petroleum products of Iranian origin through August 21.

Removing the remaining sanctions - if it happens - would represent a stark change in US policy toward the Middle East, which has long focused on curbing ‌Iran's influence and ‌using financial pressure to weaken its theocratic government.

It would also be difficult, requiring executive action for some measures, approval ‌by ⁠Congress for others ⁠and close coordination with the UN and other countries that have imposed their own sanctions. Companies, wary after decades of restrictions, could also blunt the impact.

"You have this tangled nest of sanctions, and it's not just executive orders, it's congressional sanctions," said Juan Zarate, deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism under former President George W. Bush.

CONGRESS IS SKEPTICAL

Washington first sanctioned Iran in 1979, after revolutionary students seized the US embassy in Tehran, holding diplomats hostage.

Since then, Congress has passed half a dozen sanctions laws and presidents have issued executive orders over Iran's nuclear program and its support for groups the US deems terrorist organizations including Hamas, Hezbollah and Yemen's Houthis.

Since early 2025, the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has imposed sanctions on more than 1,000 people, vessels and aircraft, according to Treasury data.

Delisting thousands of entities designated for ⁠sanctions would take OFAC at least a year, said Jeremy Paner, a partner at law firm Hughes Hubbard & Reed ‌and a former US sanctions official.

President Donald Trump can rescind executive orders issued on Iran, but some ‌measures - including sanctions on Hamas and Hezbollah - are mandated by law and will have to be removed or amended by Congress, where the interim deal has already sparked sharp ‌public criticism from his fellow Republican lawmakers.

Undoing 40 years of sanctions would be difficult, added Matt Zweig, managing director of policy at FDD ‌Action, the lobbying arm of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

"Any attempt to comprehensively remove layer upon layer of sanctions will be like peeling back an onion - exposing the administration - not just to legal complexities but political risks," said Zweig, a former aide on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The license issued on Monday could be worth up to $3 billion for Iran over two months, by some estimates.

That could swell to "at least tens of billions of dollars" if made permanent, erasing a discount on Iranian oil, allowing Tehran to ‌sell to additional buyers beyond China, and increasing exports, said Edward Fishman, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. China now buys about 90% of Iranian oil, despite the sanctions.

The new license is broader than ⁠the one issued in March, calling for ⁠inclusion of not just oil and petroleum products, but also banking, insurance and transportation related to the oil trade, giving Tehran quicker access to its revenues.

"There are a number of thorny issues involved," said Stephanie Connor, a former OFAC official now a partner with law firm Holland & Knight, adding that lifting sanctions could mean funds flowing to groups the US considers a threat.

"Are we really going to let money start flowing to Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps?" she asked, referring to the powerful paramilitary force that the US has designated a foreign terrorist organization.

WARY COMPANIES

Banks, oil firms and insurers will face evolving regulations, tougher due diligence and exposure to sanctions-evasion risks tied to Iran links with countries such as China, North Korea and Russia. They also remain subject to separate sanctions from Britain, the UN, the EU and others.

"We've kind of beaten the markets up with the risk of doing business with or through Iran, so you can't just flip a switch and say, 'Oh, now it's okay to do business with Iran,'" Zarate said.

Companies that deal with Iran would still face lawsuits from victims of attacks, who can sue investors and companies for aiding designated groups under the 2016 Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which aides say is unlikely to be repealed.

Given such risks, companies may steer clear of working with Iran to escape legal and reputational risk as long as the Iranian government remains in power, said Brett Erickson, principal with Obsidian Risk Advisors.

"We're not going to see massive multi-billion-dollar commitments until things are far more cemented and politically stable," he said. "There's just a long way to go."


Trump Allies Defend Him to Israelis Anxious Over Iran Deal

Israeli and US flags stand against a backdrop of destroyed buildings in southern Lebanon, as seen from northern Israel, Sunday, June 21, 2026. (AP)
Israeli and US flags stand against a backdrop of destroyed buildings in southern Lebanon, as seen from northern Israel, Sunday, June 21, 2026. (AP)
TT

Trump Allies Defend Him to Israelis Anxious Over Iran Deal

Israeli and US flags stand against a backdrop of destroyed buildings in southern Lebanon, as seen from northern Israel, Sunday, June 21, 2026. (AP)
Israeli and US flags stand against a backdrop of destroyed buildings in southern Lebanon, as seen from northern Israel, Sunday, June 21, 2026. (AP)

American allies of President Donald Trump this week defended him to an Israeli public anxious about a US interim deal with Iran and White House criticism that together appeared to signal fissures in Israel's decades-old alliance with Washington.

The US-Israeli relationship has been on a roller coaster, from the early confidence they shared after their joint attack on Iran to public disagreements between Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over how to end the four-month-old war.

Netanyahu and many other Israelis see a risk that Trump's memorandum of understanding with Iran will empower a state they regard as their deadliest enemy and constrict their ability to respond to threats from Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon.

They sense the US alliance - long the bedrock of Israel's strategic approach - is under strain as opinion polls show Americans increasingly unhappy with Israel and their strongest champion in Washington appears to be turning away.

"The United States and Israel have an unbreakable bond," Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, said on Sunday after acknowledging there was an "enormous level of anxiety about the relationship."

He spoke at the JNS International Policy Summit in Jerusalem where concerns about ‌the state of ‌the US-Israel alliance dominated many of the discussions.

Mark Levin, a conservative Fox News commentator and longtime Trump supporter ‌who has ⁠broken with the ⁠president over the Iran deal, told the audience that while he did not like the agreement and believed that the "Iranian regime" had to be destroyed, he nevertheless praised Trump for what he said was the president's support for liberty and religious freedom.

ISRAELIS WORRY OVER CRITICISM FROM REPUBLICANS

Alongside their concerns about the wording of the Iran deal, Israelis worry about Trump's insistence on Israel agreeing a ceasefire with Hezbollah in Lebanon and his language responding to Netanyahu's resistance to those agreements.

In recent weeks Trump has called Netanyahu "[expletive] crazy," lectured Israel that "you don't have to knock an apartment down every time you're looking for somebody" and publicly pondered asking Syria to replace Israeli troops in Lebanon.

Vice President JD Vance also struck a more critical tone, saying "Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to ⁠the nation of Israel at this moment in time," adding later that not all criticism of Israel ‌should be dismissed as antisemitism.

The fact such sharp views are emanating from Trump's Republican Party is especially ‌worrying for many Israelis, with US Democrats far more vocally critical of Israel than in previous years.

Sid Rosenberg, a prominent conservative New York radio host, told Israelis that for ‌all their concerns about Trump, he was the best option for them. "You could have JD Vance. Good luck with that," he said, after acknowledging that "a ‌lot of people in Israel are very, very upset" with the president.

While large majorities of Republicans 50 and older view Israel positively, younger conservative Americans have grown more critical, a Pew Research Center poll from late March showed. Some 57% of Republicans aged 18-49 have an unfavorable opinion of Israel, up from 50% a year previously.

Many Americans, including prominent Democratic politicians, were outraged by the scale of death and devastation in Israel's military campaign in Gaza after the deadly Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, on Israeli communities ‌and the taking of hostages.

Israel has also faced criticism over the joint decision to launch the war on Iran, a conflict that is deeply unpopular in the United States, including among Trump's conservative base.

Victoria Coates, ⁠vice president at the conservative Heritage Foundation ⁠think tank and Trump's deputy national security adviser during his first term, suggested on Monday that the US-Israeli relationship was strained but expressed confidence that the leaders of both countries would bring it "back on track".

A day earlier, speaking at the conference, she had said that recent days had been "challenging for all of us, to put it mildly," but that there had been plenty of "great and good things" in Trump's second term "for which we can and should be grateful."

NETANYAHU NOT CONCERNED BY TRUMP COMMENTS, OFFICIALS SAY

Until recently, Trump had been seen in Israel as its strongest-ever White House ally after his decision in his first term to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and Israeli sovereignty over Syria's occupied Golan Heights and his leading diplomatic role securing the release of hostages last year.

Two Israeli officials familiar with Netanyahu's thinking said the prime minister was not concerned that comments by Trump and Vance indicated any meaningful US policy changes such as slower arms deliveries.

Netanyahu believed the comments might be partly geared towards assuaging voters ahead of US midterm elections in November amid growing frustration over Israel and the war, said the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The anxiety in Israel has led some prominent figures to say it is time for the country to envisage a future without strong US support and to further build up its own military and technological capabilities.

Ohad Tal, chair of the US-Israel caucus in Israel's parliament the Knesset, said Israelis needed to prepare for the day when there is a less supportive US president "and this is why we have to be much more independent and we have to forge new alliances."


A Decade of Chaos: Britain Prepares for Seventh Prime Minister

 British Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaks as he announces the timeline for his resignation, outside 10 Downing Street, in London, Britain, June 22, 2026. (Reuters)
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaks as he announces the timeline for his resignation, outside 10 Downing Street, in London, Britain, June 22, 2026. (Reuters)
TT

A Decade of Chaos: Britain Prepares for Seventh Prime Minister

 British Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaks as he announces the timeline for his resignation, outside 10 Downing Street, in London, Britain, June 22, 2026. (Reuters)
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaks as he announces the timeline for his resignation, outside 10 Downing Street, in London, Britain, June 22, 2026. (Reuters)

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he would quit on Monday, paving the way for ‌the country to have its seventh leader in 10 years. The chaos dates back to the Brexit referendum, 10 years ago to the day on Tuesday.

In the years since the vote, Britain has tried to forge its own path but struggled to boost its low-growth economy, hamstrung by high debts and a growing welfare bill, at a time of growing geopolitical volatility.

JUNE 2016: UK VOTES FOR BREXIT, PM CAMERON QUITS

Britons cause a global shock by voting 52%-48% to leave the European Union, ending a more than 40-year union and plunging the country into its biggest political crisis since World War Two. Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron resigns and the party chooses Theresa May to succeed him.

JUNE 2017: SNAP ELECTION GAMBLE BACKFIRES

Riding high in opinion polls and seeking a bigger majority in parliament to push Brexit legislation through, May calls a snap election. The Conservatives lose their majority and form a government by striking a deal with Northern Ireland's pro-UK Democratic Unionist Party.

MAY 2019: BREXIT PARALYSIS, MAY RESIGNS, JOHNSON TAKES OVER

May quits after failing to break a parliamentary deadlock over how Britain should leave the EU. Boris Johnson, one of the main faces of the pro-Brexit campaign, wins the internal Conservative Party contest to ‌succeed her.

DECEMBER 2019: JOHNSON ‌LEADS CONSERVATIVES TO SWEEPING WIN

With parliament paralyzed over Brexit, Johnson calls a snap election. Campaigning under ‌the ⁠slogan "Get Brexit Done" ⁠he steers the Conservatives to their biggest election win since Margaret Thatcher's landslide victory in 1987.

JANUARY 2020: BREXIT GETS DONE

Johnson uses his mandate to drive a Brexit deal through parliament and Brussels, and Britain exits the EU on January 31, 2020, becoming the first state to withdraw from the bloc.

JULY 2022: JOHNSON OUSTED Johnson leads Britain during the COVID-19 pandemic - at one point being hospitalized himself with the disease - but a long list of scandals and missteps proves too much and he steps down after a ministerial revolt.

SEPTEMBER 2022: TRUSS' CHAOTIC PREMIERSHIP

Liz Truss beats Rishi Sunak in a contest to succeed Johnson. Her "mini-budget" containing unfunded tax cuts spooks financial markets, pushing up borrowing costs sharply and further tarnishing Britain's reputation for political and fiscal stability. She lasts only 44 days before ⁠announcing her resignation.

OCTOBER 2022: SUNAK BECOMES PRIME MINISTER

Sunak takes over as Britain's third prime minister in as many ‌months, pledging to restore stability to government. He makes five key pledges focused on the ‌economy, stopping illegal immigration and improving the health system. In February 2023, Sunak strikes a deal with the EU on trade rules for Northern Ireland, improving ties with ‌the bloc.

MAY 2024: SUNAK CALLS ELECTION

Trailing the Labour Party by around 20 points in the polls, Sunak calls an election for July ‌4.

JULY 2024: STARMER BECOMES PRIME MINISTER "We said we would end the chaos and we will," Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour Party, told supporters on July 5, 2024, after winning a landslide election but with the smallest share of the electoral vote of any majority government in modern history.

AUGUST 2024: STARMER WARNS 'THINGS WILL GET WORSE'

Starmer warns over the state of the public finances, saying the Labour Party has inherited "an economic black hole" and tells voters "things will get worse before they get ‌better".

OCTOBER 2024: LABOUR'S FIRST BUDGET

Finance minister Rachel Reeves announces tax rises worth £40 billion ($52.76 billion) a year, primarily by raising employers' social security contributions, bringing the tax burden to its highest level on record in ⁠peacetime and prompting an outcry from ⁠businesses.

FEBRUARY 2025: NIGEL FARAGE'S REFORM UK PARTY SURGES

Right-wing anti-immigration party Reform UK overtakes Labour in a national opinion poll for the first time. Reform UK, led by Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage, has topped polls ever since.

JUNE 2025: REBELLION FORCES STARMER U-TURN ON WELFARE

Starmer is forced to reverse plans to cut Britain's welfare bill after his own lawmakers threatened to defeat the government.

SEPTEMBER-APRIL 2025: MANDELSON SCANDAL

Pressure on Starmer ramps up over his appointment of Peter Mandelson as Britain's ambassador to Washington. Mandelson was later sacked over his ties to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as questions emerge over Starmer's judgment and the vetting process involved.

MAY 2026: LOCAL ELECTION DISASTER

The Labour Party suffers heavy losses in English local elections and votes for the Scottish and Welsh assemblies, deepening questions over Starmer's ability to govern, with Reform UK the main beneficiary.

MAY 2026: WES STREETING RESIGNS AS HEALTH MINISTER

Health Minister Wes Streeting quits saying he had lost confidence in Starmer's leadership and calls for a leadership contest, in which he said he would hope to compete.

JUNE 2026: DEFENCE MINISTER JOHN HEALEY QUITS

British Defense Minister John Healey quits over a months-long dispute over defense spending, accusing Starmer of failing to commit the money needed to keep the country safe from mounting threats.

JUNE 2026: ANDY BURNHAM SHOWS HE CAN BEAT REFORM UK

Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham wins an election in the north of England, trouncing Reform UK in the process, and allowing him to return to Westminster, removing a key obstacle to any leadership challenge against Starmer.