Everyone is searching for clues about the possible foreign policy of the new Damascus regime, especially concerning Iran. If it turns out to be against Iran, this would be a significant development and could potentially change the face of the region.
The initial impressions suggest possibilities that could be misleading, and the coming days will reveal the answers.
Theoretically, the new Syrian regime, under the leadership of “Hayat Tahrir al-Sham” and its leader Ahmad al-Sharaa, is expected to adopt a policy different from that of the ousted al-Assad regime. Accordingly, many bet on its opposition to Tehran and its militias, which fought against it in Syria, including hostility towards the parties of the axis, such as in Iraq and the Lebanese Hezbollah.
If its leader, al-Sharaa, follows this path, we may witness the end of Iran’s expansionist project, especially after Israel successfully destroyed most of its external capabilities.
However, regional political dynamics could steer Damascus in different directions. Moreover, politics does not operate according to a constant “catalog.” In the early 2000s, for instance, Hamas was thought to be Iran’s adversary until it later became clear that it was one of Tehran’s proxies, as was the Sunni “al-Jamaa al-Islamiyah” in Lebanon’s Tripoli. Similarly, the global Muslim Brotherhood played the role of a Trojan horse for Tehran under banners of sectarian solidarity and hostility toward Israel.
If Israel continues to exploit the collapse in Syria to strengthen its presence there, we might be surprised by a new Damascus alliance with Tehran, Baghdad, and a return of the Iranians to Sayyidah Zaynab. Much depends on al-Sharaa’s vision and his government’s stance on the conflict with Israel.
I have not found much in the available speeches and interviews that provides sufficient insight into his philosophy or possible policies.
In geopolitics, Türkiye is an important regional player. The question now is whether it holds significant influence over the new Damascus regime, particularly regarding its conflict with Iran.
Currently, Türkiye’s role might be beneficial in preventing Damascus from slipping into religious and political extremism and helping it escape US sanctions. Regarding Damascus’ management of its foreign affairs, there are two narratives: the first suggests “HTS” is closely tied to Ankara and owes much to it since 2018 and during its recent victory, indicating a likely alliance. The second narrative suggests the two parties have a good relationship, but their policies are not identical. Sinan Ulgen from the Carnegie Center supports this view, stating: “It is wrong to assume Türkiye controls Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.”
If the relationship deepens, Damascus’s policy would likely mirror Türkiye’s, making it unlikely to adopt a hostile stance toward Iran. However, tensions with Iraq are expected to persist for various reasons.
The Mesopotamian region has its own dynamics, with political and sectarian competition between Damascus and Baghdad. Following the fall of Saddam Hussein’s and al-Assad’s regimes, and with religious factions now ruling both capitals, theoretically, Iraq’s government is Shiite while Syria’s is Sunni. After “Hayat Tahrir al-Sham” took control in Damascus, anger spread in Baghdad, and historical vendettas between extremist factions of the two sects began circulating on social media.
Politically and militarily, Tehran, Baghdad, and Hezbollah pose a serious threat to the al-Assad regime’s replacement. Iraq has hosted thousands of fleeing leaders and soldiers of the regime following the fall of the Syrian capital.
It is expected that the axis will reorganize its priorities after the massive setbacks it suffered this year, including the destruction of Hamas, the elimination of Hezbollah leaders and forces, and now the end of the al-Assad regime.
In my view, Tehran will pursue two paths: political rapprochement with al-Sharaa and his team under the banner of hostility toward Israel, and weaving alliances within Syria and its surroundings to pressure Damascus.
Tehran, haunted for forty years by the theory that Washington is planning to overthrow its regime, is experiencing its greatest anxiety in history. It believes and repeats that what happened in Damascus was orchestrated by Israeli and American arrangements, targeting it. Today, it may be justified in feeling genuinely threatened in terms of its existence.
