Ahmed al-Sharaa: The former Jihadist looking to reshape Syria

Syria’s rebel leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, was once known under the nom de guerre, Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, tying him back to his Jihadi past. The man is known for commanding a rebel group allied with Al Qaeda during the civil war of Syria, but has somewhat changed his image since he rose to power.

His leadership is not merely an ideological matter, but a strategic one, as the country needs an economic boost. And with Syrian refugees wanting to return home and sanctions on the country being lifted, the pressure mounts on the leader to recover Syria’s international relations and restore its infrastructure. 

Born in 1982 in Saudi Arabia, where his father worked as an oil engineer until 1989, the leader did come from a politically-conscious background. He suggests during a PBS interview that his father was influenced by Arab nationalism in his youth and that he had protested against the Baathist rule of Syria and consequently faced imprisonment. His father, later studied economics and political science, with a specialism in oil. 

Ideology and leadership

Perhaps al-Sharaa’s political career embodies the legacy his father failed to leave, as his father did run for parliament but could not win due to his “political background.” Nevertheless, the leader does not share the same implied ideology of his father. Al-Sharaa said in the interview that “there are aspects of Arab nationalism that always push a person to fight for the rights of the oppressed, and it also has a revolutionary nature to it.” He added: “For us it’s Muslims, then Arabs. In Arab nationalism, it’s Arabs, then Muslims.” This tells us that while he acknowledges the resistance within this type of nationalism, it does not quite reflect his values, which see the Muslim faith as a focal point rather than regional or ethnic cohesion. 

Syria is home to Sunni and Shia Muslims, Alawites as well as Christians. At face value this could mean that the Christian minority will take a back seat, compared to their Muslim counterpart, under his leadership. However, the leader appears to hold a more inclusive attitude.

He has asserted that Christians are “an essential part of the fabric of Syrian society.” And he has also hinted that strict Islamic law will not be enforced on citizens. He has also said: “I believe Syria will not interfere deeply in personal freedoms, but it will take customs into consideration.” And the leader has stressed that Kurdish people will no longer face injustices, under his leadership. His comments, if put into practice can tell us that the country is heading towards a future of tolerance. This could suggest that there would be no major social shifts, with bars continuing to serve alcoholic drinks in Damascus and no forced-Hijab law for women. But in the case of Syria, it was political and human rights activism as well as freedom of expression that was repressed under Bashar al-Assad. With this context in mind, the preservation of so-called “Western” freedoms, may not be the first issue Syrians are worrying about.

But perhaps, in the case of al-Sharaa it should be. According to the Middle East Correspondent at The Economist, Nicolas Pelham, al-Sharaa had previously socialised with groups who were trying to promote Jihadism across the Middle East, predominantly Iraq, in order to weaken the US operation. Pelham said that during this time, al-Sharaa had been “picked up” by Syrian Mukhabarat but was let go. However, all the other members of the group that were picked up were taken to Saydnaya prison. According to Pelham, he successfully made them believe that he was in fact heading to a Shisha bar and was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I suppose this makes him a good liar, but also Machiavellian, personality traits which could undoubtedly be exploited within political leadership. So is he indeed lying about the degree of freedom he intends to give the Syrian people? It nevertheless becomes harder to identify dishonesty, when a leader appears to reinvent themselves. 

There was a time when he appeared to be a man driven by religion at the expense of politics. According to The New York Times, a decade ago, al-Sharaa had said to a journalist that Muslims should not go to parliament to swear on a constitution that is man-made as they must adhere to “the rule of God Almighty.” But in an interview with The Economist last month, he said that Syria is heading towards the direction of a democracy, in which citizens will determine who will rule over them and who represents them in parliament. The degree to which his opinion has shifted, makes him seem like an ideological Chameleon. And it is reasonable and convincing, that such a shift could take place after ten years. His latest stance, makes him seem more practical and ultimately fit to run a country.

“From what we can see, he is a genuinely changed person. He has been on a journey and in Idlib he developed a pragmatic theology,” said Shiraz Maher, an extremist Islam expert at King’s College London. This notion of a “pragmatic theology” points towards moderate Islam, which could suggest the country will be ruled under a religious yet democratic government. 

But the leader’s past implies that democratic rule could be unlikely. Al-Sharaa had taken over Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the group that toppled Assad’s government, and ruled over two million people in the north-western Syrian enclave of Idlib in 2017.

But whilst he successfully rose to power within Idlib, he did experience a revolt. More than a year before the HTS-led rebel military attack on November 27th, al-Sharaa faced protests in Idlib from Syrian activists as well as Islamist hardliners. Reportedly, critics had compared his leadership to Assad’s, claiming that HTS had stifled critics and restrained dissent, with critics also claiming that the group is authoritarian. If his leadership was indeed comparable to that of the former leader, then is he the lesser of two evils?

“There are thousands of people who joined Al Qaeda, but let us ask what was the reason behind these people joining Al Qaeda?” 

The HTS leader has tried to create a distinction between Assad and the Syrian people and has hinted that foreign sanctions or restrictions on Syria need to be removed. During the interview with PBS, he said: “There are some wrong policies adopted by the international community against the Syrian revolution. For example, till now there’s still international recognition of Bashar al-Assad, although he carried out tens of chemical attacks against his people.” With al-Sharaa having said that he feels Muslims come first before Arabs, it is implied that strengthening relations with other Arab nations is not necessarily a top priority. His emphasis on Assad’s tyranny does point towards an “I am the good guy” sort of narrative. But it could also function as a tool to strengthen ties with foreign non-Arab nations. And because he has hinted at seeking an ease on foreign restrictions on Syria, such ties would solidify this objective.

Terrorism status

But building these relations may be easier said than done. He is designated as a terrorist by the US, United Nations and other governments. Taube Senior Fellow at The Washington Institute, David Schenker asserted that al-Sharaa was “correctly designated a terrorist” and Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz called the Syrian leader “a jihadist terrorist of the al-Qaeda school who is committing horrifying acts against a civilian population”.

When al-Sharaa was asked what he would say in response to Americans who believe he should not be a leader, due to his terrorist status, he labeled it an “unfair categorization.” 

He added: “It’s a political label that carries no truth or credibility, because, through our 10-year journey in this revolution, we haven’t posed any threat to Western or European society.”

He did nevertheless fight US soldiers in Iraq along with Jihadi insurgents during 2003 to 2006 and was imprisoned there for five years in detention camps. And with HTS being designated as a terrorist group by the UN Security Council, it may prove difficult for other nations to take his word. 

Now let’s check the facts here. According to the Center for Strategic & International Studies, Jabhat al-Nusra, which is the precursor organization of HTS, was set up in 2011 as an affiliate of Al-Qaeda within the opposition to Assad’s government. But by the time HTS was set up, al-Sharaa had cut ties with Al Qaeda, according to the BBC. So it is arguable that HTS does not present the degree of danger that it is widely believed to. 

But the plot thickens, as Jabhat al-Nusra had a connection with Israel. In February 2015, a Syrian Druze man, known as Sidqi al-Maqt, was arrested and subsequently jailed for 11 years on charges of “treason and espionage, support for terrorism and contact with a hostile organisation”. Al-Maqt had been documenting Israeli military operations as well as the military’s contact with armed groups of Syria, which noticeably included the al-Nusra Front, which is another name for Jabhat al-Nusra. Al-Maqt shared all this information, together with photos and videos, on his Facebook page. 

In June 2015, Israel’s then Defence Minister, Moshe Ya’alon, said that his country had been giving humanitarian aid to Syrian rebels. According to The Times of Israel, some of the rebels were presumed to be fighting with al-Nusra Front to remove Assad from power. 

In May 2016, the former Mossad director, Efraim Halevy, claimed that there would be no “blowback” towards his country for being somewhat involved with al-Nusra Front. The trail of events suggests Israel was not initially comfortable with its ties to Al-Nusra being disclosed, but eventually accepting that it had surfaced.

The Israeli connection to the group makes you wonder why al-Sharaa chose to dissociate himself with Al Qaeda. And whilst there seems to be no concrete reason as to why this happened, it is controversial that he appeared to make light of people joining Al Qaeda, despite severing ties with them. During his PBS interview, he said: “There are thousands of people who joined Al Qaeda, but let us ask what was the reason behind these people joining Al Qaeda? That’s the question. Are the U.S. policies after World War II toward the region partially responsibility for driving people towards Al Qaeda organization?”

Nevertheless, he does claim a moral high-ground among the Jihadis. He insists that during his militant years no civillians were killed during his operations. He claims that as a former Al Qaeda leader he was against the idea of conducting external operations outside of Syria, such as attacks against the US or Europe.

But there does seem to be a lack of concern surrounding the treatment of prisoners. He seemed to refuse to acknowledge some instances of torture in Syrian detention. When asked about specific cases, he said: “There is no torture. This is completely rejected. And we are not responsible for it, arresting, torturing and the whole process at the courts.” But despite making such brazen claims about human rights in his country, he seems confident that Syria could win the trust of the US, in a way that allows for a mutual benefit. 

Building Bridges over a weak foundation

Al-Sharaa asserted that the US and Syria could tackle together the humanitarian crisis in the region, “putting an end to the masses of refugees that flee to Turkey or to Europe and create huge issues, either for the Syrian people, who are being displaced all over Europe, or for the Europeans themselves.” He also asserted that “there are many consequences to the presence of refugees in new communities.” 

The leader also conveyed a willingness to cooperate with the US to deal with the refugee crisis, “by helping people stay in Syria, by providing them with a dignified life here, in the region, or by liberating the lands of these people so that they can return to their homes.” This would present benefits for both regions, in which there is less pressure on the West to provide sanctuary for more people and equally circumstances which would allow Syrian refugees to return to their homeland. But it may prove very hard for this to come to fruition. 

Hussain Abdul-Hussain, an expert at the Foundation for the Defence of Democracy, said: “The country [Syria] is a shambles. There is no economy, no money. There is crime, poverty, millions of refugees who want to come back. Now everyone is happy, but sooner or later, things are going to get real and my fear is that he [Sharaa] turns back to his Islam.” Abdul-Hussain asserts that the crisis within the country may cause the leader to practice and engage with religion in a way that is far more potent than present. But al-Sharaa said that the message he wants to convey to the world is that his “region does not represent a threat to the security of Europe and America.”

But whilst he maintains that he poses no harm to the West, on a domestic level, the overwhelming nature of the issues and challenges that lie ahead in Syria could indeed drive the leader towards taking more extreme measures in leadership, whether this be through Islam or other means of control. And when you consider the degree of authority he holds, it may be plausible to be fearful of the future.

This month, al-Sharaa unveiled a five-year constitution which stipulates that he has absolute power as the nation’s president, prime minister, head of the armed forces as well as the chief of national security. It also gives him the power to appoint judges, ministers as well as a third of parliament.

But the constitution also lays out that Islamic law is “the main source” of legislation. This has raised eyebrows, with critics claiming that the constitution brings in “Islamist theocracy,” rather than what was formally an “autocracy.” Whilst both are undesirable, a type of theocracy could make it a greater challenge to strengthen the country’s ties with the West. It also casts doubt over Maher’s notion of the leader adopting a “pragmatic” theocracy, which means that personal freedoms of citizens may be under threat. 

But Syria’s domestic future also faces uncertainty. Analysts have claimed that the country is facing a similar problem to that of Arab countries, when in 2011 a series of demonstrations meant that dictators in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen were removed from power. The tumultuous period that was the Arab Spring, was meant to achieve a future of democracy, but the emergence of Islamists and military coups meant that any sense of optimism was dampened. Notably, chaos took over in Yemen and Libya.

Whilst it is not clear if al-Sharaa is an Islamist hiding behind a mask or a political figure who has been authentically reinvented, he faces tough challenges with regards to the reconstruction of Syria, the potential return of Syrian refugees, the issue of fixing international ties and building up the economy. Time will tell whether his leadership will spark a similar revolt to that of the one in Idlib or bring hope to the Syrian people.

BBC, New York Times, The Economist, PBS, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Human Rights Watch, Center for Strategic and International Studies, The Guardian, Engelsberg Ideas, The Times of Israel, Reuters, United Nations, Al Jazeera