Syria’s Abu Mohammed al-Jolani: Will He Renounce or Restore Assad’s Bloody Legacy?

The lightning rebellion and collapse of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s brutal regime in December 2024 triggered widespread conjecture over the presumptive rebel leadership of Hayat Tahrir a-Shams (HTS), led by ISIS and al-Qaeda alumnus Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, today known as Ahmad al-Sharaa, and backed by Turkey.¹

Jolani’s intentions are unclear. He and Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu have stated they are not interested in direct conflict. Jolani noted the “general exhaustion in Syria.”² The former al-Qaeda loyalist has taken pains to Westernize his image from dress to moderated declarations. His tactics may be working. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Barbara Leaf met with Jolani on December 20, 2024, and said the Syrian rebel leader was “pragmatic.” The U.S. government removed a $10 million bounty from his head. However, Jolani is also keeping others company. He has recently met with fellow Islamists from Turkey and Egypt.³ Jolani’s makeover follows a Muslim Brotherhood pattern of appealing to the West as moderates: such as the Turkish president,⁴ and polished, terror-supporting, and propaganda-distributing Qatari royalty.⁵ Hamas’s well-planned and reworked 2017 “social justice” mission statement reflects the pattern.⁶

All Means to Jolani’s End Goal

Like the now-collapsed Assad regime, Jolani will likely leverage all means to maintain power. Political violence and even war with Israel cannot be discounted. Israel and the Jews have served as convenient scapegoats for decades of failed bloody rule by the Assad clan.

Jolani’s race for international legitimacy has brought him to seek United Nations intervention and censure of Israel’s move into Syria’s Mount Hermon territory, even citing international law. Jolani declared that “Israel’s excuses for entering Syria no longer exist. After the Iranians’ departure, no more justifications exist for any foreign intervention in Syria.”⁷

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres emphasized that the 1974 Disengagement of Forces Agreement establishing a buffer zone between Israeli and Syrian forces “remains in force.”⁸ The buffer zone is monitored by the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF). Both forces were required to limit military build-up in areas adjoining the disengagement lines. Since the fall of the Assad regime, Israel has advanced into some parts of the buffer zone.⁹

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the UN’s assertion, explaining that the disengagement agreement had collapsed and “the Syrian soldiers have abandoned their positions.”¹⁰ Netanyahu ordered the establishment of a buffer zone to prevent hostile forces from infiltrating areas near the Israel-Syria border. He insisted that Israeli decisions are tied to “the emerging reality on the ground.”¹¹

Jolani seems well aware of the need for Israel’s cooperation to ensure Syria frees itself from Iranian domination. This is his litmus test: How will he engineer Syria’s relations with the Jewish state? It is reasonable to assess that Jolani, just like the Assads, may portray Israel as a power- and land-hungry aggressor from which Syria must liberate itself. Natan Sharansky, former Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, noted that the Soviets and other dictatorships require an outside enemy to maintain control.¹²

The historical precedent is clear. Similar to his predecessors, Jolani’s targeting of Israel enhances his legitimacy in the Arab and Muslim public, which helps distract the Syrian street from what might become Taliban-like regime repression. There are already indications of double-gaming. While Jolani recently invoked the word “Israel,” HTS preferred “the Zionist entity” to refer to the Jewish state. Simultaneously, Jolani has also been appealing to the West by presenting himself as a moderate who protects the rights of Syrian minorities, including Christians, Kurds, and Druze.

HTS has exaggerated its populist role in protecting Syrian minorities. The broadcasting of pro-Christian propaganda was followed just days later by a disturbing report of the beheading death of two Syrian Greek Christians. The incident represents the danger of the conflict and possible HTS hypocrisy in the future.¹³

Surprisingly, no great battle occurred between HTS and Assad’s forces. Similarly, no clashes between HTS and the Druze and the Kurds were seen. The Free Syrian Army has fought against HTS in the past. SFA’s more moderate members may warm to relations with Israel, but as long as HTS is in power, the SFA followers would be endangering themselves in expressing any desire for normalization with Israel. Having said that, Syrians prefer to focus on building their country instead of battling neighbors.

Despite international media reports, Syrians are thankful for Israel’s initiative in defanging the Iranian regime’s proxies. Many also may recall the Jewish state’s humanitarian and medical assistance during the 2011-2014 Syrian civil war. They also fear expressing these sentiments under HTS’s domination.¹⁴

Although Syrians tend to be socially liberal and religiously moderate, for the past 53 years of the Assad family’s rule, they have been consistently exposed to one-sided, anti-Israel government media on two state channels and limited internet. In short, the Syrian media depicts Israel as women- and child-killers.

Regardless of the ideological sources, Syrians have been taught to demonize Israel. Despite Israel’s previous humanitarian and medical aid, there are many who, for nationalistic or religious reasons, see recognizing or having dealings with Israel as off-limits; the propaganda’s infection is long-lasting. Arab leaders, both nationalist and Islamist, have exploited antisemitism in the past century to unite the Arab world. Only a massive public campaign to uproot the inveterate indoctrination against Israel can bring Syria to consider normalizing relations with Israel.¹⁵

From Israel’s current perspective, the highest security concern is in the new buffer zone between the two countries. Both the Syrian and Israeli sides of Mount Hermon constitute a new and essential buffer zone, replacing the one established in the 1974 Separation of Forces Agreement. The new reality appears friendlier to Israel. The villages near the Syrian side of Mount Hermon are populated by Druze and mixed Christian and Muslim villages. Some Druze leadership have even publicly called to be annexed to Israel.¹⁶

The West’s understanding, attitude, and policy towards Jolani and the HTS leadership will influence and impact their moves. A show of assertive deterrence by Israel, the United States, and other allies may prevent the current conflict from intensifying.

* * *

Notes