It's time to take a risk on Syria

by Archibald Sykes

Posted on 15 June, 2025

Having largely laid dominant in the global media, the Syrian civil war burst back into the news last November. For a long time, the Assad regime looked stable and they were beginning to come in from the cold diplomatically. But, in December, it collapsed with the Islamist Hayt Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) sweeping across the country. Even as major cities like Alleppo fell the world found it hard to believe that the Assad regime would continue to disintegrate[1], but by the end of the year, a new government had been formed in Damascus, under the leadership of Ahmed al-Sharra, which promised political and economic reforms to rebuild the country.

This new government has many critics. Lots of these critics raise important concerns about the new regime, including: its leadership's links to al-Qaeda and ISIS, the ideology of HTS and fears of sectarianism. These concerns are legitimate and there are already hints that some of them are manifesting in the new provisional constitution, affirming Syria as the Syrian Arab Republic and expanding the role of Islam in the law [2].

Despite these risks, I think it's important to take a risk on the new government in Damascus because they need us and to an extent, we need them (or at least we need Syria).

Why Syria needs us?

It will not come as a surprise that Syria is in desperate need of aid. The country has suffered a 14 year long conflict, the country has been left in ruins, its people scattered across the world and its national image is one of destruction and tyranny. Not only has the county been destroyed, but it remains fractured and unstable. HTS may hold the seat of power, but they do not have full state control.

Ensuring stability:

Probably the most pressing crisis facing the new Syrian government is returning the country to peace. This issue can not fully be separated from the issue of rebuilding the country, but there can be no reconstruction if the civil war erupts again.

The crises in Syria that could destabilise the country are myriad, but some of the most important include the handling of foreign fighters (especially those with links to ISIS), the reconstruction of a security service (one that has been gutted as part of a de-ba’athification policy) and peace negotiations between HTS and other armed factions (most prominently the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and its government Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES)) [3].

These problems will need international support to be solved and Western states are in a prime position to aid.

On the issue of foreign fighters, Western governments have a clear duty. Although hard data on foreign fighters in Syria is hard to come by, it was estimated in 2020 by the International Institute for Strategic Studies that around 2,000 foreign fighters remained in SDF custody and around 1,000 of these held EU passports [4].

This may seem like only a small amount, but they still pose a threat to Syria. The prisons they are held in are poorly run, struggling to cope with the pressures of holding 2,000 trained militants. ISIS remnants have already launched attacks against the prisons where their allies are held and it may only be a matter of time before an attack is successful. However, if Western governments began to take back their fighters and encouraged their allies in the region to do the same, then the government of Syria could be alleviated from the pressure of holding these prisoners. Freeing up valuable financial and security forces that could be focused on other pressing matters.

On the issue of the security services, Western governments may also still be able to help. Although the resources and appetite for a close security partnership in Syria are not available, there still remains areas in which these governments can help, including in training. The British police already work with governments in the region, such as the Bahraini government, to help train the police and security services. This assistance can be extended to aiding in the re-establishment of the Syrian police forces and state security apparatus, this training can also help shift these institutions in their outlook. Under the Assad regime, these institutions were tools for state repression, but with Western aid, they can be restructured to help serve the people.

Finally, and the area where the West will find aid easiest, is helping foster peace negotiations between the new government in Damascus, the Turkish government and the AANES. Crucial to ensuring stability in the country and ensuring the civil war does not restart in full is preventing an armed conflict either between HTS, backed by Turkey, and the SDF or a direct conflict between Turkey and the SDF. If this escalation did occur, it could serve as a warning to other minority communities that they are next and lead them to take militant action.

Already, progress is being made with the US brokering talks between the SDF and Turkish governments [5], signalling further progress in ending the long Turkish-Kurdish conflict. However, this must not be the end. It is important that NATO keeps working to prevent a conflict in the region through its close ties with Turkey and its regional ally, the SDF. If these peace negotiations can be a success, it will offer a glimmer of hope that a new, non-transitional government can be formed to govern Syria.

Rebuilding the country:

Equally important to ensuring stability in the country is rebuilding Syria.

Unsurprisingly, the cost of rebuilding Syria will be massive and can not be footed by any one country or institution. Currently, over 70% of the country lives in poverty and 25% live in extreme poverty; this, combined with the sheer physical destruction wrought by the war, leaves the country with a reconstruction bill of up to $400bn [6].

Alongside this, the new government has declared its desires for sweeping economic reforms that would liberalise the economy and attract foreign capital into the country and it's here that maybe the UK is best positioned to help.

Across the world, there are only a few countries with the aid budgets and/or financial sectors that can compete with the UK and London.

Syria’s old allies, Russia and Iran, whilst still lurking in the shadows, face their own economic problems. Russia is bound up in strict sanctions that restrict its financial sector [7] and is pouring money into the War in Ukraine, leaving little room for risky investments. Iran, meanwhile, is itself bound by strict sanctions which have kept the country in poverty and enabled even relatively poor Western states like Poland to develop GDP per capita almost 5 times larger [8].

The best non-Western, or Western allied, option for the Syrian government remains China, which, through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), has been promoting itself as a financier of international development. Syria is already a member of the BRI, having joined under the Assad regime[9] and the new government could take the decision to position itself closer to China in an attempt to gain more investment from it.

But the West, and the UK, are also exceptionally well positioned to support the Syrian reconstruction. If the Syrian government is looking to attract investment not just from states, but from the markets, then Western financial institutions could be the gateways to billions of pounds of investment. The UK alone has a finance industry of over £200bn [10] and London is one of the world capitals of finance. Enabling, or even encouraging, investment in Syria by the British government could be key to helping the private sector in Syria recover. Parts of the reconstruction will not be driven by the markets, but with the Syrian government openly talking about free market reforms, the West could make use of one of its greatest economic assets to rebuild the country and strengthen bilateral ties.

Why we need Syria?

Not only can the West invest and rebuild Syria for the benefit of Syria, but these investments can reap rewards for Western countries as well. Action on Syria can help these governments promote democracy will offer the best resistance against a possible return of Russia or Iran.

Democratisation:

The promise of the Arab Spring was one of liberalisation and freedom. This promise resonates with the politics of governments in Europe and connects with much of their foreign policy goals.

Currently, the government in Syria is not a liberal, democratic government. For all the statements that the HTS leadership make, it's important to be cautious. Al-Sharaa was a member of al-Qaeda and since coming to power, has paid lip service towards elections. But, the pro-democracy dream remains alive in Syria and is the country’s best path towards stability.

British and Western support for the country can be tied to building an inclusive Syria. If we do not work with the new government because of what it could become, then they will have little reason to listen to our requests for reform. Instead, they could revert to sectarian politics to ensure survival. But if we cooperate, we will have a voice at the table.

Aid outside of economic investment can help build the foundations of a more pluralistic society. The Carnegie Endowment are already arguing that work needs to be done to strengthen civil society in the country to build a check on power [11]. Western aid can help with this, supporting charities on the ground to develop a strong voice. Not only this, but aid, further sanction relief and diplomatic advances can be tied to the strengthening of institutions, democracy and civil society.

There must be patience from the international community on liberalising progress, but there can also be pressure. Making clear our support for those arguing for democracy, whilst pushing the government to continue the progress it is making, could help pave the way for reform.

This democratisation not only helps us as it works to promote the ideals that we cling so dearly to at home, but also helps build a stronger Syria. If we can work towards preventing the Syrian government from reverting back to a centralised and sectarian political system, we could see a more long lasting peace return to the country.

Containing influence:

Whilst democratisation presents a more morally beneficial reason to support Syria, there is also a realpolitik reason for helping align Syria with us. Already, there are plenty of countries ready and willing to influence Syria and bring it into their camp. Iran and Russia may be down, but not out. China has long been seeking to expand its sphere of influence in the global south and Turkey is feeling emboldened through its victory in the civil war. It is likely that Turkey and Russia pose the most imminent threat.

Russia may currently pose the greatest threat to Syria. Their interests in the region are not focused on the country as a whole, but on two provinces: the Tartus and Latakia governorates. These two coastal provinces, where the Assad family's heartlands lie, are also home to important Russian military bases (as they lie on the Mediterranean). Russia will aim to maintain these bases at all costs and may already be laying the groundwork for operations in the region following sectarian conflict. If Russia senses weakness and feels that it could threaten the new government with little resistance, it may move to follow a tried and tested strategy of backing separatists in the region[12]. If they succeed, they could gain a puppet regime in the two areas most important to them in Syria, but if they fail and the West wins out, important Russian bases could be forced to close or at least be weakened.

Although Turkey may be a NATO ally, its interests in the region may not align with those of the UK and the EU. Ergogan's foreign policy in Syria has been guided by two principles: containing the Kurds and neo-Ottomanism. The first of these poses a threat to Syria’s democratic future. For stability and democracy to succeed in Syria, the Kurds must be fully involved in governance and their sacrifices in the civil war must be recognised. Neo-Ottomanism [13], may pose less of a direct threat to Syria in the very short term, but with the state of Turkish democracy [14] and the expanding influence of Turkey, unchecked by liberal democratic states, may help advance autocratic and Islamist regimes, which in Syria could lead to a feeling that the revolution was betrayed. Although it might seem strange to check a NATO ally’s influence, what it really is, is checking the regional influence of Erdogan.

Conclusion:

The new Syrian government is not perfect and there are risks involved. HTS may veer towards forming a Syrian version of the Taliban. Al-Sharaa may take inspiration from Ergogan and build a soft-autocratic Islamist state. Syria may collapse back into civil war or even dissolve. All this is much more likely if the UK and the West turn their backs on Syria.

But, with risk, comes reward. Successful investment could help rebuild Syria, lift millions out of poverty and establish a democracy in the Middle East. In five years' time, with Western aid, Syria will not look, economically or politically, like the UK, but it could look like Iraq or Ukraine. A flawed democracy, but that is a lot better than the Assad regime.

Do you like this post?

Showing 1 reaction

Archibald Sykes published this page in Blog 2025-06-15 13:51:20 +0100