Ahmed al-Sharaa, better known as Abu Muhammad al-Julani, has undergone a remarkable transformation in the eyes of the world. Twelve years ago, his ascension to leadership of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant force in Syria’s Idlib province, would have sparked widespread fear and condemnation. He was seen as a dangerous extremist, a successor to the notorious Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State. Today, however, the narrative surrounding Julani is far more nuanced, and a chorus of voices, ranging from neighboring countries to global powers, are reassessing their stance on the Syrian leader and the group he commands. This shift in perception stems from a calculated and multifaceted strategy employed by Julani to rebrand himself and HTS, distancing the organization from its extremist roots and presenting it as a more pragmatic and locally focused entity.
Julani’s strategic evolution has been marked by several key developments. He has publicly distanced HTS from al-Qaeda, a move that, while met with initial skepticism, has gradually gained credence. This disavowal has been accompanied by a concerted effort to present HTS as a more moderate force focused on providing governance and stability within the Idlib province. Julani has also sought to cultivate relationships with local communities, emphasizing HTS’s role in providing essential services, such as healthcare and education, and portraying the group as a protector of civilians against the Assad regime and other external threats. Furthermore, he has attempted to engage with international actors, including Turkey and the West, albeit cautiously, signaling a willingness to cooperate on counterterrorism efforts and potentially contribute to a political solution to the Syrian conflict.
This transformation has been facilitated by the evolving geopolitical landscape in Syria. As the focus has shifted away from defeating ISIS and towards containing the Assad regime and its Iranian backers, some regional and international actors have begun to view HTS, with its control over Idlib, as a potential counterbalance. Turkey, in particular, has played a significant role in this shift, engaging with HTS indirectly to maintain stability in the region bordering its southern frontier. This tacit acceptance, while controversial, has provided Julani with a degree of legitimacy and allowed him to further consolidate his power. This pragmatic approach, driven by regional security concerns, has created a complex dynamic where engagement with HTS is seen as a necessary, albeit uncomfortable, strategy.
However, Julani’s rebranding efforts face significant challenges. Despite his attempts to distance HTS from its past, concerns remain about the group’s ideology and long-term goals. Many analysts and policymakers remain skeptical of Julani’s sincerity, viewing his actions as opportunistic rather than a genuine ideological shift. The group’s hardline roots and previous association with al-Qaeda continue to cast a long shadow, hindering its acceptance by the international community. Furthermore, HTS continues to face internal pressures from more radical elements within its ranks, challenging Julani’s authority and threatening to undermine his more moderate approach. The delicate balance he maintains between pragmatism and ideology remains a crucial test of his leadership and the future direction of the group.
The international community remains largely cautious in its approach to HTS. While acknowledging its de facto control over Idlib and its role in providing some semblance of stability, most countries remain reluctant to formally engage with the group, citing its problematic past and lingering concerns about its true intentions. The United States, for example, continues to designate HTS as a terrorist organization, although there have been reports of back-channel communications. This cautious approach reflects the complexities of the Syrian conflict and the challenges of navigating a landscape dominated by non-state actors with varying degrees of legitimacy. The question of how to address the reality of HTS’s control over Idlib, while upholding principles of counterterrorism and human rights, remains a significant dilemma for policymakers.
Julani’s transformation from feared extremist to pragmatic leader is a complex and ongoing process. While he has made significant strides in rebranding himself and HTS, deep-seated skepticism persists. The future trajectory of HTS, and Julani’s leadership, will depend on a multitude of factors, including the evolving geopolitical landscape, internal dynamics within the group, and the international community’s response. Whether he can successfully navigate these challenges and consolidate his position as a legitimate actor in the Syrian conflict remains to be seen. His story serves as a stark reminder of the fluidity of power and alliances in conflict zones, and the complexities of dealing with non-state actors who occupy the grey area between terrorism and governance.
