Syria’s Calculated Embrace: When Fighting ISIS Becomes a Chess Move for Power
Ahmad al-Sharaa’s cooperation with Western forces against ISIS may look like moderation, but regional analysts warn it’s a carefully orchestrated strategy to consolidate power and pursue long-term ambitions.
The Strategic Context
Syria’s political landscape has long been a complex web of shifting alliances, where pragmatism often trumps ideology. Ahmad al-Sharaa’s emergence as Syria’s current president comes at a critical juncture, as the nation attempts to navigate between international isolation and the necessity of engaging with global powers. His cooperation with U.S. and coalition forces in combating ISIS represents a significant departure from Syria’s traditional stance of resistance to Western involvement in regional affairs.
This tactical alignment raises fundamental questions about the nature of political moderation in conflict zones. While Western policymakers often interpret cooperation as a sign of ideological softening or democratic opening, Middle Eastern political dynamics frequently operate on different principles. Leaders in the region have historically demonstrated remarkable flexibility in forming temporary alliances that serve immediate strategic purposes while maintaining their core political objectives.
Beyond the Surface: Reading Between the Lines
The ALMA Center for Political Research and Studies’ assessment challenges the conventional Western narrative that views anti-ISIS cooperation as inherently positive. Their analysis suggests that al-Sharaa’s engagement serves multiple purposes: legitimizing his rule domestically, accessing international resources and intelligence, and potentially eliminating rival armed groups under the banner of counterterrorism. This interpretation aligns with historical patterns in the region, where leaders have skillfully leveraged international security concerns to strengthen their domestic positions.
Public reaction within Syria appears divided. While some view the cooperation as a necessary evil to combat the ISIS threat, others perceive it as a betrayal of sovereignty or a concerning concentration of power. The international community’s response has been equally complex, with some Western officials cautiously optimistic about engagement possibilities while security analysts warn against misreading tactical cooperation as strategic alignment.
The Broader Implications for Regional Policy
This situation exemplifies a recurring challenge in Western foreign policy: distinguishing between genuine partners for reform and tactical opportunists. The tendency to view counterterrorism cooperation as a gateway to broader political alignment has led to policy miscalculations across the Middle East. Al-Sharaa’s case suggests that leaders can simultaneously fight extremist groups while pursuing authoritarian consolidation, using the legitimacy gained from security cooperation to suppress domestic opposition.
The implications extend beyond Syria’s borders. If al-Sharaa successfully leverages anti-ISIS operations to entrench his power while maintaining an anti-Western strategic orientation, it could provide a template for other regional leaders. This pattern risks creating a paradox where Western security assistance inadvertently strengthens the very systems it hopes to reform.
As policymakers grapple with these complexities, perhaps the most pressing question is not whether to engage with leaders like al-Sharaa, but how to structure such engagement to avoid being instrumentalized—can the West develop a more sophisticated framework for cooperation that advances immediate security interests without compromising long-term democratic objectives?
