by Miceál O’Hurley
ANTALYA — Foreign policy towards Syria bears on its future in meaningful ways in a struggle that could decide this government’s durability and its future. Most of the world desires the interim government of President Ahmed al-Sharaa to succeed and bring stability to a country whose 14-year conflict has left it in tatters. Still, there are those who continue to nurture the fantasy that Bashar al-Assad will return from exile in Russia with the assistance of his former Iranian backers to regain control over Syria.
Their hope, while fantastic in scope, is based upon Israel destabilising the interim government by continuing to use its airspace to conduct lethal strikes in Gaza and Lebanon while their US ally keeps its foot firmly planted on Syria’s throat by continuing the more than half-century of sanctions imposed in a different age, with different rulers for different purposes. The race is on to see if al-Sharaa can continue his impressive reforms and maintain the cohesiveness he has fostered by creating an inclusive cabinet including minority and opposition voices or succumb to a world community acting too slowly to support the agency Syrians were able to finally claim for themselves against all expectations.
The issues which confronted Syria were on full display during the 4th iteration of the Antalya Diplomacy Forum (ADF 2025). The forum empaneled a group of distinguished diplomats and scholars to discuss the status of Syria and its potential future – Syria: Reconstructing and Reconciling the Country on 12 April. Moderated by Wadah Khanfar, President of the dynamic al Sharq Forum and a former Director General of Al Jazeera, his introduction made abundantly clear the importance of a successful Syria to regional stability. Khanfar was joined by Türkiye’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs – Nuh Yılmaz; veteran Norwegian diplomat Geir O. Pedersen – Special Representative of the UN Secretary General for Syria; Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University and President – UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network; and Carl Skau – Deputy Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer, United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), the panel engaged in a frank and often heated exchange of views and ideas about Syria and its future.
Interim Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, who attended the ADF 2025 who was scheduled to take part in the colloquy but was recalled to Damascus for urgent business.
The panel began their presentation by individually speaking to their own involvement in Syria and sharing their views of the state of affairs. Yilmaz outlined Türkiye’s role in Syria, bookending his presentation by highlighting the promise and the peril the country faces. For Yilmaz, the promise is grounded in the self-agency of the Syrian people as reflected in a recent survey published by The Economist indicating 70% of Syrians across the country and across sects are optimistic about the future; 80% of Syrians feel freer than they did under Assad regime; 80% of Syrians have a favorable view of President Sharaa with a full two-thirds of the population indicating their belief the security situation has improved, despite the ferocity of recent clashes in early March. After 14-years of conflict, Yilmaz asserts Syrians are optimistic about their future despite the difficulties of the present and uncertainties of the near-term future.
Still, Yilmaz highlighted the absence of full-throated diplomatic engagement from the world community. Citing the ongoing “deconfliction” technical meetings to ensure air space usage did not result in any errant downing of an aircraft, the lack of overall high-level, direct diplomatic engagement reflects the failure of international diplomatic engagement almost 6-months after al-Assad fled Syria. Khanfar interjected by asking Yilmaz about the Israeli’s continued, unauthorised use of Syrian airspace to carry-out attacks on Gaza and Lebanon. His question is a critical one.
Israel’s exploitation of Syria’s transition and security status pointedly serves to undermine the legitimacy of the new interim government and efforts of al-Sharaa to stabilise Syria and, along with US sanctions, serves to maintain Syria in a state of weakness and chaos, albeit with inordinate and unnecessary suffering. Israeli policy seems intent on continuing to disrupt Syria, leaving the region in turmoil. Surprisingly, the UN and much of the Arab and Western world who laud the considerable achievements introduced by al-Sharaa in creating an inclusive and functional cabinet of ministers as a vehicle for social inclusion and unity seems all too satisfied to allow this to continue.
Speaking to internal security, Yilmaz indicated Syria is more than aware of the threat of the Deash and PKK and other bad-actors. For Yilmaz, it is not internal issues that pose the most immediate threat to Syria’s stability and reconstruction but Israel’s continuing attempt to undermine Syria’s stability that most worries regional actors. By inflaming internal tensions by exploiting Syria’s airspace to kill Palestinians and Lebanese civilians, Israel is capitalizing on this back-door tactic to delegitimse Syria’s interim government and make their case for the necessity of Israel’s sprawling martial presence in the region.
It is a reality that it makes little difference to Syria’s national dignity, or that of its citizens, that Israel occupies Syrian airspace to conduct lethal raids on Gazan and Lebanese civilians rather than having its footprint on its sovereign soil.
Yilmaz conceded the point noting Israel’s continued violation of Syrian airspace to conduct strikes in Gaza was “one of the main reasons” Syria continues to struggle for legitimacy. Speaking in surprisingly frank language, Yilmaz placed Israel’s conduct within the context of their “seeming to have an expansion policy which is why they need chaos on the ground to retrospectively legitimise their own presence on Syrian territory”. Israel’s re-occupation of large swaths of Gaza and their continued claims they will need to maintain a martial presence into the future, all while continuing to tolerate if not promote new, illegal settlements in the ever expanding Israeli footprint in Palestinian territory, raises concerns about the potential for Palestinians to return to their homes or otherwise rebuild Gaza.
Only this April, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz told soldiers the entire southern sector of Gaza would be turned into a buffer zone while Gaza would remain bisected into two distinct areas. According to Katz, “All of Rafah will be evacuated and there will be a security zone”.
A gaze at the map of Gaza today is sobering. Israel has denied Palestinians access to over half of the Gaza Strip effectively absorbing it into a greater Israel. Israel’s ever evolving contraction of Palestinian accessible Gaza has effectively cut-off Rafah, the lynchpin for aid being delivered into the most hard-hit areas. Israeli claims the isolation of Rafah is essential to security masks the logistical reality that it serves their dual purpose of denying humanitarian aid to Palestinians which is a key instrument in their execution of their military operations, despite its moral depravity and offense against international humanitarian law. Israel stands accused of weaponising access to food, water and medical care as instruments of war. According to a UN Spokesperon, “Since early March, not a single truck carrying food, fuel, medicine or any other essentials have been allowed in”.
It has not gone without notice that the daily briefings by the Israel Defense Forces or the Israeli government have ceased using the phrase “humanitarian zones” thereby quietly devaluing their commitment and responsibility in international law. Likewise, maps depicting “humanitarian zones” by the Israel Defense Forces have been seemingly scrubbed from online posted maintained by them and the Israeli government. Despite having previously at least paid lip-service to their humanitarian responsibilities in international law Israel often used lethal force to strike in the designated zones rendering them just as dangerous for civilians as those in which Israeli forces were engaged in active combat operations rendering the supposed humanitarian zones and conflict zones as differences without any distinction. Israel claims the humanitarian zones were used by Hamas fighters thereby endangering civilians.
According to UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric, Gaza has endured more than 50-days of Israel blocking all aid deliveries. Prior to March, Palestinians were already suffering extended periods of food insecurity with scant access to clean water or even the most basic of medical care. Dujarric warned about the dire consequences of Israel’s interference with aid deliveries, “The impact of the full block of this continued blocking of humanitarian aid is devastating. Children and adults alike are going hungry. Access to health care is falling apart”, further adding, “attacks on civilians, including emergency teams and aid workers have surged again”.
Israel has prevaricated numerous times when addressing their killing of 15-Palestinian medics and aid workers last month in an attack on a convoy using the internationally recognised emergency lights. Originally, Israel denied the convoy was using recognised lighting. They only changed their explanation following video footage dispelling their explanation. According to the Palestinian Red Crescent Society President Younis al-Khatib Israel attempted to cover-up the killings, “It is incomprehensible why the occupation soldiers buried the bodies of the paramedics in a criminal manner”. Al-Khatib added the Israeli army was in direct communication with the paramedics and aid workers before killing them. Contradicting Israeli accounts, evidence, including a video depicting the Palestinian Red Crescent Society ambulances flashing emergency lights proved, “the falsity of the occupation’s narrative regarding the limited visibility at the site”.
A subsequent Israeli self-investigation largely absolved Israel of responsibility for the attack citing individual “professional errors” as an explanation for the attack and subsequent attempt to destroy evidence. According to Israel’s investigation there was, “no evidence to support claims of execution or that any of the deceased were bound before or after the shooting”, contrary to evidence and testimony.
Contrary to most of the panel, the UN’s Geir O. Pedersen took a more moderate view of the situation in Syria. Citing the reality that al-Sharaa’s government assumed power during a difficult period of economic and social conflict, Pedersen observed, “Mr. Sharaa took over a broken country it was a destroyed country when it comes to the economy, when it comes to social cohesion, the lack of trust between different communities – absolutely everything was destroyed so at one level we have to understand that things take will take time. But on the other side we need also to tell Mr. Sharaa openly, as we are doing, that you need to make sure that what you are doing is seen by the Syrian people that you are really delivering on your promises”.
Herein lies the paradox, acknowledging the predicament in which al-Sharaa and his new government must face and the UN and world community working to alleviate challenges where they exist are two entirely different matters. The UN seemingly wants to take a carrot-and-stick approach to Syria given the almost uniform failure of governments across the globe following armed conflict and regime change to transition peacefully into stability. This is understandable. But by all accounts, al-Sharaa’s cabinet is diverse, includes critics and opposition leaders, women and men, Christians, Muslims and Druze Syrians and by any measure is reflective of the diversity inherent in Syrian society. It begs the question, given such progress, and with the results of The Economist poll showing significant confidence on the part of average Syrians, including with internal security and general safety, why the UN is not doing more.
Syria may not have much time left is the UN, US, world and Arab leaders don’t do more to aid in Syria’s reconciliation and reconstruction programme. Resources are scare and with Israel daily undermining of the al-Sharaa government it will inevitably have a collateral impact on the Syrian people’s views of what they now see as a legitimate government. By withholding aid and support and returning Syria to a state of normalcy in the world the UN is actively depriving Syrian’s of the very agency that saw them throw-off the shackles of the al-Assad dictatorship in the hopes of creating a more inclusive, stable and just system of government. Pedersen’s posture, and therefore that of the UN and world community in whose hands aid and support lies, seems out-of-touch with reality and the perils of a potentially failed interim government.
Pedersen was unhesitating in his view that the al-Sharaa government faced a set-back when referring to last month’s orchestrated attacks by former al-Assad supporters-turned-rebels against government security services in the coastal town of Jableh near the city of Latakia. The precision ambushes and assaults from pro al-Assad belligerents left close to 400 Syrian security forces dead with many more injured including scores civilians caught in the crossfire. While government forces prevailed against the highly-organised and precision attacks in the former al-Assad stronghold, Pedersen claims the world community remains skeptical of al-Shraa’s commitment, and ability, to sustain a peaceful transition and inclusive society.
It is difficult to understand this position given the facts on-the-ground. According to Pedersen and the UN, “Too many people are seeing what happened on the coast as a confirmation of their previous views of Mr. Sharaa and HDS so the reason I’m spending a little bit of time on this is also one thing is sort of that it has an impact inside of Syria but it has an impact also internationally and the one place that we need to address directly is of course the United States the United States of America”. The high level of confidence the broad spectrum of Syrian society has expressed time-and-again in the interim government, including the state of security, stands askew with Pedersen and therefore the UN’s views.
It doesn’t help that the Trump Administration is maintaining the US designation of Syria as being a State Sponsor of Terrorism, a designation which was instituted in December 1979 – another age, government and circumstances. While al-Assad remained in power, US President George W. Bush added further sanctions and restrictions in May 2004 with the issuance of Executive Order 13338. The flight of al-Assad into exile and the erection of an inclusive government by al-Sharaa has seemingly had no effect on Washington. On 21 March, State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce said, “We are monitoring the Syrian interim authorities’ actions in general, across a number of issues, as we determine and think about the future U.S. policy for Syria”. She further indicated sanctions relief for Syria in the immediate future were unlikely.
Decisions have consequences and the modally challenged Trump administration in which the benefits of immediate transactionalism prevail threatens to undermine the region. Washington is more than aware that financial assistance the al-Sharaa interim government will teeter on the precipice of failure and success. It may be that Syrian stability and alleviating human suffering takes a back-seat to the Trump’s priority of giving carte blanche support to Israel. With Israel undermining Syrian legitimacy on an ongoing basis, and the need to maintain sufficient security levels to discourage former al-Assad actors to commit more violence, the al-Sharaa government faces significant difficulties which may eventually cripple the government contrary to the need to stabilise the region and for both Israel and the US this may outweigh the normal considerations of democracy and civil society progress in a newly free Syria.
For panelist Professor Jeffrey Sachs, an Columbia University academic and often UN advisor, Syria’s woes are to be laid entirely at the feet of successive US administrations. Sachs asserted that that the US tendency towards a commitment to regime change led to the CIA launching operation Timber Sycamore in 2012. Timber Sycamore had an intended and direct purpose – deposing then Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Running weapons and providing training to Syrian dissidents, President Barrack Obama hoped to use opposition forces to topple al-Assad. The operation was a debacle as American led regime change efforts invariably are. Many of the weapons purportedly ended-up on the black market or in the hands of anti-American opposition groups like al Qaeda and the al Nusra Front. Citing poor results and excessive financial outlays, Timber Sycamore was eventual wound-down. However, according to Sachs, it had an indelibly destructive impact on Syria by exacerbating fighting with the loss of over 500,000 civilians during the Syrian civil war.
Pedersen disagreed. During a rather animated exchange, Pedersen pointedly accused Sachs of being a “conspiracy theorist”. Each asserted their understanding of facts supposedly relayed to them by former UN Secretary General Kofi Anan who was acting as a special envoy to Syria at the time. The public is divided on which version of events they choose to believe.
The exchange between Pedersen and Sachs painted disparate views of the world towards Syria. What it did not do is address the need to alleviate the suffering of millions of Syrians who suffer food insecurity and other vital aid such as access to clean water, medicine or electricity or otherwise advance the debate about lifting the sanctions imposed more than 45-years ago which were meant to punish successive al-Assad dictatorships.
Carl Skau’s presentation was, to the contrary, clear and to the point. While much has changed in the last 5-months in Syria the reality is that 4-years ago the World Food Programme was able to assist 5 million people. Today, that number has been reduced to only 1.5 million Syrians. Given that 9 million Syrian’s food security has been negatively impacted by recent events with 3-million Syrians suffering critical daily food insecurity, the situation is unsustainable.
Skau asserted that unlike other areas where the World Food Programme is involved the environment and security situation in Syria is such that greatly reducing the food insecurity crisis in Syria is significantly more likely to succeed with greater international support and cooperation than in other places where they operate. Skau specifically noted that with political will, grain in Ukraine could be in Syrian bakeries, with bread on the shelves, within 2-weeks. Despite Ukraine’s early support to alleviate hunger in December 2024 by providing 500 tonnes of flour to Syria, and further commitments by Norway and others, the total aid package has been insufficient to meet demands. To date, there has been little political will to increase aid to sufficient levels to have an ameliorating impact on food insecurity for millions of Syrians. The absence of that critical international cooperation remains the greatest impediment to relieving the suffering of Syrians and improving the likelihood the early efforts of the al-Sharaa government can be maintained. Skau made a point of pleading for the donor community to step-up to meet the demand.
Overall, the greatest take-aways from the panel was twofold – inhibiting Israel’s exploitation of Syrian airspace to launch attacks on Gaza and Lebanon – a situation that will eventually inflame tensions within Syria and addressing the elephant in the room, the removal of existing sanctions regimes. As long as the interim Syrian government is stymied in its efforts to stabilise and improve conditions for the general Syrian population due to crushing sanctions, the relief of which must come from the US, is critical. This is, however, an unlikely proposition given the Trump Administration’s demonstrated willingness to row in wholeheartedly with Israel’s efforts to keep the region destabilized is part and parcel of its regional and Syria policy. For the time being, until reconstruction is realised, real progress can only come from outside of Syria. Israeli and the US seem intent on allowing the status quo to continue and remain immune to recognising the significant progress the al-Sharaa government has instituted. For their part, the UN seems complacent to wait. And yet all actors understand regional tranquility depends inordinately on a stable and reasonably prosperous Syria.
Will Syria remain stable? Time will tell. However, with Easter passing without violence, the al-Sharaa government having included minorities, women and former opposition voices, and will polls consistently expressing the broad and diverse spectrum of Syrians believe the interim government is delivering on its goals, every indication is that al-Sharaa has assembled all of the elements necessary for success.
It is now incumbent upon the international community to lift sanctions, increase aid and capitalise on the first real chance Syrian’s have had to exercise their innate agency for over a half-century of al-Assad dictatorships, bloodshed and strife.
