How do you solve a problem like Syria?

The rise of a relatively moderate Islamist group in Damascus poses a new challenge for Israel; launching airstrikes that impact the new regime may not be the best idea right now

The collapse of the brutal Assad regime in Syria, just over a month ago, has created opportunities for new relationships as well as new risks. It was just the latest Black Swan event that caught almost everyone off guard, adding new complexity to an already complex system. We can’t predict where this is heading, but we can consider the possibilities. To do so, it is important to remember that the world is relational and not atomistic, complex rather than dualistic. Like a mobile, every time you push one member of the system, every other member moves to one degree or another.

One direction is that the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) regime stabilizes and finds a modus vivendi with Israel, as hard as that might seem for a group that began as Islamist insurgents. Another direction is that its leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa – aka Abu Mohammed al-Julani – gets overthrown, and who knows if his successor will be more moderate or more radical? As a neighbor in this complex system, Israel can affect the outcome, not necessarily in the desired direction. Indeed, as has happened in Israeli history as elsewhere, Israel could help create its own nightmare.

While many in Israel have cheered at the massive strikes in December, I hesitate to do so. We don’t know how it will change the system. True, the destruction of all this war materiel

Prevents it from “falling into the hands of extremists,” as Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar said. However, this line of thinking is atomistic and binary – Israel has sole control of its security, and the weapons only threaten Israel. However, HTS may need these weapons to preserve order in Syria. Without them, a more destabilized Syria may become a hotbed for a new wave of terror. Moreover, an unprovoked Israel violating Syrian sovereignty reinforces the perception that Israel is a regional, lawless bully. These strikes may convince Syrians they need to attack Israel in defense of Syria, thereby creating the reality Israel fears.

Remarkably, members of the new government expressed understanding for Israel’s initial attacks after Assad fell. Israel carried out some 480 air strikes, crossing the 1974 armistice line and occupying the Syrian side of that line. Its air force targeted chemical weapons stocks, long-range missiles, airfields, anti-aircraft batteries, missiles, drones, fighter jets, tanks and weapon production sites.

Yet the new government responded with firmness rather than threats of retaliation, as well as assurances for Israel – a far cry from Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. “Israel’s excuses have run out, and they have crossed the lines of engagement,” al-Sharaa said. “We are not seeking to engage in any conflict given Syria’s fragile state, and we are addressing the international community.” The new governor of Damascus, Maher Marwan, went even further a few days later. "Israel may have felt fear at the beginning," Marwan said in late December. "So it advanced a little, bombed a little." He even called that fear “natural.” He also stressed, "We don't want to meddle in anything that will threaten Israel's security or any other country's security."

What’s going on here?

Like most observers at this point, I don’t have enough information to say anything for certain, but here’s what I see looking through the lens of complexity. The Arab Spring, fueled by social media, created the adjacent possible of overthrowing the tyrant Assad. Al-Qaeda sent al-Sharaa into Syria to create an Islamist rebel group. However, since all interactions in a complex system happen at the individual level, al-Qaeda couldn’t control al-Sharaa, and in response to his experiences in the civil war, he decided to play up his group’s Syrian identity and play down its Islamist identity. Thus, HTS was born. Meanwhile, Russia and Hezbollah had come to Assad’s rescue, and it seemed that the rebels were doomed to be trapped in a few enclaves. However, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Hezbollah’s conflict with Israel created a new adjacent possible that al-Sharaa exploited, leading to the overthrow of Assad.

Al-Sharaa has since moved quickly to assume his new image as a legitimate leader acceptable to the West. He immediately gave up his nom de guerre, shed his military fatigues, and has met with several European leaders. While there is a brouhaha over him snubbing a handshake with German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, the fact remains that he still met with her, which one ups all the Islamist leaders who won’t meet female politicians at all. As someone who spent more than a decade as a rebel leader, he certainly has a diplomatic learning curve ahead of him.

More importantly for Israel, the rise of HTS creates an opportunity for reducing conflict between the two nations. Al-Sharaa has so far charted a different relationship with Israel than his predecessors or fellow Islamists – perhaps because he has no history of conflict with Israel and no grievances against it, perhaps partly because Israel’s enemies were his enemies.

So far, Israel has not reciprocated. Despite the conciliatory messages from HTS, Israeli forces have continued raids inside Syria, killed 11 Syrians when it targeted a weapons depot outside Damascus in late December, struck Syrian army positions south of Aleppo on Jan. 2 and attacked Damascus again on Jan. 5.

My concern is that Israel’s leadership, shamed and traumatized by October 7, doesn’t feel safe enough to take any chances. So, it does the only thing it knows to do, which is to try to destroy any Syrian capability of harming Israel. We can’t know what will be, but in being wedded to its fears and emotions, Israeli leaders may be creating their own reality. The longer it continues down this path, the more likely either HTS will give up on Israel, or a destabilized HTS will be replaced by more radical leadership, closing the door on the window of opportunity created by Assad’s departure.

While I’d love to see Israel change course regarding Syria, I don’t have my hopes up, precisely because of the government sees the conflict in such binary terms. Once one has normalized violence as the default response to any perceived security threat, the habit becomes self-perpetuating, like all positive feedback loops in a complex system. And as I’ve written here before, positive feedback loops may result in short-term growth and success, but they are ultimately unsustainable. The prospect of Israel changing its attitude toward a government led by HTS will thus reside on a change of leadership within Israel. I only hope the opportunity will still be there if and when that day should come.

Ahmed al-Sharaa, the Syrian leader formely known as Mohammed al-Julani. FMT