Syria political transition under Ahmed al-Sharaa enters a fragile phase as sectarian unrest and regional pressures threaten hard-won diplomatic gains.
 |
| Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa (center) attends a reception with a United Nations Security Council delegation at the Presidential Palace in Damascus on December 4, 2025. Photo by Louai Beshara/AFP/Getty Images |
One year into the Syria political transition under Ahmed al-Sharaa, the country’s new leadership is experiencing both historic diplomatic breakthroughs and severe internal strains. While the young president has succeeded in restoring Syria’s position on the world stage and securing sweeping sanctions relief, the fragile coalition he leads is confronting escalating sectarian violence and renewed pressure from regional powers. Analysts caution that despite unprecedented external support, the success of the Syria political transition under Ahmed al-Sharaa will ultimately depend on whether he can establish genuine security and trust within Syria’s fractured society.
As the former jihadist-turned-president marks the first anniversary of Bashar al-Assad’s ouster, he is navigating a political environment defined by competing loyalties, unresolved grievances, and active conflict zones. The optimism generated by foreign investment, reopened embassies, and renewed diplomatic relations sits alongside fears among minority groups and civilians who still face daily uncertainty.
Over the past year, President Ahmed al-Sharaa has transformed Syria’s global trajectory. Diplomatic ties have been restored with major regional and Western powers, and the United States, European Union, and Britain have lifted key economic sanctions. Even the United Nations Security Council moved to remove Sharaa from its long-standing terrorism designation, closing a chapter that once saw him treated as an international fugitive.
Sharaa’s rapid ascent marks one of the most dramatic political reversals in modern Middle Eastern history. Not long ago, he was a prominent leader in an Islamist alliance with deep connections to armed groups. Today, he is a diplomatic figure welcomed in European capitals and Washington, building an image of a reformer promising stability after fourteen years of war.
“Syria has opened a new chapter that many once thought impossible,” said Nanar Hawach, senior Syria analyst at the International Crisis Group. Hawach pointed to the reopening of foreign missions in Damascus, early investment deals in energy and infrastructure, and the reactivation of bilateral partnerships across the region. “But international rehabilitation means little if all Syrians don’t feel safe walking their own streets,” he warned.
Despite these external developments, the Syria political transition under Ahmed al-Sharaa remains vulnerable at home. The country’s minorities, particularly in the Alawite and Druze heartlands, have faced deadly outbreaks of sectarian violence. Meanwhile, ongoing Israeli military strikes and tensions along the southern front continue to destabilize Syria’s fragile security landscape.
One of the most significant geopolitical surprises of the past year has been the strong backing of US President Donald Trump. Once an adversary of the former jihadist leader, Trump now views Sharaa as a stabilising figure capable of guiding Syria out of prolonged war. The US administration has not only lifted sanctions but has also signaled an interest in cooperating on counterterrorism, border control, and regional de-escalation.
For Sharaa, Washington’s endorsement represents a powerful tool for international legitimacy. For Syrians, however, reactions remain mixed. Many fear that external partnerships may overshadow domestic priorities, particularly if the government struggles to rein in powerful militias or provide basic security.
Internal fractures test the new leadership
Even with growing global approval, Sharaa faces a complex and volatile situation inside Syria. The transitional constitution, designed to guide the country through a five-year political restructuring, has been criticized for concentrating power in the presidency and failing to adequately represent Syria’s ethnic and religious diversity.
Critics argue that while the new authorities have formally disbanded many armed factions, they have absorbed large numbers of fighters—including foreign militants—into the national security structure. This approach, they say, risks embedding wartime divisions into the very institutions meant to unify the country.
The consequences have been devastating. In March, a series of massacres in predominantly Alawite areas left more than 1,700 people dead, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Just months later, clashes in the Druze-majority Sweida province killed more than 2,000 people, including hundreds of civilians.
Authorities have launched investigations and arrested suspects, promising accountability. Yet questions persist about whether the president is willing—or able—to dismantle the networks of warlords and militia leaders who helped bring him to power.
Nicholas Heras of the New Lines Institute told AFP that Sharaa “has twice failed as a leader of national reconciliation,” referring to his handling of sectarian violence. Heras added that the president’s authority remains limited because he “does not command a unified security apparatus that can enforce the rules made by his government.”
The integration of factional leaders into official government roles has generated serious concerns among communities long caught in the crossfire. Gamal Mansour, a researcher at the University of Toronto, described many of these new officials as “warlords” whose presence is contributing to a growing “crisis of trust.”
Yet, despite this mistrust, Mansour noted that “most Syrians believe Sharaa is the only option that provides guarantees,” adding that the possibility of a power vacuum remains “terrifying” for a population exhausted by years of conflict.
Calls for secession have grown louder in coastal regions and in Sweida, where minority communities feel increasingly insecure. Meanwhile, Kurdish leaders have pushed for formal decentralisation, a proposal Damascus continues to reject. Although the Kurdish administration in the northeast agreed last year to integrate its institutions into the central government, progress has stalled due to political disagreements and shifting security dynamics.
Adding to the pressure is Israel’s continued military activity inside Syria. Repeated airstrikes on Syrian territory, combined with Israeli efforts to establish a demilitarised zone in the south, have heightened tensions. Israeli forces remain positioned within a UN-patrolled buffer zone on the occupied Golan Heights and frequently conduct operations deeper inside Syria.
In October, President Trump urged Israel to avoid destabilising Syria during its political transition. However, with Israeli leadership determined to prevent Iranian or militia entrenchment near its borders, the situation remains unpredictable.
Political reforms progress slowly
Syria’s new political institutions are still taking shape. In October, committees selected new members of parliament, though the process excluded areas outside government control. Sharaa has yet to appoint 70 of the 210 representatives, delaying the transitional legislature’s full operation.
For many Syrians, the slow pace of reform has deepened concerns, especially as violence persists in several regions. Without clear progress on security, justice, and governance, analysts warn that the Syria political transition under Ahmed al-Sharaa may remain vulnerable to collapse.
Despite the historic achievements of the past year, the future of Syria’s political transition remains uncertain. Sharaa’s growing international legitimacy has provided the country with diplomatic breathing room and economic opportunities. But unless he can stabilize Syria’s internal landscape, confront sectarian violence, and build trust across communities, these gains risk evaporating.
For now, the world is watching a nation struggling to rebuild from the ashes of war—balancing hope for renewal with the weight of unresolved conflict.
