Syria’s new leader faces his first real test

When Bashar al-Assad finally fell, many hoped Syria had turned a page. After more than a decade of civil war, mass displacement, and brutality, the rise of a new leader seemed to offer at least the possibility of something different. Ahmed al-Sharaa, installed as Syria’s president during a transitional phase, spoke of unity and reconstruction. The United States responded by easing sanctions that had isolated Damascus for years, signaling a willingness to give the new regime an opportunity to prove itself.

But revolutions are not judged by speeches or symbolism. They are judged by how power is used when it is contested. Syria has now reached one of those moments.

In recent weeks, Syrian government forces advanced into territory long held by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, a U.S. ally that played a critical role in defeating ISIS. Syrian troops, backed by local militias, moved into northern areas, seized key infrastructure, and took control of major oil and gas facilities. The fighting displaced civilians and triggered alarms in Washington.

Get The Jewish Standard Newsletter by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up

U.S. officials publicly urged Damascus to halt offensive actions. Republican lawmakers who had reluctantly supported sanction relief only months earlier warned that the Syrian government was failing the very test that justified giving it the benefit of the doubt: protection of minorities and restraint toward former U.S. partners. Several are now openly threatening to reimpose sanctions if the violence continues.

That is not a minor diplomatic disagreement. It is a signal that Syria’s new leadership may already be undermining the trust it was extended.

The Kurdish issue is not an isolated problem. It fits into a broader and more troubling pattern. Al-Sharaa’s background as the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham — a Sunni Islamist group — has always raised concerns about whether ideology would give way to inclusive governance. Those concerns sharpened earlier when Syrian forces carried out attacks against Druze communities in the south, a vulnerable religious minority that has historically tried to stay out of Syria’s wars.

In that case, Israel intervened militarily. Israeli airstrikes were launched to protect Druze civilians facing assaults by forces aligned with the new Syrian authorities. Israel does not act across its borders casually, nor does it intervene to score diplomatic points. It intervenes when it concludes that passivity would result in bloodshed and long-term instability.

That intervention should have been read as a warning.

Taken together — the Druze attacks, the Kurdish offensive, the seizure of strategic assets, and the renewed sanctions debate — these events form the first real test of Syria’s post-Assad leadership. And so far, the results are deeply mixed.

Supporters of the new government argue that these are unavoidable growing pains. Syria, they say, is emerging from chaos; militias cannot be dismantled overnight; compromises take time. There is truth in that. But minority protection is not an advanced benchmark of liberal democracy. It is the most basic measure of legitimacy. A government that cannot — or will not — protect minorities and honor agreements with its partners reveals more about its future than any reconstruction plan.

For American Jews, this matters for several reasons. The Kurds were among the most reliable allies the United States had in the fight against ISIS. The Druze have long relied on Israel as a last line of defense when regional powers failed them. And Israel once again finds itself forced to act militarily not because it seeks confrontation, but because no one else will step in when minorities are targeted.

Sanctions relief was not a gift. It was a wager. Congress and the administration eased pressure on Syria with clear expectations: restraint, minority protection, and movement away from sectarian rule. Those expectations were not hidden in fine print. They were the entire rationale for changing course.

Now that wager is being tested.

Damascus and the SDF have announced new “integration” agreements, but the terms raise uncomfortable questions. When concessions involve handing over energy assets, borders, and security infrastructure under military pressure, the line between reconciliation and coercion becomes very thin. Stability achieved through force rarely lasts.

None of this means Syria’s future is sealed. Ahmed al-Sharaa still has choices. He can rein in armed factions, honor commitments, and demonstrate that power will be exercised responsibly. Or he can confirm the fears of those who warned that replacing a dictator with an ideologue would only change the flag, not the outcome.

The fall of Assad closed a dark chapter. What comes next depends on whether Syria’s new leadership understands that legitimacy is earned not by victory alone, but by protection of the vulnerable. That is the first real test. And the world — along with Israel and the United States — is watching closely.

Stephen Flatow of Long Branch, formerly of West Orange, is an attorney and the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995. He is the author of “A Father’s Story: My Fight for Justice Against Iranian Terror” and is the president of the Religious Zionists of America-Mizrachi.