Abu Muhammad al-Julani entered Syria with orders from Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq organization, to establish a branch of the group in Syria, coinciding with the outbreak of a peaceful popular revolution and the emergence of the Free Syrian Army.
Al-Julani and his group did not engage in the peaceful revolution nor did they join the Free Syrian Army; instead, he carried out the orders of his leader al-Baghdadi, who provided him with money, weapons, and fighters. He founded Jabhat al-Nusra, which was designated as a terrorist organization by the United States for the first time in December 2012 due to its affiliation with al-Qaeda, as it included elements from al-Qaeda. However, its roots trace back to the Islamic State of Iraq, before eventually breaking away and officially affiliating directly with al-Qaeda.
Jabhat al-Nusra announced its allegiance to al-Qaeda before fully severing ties with the Islamic State of Iraq in April 2013, when Abu Muhammad al-Julani pledged allegiance to Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of al-Qaeda, as a reaction to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s decision to merge Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq under the name “The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant” (ISIS). This declaration was a confirmation of Jabhat al-Nusra’s independence from the Islamic State of Iraq while maintaining its connection with al-Qaeda.
Jabhat al-Nusra then turned to fighting Free Syrian Army factions, labeling them as “Syrian Awakening forces.” Some provocative practices emerged at that time, such as trampling on the revolution’s flag, in addition to directing their weapons against Free Syrian Army fighters, dismantling factions like the Syrian Revolutionaries Front, Harakat Hazzm, and others.
The motive behind this was the rejection of the national struggle for freedom, dignity, and justice, instead following the orders of the jihadist Salafist leaders, who themselves were becoming fragmented. They exploited the state of chaos in Syria to implement the jihadist Salafist Islamic model, meaning that al-Julani would have founded his jihadist organization in Syria regardless of the existence or absence of the Syrian revolution.
Where Were the Syrian Civil Elites?
At that time, the Syrian civil opposition elites considered Jabhat al-Nusra a part of the Syrian revolution. This was evident when Ahmad Moaz al-Khatib, then head of the Syrian National Coalition, rejected the U.S. designation of Jabhat al-Nusra as a terrorist organization during the Friends of the Syrian People Conference held in Morocco on December 11, 2012. He called on Washington to reconsider its stance, pointing out that al-Nusra was fighting the Syrian regime.
Meanwhile, Jabhat al-Nusra neither recognized the revolution, democracy, nor political opposition! In other words, it was the Syrian political opposition elites who initially granted legitimacy to al-Nusra.
Today, a discussion is ongoing regarding the stance of this Syrian political opposition, suggesting that they are repeating the same mistake by granting legitimacy to the new leadership in Damascus, where Abu Muhammad al-Julani, under his real name “Ahmad al-Sharaa,” has become its interim head. It appears as if the Syrian political elites have once again granted “revolutionary legitimacy,” this time to a different entity.
The one who took control of Damascus is none other than the former Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which held the so-called “Victory Conference” on January 29, 2025. During this conference, Ahmad al-Sharaa was elected as the transitional president. The conference also witnessed several significant decisions, including the dissolution of the People’s Assembly, the army, and revolutionary factions, the suspension of the constitution, and the rebuilding of state institutions on new foundations.
The Question of Mistake and the Realistic Stance:
The question that arises here is: Did the Syrian political opposition truly fall into the trap once again?
And can al-Khatib’s position even be considered a mistake? At the time, there was no official announcement linking Jabhat al-Nusra to al-Qaeda. Rather, the political opposition dealt with the situation realistically, recognizing the plurality of Syrian factions, which at that time were divided between Islamists and the Free Syrian Army.
It must be stated here that none of the political opposition elites granted “legitimacy” to President Ahmad al-Sharaa. Instead, he acquired it from the military factions themselves. What happened in Syria was not a political settlement where Bashar al-Assad agreed to implement the Geneva 2254 resolutions—which, had it occurred, would have rendered this entire discussion irrelevant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the political opposition made a choice. Rather, what happened was a military liberation, and the matter is, first and foremost, within the domain of the military.
Now, within this entire context, we see reality moving toward the construction of the Syrian state and the building of national institutions—words we are now hearing from the leadership in Damascus. This places us before two options:
- Either we cling to the past, reject, and remain apprehensive,
- Or we open forums, announce the formation of parties and movements, and advance what we believe is right in building the national state, standing alongside the current leadership in a unity of destiny and course.
Here, another question arises: Could the leadership revert to tyranny?
The answer, certainly, is: Yes, it is possible.
In fact, the Research and Studies Department of the Scientific Office of the Syrian Future Movement has produced a special paper on this titled: “An Objective Reading on the Scenario of Tyranny in Syria After Assad.”
Thus, if we reach such a stage, the experience of the (Damascus Declaration) will be repeated, political life will come to an end, and Syria will plunge into internal crisis that will inevitably ignite a new popular revolution.
The Position Requires Complexity, Not Simplification:
For all the above reasons, we in the Syrian Future Movement believe that linking the leadership’s interests in Damascus to the national and democratic choice is the best and truly possible option — not out of love or hatred (although we are not ashamed to express our joy at the liberation, the liberators, and the general development of their discourse and behavior), nor out of disregard for the past or ignorance of the changing realities.
All this complexity and intricacy cannot be approached through oversimplification, which would not only be inadequate but would also deviate from correctness in making choices.
In our view, there is no alternative but to contribute to the building of the state alongside “President” Ahmad Al-Shar’a and his government in Damascus, and to participate as active and influential civil political forces.
Otherwise, the alternative would be to leave Syria to the unknown.
If we still have hope, we might all fail if we adopt an absolute position of hostility, for leaving Syria to the unknown would undoubtedly mean the end of any hope in building a nation-state based on citizenship.
Political Office
Research Team
Research and Studies Department
Articles
Syrian Future Movement
