Amid the radical transformations Syria is undergoing following the fall of the Assad regime, and given the stalled internal settlement efforts and escalating regional tensions, the US Embassy in Damascus’s announcement of Syria’s official accession to the international coalition against ISIS marks a pivotal moment in the country’s history. It raises profound questions about the future of the Syrian state, its place in the international system, and the limits of its sovereignty in the post-authoritarian era.
This event, which may at first glance appear to be merely a technical security measure, carries deep political and philosophical implications that extend beyond the military dimension, touching upon the very essence of state reconstruction and the redefinition of its relationship with itself and the world.
The question that arises today is not simply: Why did Syria join the coalition?
Rather, what does this accession mean in the context of political transformation, and what are its effects on the concept of sovereignty and on the internal and external balance of power?
First, the international coalition as a tool for repositioning:
Since its establishment in 2014, the international coalition against ISIS has constituted a multilateral framework for combating terrorism, with the participation of dozens of countries and under the leadership of the United States.
This alliance has played a pivotal role in supporting local forces in Iraq and Syria, most notably the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which were a key partner in operations against ISIS.
Syria’s joining this alliance, after the fall of the former regime, reflects a clear desire by the Syrian Interim Government to reposition itself within the international system, escape the isolation imposed by the previous regime, and wrest the alliance card from sub-state groups that might exploit it to impose their conditions on the nascent government.
Joining an international alliance of this magnitude cannot be achieved without a deep understanding of its political dimensions and a willingness to bear its strategic consequences.
Political realism dictates acknowledging that Syria, in its transitional phase, needs multifaceted international support: security, economic, and diplomatic. Joining the alliance provides a gateway to this support and grants the Interim Government increased international legitimacy, especially in light of the reopening of the Syrian embassy in Washington, President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s visit to the United States, and his meetings with US President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the commander of US Central Command.
However, this new positioning is not without its complexities. The relationship with the United States, despite its improvement, remains governed by security and strategic considerations and could be affected by changes in administration or regional developments.
Furthermore, the coalition itself is not a monolithic entity, but rather comprises countries with conflicting interests in Syria. This necessitates that the Syrian Interim Government carefully manage these relationships and avoid falling into contradictions or side conflicts.
Second, Sovereignty in the Post-Authoritarian Era:
Since the emergence of the modern state, the concept of sovereignty has been linked to the ability to make free decisions and to be independent from external influences.
However, in light of globalization and international alliances, this concept now requires re-evaluation. The state is no longer an isolated entity, but rather part of a network of international relations that necessitates a balance between independence and engagement.
In the Syrian case, joining the international coalition raises a profound philosophical question: Can a state emerging from authoritarianism exercise its sovereignty through alliances? And can an alliance be a tool for liberating national decision-making, rather than restricting it?
From a political realism perspective, the answer is yes, provided that these alliances are managed within a clear national vision and are used as tools to achieve the national interest, not as substitutes for it. Sovereignty is not an absolute rejection of cooperation, but rather the ability to define its terms and ensure that it does not become subservience.
Therefore, the Syrian Interim Government is required to construct a new political discourse on sovereignty that transcends traditional concepts and reflects the reality of the state in the 21st century. A discourse that acknowledges the need for alliances, but sets limits to them, subjecting them to the national interest, not the other way around.
Third, the relationship with the SDF and the Kurdish issue:
One of the most prominent challenges posed by Syria’s joining the international coalition is its relationship with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which were a key partner of the coalition in the war against ISIS.
These forces, which control vast areas in northeastern Syria, are an active player in the security and political equation and enjoy direct American support.
However, the relationship between the Syrian Interim Government and the SDF remains strained, especially after the collapse of the March agreement, which aimed to build a political understanding between the two sides.
Joining the coalition could be used as leverage against the SDF, but it could also complicate the relationship if not managed wisely.
Therefore, political realism dictates that Syria’s membership in the coalition be used as a tool for dialogue, not escalation.
The solution to the Kurdish issue cannot be solely security-based; it must be political, based on recognizing pluralism and guaranteeing rights within the framework of a unified national state.
Fourth, Israeli Escalation and the Balance of Response:
While Syria announced its joining the coalition, Israel was intensifying its presence and occupation in southern Syria. This escalation, occurring amidst a shift in Syria’s positioning, presents an additional challenge to the interim government: how to manage relations with Israel without compromising national principles and without being drawn into ill-considered confrontations.
The alliance with the United States might be viewed by Israel as an opportunity to strengthen security coordination, but it could also be used as a pretext to justify further escalation if Israel perceives US-Syrian cooperation as a threat to its interests.
Therefore, the Syrian government is required to build a balanced foreign policy that neutralizes the Israeli issue as much as possible and keeps it within the framework of political deterrence, not military confrontation, while maintaining national principles that reject any incursion or occupation that violates international law, in addition to rejecting unconditional normalization.
Fifth, Rebuilding the Security and Military Establishment:
Joining the international coalition opens the door to restructuring the Syrian security and military establishment, which for decades was an instrument of repression, not protection, under Assad. Security cooperation with coalition countries, especially the United States, provides an opportunity to train forces and modernize the security infrastructure within a framework of respect for human rights and the rule of law.
However, this cooperation must be managed carefully to avoid transforming the security establishment into a tool of foreign powers or a force detached from national decision-making. The challenge here lies not only in building capabilities but also in developing a new security doctrine that places the citizen at the center of attention, rather than subjecting them to suspicion or targeting, as was the case under Assad’s policies.
In light of the above, a set of political recommendations can be offered to the Syrian Interim Government and to the active national forces:
- Establishing membership in the coalition within a clear national vision, linked to specific demands such as support for reconstruction, recognition of the government, and guaranteeing the unity of Syrian territory.
- Managing the relationship with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) through political dialogue, not escalation, while leveraging Syria’s new position within the coalition.
- Neutralizing the Israeli issue by moderating political discourse and avoiding impulsive reactions, while upholding national principles.
- Initiating an internal dialogue on the concept of sovereignty to move beyond traditional notions and cultivate a new political awareness appropriate for the transitional phase.
- Restructuring the security and military establishment within a national framework, in cooperation with coalition partners, without compromising sovereign decision-making.
- Building a balanced foreign policy that safeguards Syria’s interests and preserves its independent decision-making, avoiding both isolation and subservience.
Conclusion:
Syria’s entry into the international coalition against ISIS, while a security measure, also signifies a strategic shift in the Syrian state’s position and its perception of itself and the world. It represents a moment to redefine sovereignty, alliances, and national interest within a complex and evolving international landscape.
However, this shift, despite its importance, cannot bear fruit without wise political leadership that balances international engagement with national independence, and political realism with national principles.
The future of Syria is not built on alliances alone, but rather on vision, will, and the ability to transform opportunities into instruments of freedom, not new constraints.
At this pivotal moment, the Syrian Future Movement is called upon to be at the heart of this transformation, carrying a comprehensive national project.
As a political actor committed to a democratic national project, the Syrian Future Movement views Syria’s joining the international coalition as a strategic step that must be utilized within a comprehensive vision for rebuilding the state, not as a circumstantial or tactical tool. International alliances, however powerful, cannot replace national will, nor can they produce a modern state without a cohesive domestic project.
Therefore, the Syrian Future Movement calls for:
- Building a new social contract that redefines the relationship between the state and society and guarantees rights and freedoms.
- Launching a comprehensive and ongoing national dialogue that includes all political and social forces, including Kurdish components, to build a pluralistic, unified, and democratic Syria.
- Restructuring state institutions on the basis of competence, transparency, and accountability, moving away from the logic of power-sharing or narrow loyalties.
- Adopting an independent foreign policy that stems from national interests and takes into account regional and international balances, without compromise or subservience.
Syria today has a historic opportunity to rebuild itself by establishing a modern state capable of action, influence, and protecting its citizens. Joining the international coalition, despite its complexities, can be a step in this direction if it is properly utilized and if it is coupled with genuine political will and a comprehensive national project.
In this context, the Syrian Future Movement affirms its full commitment to the principles of freedom, justice, and sovereignty, and places itself at the service of the project of building a new Syria, a just civil state for all its citizens, without exclusion or marginalization.
