As various international actors navigate the evolving dynamics of the Middle East, some have quickly sought to form relationships with Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham —a group that has rebranded itself but is still led by armed factions known for their extremist Islamist ideology. The region now is at critical juncture, potentially facing one of the most perilous eras in its modern history. Undoubtedly, several factors suggest that the future could be the most perilous in the region’s history. Before we delve deeper into analyzing what some refer to as the “cursed” region, due to its century-long conflicts, it is undeniable that the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime and the diminishing influence of Iran have significantly shifted the region’s balance of power, presenting both opportunities and challenges. These changing dynamics are further exacerbated by the presence of external powers, each driven by its own strategic interests.
As major powers attempt to view the armed groups currently leading Syria in a more favorable light—evaluating their responsiveness to the international system and global democracy—skepticism remains widespread. This is largely due to their deeply extremist history, particularly their opposition to Western democracy, as well as their radical views toward certain Islamic sects. Consequently, this stereotypical perception of the current situation in the Middle East could give rise to several dangerous scenarios that may shape the region in the near future. The first scenario I foresee is Syria descending into a full-scale civil war, one of the most intense the region may experience. This is especially likely given the presence of armed groups with competing interests within Syria itself. Additionally, the country is home to various minority groups, including Shiites, Alawites, and Druze, with the Druze in Suwaydabeing a particular case. They form a significant portion of the population and are known for their rejection of the armed factions now leading Syria under the banner of Syrian leadership. Such a scenario appears highly likely, especially with the involvement of Iran, which is working diligently to rebuild its influence following the loss of regional leadership and the significant setbacks suffered by Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as the decline of their power across the region. Iran may seek to restore its prestige in the Middle East by leveraging its influence in Syria, particularly by supporting minority groups within the country.
Another scenario centers on the conflicting interests of regional powers in Syria, particularly the dynamic between Russia’s military presence and Turkey’s influence over Syrian decision-making through its leadership of armed factions. Adding to the complexity are the interests of other key players, such as Israel, which has deeply penetrated Syrian territories in a bid to secure a permanent foothold to counter potential security threats posed by armed factions, regardless of their affiliations. The United States also plays a critical role, focusing its efforts on limiting Iran’s influence in the Middle East. As a result, four major powers—Russia, Turkey, Israel, and the United States—with competing and often divergent interests, are actively shaping Syria’s future, both in the immediate and long term. Should these interests collide, Syria risks fragmenting into smaller, unstable states, posing significant threats not only to the region but to global stability.
Compounding this situation is the stance of certain Arab nations, which view the armed factions currently leading Syria as a direct threat. These countries also maintain varied interests and relationships—both diplomatic and military—with the four dominant powers in Syria. In short, this scenario could materialize if one of these actors seeks to maximize its gains or reneges on commitments made to others, further escalating tensions.
The final scenario that could unfold involves Ahmed Al-Sharaa actively opposing Erdogan’s intentions and policies in Syria. This outcome could become a reality if Turkey’s interests clash with those of the United States, particularly regarding the Kurdish issue. Erdogan remains resolute in his efforts to eliminate this issue by any means necessary, driven by fears of Kurdish territorial expansion into the region. This concern is especially pressing given the longstanding oppression Kurds have endured under Erdogan’s leadership and his party’s rule, which has only fueled Kurdish aspirations for autonomy over the decades. If this scenario materializes, the future for Syrians may already be bleak before it begins. A new administration led by Al-Sharaa would likely focus on consolidating power and maintaining control, following the same authoritarian path that Assad and his family have taken for decades. This outcome appears highly plausible, considering the characteristics of the new leadership and the circumstances surrounding its rise to power in Syria.
Based on current scenarios and emerging factors, the future of the Middle East appears poised for a profound transformation, starkly different from its past before extremist Islamic groups seized control of Damascus. Syria is no longer a unified state with a sustainable strategic future, and it is unlikely to return to its previous state, even if global powers were to withdraw their competing interests from the region. The Middle East has become a highly volatile hotspot, with the potential to ignite conflicts that could spread beyond its borders. In this context, it is crucial for the U.S. and its allies to craft well-considered, long-term strategies to reshape Syria and establish stable political leadership with a clear vision for the future. Preventing extremist Islamic groups from gaining power is essential—not only to prevent the rise of regimes rooted in radical ideologies but also to mitigate the risk of further ethnic, religious, and national tensions that could destabilize the region. The United States must adopt a fresh, proactive foreign policy approach to the Middle East, one that moves beyond past mistakes Without such a shift, the risk of a global conflagration, potentially spurred by violence-fueled extremist groups, looms large. The stakes are no less than preventing the conditions that could spark a Third World War.