President Sharaa has been interviewed by both Western and Arab media. All of them were substantive. Unlike the criminal, Assad, who could speak for three hours without saying anything worth listening to, he has totally avoided meaningless repetitive statements.

 

Sharaa is swimming with the sharks, or traversing a landmine, both domestically and externally. He has to manage challenges coming from Iran to Israel, from Lebanon to Iraq, and with the Arab states reluctant to support Syria.

 

Some may argue that the Arabs’ hesitation stems from concerns over the "political Islamism" of Sharaa and his allies. However, various regional actors have aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others, even endeavoring to accommodate them.

 

Despite all these risks, Sharaa has managed to communicate well, with the Syrian people, as well as with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and, of course, Türkiye. He also reassured Iraq with a recorded video message, engaged with European leaders, and put his foreign minister’s diplomatic skills on display in Davos. Now, Sharaa seeks to open a new chapter with the United States.

 

Sharaa’s sensible approach is evident in how he has handled the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and his responsiveness to criticism of all kinds following Assad’s fall. He has, for example, outlined a clear roadmap for the formation of a new government and holding elections. His statements on Israel also reflect this pragmatism, as he has tried to defuse its hostility to the new Syria.

 

His grounded approach was also evident in the countries he has chosen to visit. Saudi Arabia was the destination of his first foreign visit, followed by Türkiye, showing that he understands the regional balances and knows how to play the game in a way that maximizes Syria’s leverage. His emphasis on not seeking aid from the Gulf, but rather a partnership - a fundamental distinction - is particularly notable.

 

Does this imply that he should be given unconditional support? A blank check? I will not hide the fact that I have advocated unwavering support for Syria and its cause - the fall of the Assad regime - throughout my journalistic career. However, this is not a matter of sentiment or journalistic posturing.

 

My stance is rooted in a fundamental principle: Syria must remain an Arab country. Bringing Syria back into the Arab fold curbs Iranian expansionism and pushes back against its project to export its revolution. Support must be given to individuals. We must support a political project that ensures regional security, stability, and social cohesion, and diffuses sectarian tensions.

 

So far, Sharaa has demonstrated a grounded approach that we had not seen from Bashar al-Assad, Hamas, Hezbollah, or even its Lebanese rivals. Self-proclaimed leaders have not shown similar pragmatism either.

 

Therefore, it would be unwise to squander the historic opportunity that has emerged in Syria. Instead of competing for influence, regional powers should invest in ensuring that Damascus plays a central role in stability rather than conspiracies. The mistakes of the power struggles we saw in Lebanon should not be repeated. They present a long and cautionary tale in themselves.

 

Some in our region have wasted years and vast resources trying to persuade Assad to end the violence and distance himself from Iran. Today, Syria is very much out of Iran’s orbit. Russia’s influence has waned, and the country is closer to the Arab world than ever. Yes, Türkiye has gained a foothold there, but it maintains a balanced relationship with Arab states.

 

The current priority is to support and invest in Sharaa’s rational approach. Until we see signs to the contrary, this is an opportunity that we and the Syrian people have awaited nearly fifty years for.