Will Western engagement help or hinder Syria's transition?

While engaging with HTS is undoubtedly necessary—given its control over key territories and role in the current phase of Syria's transition—it would be a grave mistake to elevate al-Sharaa as Syria's de facto leader. Doing so risks consolidating HTS's dominance beyond its current de facto control, allowing it to shape the transitional process to preserve its influence in the long term.

This outcome would contradict the very principles that Western delegations are trying to encourage. It could enable HTS to demand more than a seat at the table, positioning the group as the architect of the transition itself. Such an imbalance would undermine efforts to create a genuinely inclusive process, leaving other Syrian actors—both political and civil society—marginalised.

The desire for more is not unique to HTS; it reflects a universal human tendency. Providing one actor with more than they currently possess is often seen as a greater reward than offering them a share of something they already feel entitled to. In this context, positioning HTS as the central player in the transition risks emboldening the group while alienating others.

Unintended consquences

The unintended consequences of these diplomatic visits often stem less from the actions themselves and more from how they are perceived and portrayed. Many delegations likely engage with a range of Syrian stakeholders, including civil society leaders and representatives of political groups. Yet, these broader consultations often receive far less attention than meetings with al-Sharaa.

This disparity in focus creates a perception—whether accurate or not—that al-Sharaa is the primary or even sole focus of Western diplomatic efforts. Addressing this imbalance requires deliberate efforts to present these visits as genuinely inclusive. Highlighting engagements with a diverse array of Syrian actors is not merely a matter of optics; it is vital for demonstrating that these delegations are practising the inclusivity they advocate.

Furthermore, the way these visits are portrayed in the media carries significant symbolic weight. For many Syrians, who rely on media coverage to understand these developments, the images and narratives emerging from these delegations shape their perceptions of who holds power and influence. These portrayals can also influence how other delegations approach their engagements, creating a ripple effect that reinforces the imbalance.

High stakes

Western diplomacy in Syria holds immense potential at this pivotal moment, but it also carries significant risks. The decisions made during these visits, along with how they are portrayed, will have far-reaching consequences, not only for Syria's transitional process but also for the region's stability.

The stakes are high. Mishandling this opportunity risks turning Syria's hope for an inclusive transition into a missed opportunity. Conversely, a carefully calibrated approach—one that avoids reinforcing existing imbalances and prioritises inclusivity—could lay the groundwork for a sustainable political solution that gives all Syrians a voice in shaping their future.

To succeed, these diplomatic efforts must be guided by a nuanced understanding of Syria's complex landscape and a commitment to fostering genuine inclusivity. Anything less risks perpetuating the divisions these efforts aim to address.

How these delegations navigate Syria's delicate web of power dynamics will determine whether they contribute to a peaceful and inclusive transition—or deepen the country's fractures. This moment is one of immense potential and immense risk.

The international community cannot afford to get it wrong.