A reflection on the metatext of events in Syria

As anticipated, the open and covert negotiations of Hayʾat Tahrir al-Sham with the officials of the Zionist regime regarding the normalization of relations between Damascus and Tel Aviv have not prevented the emergence of chronic, protracted internal conflicts across the Levant. Signs of a civil war—under the shadow of the absence of a central, independent government—have revealed themselves one after another. Reducing the ongoing conflicts in Syria to mere battlefield skirmishes or superficial, episodic disputes is a misleading and incomplete portrayal propagated by Zionist and American information channels to audiences in Syria, the region, and the wider world. We must step back from this partial, field-level narrative and focus instead on the metatextual dimensions of the developments unfolding in Syria. Three fundamental points warrant our attention:

1. The “Ethno‑Sectarian Partition” as a grand strategy

Over recent decades, “dividing the region along ethnic and sectarian lines” has established itself as a fundamental, long‑term strategy in the foreign policies of both the United States and the Zionist regime. Transforming religious and ethnic fissures into deep‑seated antagonisms—and ultimately into the very fuel of civil war—is the unwritten yet palpable cycle devised by enemy think tanks, whose fresh manifestations emerge daily. As early as 2006, then‑Senator Joe Biden called for the partition of regional states based on sectarian and ethnic identities under a “federalization” scheme—an ominous blueprint that has since become a cornerstone of Washington’s and Tel Aviv’s interventionist policy. The choice of Democrat or Republican administrations in the White House does not alter the underlying commitment to this agenda.

2. The “Existential Crisis” of the enemies within the Islamic world

If one imagines that acceding to the demands of our adversaries—embracing their governance models and moving toward coexistence—could avert these contrived crises, one would be gravely mistaken. The stark correlation between Damascus’s “flexibility” toward Washington and Tel Aviv and the intensification of Syria’s current crises serves as a concrete refutation of this dangerous claim. The equation is straightforward: without perpetuating and entrenching crises in the region, the United States and the Zionist regime would lose all pretext for their chronic interventionism. In this calculus, the degree to which regional rulers comply with the dictates of their enemies matters little. Creating intractable security and sectarian flashpoints—and turning them into violent conflicts—will not be resolved by bowing to Washington’s and Tel Aviv’s demands.

3. Future‑casting regional dynamics through a strategic, metatextual lens

Today, the Islamic world faces only two paths. One is to regard our varied ethnic and religious identities—through the prism of the Holy Qur’an—as foundations for “mutual recognition” and, consequently, “unity” in confronting our common enemies, thereby preventing our “differences” from morphing into “divisions.” The sole framework capable of imbuing these seemingly disparate identity traits with “unity” and “constructive potential” is the vision of a “New Islamic Civilization.” Recognizing the importance of this civilizational perspective—and moving toward its realization—is the true antidote to our enemies at this critical, decisive juncture. The alternative is for every actor to acquiesce to the assimilation of the Islamic world into the Western–Zionist model of crisis‑ridden governance. The consequences of that choice for the region’s very existence would be catastrophic.

Now is the time to draw lessons from Syria’s developments—a country that, until only a month ago, U.S. President Donald Trump and the leaders of the European Union praised as a “desirable model” of national and regional governance.