Support by SAMUDRA PELAUT TRUST DESA
The political journey of Ahmad al-Sharaa from militant to head of state represents not merely a personal transformation, but a reflection of seismic shifts in global geopolitical governance. His beginnings in Iraqi jihadist training camps were essentially a product of the power vacuum following the 2003 American invasion, which would later shape his understanding of global power dynamics. His detention at Bucca Prison instead became an incubator for his unique geopolitical vision, where he witnessed firsthand how foreign intervention could create chaos that, in turn, gave birth to local resistance.
When al-Sharaa established Jabhat al-Nusra in 2011, he was essentially testing a strategic hypothesis about the capability of non-state actors to fill power vacuums created by state failure. His decision to separate from al-Qaeda and form HTS in 2017 was a response to changes in the global geopolitical landscape, where he discerned that the future of the Syrian conflict would be determined by the ability to build effective local governance, not by transnational ideology.
Al-Sharaa’s rise to power post-Assad’s fall occurred within the context of a major transformation of the international system. An increasingly multipolar world created space for actors like al-Sharaa to play a “three-dimensional game” between the United States, Russia, and China. His ability to navigate this competition among great powers signals the emergence of a new type of hybrid leadership capable of leveraging the fragmentation of the international system for domestic gain.
In terms of global geopolitical prediction, al-Sharaa’s success hints at a future where the lines between state and non-state actors are increasingly blurred. His hybrid leadership model—combining revolutionary elements with pragmatism—might become a blueprint for leaders in other conflict zones. This potentially erodes the hegemony of the Western liberal democratic model as the sole path to post-conflict stabilization.
From the perspective of great power competition, Syria under al-Sharaa has become a microcosm of the broader global struggle for influence. His policy of “pragmatic engagement” with all sides—from Moscow to Washington, from Tehran to Riyadh—reflects a survival strategy in an era of strategic uncertainty. This ability will likely be studied and emulated by leaders in the Global South seeking to maintain autonomy amidst US-China rivalry.
Looking ahead, this “al-Sharaa doctrine” model has the potential to spread to other regions experiencing protracted conflict. Its key characteristics include: the ability to engage with all parties, transformation from militia to government, and the use of strategic ambiguity in diplomacy. This could change how conflicts are managed internationally, reducing the effectiveness of sanctions and military intervention as foreign policy tools.
In the long-term scenario, al-Sharaa’s success could accelerate the trend towards a more fragmented world where Westphalian norms of state sovereignty evolve. Non-traditional actors with hybrid legitimacy—derived not from democratic elections nor traditional succession, but from the ability to provide security and basic services—may become increasingly common.
The implications for global governance are profound. If the al-Sharaa model proves sustainable, international institutions like the UN may need to adjust their approaches to engaging with such entities. The framework of international law, traditionally based on state recognition, might need to adapt to the new political reality where hybrid actors like al-Sharaa hold effective control over territory.
Al-Sharaa’s transformation also signals a shift in the nature of power in international relations. Soft power and the capacity to build local governance may become more important than traditional military strength in post-conflict state-building contexts. This could shift the focus of global competition from hard power confrontation to competition in governance models.
The most significant prediction is the potential emergence of a new non-aligned movement led by figures like al-Sharaa who can leverage great power competition for domestic benefit. In this scenario, we might witness the birth of a new, more fluid and pragmatic form of sovereignty, which would redefine international relations in the 21st century.
Thus, al-Sharaa’s journey from prison cell to presidential palace is not just a story of personal transformation, but a reflection of systemic transformation in global governance. His ability to navigate the complexities of contemporary geopolitics makes Syria a living laboratory for the future of international relations—a future where the boundaries between state and non-state, legitimate and illegitimate, become increasingly blurred, and where new forces emerge from the peripheries of the system to challenge the existing order.
Komentar