US envoy to Syria Thomas Barrack’s call for “rapid change” and a more comprehensive approach to Sharaa reflects a clear assessment: Sharaa is losing the momentum and support that accompanied his rise and now appears hostage to internal failures and divisions among allies. His seemingly sharp and undiplomatic remarks—”If I don’t, I will lose the cosmic energy that was behind me”—reflect growing US concern that Syria could once again slide into a dangerous political vacuum, with no ready alternative to fill it.
The recent events in Sweida have revealed the fragility of the equation pledged by Sharia, which promised to protect minorities and contain social components within a comprehensive national framework. In reality, however, they have demonstrated the opposite: a slide into civil violence and the exploitation of traditional structures of sects and tribes as a source of “forced legitimacy,” in the absence of state institutions capable of control and protection. The official narrative, which disavows regime forces’ responsibility for Sweida’s violations and attributes them to impostors or foreign intervention, reflects a profound impasse in building trust.
The report prepared by the fact-finding committee on the Latakia events further complicated the picture. According to leaked information, it revealed a pattern of impunity and overlap between local armed groups and security agencies, reflecting the division of power on the ground and the erosion of centralized decision-making. A leader seeking to establish a “new legitimacy” cannot succeed amid a network of undisciplined local actors and regional calculations that conflict with the logic of state-building.
In this context, Barak’s call for national cohesion and inclusive governance appears to be more than just passing diplomatic advice. It is an early warning to the new Syrian leadership that the opportunity provided by the post-Assad moment will not last long. With the decline of inclusive discourse, the emergence of conflicting identities, and the fragmentation of regional and international support, collapse is not an impossible scenario.
Although Barak asserts that the United States is not imposing a particular political form, his message is clear: any path that does not lead to inclusiveness, stability, and justice will open the doors to chaos and return the Syrian experience to a cycle of open violence, and perhaps to models even worse than Libya and Afghanistan, as Sarak warned.
US envoy Barak’s call for ‘rapid change’ to al-Sharaa reflects growing concern that Syria is sliding into a dangerous political vacuum, especially as the momentum that brought him to power wanes.
What President Ahmad al-Sharaa faces today is not limited to a test of leadership ability or a reshuffle of the ruling cards, but rather an existential test of the very concept of the state in post-tyranny Syria. The heavy legacy left behind by the Assad regime is not limited to the ruins of collapsed institutions, but extends to cracks in the social fabric, a collapse in the concept of citizenship, and a disintegration of the national structure in favor of warring sub-identities. Facing internal pressures from religious and tribal power centers, and external pressures from anxious allies and lurking enemies, al-Sharaa is required to transcend the role of the “victorious leader” and transform into the architect of a new social contract, establishing a Syria that is not governed by force, but rather built through unity.
Today, Sharaa stands between the hammer of growing international demands for reform and openness, and the anvil of disintegrating social structures and simmering local conflicts. Unless he takes bold steps to overcome this deadly duality, his regime will be no exception in Syria’s record of successive collapses.
The problem threatening his future is not a lack of achievement, but a lack of vision. Any attempt to restore legitimacy without genuine political partnership will remain fragile, and any complacency in curbing extremist forces—whether religious or tribal—will return the country to chaos. The real challenge lies not only in maintaining power, but in redefining it as a tool to serve a pluralistic, exhausted society that has not yet lost its desire for an inclusive homeland. Sharaa is now facing a critical moment: either he builds a state project, or his name will be added to the list of fleeting leaders in Syria’s stricken history.
