Eurasia Press & News
Marwan Qabalan, a researcher and professor of international politics, has stressed that state governance requires far more than managing a faction, group or institution, as it involves complex responsibilities tied to national interests and international representation. Speaking to Syria TV, Qabalan underscored the strategic importance of rebuilding Syria’s relationship with Russia, arguing that both countries share a mutual interest in strengthening bilateral ties.
He noted that Russia, as a major global power, cannot be overlooked. It is not in Syria’s interest, he said, to maintain permanent hostility with Moscow. Should Russia be open to adjusting its position following the major developments in Syria in late 2024, a new chapter in bilateral relations would be both realistic and necessary. He pointed to Russia’s capacity to support Syria at the UN Security Council, particularly in the context of sanctions against Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and its leadership. Unlike China, Russia has taken practical steps towards rapprochement with Damascus, which could shape its international posture.
Qabalan suggested that Russia could become a key partner in confronting ongoing issues such as repeated Israeli strikes on Syrian territory, the situation in southern Syria, and developments in the northeast. Citing mutual interests—from Russian arms supplies to the Syrian military, to the Tartus naval base and Syria’s wheat imports—he described renewed relations as a logical and beneficial step for both parties.
He also highlighted the current administration’s intent to de-escalate foreign entanglements, focus on internal affairs, and balance relations with international and regional powers. He argued that laying a firm foundation for these relationships is vital to shaping Syria’s future.
Turkish Influence in Syria
Qabalan noted that the Al-Aqsa Flood operation significantly reshaped regional dynamics, contributing to the downfall of the Syrian regime by targeting its key allies, particularly Hezbollah and Iranian-backed militias. This shift, he said, weakened Iranian influence in Syria and cleared the way for growing Turkish dominance—an outcome that has sparked concern among Israel and other regional and international actors wary of Turkey’s rising profile in the Syrian arena.
He observed that Israel perceives Turkey as a more formidable and complex rival than Iran—not necessarily in military terms, but due to Turkey’s strategy and alliances. Unlike Iran’s “forward defence” doctrine, which depends on local proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq to encircle Israel, Turkey benefits from its status as a Western ally, making it harder for Israel to confront it using American support. This was highlighted, Qabalan said, by former US President Donald Trump’s comments to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in April 2025, urging cooperation with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Syrian affairs.
Sectarian Divisions as a Gateway for External Interference
Qabalan identified Syria’s internal sectarian divisions as its most pressing challenge, describing them as an open door for external intervention—particularly by Israel. He pointed to recent events in Suweida as an example of Israel exploiting crises to entrench new dynamics in southern Syria. Israeli policymakers, including Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar and affiliated research institutions, reportedly advocate plans to fragment Syria into sectarian cantons—Sunni, Alawite, Druze, Kurdish and others. Should this plan fail, an alternative proposal envisions a demilitarised zone extending 80–90 kilometres from Damascus southward, resembling the 2018 Russian-American agreement on southern Syria. According to Qabalan, Israel may believe Syria’s new government, given its fragility, could accept such proposals to halt attacks and reassert sovereignty.
Political Parties to Address Sectarian Divisions
Qabalan argued that since the Iraq invasion, international consensus has shifted away from regional fragmentation. Weakening national states, he said, led to power vacuums filled by Iran-backed militias, exacerbating instability. The current international trend supports the restoration of strong national institutions and the dismantling of militias—but success, he stressed, will depend more on Syria’s internal dynamics than on external agendas.
While some measures have been taken to ease sectarian tensions, Qabalan maintained that good intentions are insufficient without actionable strategies. He called for the formation of genuine political parties capable of shifting citizen loyalty from sectarian or tribal lines towards civic, policy-based platforms. Only a united national front, he said, can counter external threats—especially from Israel. Deepening internal fractures, by contrast, empowers foreign actors and risks renewed international supervision, as evidenced by recent discourse surrounding UN Resolution 2254.
He asserted that domestic peace among Syrians is essential for Syria to negotiate from a position of strength. A divided front, he warned, leaves the country vulnerable to manipulation—highlighting Israeli interference in southern Syria and Suweida as recent examples.
Qabalan emphasised that achieving national unity requires more than disarmament—it demands a credible political path forward. Convincing people to abandon weapons, he argued, hinges on a state that upholds the rule of law, where every citizen is equal regardless of sect, ethnicity, or creed. The state’s duty is to protect all Syrians without discrimination. Yet this vision, he acknowledged, remains aspirational without broad participation in building and governing state institutions.
A “Formal” Process
Qabalan criticised Syria’s current political framework as superficial, characterising it as a top-down process marked by conferences, constitutional declarations, and a government that resembles appointments more than elections. He described the proposed five-year transitional phase as excessive, recommending instead a two-year timeline culminating in free elections, following Iraq’s post-2003 model. A democratically elected constituent assembly should, he said, be responsible for drafting a new constitution through consensus among political stakeholders, with the final version reviewed by legal experts.
Such a process would, in his view, ensure broad Syrian involvement in constructing a new state and shift the conflict from a military to a political one. Opening up the political arena is essential to building a modern state, he argued—one that honours the sacrifices of the 14-year revolution by achieving its core demands: the freedom to form parties and hold democratic elections. Genuine disarmament, he added, depends on real political engagement, allowing citizens to secure their rights through institutional dialogue rather than violence.
He further condemned the current legislative council as lacking legitimacy and representation. Well-prepared elections, he said, are essential to establishing a credible body capable of drafting a new constitution and determining the structure and political system of the future Syrian state through inclusive national dialogue.
