Review of Afghanistan developments
Considering the background and context surrounding the uprising of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group, which is led by Abu Muhammad al-Julani, who has now assumed control of affairs in Syria under the alias Ahmad al-Sharaa, it was anticipated that the United States would find itself in opposition to this government. This group, primarily inspired by al-Qaeda and Salafism, initially held anti-American and anti-Zionist sentiments and aimed to establish a stringent government based on the ideology that emerged from it, which would pose challenges for the West and the Zionist regime.
The Julani government, despite certain distinctions, shares similarities with the Taliban regarding its rise to power, governmental structure, and control methods. Following Tahrir al-Sham’s ascension in Syria, it was anticipated that the US government’s response would mirror its reaction to the Taliban’s takeover in Afghanistan. However, it has become evident that Washington has pursued a policy of appeasement towards the Julani-led Syrian government (Ahmad al-Shara) and has made significant strides towards normalizing relations. Donald Trump’s meeting with Julani (Ahmad al-Shara) during his visit to Saudi Arabia, along with the recent executive order lifting sanctions against Syria, while not surprising, warrant thorough analysis and evaluation. What factors might account for the disparity in America’s response to the rise of these two groups of the same gender and type? Are geopolitical considerations at play, or are there other underlying issues?
The Julani government, despite certain distinctions, shares similarities with the Taliban regarding its rise to power, governmental structure, and control methods. Following Tahrir al-Sham’s ascension in Syria, it was anticipated that the US government’s response would mirror its reaction to the Taliban’s takeover in Afghanistan. However, it has become evident that Washington has pursued a policy of appeasement towards the Julani-led Syrian government (Ahmad al-Shara) and has made significant strides towards normalizing relations. Donald Trump’s meeting with Julani (Ahmad al-Shara) during his visit to Saudi Arabia, along with the recent executive order lifting sanctions against Syria, while not surprising, warrant thorough analysis and evaluation. What factors might account for the disparity in America’s response to the rise of these two groups of the same gender and type? Are geopolitical considerations at play, or are there other underlying issues?
The significance of geopolitics in the United States’ strategy towards the Julani and Taliban government
In terms of geopolitical significance and influence, Afghanistan and Syria hold nearly the same position. Afghanistan is situated in the center of Asia, serving as a gateway to the Heartland, effectively linking South Asia with Central Asia. Similarly, Syria, positioned at the core of the Middle East, lays the groundwork for control over the entire region. Given these two comparable geopolitical standings, it is unreasonable to anticipate that Washington would favor Syria over Afghanistan for geopolitical considerations.
The process of gaining power
Another element that may be regarded as a crucial factor in the acceptance of the Julani government in Syria by the United States and the West is the manner in which the Taliban and Tahrir al-Sham ascended to power. It is undeniable that the Taliban engaged in combat with the US for two decades, resulting in significant casualties among American forces and imposing substantial financial burdens on this nation and the government it backs.
Furthermore, the Taliban’s ascension to power in Afghanistan is perceived as a consequence of America’s defeat. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect America to simply engage with a group that has been vanquished and has obliterated all its long-term objectives in one of the most crucial regions globally. In contrast, Tahrir al-Sham, while being a minor jihadist faction that poses challenges for America and the West, has not only refrained from confronting America but has also opposed a regime that America sought to dismantle. Consequently, it is understandable that America would find it easier to interact with the Julani government.
Changing the Julani government’s behavior
What stands out the most is the contrasting behavioral style of the Taliban government compared to that of the Julani government. Although there are similarities in principles, ideology, and thought between the Tahrir al-Sham group and the Taliban, the Taliban did not alter its approaches or behaviors after assuming power. Instead, it enforced a stringent policy grounded in its own interpretation of Sharia with extreme severity and intensity. Conversely, following Tahrir al-Sham’s rise to power in Syria, extensive behavioral changes in governance and policy implementation have been observed, which is contrary to prior predictions and expectations.
- Consequently, altering the conduct of the Julani government, particularly regarding women’s labor and educational rights, as well as, to a certain degree, minority rights, may play a role in drawing Trump’s interest towards recognizing the Julani government in Syria.
The Julani government’s hidden affiliations
Another underlying reason is the affiliation and connection of the Tahrir al-Sham group, both historically and currently, with the Julani government as well as American and Zionist intelligence agents. While the propaganda from the Taliban opposition groups highlights the covert relationship of the acting government with the United States, which appears to be a form of psychological warfare, there are significant indicators concerning Tahrir al-Sham that lend particular weight to this matter. The first indicator lies in the manner in which Tahrir al-Sham ascended to power. In contrast to the Taliban, which compelled the United States to withdraw from Afghanistan after a prolonged and grueling conflict, Tahrir al-Sham inexplicably seized control of Damascus in under two weeks. Even after years of operation, the financial and logistical resources of Tahrir al-Sham remain ambiguous and questionable.
Related Articles
Great Powers Politics in Afghanistan, Syria and Ukraine
Consequences of Trump’s Visit on the Region and Afghanistan
Furthermore, a thorough examination of the operations conducted by the Zionist regime in the Middle East reveals that the assault on the Islamic Republic of Iran is merely a component of a larger strategy. The establishment of Tahrir al-Sham as a governing entity in Syria is perceived as an integral part of the Zionist regime’s calculated approach to facilitate an attack on Iran. It would be overly simplistic to assume that Tahrir al-Sham’s ascendance was not orchestrated by a premeditated agreement between the United States and the Zionist regime. According to this theory, the emergence of Tahrir al-Sham and Julani’s authority in Syria can be attributed to the machinations of the United States and the Zionist regime, which clarifies the urgency with which the United States is engaging with this situation based on this premise.
Consequently, we are likely to observe a form of behavioral inconsistency from the United States regarding both the Taliban government and the Julani government. Consequently, the White House is removing sanctions imposed on the Julani government in Syria, while simultaneously increasing pressure on the Taliban government and even indirectly labeling the Taliban as terrorists, as stated by Trump’s Secretary of State, Mark Rubio.
