The Lebanese politician said he was at a loss every time he thought about President Ahmed al-Sharaa. He has an intriguing and complex past that merits deep study to understand the major transformation he went through.

 

He admitted that he was alarmed when he saw the 40-something man take over Damascus after the downfall of Bashar al-Assad's regime. He was quick to clarify however: “I was never sorry to see the collapse of the Assad regime. In the end, those who deserve to fall will fall. He mismanaged the legacy he inherited and did not amend the several deep flaws inside the ruling system.”

 

“He believed that running the palace means being able to run Damascus, and that running Damascus means running the whole of Syria. He never acknowledged the massive suffering or the terrible figures and statistics. Oppression, poverty and despair. He couldn’t build trust with the everyday Syrian. He never dared to open a window, and when he did, he was quick to close it. He banked on fear in making the people submit,” added the politician.

 

Moreover, Assad “lost the image of the strong leader after the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon in wake of Rafik al-Hariri's assassination. After the eruption of the Syrian revolt, one thing was clear: Qasem Soleimani was in control of Syria, more so than Hafez al-Assad's son. The same could be said of Hassan Nasrallah. Assad was the weakest player in that triangle.”

 

The politician acknowledged that in the early days of Sharaa’s assumption of power, he feared that “he would run Syria as Abou Mohammed al-Golani who spent years in Iraqi jail.”

 

The politician said that the Beirut-Damascus route was mandatory for anyone who wanted to become involved in public life. The exception was a few who resisted the two Assads’ insistence on running Lebanon and making it subservient to Damascus. Those traveling that route hoped Damascus would learn from Beirut a degree of openness in economy and flexibility in regional and international politics.

 

That never happened. Assad’s Syria’s ties with Türkiye teetered between love and hate before seating itself in the “Axis of Resistance.” Today, the politician wonders why Beirut has not learned from Damascus, especially in terms of setting priorities, decision-making and building regional and international credibility.

 

The politician said that Sharaa, after spending years in Idlib, took the major decision of returning to the Syrian map and rearranging its dreams within its borders. He abandoned dreams that could lead to regional conflicts, adopting instead the slogan of “Syria first”, meaning saving Syria’s unity, rebuilding its economy, and returning refugees and the displaced. In one year, he managed to establish Syria’s regional and international presence, transforming the country into a player after it had been a playground under Bashar al-Assad.

 

The key to this was Sharaa’s handshake with President Donald Trump with the encouragement of Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister. Trump soon after lifted the Caesar Act, sanctions and other obstacles. Another test: Sharaa knew that Russia was waiting for an opportunity to eliminate him in Idlib. He never gave in to the need for revenge. Instead, he realized the importance of Russia in overcoming the past, deliberately “forgetting” the demand for Assad’s deportation so that he can stand trial. And so, Sharaa entered the Kremlin and in turn, Europe.

 

The network of international relations allowed Sharaa to deliver the message that the new Syria was focused on bolstering its stability and working towards prosperity. The new Syria is not concerned with policies of destabilizing its neighbors or meddling in their internal affairs. The network of relations helped lead to a solution with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) based on the principle that the new Syria is a home to all of its components.

 

With complete pragmatism, Sharaa realized that the new balance of power established after the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation and the ensuing savage Israeli war demanded that Syria quit the military aspect of the conflict with Israel.

 

These were all tough decisions for a man emerging from the al-Nusra Front and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

 

The politician now asked two important questions about the future. The first, can the Iranian leadership rearrange its policies and quit meddling in regional affairs? Can it return from the dream of changing the features of the region through violations, parallel armies and “resistance”, and turn to a dream of stability inside its own map and pursue prosperity and investment? The point is for Iran to become a normal state. Iran is an important country in the region that boasts vast means, in contrast to its current economy and dire conditions its people and currency are enduring.

 

The second question is can Hezbollah return from its costly regional trip and rearrange its papers and ambitions as a normal party that enjoys massive support inside its environment, while abandoning its arsenal and goals that go beyond Lebanon’s ability to endure? The politician said the new balance of power is stark and painful. Israel is a savage country with vastly superior technology and the international community does not want another war along the Israeli border.

 

The Lebanese politician’s comments may not reflect the positions of all Lebanese people, but the majority feels that way. It is definitely in Lebanon’s interest to raise the slogan of “Lebanon first” and form normal and fair relations with Syria. It should benefit from the reconstruction in Syria and restore regional and international trust in its ability to establish a state that is serious about reconstruction and building the economy.

 

Rebuilding a prosperous Lebanon is the best response to Benjamin Netanyahu’s barbaric policies. Obstructing the Lebanese government’s efforts will only cost Lebanon the opportunity to get out of the abyss and lead the world to leave it to its own fate at the bottom of the new Middle East that is taking shape.