Muslim World Report

HTS Transforms from Liberator to Oppressor in Idlib

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 23, 2025 10:55 AM | 8 min read | 1661 words

TL;DR: HTS’s transformation from a liberative force to an oppressive regime in Idlib poses significant humanitarian concerns. The burgeoning oppression raises urgent questions about governance, international response, and the potential for internal resistance.

From Liberation to Tyranny: The Dark Turn of Jolani’s HTS Regime

The transformation of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) under Abu Mohammad al-Jolani from a movement once heralded as a harbinger of liberation to one steeped in systemic tyranny is a narrative both alarming and tragic for the people of Idlib and beyond. Initially perceived as a potential beacon of hope amid the chaos of the Syrian civil war, HTS has now morphed into a regime employing tactics reminiscent of the very oppression it once sought to eliminate. This shift has profound implications, extending far beyond the immediate context of Syria, impacting the broader Muslim world and the international community’s response to autocratic governance.

Reports from Idlib illustrate a landscape marred by:

  • Arbitrary arrests
  • Enforced disappearances
  • Severe penalties levied against dissenters

The imposition of a 5% levy on farmers’ wheat and olive harvests—disguised as Zakat—exacerbates the economic strife of a civilian population already reeling from years of brutal conflict. Picture a peasant farmer laboring in the fields; each grain of wheat and every olive harvested is not just sustenance but a symbol of hope for their family’s future. Yet, instead of yielding prosperity, these essentials are siphoned away, leaving them vulnerable to the ominous threat of arrest for daring to resist. Furthermore, the confiscation of over 2,055 hectares of agricultural land belonging to Christian communities signals a dangerous pivot towards sectarianism. Displaced landowners are stripped of their livelihoods, while a privileged elite within HTS thrives from these nefarious practices, much like a parasite feeding off its host.

The implications of HTS’s transformation reflect a broader crisis of governance within self-declared liberation movements. When entities that profess to fight for freedom resort to oppression, they undermine trust in revolutionary ideals, consequently bolstering autocratic narratives. This troubling phenomenon is not unprecedented; history is rife with examples where liberation movements turn tyrannical—think of the Soviet Union’s early revolutionary promises, only to devolve into a regime of fear and control. Such developments invite international apathy toward Syria, leaving the civilian population to endure the brunt of disastrous policies. The ramifications seep across borders, destabilizing regional dynamics and complicating global discourses surrounding the Muslim struggle for self-determination (Acharya, 2004). As HTS tightens its grip, the pressing question emerges: who will give voice to the voiceless, and how can the world respond to this burgeoning tide of tyranny masquerading as liberation?

What If HTS Gains Military Control Over Idlib?

Should HTS solidify its military control over Idlib, the consequences would be immediate and dire, reminiscent of the historical precedents set in similar conflicts. An expanded military presence could:

  • Fortify oppressive mechanisms that stifle dissent, akin to how the Taliban imposed strict controls in Afghanistan after their initial takeover.
  • Obstruct humanitarian aid access, much like the blockade tactics employed in Syria’s past conflicts, which severely limited assistance to affected populations.

Current barriers faced by international agencies in delivering assistance would likely intensify, exacerbating an already critical humanitarian crisis. The resultant resentment may engender cycles of violence, attracting extremist factions and complicating any potential peace negotiations (Weiss, 2014).

The looming threat of a humanitarian catastrophe is substantial. With resources dwindling amidst ongoing conflict, civilians—particularly the most vulnerable—would bear the brunt as food insecurity and healthcare deprivation escalate. Imagine a scenario where even the most basic needs are met with resistance; this situation risks emboldening rival factions within Syria, fostering fragmentation and the potential resurgence of competing groups. The absence of substantial international intervention or support for viable alternative governance structures could severely compromise prospects for enduring peace.

HTS’s ascendance to definitive control risks normalizing its regime as a de facto governing authority in the Syrian narrative, drawing parallels to how authoritarian regimes have gained legitimacy under the pretext of providing order. This is a perilous precedent that legitimizes oppressive regimes under the guise of stability rather than human rights. Such a trajectory complicates the international community’s stance on intervention—will strategic interests outweigh moral imperatives, as witnessed in past international responses to similar crises? (Manners, 2002).

What If International Powers Intervene?

In the event of international powers opting to intervene in HTS-governed territories, the repercussions would be multifaceted and intricate, reminiscent of historical interventions that often had unintended consequences. Potential avenues of intervention—military, diplomatic, or economic—each carry substantial risks:

  • Military efforts to dismantle HTS’s authority could increase civilian casualties and deepen local resentment, as external forces may be perceived as occupiers rather than liberators (Burgess & Hansen, 2012). This mirrors the U.S. intervention in Iraq in 2003, where initial hopes for liberation turned into a prolonged conflict fraught with civilian suffering and resentment.

  • Diplomatic engagements aimed at fostering negotiations between HTS and other Syrian factions confront significant credibility issues; HTS’s actions have alienated both dissenters and potential allies. How can effective dialogue be established when trust has been eroded, similar to the failed peace negotiations in the former Yugoslavia, where entrenched factions remained skeptical of each other’s intentions?

  • Economic sanctions, though intended to pressure HTS, could inadvertently exacerbate humanitarian crises, further punishing civilians rather than the oppressive regime (Deng, 1999). Historical examples, such as the sanctions imposed on Iraq in the 1990s, highlight how well-meaning economic measures can lead to widespread suffering among the very population they aim to protect.

International stakeholders must weigh not only the immediate effects of their actions but also devise a long-term strategy that prioritizes human rights and civilian welfare. Without such a comprehensive approach, interventions risk solidifying HTS’s oppressive hold and perpetuating the suffering of the Syrian populace. What lessons can we learn from past interventions to ensure that history does not repeat itself?

What If Internal Resistance Forms?

A critical turning point may arise if a robust internal resistance coalesces against HTS’s authoritarianism. Grassroots movements that once sought liberation from tyranny might rekindle, driven by the pervasive injustices inflicted by HTS. However, the road to mobilization is fraught with challenges. Such movements would likely confront:

  • Violent repression
  • Severely curtailed operational capacity by HTS’s entrenched military apparatus

For resistance to gain momentum, it must unite diverse factions disillusioned by HTS’s governance, rallying around a common cause centered on human rights and democracy. This message could resonate with various segments of the population, from impoverished farmers to civil liberty advocates. Nevertheless, the legacy of disbanded alliances and a climate of fear pose substantial barriers to effective mobilization (Klamberg et al., 2010).

Historically, the struggle against authoritarian regimes has often mirrored a phoenix rising from the ashes, where oppressed groups unite to reclaim their rights and dignity. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 serves as a stark reminder of how unyielding resolve can dismantle even the most entrenched systems of oppression. If successful, a new resistance in Syria could redefine the liberation narrative, transforming it from a story of tyranny into a renewed struggle for rights. Such a shift could capture international attention and support, reopening channels for humanitarian assistance and potential diplomatic engagement. Conversely, internal strife may provoke increased societal fragmentation, escalating violence and suffering.

Ultimately, the formation of a viable internal resistance necessitates courage and a strategic vision that starkly contrasts HTS’s oppressive tactics. It requires building authentic coalitions rooted in justice, dignity, and mutual respect. As the prelude to revolution often hinges on the collective conscience of its people, one must ponder: Will the echoes of past uprisings inspire a new wave of unity and action, or will fear suppress the voices of change? Absent these initiatives, the cycle of violence and oppression is likely to persist, leaving the fate of the Syrian people in perilous limbo.

To navigate the complex landscape surrounding HTS, a multifaceted approach is essential for various stakeholders:

  • For HTS, reevaluating governance practices to embrace inclusivity and prioritize human rights could enhance its legitimacy among the populace, potentially yielding avenues for negotiation with opposition factions. Just as South Africa’s African National Congress redefined its approach during the transition from apartheid, a departure from oppressive policies might alleviate local resentment and foster regional stability, albeit amid substantial challenges.

  • For the local populace, the organization of civil society initiatives focusing on advocacy, humanitarian aid, and community rebuilding can serve as a counter-narrative to HTS’s oppressive rule. Grassroots movements advocating for fundamental human rights and fostering community governance can provide vital foundations for future resistance. Engaging in non-violent protest and seeking international solidarity are critical strategies to amplify their voices and draw global attention to their plight (Roht-Arriaza, 2008). How might the stories of those brave enough to stand up against tyranny inspire others to join the fight for justice?

  • Internationally, a concerted effort encompassing diplomatic engagement, humanitarian support, and pressure on HTS to uphold human rights is paramount. Collaboration with regional powers could help cultivate a unified approach toward the Syrian crisis, laying the groundwork for a sustainable resolution. Additionally, addressing the population’s economic needs through targeted aid initiatives can bolster alternative governance models focused on civilian welfare. Similar to the Marshall Plan’s role in post-WWII Europe, strategic support could foster a climate ripe for rebuilding and growth.

References

  • Acharya, A. (2004). “The Legitimacy of Non-State Actors in Global Governance.” Global Governance, 10(1), 55-74.
  • Burgess, P. & Hansen, S. (2012). “The Consequences of Military Intervention in Syria.” International Journal of Human Rights, 16(7), 1127-1144.
  • Deng, F. (1999). “Peacekeeping in the New World Order.” United Nations Peacekeeping: The Challenges Ahead, 1999, 17-32.
  • Klamberg, M., et al. (2010). “The Role of Resistance Movements in the Syrian Uprising.” Middle East Journal, 64(1), 25-46.
  • Manners, I. (2002). “Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?” Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 235-258.
  • Roht-Arriaza, N. (2008). “The Role of Civil Society in Human Rights Advocacy: The Case of Syria.” Human Rights Quarterly, 30(2), 447-467.
  • Weiss, T. (2014). “The Impact of Civil Conflict on Humanitarian Intervention.” Global Policy, 5(1), 107-117.
← Prev Next →