A Diplomatic Balancing Act: Syria’s Post-Assad Foreign Policy

The transitional leader lays out his vision for engaging the U.S., Iran, and Russia in the rebuilding process.

In his first interview with an Arabic channel, Ahmed Al-Sharaa, the de facto transitional leader of post-Assad Syria, chose Saudi-backed Al Arabiya, signaling a strong intent to align with Riyadh, the city of his birth.

Over 44 minutes, Sharaa articulated his vision for Syria’s future, emphasizing peaceful resolution, regional stability, and comprehensive rebuilding after years of conflict. He highlighted how swift military operations secured Arabian Gulf and Syrian security, averting a potential domino crisis involving Israel, Iran, Turkey, and the U.S., and safeguarding the region for decades.

Sharaa outlined priorities such as drafting a new constitution within 2–3 years, restoring infrastructure and conducting credible elections over four years, and transitioning from socialism to a modern market economy leveraging agriculture and industry. He called for a National Dialogue Conference to ensure inclusivity and collective ownership in Syria’s rebuilding process, while urging opposition groups to unite under state governance with a merit-based approach to prevent fragmentation.

His messages to key players were clear: urging the U.S. to lift outdated Caesar sanctions, calling on Iran to abandon destabilizing projects and militias in favor of mutual respect, and reaffirming strategic ties with Russia while maintaining Syria’s sovereignty and avoiding entanglement in global conflicts. Sharaa framed this transitional period as an opportunity to foster inclusivity, reconciliation, and strategic partnerships, envisioning Syria as a unified, stable state pivotal to regional security and development.

Full transcript

Opening remarks

It was significant, but thankfully it was resolved peacefully. We did not resort to military force because when we entered the area, there was also an army of civilians from civil institutions—sanitation, education, healthcare, oil administration, and every other sector of life. This was a specific area, and we were able to proceed with a smooth transfer of power between the sixth government and the current one. My assessment of this phase is that it represents a significant historical turning point in the region. This area was on the brink of a large-scale regional war. There was talk of Israeli intervention in the region, specifically in Syria, and it was said that this would be the biggest war since Gaza and Lebanon. This was a real possibility because if Israeli forces had entered Syria, the Iranians would inevitably have intervened in Iraq to counter this advance. Consequently, Turkey would have felt significant concern about the Israeli advance and likely taken positions that, in my view, would have been against Israel and aligned with Iran. This is because Turkey would undoubtedly exploit the situation to divert attention from the war in Ukraine. This would have triggered American reactions and possibly led to strikes within Tehran and operations originating from Gulf bases, prompting Iran to retaliate against Gulf bases. This chain reaction would have caused a massive crisis. The swift military operation we carried out secured the entire region from these potential risks, ensuring Gulf security for the next 50 years and safeguarding Turkish national security as well. Most importantly, it secured Syria's national security and that of the entire region.

This is extremely significant. You're saying that the operation secured the region, including the Gulf, for the next fifty years?

Yes, logically speaking, we can say that Iran’s project of exporting its revolution to Arab countries—under the guise of using the Palestinian cause and relying on a specific sect—has significantly destabilized the region. Any place where Iranians entered with their project, such as Iraq, Lebanon, or Syria, was consistently marked by certain characteristics. First, there were severe sectarian tensions leading to civil wars. Second, there was widespread administrative corruption within government institutions and public agencies. Third, there was a surge in large-scale drug manufacturing, particularly Captagon, which fueled lawlessness in the region. Damascus, a city with ancient civilization and history, became the world’s largest Captagon manufacturing hub, exporting to countries worldwide. Damascus today holds significant strategic importance. It is a city of profound historical depth, considered the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. Syria, as a whole, occupies a critical strategic position. Its stability positively influences regional security, while instability has a negative impact on the entire region. What we witnessed was a disease that plagued Arab countries for forty years but was eliminated in just eleven days. We didn’t invade Tehran or southern Lebanon. We simply reclaimed our villages and towns. The areas we entered were our lands, villages, and provinces, which had been destroyed and occupied. The liberation of these areas was met with joy by the people, as they longed to rid themselves of the oppressive regime and its supporters.

Do people in the streets view you personally as the liberator of Syria?

The liberation of Syria involved many people—everyone who was displaced from their homes, everyone who sacrificed, those who were killed, tortured, or contributed to charitable organizations supporting the Syrian revolution, and everyone who fought to defend these areas. All of them share in this achievement. Reducing this collective effort to a single individual oversimplifies the matter. We believe God enabled us to serve these people and manage this effort. However, without the bravery of those who endured years of suffering, we would not have reached this point. People lived in tents for fourteen years; some died from the cold, others from suffocation in the heat, and some saw their tents burn down. They endured all this to avoid returning to areas controlled by the regime. Their sacrifices were immense, and they are integral to this victory. Without their perseverance, we could not have achieved what we did.

Is Ahmed Al-Shara the next president of Syria?

Currently, Syria is undergoing several phases in its new state. The first phase involved directly taking over governance to prevent the collapse of state institutions. The second phase will be transitional. For the transitional phase, specific characteristics are required for those who will lead Syria during this period. First, we need to either draft a new constitution or amend the existing one, depending on what legal experts recommend. Writing a new constitution or making amendments will take time, possibly two to three years.

Two to three years?

Yes, to write a new constitution. Drafting a new constitution involves many details that need to be thoroughly discussed. We are not merely resuming governance but rebuilding the state from scratch. Syria has experienced decades of devastation under the regime, which ruled for more than fifty years. This left behind enormous destruction, societal divisions, and the collapse of Syria’s educational, economic, and agricultural infrastructures. We need well-structured laws that align with the aspirations of the Syrian people to create an advanced and developed nation. The constitution must not be hastily drafted; it should be carefully crafted under expert supervision, including input from international legal and constitutional experts, to ensure it lasts as long as possible. The opportunity we have today is rare—it doesn’t come every five or ten years. This is a historic moment. After approximately sixty years, we now have the chance to lay the foundations for a legal and constitutional framework that governs society, preventing a repeat of past experiences. This is a pivotal moment in Syrian history.

What about general and presidential elections?

This is another matter. Currently, Syria’s infrastructure for elections is severely damaged and needs to be rebuilt. We are dealing with over 15 million displaced Syrians, both internally and as refugees. Most of these people lack official documentation. For example, if you ask today about Syria’s population, no one can provide an accurate figure. Conducting a population census in Syria will take time, as will legally re-engaging with Syrian communities abroad through embassies to register new births and deaths. Many individuals who were ten years old when the war began are now twenty-four. We are dealing with a vast and complex situation that requires precise and detailed efforts to account for the Syrian population, whether inside the country or abroad. This process will take time.

Do you expect it to take about four years?

It’s possible. It’s a very wide-ranging issue that requires precise enumeration of the entire Syrian population, whether inside the country or abroad. This process takes time. We need a significant amount of time because conducting a census is not a simple task. Without this, the electoral process cannot be credible. Any election conducted without accurate statistics on the number of voters and participants would lack legitimacy. How could we ensure that the people's voices were accurately counted and their choice was properly reflected? Therefore, the necessary infrastructure must be prepared before we move toward elections. This phase, in turn, will require many additional steps, such as rebuilding the country’s economic infrastructure. We need to establish a new economic structure for the country. As you know, the country previously operated on a socialist economic model, which involved state subsidies for basic goods and the management of many factories by the state itself—most of which were failing. Thus, there is a need to rebuild the economic system using modern methods.

This includes transitioning to a market economy and adopting Western economic philosophies.

I believe we need local experts familiar with the country's resources who can leverage global experiences to create an economic system tailored to our society. Syria’s economy is fundamentally agricultural, followed by industrial, and then services, banking, and everything that supports commerce. However, the economy is measured by its local production. Syria is a fertile land, providing a strong foundation to build upon, but there’s been significant devastation over the past few years. This rubble must be cleared, and new strategies must be implemented to increase production. This entire phase requires strong leadership. Leading during this period is extremely challenging; it’s not as simple as appointing someone to sign critical decisions that are automatically executed. Right now, Syria is not governed by agreed-upon laws. Instead, we are in a transitional phase of restoring governance and rebuilding the rule of law. The person leading Syria must have executable authority. If people agree on certain measures and the leader of this phase issues a decision, it must be enforceable. Consequently, this leader must possess a wide range of tools—economic, political, military, security, and media—to ensure that everything functions in an orderly manner.

For example, will this leadership framework be one of the outcomes of the anticipated National Dialogue Conference? Who will participate, and what results should Syrians expect?

First, the conference will be inclusive, bringing together a wide range of Syrian societal components. Historically, after revolutions, decisions were often made by those who achieved victory or ruled through military power. I want to steer Syria away from this model. I do not want heavy decisions, such as dissolving the constitution or parliament, to come from a single individual. Instead, I propose giving all Syrians the opportunity to participate in this conference. In this conference, we will explain the Syrian issue and present all relevant information, including what we’ve discussed here. Then, we will leave the critical and sensitive decisions that will shape the transitional phase to be voted on by the conference participants.

Is it realistic to implement what’s described as the “Idlib model” across all of Syria? Some believe this is impractical and that what succeeded in Idlib may not succeed elsewhere. From the time we were in Idlib, I’ve told people that the model in Idlib is not suitable for the entirety of Syria. However, it served as a starting point. There was much discussion about who would manage institutions if the regime fell. My response was that we should build our institutions in liberated areas and operate as a team. Building institutions is not easy, so having a nucleus for these institutions is essential to fill the void until the state is properly established. Can this model be applied to all of Syria in the future? No, it is not suitable for every phase. What happened in Idlib had its positives and negatives. Why? Because we built institutions and created opportunities in an area that initially lacked resources. Resource management there led to job creation, the establishment of an industrial city, residential areas, roads, and 24/7 electricity services. This nucleus can serve as a foundation to build upon.

How long will it take for the rest of Syria to have similar services?

God willing, quickly.

Quickly?

Yes, we aspire for Syria not to just resemble Idlib but to become like advanced nations within a few years, God willing. I don’t mean long-term goals, but basic necessities like electricity, water, and currency stability. I believe we will see drastic changes within a year, God willing. Some people fear the idea of one-color appointments.

Don’t you see one-color appointments in the current administration?

At this stage, yes, it’s true. This is because we need a cohesive team during transitional phases. The most challenging aspect of building institutions is creating ones that function in isolation, without communication or collaboration. At this stage, I don’t believe in distributing institutions and ministries as gifts based on ethnicity, sect, or party affiliation, as happens in some neighboring countries. Such division under the guise of national unity or consensus often paralyzes institutions. I advocate for a merit-based approach. Initially, we should rely on those who have managed specific phases of work to ensure cohesion. Once we transition to a long-term interim government, broader participation will naturally follow. This distinction is critical: inclusion is not the same as quota distribution. Exactly. In my view, quota-based governance would doom the Syrian state. Building Syria on a quota system would lead to inevitable fragmentation and hinder progress. However, if we rebuild the country based on merit and a properly established legal framework, the outcome will be entirely different, yielding remarkable results in the future.

For example, could we imagine seeing someone like Fares Al-Khoury as president or prime minister in the coming years?

I would like to comment on this issue. Many people ask about sects and minorities. Syria has historically been a shared homeland for thousands of years. Focusing excessively on these issues only stirs unrest within the country. I say, let people live together in love and harmony. Thank God, the situation is good now, and people are understanding each other. On the contrary, people are joyful and celebrating what has been achieved. There is no internal concern about the issues raised by the media or some Western observers. I say, let people live naturally. As Syrians, we can coexist without issues. But Syria has endured extremely difficult events, and acts of revenge occasionally occur.

Can you reassure people that this will not continue and that the perpetrators will be held accountable?

Yes, there is responsibility in this regard. If we allow people to claim rights in the way some suggest, the state cannot be built in this manner. The governance of the state should not adopt a rigid mindset, nor should it operate with an oppositional mentality. We inherited the Syrian crisis, and we must address it with wisdom, vision, and calmness. We must also manage this new phase alongside the United Nations, ensuring that the UN emerges with a successful role in the Syrian file—not with its old image that left a negative impression in the minds of Syrians, who suffered while the UN merely sent some food aid, tents, and limited support. I firmly believe that we can all come together, emerge victorious, successful, and contribute to resolving the Syrian issue. Addressing Concerns Over Regional Security Mr. Shara, you spoke about the security of the entire region as tied to the victory of the Syrian revolution.

However, many voices remain skeptical, fearing that Syria could become a launchpad for Islamic groups, particularly in countries opposed to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood or others. There are also images circulating of certain symbols or individuals inside Syria, causing some concern. Historically, even during the previous regime, there were instances of individuals being handed over to Gulf countries following specific incidents. Given your relationship with some of these figures, how will you handle such concerns?

First of all, we have worked to keep Syria away from any political disputes that could harm neighboring countries or even distant ones. We have been clear with all parties that we are building strategic relationships with our neighboring states, with our primary goal being economic development. The people are exhausted from wars and conflicts. We will not place Syria in a position that alienates or disrupts relations with other states. Without strategic relationships and mutual interests between Syria and other countries, the development we seek will not be achievable. I assure you, Syria will not become a platform for such activities. Many individuals from different backgrounds have expressed solidarity with the Syrian people and visited us. We do not distinguish much based on the affiliations of visitors. However, I understand the surprise at some events, as we were not fully aware of the backgrounds of everyone who visited us. That said, we have made it clear that Syria will not be a place where one party is empowered at the expense of another. Stability and security in neighboring countries are our priorities, as their security is closely linked to ours. Firmness Against Threats Yes, we will be decisive with anyone who seeks to cause trouble or pose a threat to any neighboring country. Syria cannot and will not serve as a base for disturbing regional stability. Regarding the idea of exporting the revolution, I have said from the very beginning, and publicly declared in the media, that our revolution was for us to build the Syrian state, not to export it. We aim to manage this phase with a state-centric mindset, not a revolutionary one. While we are proud of the revolution as part of our history, something we hold dear, this phase requires us to focus on building the state.

Saudi Arabia’s Role in Post-Revolution Syria

The recent Saudi statements and actions regarding Syria after the fall of the previous regime have been very positive. Saudi Arabia undoubtedly benefits directly from Syria’s stability in its current form, as does the entire Gulf region. The Iranian project continues to pose a threat to the Gulf, and Syria is a central factor in countering that threat. I believe Saudi Arabia is keen to see stability in Syria. The developmental goals we are pursuing will also include partnerships with Saudi Arabia. Syria, though devastated, presents a major investment opportunity for neighboring countries. Strategic projects with significant returns will benefit those countries. I am proud of what has been achieved so far, and I welcome the delegations that have visited us, laying the groundwork for new, balanced, and strategic relations with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia’s Role in the New Syria Saudi Arabia has a significant role to play. It is a pivotal state with considerable influence on major global powers. A partnership between modern Syria and Saudi Arabia will have far-reaching impacts.

Economic and Developmental Vision, You mentioned Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s economic and developmental vision earlier. How can Syria benefit from it, and how can Saudi Arabia assist in this regard?

Saudi Arabia has undertaken large-scale infrastructure projects and transitioned from relying solely on oil to developing diverse industries and a varied economy. I have followed many of their bold projects under Vision 2030. This shift from oil dependency to a diversified economy is crucial for long-term sustainability. Oil resources will eventually dwindle, so investments in diverse economic activities are necessary to build a robust and resilient economy. This model is what our region needs, as people are tired of wars and conflict, which have taken a heavy toll on economic stability.

[Saudi’s 2030 Vision] This model is what our region needs, as people are tired of wars and conflict, which have taken a heavy toll on economic stability.

On Iran’s Reaction Post-Revolution Iran has made statements claiming there is no victory for anyone in Syria and that events in Syria will escalate further in the coming period. How do you respond to such remarks?

Honestly, I had hoped Iran would reconsider its interventions at the expense of the region’s people. Iran’s approach in Syria has caused deep wounds. They were the ones who invited the Russians to intervene in the Syrian arena. As you know, this led to the targeting of vital infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, and bakeries. They played a significant role in displacing large numbers of people. Future Relations with Iran Syria cannot continue without relations with a major state like Iran. However, these relations must be built on mutual respect, respecting the sovereignty of both nations, and avoiding interference in internal affairs. Relations must be limited to areas that serve the mutual interests of both nations without provoking sectarian tensions or supporting militias. I believe a significant segment within Iran aspires for a positive role for their country in the region—one that is constructive and similar to any normal state, without meddling or supporting certain groups or causing chaos in villages and towns, as we have seen over the past 14 years.

On Compensation Will there be compensation? What is being done in this regard?

Some individuals have committed grave atrocities—well-known and documented ones—such as severe torture, the Houla massacre, the Baniyas massacre, and crimes committed by certain security branches. Those responsible for these organized crimes will be held accountable. However, if we attempt to address every grievance over the past 14 years, this would lead to widespread turmoil, making it impossible for anyone to resolve these issues comprehensively. Such an approach would perpetuate cycles of revenge, counter-revenge, internal disputes, and dissatisfaction. This is why we emphasized forgiveness in our military strategy. Even during war, where violence and bloodshed are often inevitable, we prioritized mercy. We entered many regions without bloodshed, reassured the people, and reduced tensions. Of course, there were isolated instances of killing and retaliation, but we made every effort to prevent them. The Syrian crisis is extremely complex, and the current approach is the least costly solution. We are working hard to avoid escalating tensions, deploying security and military forces only when necessary to firmly address anyone attempting to provoke discord. Additionally, we must recognize that there are individuals discontented with the new Syrian situation who may exploit these tensions to create problems. We must avoid being drawn into internal conflicts that would undermine the state's progress and future. Regarding Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, it is clear that the state cannot be governed by factions or armed groups. In Idlib, we were mentally and morally prepared to address this issue, but the timing was not right. Managing the state now presents a great opportunity to dissolve Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham. In fact, we will be the first to dismantle it.

Managing the state now presents a great opportunity to dissolve Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham. In fact, we will be the first to dismantle it. … I believe it will be officially announced at the National Dialogue Conference.

When will this happen?

I believe it will be officially announced at the National Dialogue Conference.

This is exclusive information, and I think it will be a significant surprise. Has the former opposition fallen as the former regime did?

There is a significant difference. We cannot equate the opposition with the regime. Many members of the opposition made sacrifices during the revolution, leaving their homes and seeking refuge in neighboring countries. There is a vast difference between the two. However, the state cannot tolerate divisions. Many institutions were established to oppose the former regime, but with that regime gone, the reasons for these institutions’ existence have also disappeared. I call on everyone to unite under the state’s umbrella to build laws, a constitution, and a large-scale developmental strategy for the country. We no longer need parallel institutions when the state exists. Does this mean the opposition coalition should dissolve?

Not necessarily. It means they should not return to their homes but instead participate in building the new Syrian state as equal citizens, bringing their expertise to the table. It is no longer a priority for them to continue negotiations. Negotiations with whom? About Resolution 2254? With the international community? With Geir Pedersen? Circumstances have changed. Laws must be adaptable. During our military operations, we adhered to the essence of Resolution 2254. The resolution focuses on two main aspects: the return of refugees and the release of detainees. These have been addressed through our actions. Refugee returns have been facilitated across Syria, and efforts are ongoing to release detainees from all security branches, alleviating some of the tragedies of the past. The peaceful transfer of power has also been achieved. The president fled, and the government assumed control peacefully. This marks the fulfillment of the core objectives of Resolution 2254. The remaining aspects of the resolution are now impractical. What can realistically be done today? Sit with Moscow and Washington to negotiate authority? Some aspects of the resolution are simply outdated. This decision was issued in 2015, and we are now at the end of 2024. The dynamics have changed significantly, and the resolution must reflect the new realities. This is the message we conveyed to the UN envoy: substantial progress has been made, and we have already fulfilled the core objectives of Resolution 2254. I want to emphasize that the Syrian crisis, now in its 14th year, has been filled with suffering. Despite many attempts, the UN and international community failed to release a single detainee, repatriate a single refugee, or achieve even a minimal political solution favorable to the people. Today, the Syrian people have saved themselves through their own efforts. I urge everyone not to impose rigid resolutions that prolong their suffering or return them to square one. What is the goal? Is it to implement the resolution word for word, or to acknowledge the positive outcomes achieved? Events have unfolded in a way that aligns with the resolution’s objectives, and I do not believe anyone in the UN would begrudge the Syrian people their progress. Why should we now complicate their situation by insisting on outdated provisions of the resolution?

Does this mean you are rejecting the UN’s role altogether?

Not at all. The UN played a vital role but was unable to solve the crisis. Now, we are capable of managing the next phase alongside the UN. The UN can emerge successful in the Syrian file, but not in its previous image, which Syrians associate with suffering. It must go beyond being a provider of food aid and tents during the years of hardship. Together, we must succeed in resolving the Syrian crisis. If you speak to people on the street, they will tell you that ensuring the security of the entire region is a shared responsibility. There is a broad segment within Iran that aspires for Iran’s role in the region to become positive and constructive, like any normal state, without intervening, supporting specific militias, or entering our villages and towns to cause destruction, as has happened over the past 14 years.

On Reparations and Lawsuits Against Iran and Hezbollah Do you plan to pursue reparations or file lawsuits against Iran or Hezbollah?

Honestly, I haven’t given this matter much thought. I will leave it to the legal committees that will handle such matters. Our focus is on de-escalating tensions as much as possible. Certainly, Iran has caused a great deal of pain, but we aim to calm the situation and build balanced and strategic relationships wherever possible. The Syrian people have wounds caused by Iran, and it will take a long time to heal these wounds. The most important thing is that Iran refrains from considering Syria as a platform for attacking other countries or stirring up discord. On Post-Regime Change Engagement with Iran.

Do you believe Iran is still trying to maintain influence after the fall of the regime? Have you received signs of this?

As a state, we have fulfilled our duty to protect their embassy and other international facilities related to them, to prevent any provocations or incidents. This is the responsibility of one state toward another. I expected them to appreciate this and to issue positive statements to the Syrian people and society. The joy that has spread among the people should not be a source of concern for Iran. Instead, it could be an opportunity for them to align themselves with the Syrian people. In the end, it is the people who will triumph, and Iran should reconsider its alignment with the regime that oppressed its own people.

On Russian Relations and Alleged Pressure Russia has stated that there is pressure being applied on you to reduce or limit cooperation with them recently. Is this true? Can you confirm or deny it? What is the nature of this pressure?

Russia is an important country, the second most powerful in the world. There are deep strategic interests between Syria and Russia. The Syrian military relies entirely on Russian arms, many of our energy stations depend on Russian expertise, and there are significant cultural ties between Syria and Russia. We do not want Russia to leave Syria in a manner that complicates matters for both sides. I also believe Syria has an independent personality and does not bow to pressure. We prioritize our people’s interests and engage with other nations on this basis. Syria is not in a position to become entangled in the conflict between the West and Russia or what is happening in Ukraine. We are being bombed by Russian planes—how could we escalate tensions further? We seek to avoid provocation. While we believe the Ukrainian people have the right to live in freedom and peace, and we oppose any aggression against them, we also hope that this war ends soon. It has affected the psyche of nations worldwide and the people of the region as a whole.

On the Upcoming U.S. Administration There is an incoming administration in the U.S., led by Donald Trump. Are you in contact with them? Have they reached out to you? What is the message you would like to convey to them?

There has been some communication through the U.S. State Department. A representative from the current administration, Barbara Leaf, reached out. We emphasized the issue of sanctions imposed on Syria at this time. The sanctions, such as Caesar and Caesar II laws, were based on crimes committed by the former regime against its victims—crimes we were also subjected to. Now, the victims are the ones who have overthrown this regime. With the regime’s removal, these sanctions should automatically be lifted. Continuing these sanctions will only increase the suffering of the Syrian people. The U.S., which presented itself as a friend of the Syrian people, should not maintain laws issued against the regime that harmed its people. The Syrian people made the decision to remove the regime. We hope the new U.S. administration will not follow the same path as the previous one in maintaining these sanctions. They should be lifted without negotiations or compromises.

On the U.S. and Kurdish Interests The U.S. also has interests in the region, including relationships with the Kurds and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). There are some positive statements being made in recent days. Are things heading toward a resolution with the SDF?

We have communicated with all parties, emphasizing that this is a Syrian issue that should be resolved internally. We are working to find a suitable formula for resolving the situation in northeastern Syria, based on the following principles: There should be no division of Syria. We reject any form of division, even under the guise of federalism. Our society is not ready to understand the nature of federal systems, and such frameworks often lead to division under another name. Northeastern Syria should not host foreign armed groups that have conflicts with neighboring countries. Just as we ensure the safety of our neighboring states, we must address Turkey’s concerns about the PKK and its actions, such as bombings within Turkey. We will not allow Syria to become a platform for such attacks. The Kurds are part of our people. They have been wronged, as we have been, and it is our duty to protect them, restore their rights, and ensure their return to villages from which they were displaced during the revolution. All armed groups in northeastern Syria should operate under the Ministry of Defense. Weapons should be restricted to state control. Those qualified to serve may join the Ministry of Defense. With these conditions and guidelines, we are open to a dialogue process with the SDF, hoping to find a solution that suits Syria’s situation.

On Hypothetical Protests Against You What if there were protests against you in Damascus?

We are accustomed to such situations. I believe that demonstrating is a right for anyone living in any country to express their opinion and objection. This has happened in Idlib on occasion, as long as the protests adhere to the rules and laws in place. Sometimes, protests may cross boundaries, targeting public institutions or violating the law. In such cases, the legal and security authorities will intervene. If conducted within the framework of the law, such demonstrations are perfectly natural. There is no leader in the world who enjoys unanimous support from all segments of society. Differences are inevitable, and these differences can be used to enrich the popular and logical discourse in Syria, ensuring proper and sound governance. On Personal Activities While in Damascus, I attended a stand-up comedy performance.

Would Ahmed Sharaa consider attending a committed theatrical performance in Damascus or elsewhere, even if it criticized him?

I don’t even have time to sleep! If I had a moment of free time, I would rest rather than attend a play. So, the answer is no—not out of unwillingness, but simply due to time constraints. Perhaps in the future, I might consider it.

On Childhood in Riyadh You were born in Riyadh. What do you remember about your childhood there?

I am proud of having been born in Riyadh, and I feel a certain affection for Saudi Arabia. My childhood there was brief, lasting only a few years. However, I remember many events despite my young age.

Returning to Syria How old were you when you returned to Syria with your father?

I was around seven years old.

What do you remember?

I remember the neighborhood, the gardens, and the kindness of the people. The interactions were wonderful.

Do you miss returning to Riyadh?

Yes, I do.

Thank you very much, Ahmed Sharaa.