Reflecting on my first visit to Syria shortly after the liberation a year ago – my first in 14 years – to my most recent one, the momentum that followed last year’s victory is clearly but gradually fading. Yet it is just as clear that the elements required to revive that momentum on a broader scale exist throughout the country, waiting for the right conditions to take root.
The list of challenges is long. The chasm between what is needed and what the existing system can offer is widening. Amid this complexity, one thread runs through almost every difficulty Syria now faces: trust – or more precisely, the lack of it.
Rebuilding a country requires rebuilding trust in both directions – between citizens and those who govern. But the first step must come from the top before the society begins to mirror it back.
The world watched in amazement the rapid transformation of the interim leadership from its extremist past. Yet it has retained one of its most deeply ingrained organisational reflexes: a reliance on a narrow trust chain, a culture built on small circles of absolute loyalty, deep suspicion of outsiders and opaque decision-making. This served as a survival strategy for an underground group, but it is a liability for a government that seeks legitimacy. Mistrust is the barrier to inclusion without which a country as diverse as Syria cannot be governed successfully.
Leadership naturally prefers to work with people they trust. The real question is: trust based on what? Competence – or loyalty?
Interim President Ahmad Al Shara has cited Singapore as a model to emulate. Yet Singapore’s success did not derive from technocratic skill alone. It emerged from the painstaking construction of trust across society, government as well as national and international markets. Its impartial justice system gave investors confidence; its transparent financial governance built credibility; its public institutions earned the trust of citizens by performing and being held to account.
Syria is not short of talent. Engineers, economists, lawyers, civic leaders – the expertise exists in abundance. But too many remain on the periphery, watching with frustration as key positions go to long-standing loyalists, close allies and family members who are scattered like confetti across key positions.
The authorities’ inability to break out of their narrow trust chain is excluding many of the people capable of rebuilding the country. Inclusion remains mostly symbolic: newcomers are placed in technical or marginal roles while genuine decision-making remains within the inner circle.
This mistrust replicates itself throughout governance. Decisions emanate from inside a “black box”, with little transparency and accountability. Institutions that should model good governance – sovereign and development funds, investment authorities – operate with opacity. Multi-billion-dollar contracts are seldom awarded with disclosure.
Key economic decisions are taken by actors outside formal state structures. Where is the serious effort to establish the regulatory and institutional foundations, the international financial system and investments required to reconnect with Syria: independent commercial courts, reliable arbitration mechanisms, transparent and functional regulatory standards? Instead of strengthening government institutions, parallel structures are being built that bypass them entirely.
The leadership knows that economic recovery is vital for its survival. Serious diplomatic efforts have been made to lift sanctions. The hope is that ending sanctions will restore international confidence, reconnect Syrian banks to banks abroad and unlock investment capital leading to improvement in the system and services that would generate trust.
But Singapore shows that trust produces capital – not the other way around. Foreign investment does not flow simply because sanctions vanish. It flows when institutions are trustworthy: when rules are clear, courts are independent, regulators have authority and financial governance is predictable. Without these pillars, lifting sanctions will merely expose the governance gap.
During my travels across Syria over the past year, I have experienced what fragmentation really looks like. It is not only geographical. It runs through institutions, communities and layers of authority. Yet I have also seen Syria’s most promising leadership – not in the top-level, but rather at the middle. In the villages, towns and cities where local actors, far from the spotlight, are quietly keeping the country afloat.
Municipal heads repairing services against all odds. Local council members co-ordinating responses to emerging crises. A lawyers’ syndicate leader trying to reform the profession from below. Civil society figures filling the education gaps. A deputy mayor who returned from a successful career abroad to rebuild his city on a modest salary. Religious figures using their credibility to sustain civic peace. These local interlocutors have shown remarkable energy and effectiveness.
But all express the same frustration: their decision-making space is limited. Essential projects stall while awaiting approval or funding from Damascus. The authorities, reluctant to delegate power, have imposed a hyper-centralised system they do not have the tools to operate. Syria needs decentralisation not just to manage fragmentation, but to empower its middle leadership – the very people capable of stabilising and rebuilding the country.
This reluctance to trust the wider public is preventing many from trusting back. The trust schism is especially severe in minority-majority regions. The deepest divide is with Sweida, followed by Alawite-majority areas. As Kurds watched the massacres in Sweida and the coast, their already-cold feet towards joining the national project froze entirely. Can transition succeed on such fragile foundations?
The fragility of Syria’s internal landscape is compounded by an equally complex regional one. Mr Al Shara has tried to reassure neighbouring states that Syria seeks stability, but accommodating so many divergent agendas is nearly impossible. The war has ended; those geopolitical tensions have not.
Washington’s shifting position on Syria is a case in point. While the personal chemistry between Mr Al Shara and US President Donald Trump has opened the door to sanctions relief and multi-billion-dollar energy deals for American companies, it has not translated into a coherent US policy. And crucially, Washington has not delivered on the issue Damascus sees as existential: restraining Israel’s escalating strikes and territorial expansion.
Israel’s posture stands apart from that of other regional actors. While most states share an interest in a stable Syria – if only to stem refugee flows and unlock economic opportunities – Israel continues to act from deep mistrust, taking steps that further weaken the country, including exploiting internal divisions such as those in Sweida to advance its own strategic aims.
Paradoxically, that outcome aligns with Iran’s interests. A weakened Syria offers fertile ground for Tehran’s preferred mode of influence: embedding loyal non-state actors outside formal authority. Some actors will continue to exploit Syria’s vulnerabilities – which is precisely why rebuilding trust and legitimacy at home is Syria’s strongest foreign-policy asset.
This moment calls for decisions from the interim President as bold as those he took a year ago when he launched the battle that brought the end of a very brutal and corrupt regime. He must let light into the black box and place his trust in the Syrian people. The immense sacrifices they made in resisting the previous establishment deserve an inclusive and just system. He needs to reshape the governance framework to draw on the country’s vast reservoir of talent and energy.
Syria needs competence, inclusivity, transparency and accountability embedded throughout its institutions. And Syria’s friends should accompany Syrians in this effort by backing the trust-building reforms on which the country’s stability now depends.
If the trust barrier is not overcome, it will eventually undermine the Syrian project. But if it is confronted with courage, it can revive the much-needed momentum.
