Ahmed al-Sharaa, also known as Julani, the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and the architect behind the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria, is hosting representatives from Arab countries following visits by delegations from the United States and Europe.

A high-level delegation from Saudi Arabia, led by the Undersecretary of the Royal Court, held talks in Damascus. According to Saudi Arabia’s Al Arabiya television, the delegation met with Sharaa, the leader of Syria’s new administration. The report highlighted Sharaa’s comments on the shared interests between Syria and Saudi Arabia. However, Saudi authorities have not issued an official statement regarding the visit.

The Jordanian Foreign Ministry confirmed that Foreign Minister Ayman al-Safadi met with Sharaa in Damascus. A written statement noted that Safadi is engaging in “wide-ranging talks” with Sharaa, reflecting Jordan’s ongoing efforts to recalibrate its approach to Syrian relations.

Qatar recently reopened its embassy in Damascus after 13 years and dispatched its Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Mohammed bin Abdulaziz al-Khalifi, to the Syrian capital. Qatari Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Majid bin Mohammed Al-Ansari announced on social media platform X that a Qatar Airways plane carrying a high-level delegation landed in Damascus. This marked the first Qatari flight to Syria since the Assad government was overthrown.

In his statement, al-Ansari emphasized Qatar’s unwavering commitment to supporting the Syrian people. The delegation is expected to hold talks with Syrian officials to further develop bilateral relations.

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Ismail Beghai clarified during a press conference in Tehran that Iran does not maintain direct ties with the current Syrian administration.

Beghai stated, “We have engaged with some groups in the past; however, we have no direct connection with the new leadership in Syria.” He also noted ongoing exchanges of ideas with Türkiye regarding Syria, adding, “Each party involved in the region has its narrative, but we are not obliged to accept all perspectives.”

The spokesperson revealed that Iran has withdrawn its diplomats and military counselors from Syria and advised its citizens against traveling to the country due to ongoing uncertainties. “I don’t believe there are any Iranian citizens in Syria at present,” he concluded.

These days, the topic of comparing the Taliban and Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) has become a hot topic in the media outlets and social networks. The head of HTS recently said that Syria will not turn into another Afghanistan, because both countries have different social and cultural situations and Afghanistan has tribal structures.

His words have provoked different reactions from Afghan social media users – some have confirmed these statements of Jolani, but some have opposed them. However, the words of the leader of the HTS delegation that Syria will not become another Afghanistan and his gentle and flexible approach to the people have attracted the attention of many.

Jolani has now become the next leader of Syria from the leadership of a terrorist group, and both countries, including Russia, which supported Bashar Assad’s regime, also want political interaction with him. Although it is too early to believe all the words of Jolani, it is clear that he has so far introduced himself as a practical and moderate figure.

He has been able to gain the attention of the Syrian people and the media and be ahead of other Islamists. On the other side of the story, we are dealing with the Taliban, the group that in the last three years has only secretly invited people to follow them with the language of force and violence, including threats, beatings, arrests, torture, and murders. The Taliban came to reform the people they believed in, not to listen to the people’s demands through moderation and to respect the internationally accepted principles.

If we analyze the current situation of Syria and Afghanistan from the point of view of political realism, then we are faced with two different attitudes: one representative is the Tahrir al-Sham group led by Ahmed al-Shara and the other representative is the Taliban group led by Mullah Hibatullah.

“Bad” or “worse” terrorists, a common scourge of realism in today’s politics.

Both groups are hardline Islamic groups and have extensive backgrounds in terrorism, but their attitudes differ from each other. The first group tries to conform to the demands of the people and the world, while the second group stubbornly wants the people and the world to submit to their demands.

The first group wants to interact with the people and the world, but the second group insists that, even if they use the atomic bomb, they will not interact. Such brutality, backwardness, stubbornness and ideological ignorance show that the Taliban never intend to change.

HTS’s leader (L) and the Taliban Prime Minister (R)

The main fear of the Taliban and other ideological groups, whether they are right-wing or left-wing, is death. Based on this reason, in order to preserve their old beliefs and sacred values, which have become old since time and are no longer hurting the society in the process of change, they are willing to commit any kind of crime.

Some groups, such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, when they realize the failure of their long-term efforts to achieve their imaginary and ambitious goals, they come to the conclusion that without accepting flexibility and leaving aside reality for political stability, which is always changing, he has no other choice.

These groups, however outwardly, are trying to change, but all these efforts continue until their power bases are threatened.

Some terrorist groups are not ready to change, and act like a complete deaf to accept the current world’s reality   

However, many extremist groups, such as the Taliban, are not ready for such radical changes. The virus of ideology has entered them so deeply that it has turned them completely deaf and blind and they do not show any flexibility.

The Taliban have not backed down from their decisions in any field and have drawn lines to the world with the language of force.

These are the countries of the world that have always backed away from their positions against the Taliban, so to show that there is no other way than compromise and cooperation with the Taliban. This group, now aware of the weaknesses of the world, is taking a greater toll than before by increasing violence and hostility, because they know that tax payers are easily ready to violate their principles and accept the demands of this group.

It seems that the world has become so helpless that it actually believes that terrorism has not been definitively defeated, because international politics reproduces this phenomenon again and again in geopolitical contests.

Currently, the only way that the countries of the world have adopted to deal with the manifestation of terrorism is to divide the terrorist groups into “bad” and “worse” or “good” and “bad” which presents the ruling realism of international politics. In order to confront the “worse”, you must stand with the “evil” or unite with the “good” to try to defeat the “evil”. But what needs to be noted is that the above division is comparative.

For example, the countries of the world are supporting the Taliban, which is considered a “bad” terrorist group, against ISIS in Afghanistan, which is considered a “worse” terrorist group. The Taliban are only less dangerous than ISIS and for this reason they fall into the category of “bad” terrorists. “Worse” or “good” and “bad” division changes.

There is no way to compare HTS’s of Syria with the Taliban’s of Afghanistan

For another example, if we compare Hayat Tahrir al-Sham with the Taliban, considering what we have seen in Syria in this short period of time, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is considered a “good” terrorist group by the countries of the world – known as, while the Taliban have proved that they are “evil” in their three years of actions. “Good” terrorists like Jolani go along with the world and give up ideology, even if only temporarily.

But the “bad” terrorists, such as Mullah Hibatullah, the leader of the Taliban, have one leg. A “good” terrorist is a pragmatist and knows that the world is not going his way, and that he must submit to the ruling order of the world. Therefore, “good” terrorists are better than “bad” terrorists who never want to give up their ideological selfishness and be ready for compromise and reconciliation.

There are more chances of political stability and staying, of course, if “bad” terrorists like the Taliban have an exceptional position due to the presence of ISIS, then the world sees the solution in interacting with them, not in turning their face and opposing them. This is a common scourge of realism in today’s politics.

Ziad Makary, Minister of Information of Lebanon spoke to Harici: “What we need from HTS is not to interfere in Lebanon’s internal problems or affairs.”

After two months of intense and destructive fighting, Israel and Lebanon have reached a ceasefire. Within 60 days, the ceasefire was to be implemented. According to the agreement, Israeli troops will withdraw from the designated areas, the Lebanese Army will deploy in the areas vacated by Israel and ensure security. A large-scale reconstruction work will be carried out due to mines, unexploded ordnance and destruction of infrastructure in the region. United Nations UNIFIL forces will maintain a presence in southern Lebanon in accordance with UN resolution 1701.

However, Israel has violated the ceasefire more than 100 times so far, which is considered unacceptable by Lebanon. Lebanese Information Minister Ziad Makary answered Dr Esra Karahindiba’s questions on the latest situation in Lebanon.

I would like to start with the latest situation in Lebanon. Even though there is a temporary ceasefire, Israel is not implementing what was promised. Can you tell us about the latest situations, and I’ll ask my other questions?

Well, as you know, we had a deadly war for about two months. As a government, we negotiated a ceasefire for long weeks, and in the end, with the help of the Americans, we reached an agreement to have a ceasefire and to implement it 60 days after the announcement.

In the meantime, there is a military plan: the Lebanese Army will start deploying where the Israelis will withdraw.

There is a lot of work to do. The army will handle this mission because there are many mines, unexploded munitions, destruction, closed roads, displaced people, and a sensitive military situation between Israel and Lebanon.

Israel has violated this ceasefire more than 100 times, and this is, of course, unacceptable. Lebanon is respecting the ceasefire, and we count on the committee formed when the ceasefire was announced.

I am talking about the Americans, French, Lebanese, UNIFIL, and Israelis. Their first meeting was held this week on Monday, and we hope this ceasefire will be implemented seriously as soon as possible because we have a lot to rebuild after the destruction we faced from Israel.

If Israel cancels the ceasefire and continues attacking Lebanon as it did recently, what is Lebanon’s current position? Hezbollah is stepping back from Syria. Maybe more of their troops will return to Lebanon. What about Lebanon’s own army?

I don’t think this ceasefire will be broken. We will have incidents daily, but I believe it will be a serious ceasefire.

I suppose we will have a complete withdrawal in about 40 days from all Lebanese territory. The Lebanese Army will deploy its forces, and we will apply 1701 as required, including southern Lebanon.

Of course, this especially applies to southern Lebanon because 1701 states that weapons are forbidden in southern Lebanon, and the only weapons will be with the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL.

What do you think about the latest situation in Syria? Now Bashar Assad has gone to Russia, and there is a so-called interim government trying to prepare for a transition period. Hezbollah is back. Iran is stepping back. There are no more Russian soldiers, and now a group called HTS is a candidate to shape Syria’s future. What will Lebanon’s position be toward Syria?

So far, we don’t have any relationship with HTS. What I would like to say is that the people of Syria must choose whoever will rule Syria.

What we want in Lebanon is to have good relations with the future government of Syria because we have many interests. We don’t need a fanatic government there.

We need a neighbor who respects Lebanon’s sovereignty and diversity. This is all what we need.

04:19 We will do everything to maintain the necessary relationships to continue ties between our countries as neighbors. We have a lot of interests in the economy, trade, social, political, and even border issues to resolve.

We have millions of Syrian refugees and many problems that need solving with whoever rules Syria. We don’t and should not interfere in Syria’s affairs and at the same time we will not let them interfere to us, too.

I hope and will work to ensure a decent and fruitful cooperation with the future Syrian government.

HTS is on the terrorist group list of the United Nations, and several countries have designated this group as terrorist. But in the near future, things may change. Turkey has appointed a charge daffairs for its embassy to continue diplomatic relations.

What will Lebanon’s position be? Do you consider HTS a terrorist group, or are things changing as they lead the country toward elections?

We don’t have a system of considering groups as terrorists or not. I already mentioned that we will assess the aims of Syria’s future government. What we need from HTS is not to interfere in Lebanon’s internal problems or affairs. Till now, as I told you, we are not the only country that cannot predict how the future of Syria will unfold.

The system theoretically should continue. We are continuing to deal with what we have—for instance, the embassy of Syria in Lebanon, the borders, and other matters. We are waiting for the new state, the new administration, and the new government to emerge, and we will proceed from there.

Will you run your diplomatic mission in Damascus?

Currently, it is not active due to everything that has happened. We will wait, but we hope to have good relations with whatever government emerges because it is in both countries’ interests. After Assad’s departure, Israel has invaded more of the Golan Heights. What is Israel’s position in the region? Many believe their presence may not be temporary.

For Lebanon, it is essential that Israel withdraws from the territory it has conquered. As you said, Israel is not only in the Golan Heights or southern Syria but has also destroyed Syria’s army, air and naval forces, and everything.

This puts Syria in a difficult position. We don’t know what kind of army or security forces the new Syrian government will have or how they will deal with Israel. Everything is unclear now. It’s been just five or six days since all this happened, and we need time to see how things settle down.

One question about Lebanon’s internal politics. After the port blast, you had difficult times with economic problems, and the presidential issue is still ongoing. How did it affect the current situation?

The system in Lebanon is not designed to facilitate such processes. It’s a complex system involving parliament, religion, political groups, and more, making electing a president challenging. It is not easy to elect a president because of our law which is causing things happen late, especially the elecion of president. However, we have a session on January 9, and we hope to have a president soon. We cannot rule a country without a president. Yes, we can manage it; it will continue, it won’t die, it won’t vanish, and it won’t disappear. But it also won’t have prosperity. We cannot develop our country, we cannot build it, and we cannot establish a new, modern administration that reflects the aspirations of young Lebanese people those who are ambitious and want to create a modern country with the protection of freedom and the beautiful Lebanese culture, along with the admirable image of Lebanon.

We hope to have a president, a new government, and renewed relations with Syria, as well as a ceasefire with Israel. In the long run, personally, I am somewhat optimistic about what will happen to Lebanon.

Last question: Do you think remaining without a president during this period makes it harder for Lebanon to address these challenges?

Of course, it has a serious impact. As a caretaker government, we cannot make major decisions, recruit new talent, or pass laws. The system cannot function without a president. We are losing talented young people who are leaving Lebanon, which is not in our interest.