Foreign Policy: Why did the West embrace Syria and abandon Afghanistan?

The Foreign Policy magazine published a remarkable report highlighting the contradictions in the West’s approach to two controversial political situations: the government of Ahmed al Sharaa in Syria, led by a former leader of Hay’at Tahrir al Sham, and the Taliban in Afghanistan, which remains internationally isolated despite its control over the country

The report indicated that Ahmed al Sharaa, who was previously designated a “terrorist” by the United States, is now receiving increasing diplomatic support, while Washington and other Western capitals continue to ignore the Taliban.

Despite the relative similarity in the circumstances of the two parties’ rise to power, the West has adopted a flexible approach with Damascus, while maintaining its policy of sanctions and isolation toward Kabul.

The report provides an in-depth analysis of the geopolitical reasons that have prompted Western countries to engage positively with the new government in Syria.

It demonstrates that international recognition is no longer granted based on legal legitimacy or de facto control, but rather on the basis of geopolitical importance and the opportunities that new regimes offer the West.

Unlike Afghanistan, the United States didn’t suffer significant casualties in Syria, nor did it support the former Assad regime, which was overthrown by Hay’at Tahrir al Sham.

Therefore, opening up to Syria and Ahmed al Sharaa seemed a more feasible option, especially since he wasn’t involved in the events of September 11, unlike the Taliban, whose image is still associated with those attacks to this day.

The report explores the remarkable transformation in the image of Ahmed al Sharaa, formerly known as “Abu Mohammed al Julani”.

He has transformed from a jihadist leader on the US wanted list to a political leader who wears formal suits, participates in conferences, is received by heads of states such as Emmanuel Macron of France, and receives praise from world leaders, including former US President Donald Trump.

During his rule over Idlib, al Julani or al Sharaa worked to present himself in a new light, meeting with civilian delegations of women and speaking of a different approach to dealing with society, far from extremism.

In contrast, Taliban leaders maintained their traditional appearance and behavior and imposed strict restrictions on women, including banning girls from education and closing beauty salons.

The report also pointed to differences in the reactions of the Syrian and Afghan diaspora communities, especially in the United States.

While Syrians abroad expressed relief at the fall of the Assad regime, Afghans were divided on the return of the Taliban.

Afghanistan also witnessed large waves of migration after the movement seized power, while a number of Syrians returned to their areas after the new government took power.

From a demographic perspective, the report indicates that the majority of Syrians are Sunnis and Ahmed al Sharaa’s government as a less dangerous option than Bashar al Assad, while minorities such as the Alawites, Druze, and Kurds remain wary of it.

On the other hand, the Afghan community is divided between Tajiks and Pashtuns, and many Tajiks reject any dialogue between the West and the Taliban.

According to the report, the Afghan community in the United States has played an active role in pressuring Washington to isolate the Taliban and maintain sanctions against it, with some even calling for support for armed resistance at home.

Meanwhile, Syrian organizations in the US and Europe are trying to push for recognition of the new Syrian government, believing that the end of the Assad era paves the way for a new, less authoritarian phase.

Despite warnings that the al Sharaa government could open the door to a return to extremism, popular relief over the end of the war and the collapse of the regime’s prisons has alleviated these fears.

Finally, the Foreign Policy magazine concluded the report with mentioning a very fundamental reason behind the West’s divergent positions on the Taliban and the government of Ahmed Sharaa, which is very simple, as Syria is more important than Afghanistan.

Despite the nationalist sentiments expressed by Afghan elites, Syria’s strategic and political weight remains greater in Western eyes, due to considerations related to its location, regional influence, and role in complex issues including security, immigration, energy, and relations with Israel.