Syria’s interim government stands today at an exceptionally delicate crossroads, attempting to define a new foreign policy for a country emerging from nearly two decades of devastating conflict.
While the slogan of “zero problems with neighbours” is echoed in official speeches, the distance between aspiration and reality appears far wider than many assume.
It is neither easy nor entirely reasonable to expect a government born amid chaos to implement an ideal model that even its original architect failed to sustain. Ahmet Davutoğlu – the Turkish theorist behind the “zero problems” doctrine – eventually abandoned his principle when faced with a regional reality that resisted idealism. How, then, could a transitional government burdened with a complex past and an uncertain present achieve what others could not in far more stable conditions? In truth, how can a government that faces ten domestic crises achieve zero problems abroad?
Grey Policies
Since Mohammed al-Bashir assumed the premiership, followed by Ahmed al-Sharaa, the rhetoric of openness and regional reintegration has dominated political discourse. The familiar phrase “we have no problem with anyone” has reappeared on several occasions. Yet the reality remains that the world still views Syria with deep suspicion, and the legacies of the past cannot be erased by a mere declaration of goodwill.
This, precisely, is what the interim government seems to overlook. Its media outlets persist – regrettably – in replicating Assad-era habits, celebrating every gesture and excusing every mistake. Such behaviour may please loyalists, but it offers little value to those who understand that constructive criticism is essential to correcting a state’s course.
The true challenge facing Syria’s foreign policy today lies not in the absence of goodwill but in the lack of clear tools and room for manoeuvre. The government is attempting to walk a tightrope between difficult contradictions – reassuring neighbouring states without appearing to surrender sovereignty, and managing sensitive files such as the Turkish military presence, Russian arrangements, and the complicated relationship with the Syrian Democratic Forces, all without losing domestic credibility.
The situation becomes even more complex when it comes to relations with Israel. Statements by Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani about the possibility of reaching a security understanding with Israel provoked a wide internal and external debate. Some viewed them as pragmatic realism, while others saw them as a dangerous breach of national red lines. The pressing question, then, is: how far can pragmatism go before it becomes concession?
Read also: Rebuilding the State: Syria’s Hardest Battle
To the government’s credit, it has avoided falling into the rhetoric of revenge – a notable achievement in a region shaped by the weight of accumulated vendettas. Yet it has not succeeded in articulating a clear and convincing foreign policy vision that answers essential questions: what principles guide Syria’s diplomacy? What are its non-negotiable red lines? And where does Syria truly stand amid the region’s ongoing conflicts?
Attempting to maintain an “equal distance” from all sides may sound wise in theory, but in a Middle East defined by sharp alignments and entrenched loyalties, such neutrality risks isolation rather than balance. Every actor demands clarity – and the grey zone in which the interim government seeks refuge may not hold for long.
Perhaps the deeper problem is that the government is trying to please everyone in a world that no longer tolerates half-positions – seeking proximity with Turkey without alienating the Arab states, maintaining ties with Russia without provoking the West or, crucially, the Syrians themselves, who still recall the Russian air raids that devastated their cities and displaced millions. It also speaks of sovereignty while foreign bases remain scattered across Syrian territory.
Criticism as a Catalyst for Improvement
Criticism, in this context, is not an end in itself but a call for clarity and self-examination. The Syrian people, who have endured immeasurable suffering, deserve a foreign policy built on clear foundations and defined national constants – not on reactive statements or shifting positions. They deserve to know where their country is heading, and what compromises are acceptable or unacceptable in the process of reconstruction.
“Zero problems” is a fine slogan. Yet far more urgent are “zero ambiguity” in direction, “zero hesitation” in defending core principles, and “zero contradiction” between rhetoric and action.
Ultimately, a successful foreign policy is not built on lofty slogans but on clarity of vision, strength of position, and the capacity to negotiate from confidence rather than weakness.
The interim Syrian government – however sincere its intentions – will not earn international respect until it first secures the trust of its own people.
Let us be realistic: Syria today does not need “zero external problems” as much as it needs zero internal wars, zero arbitrary arrests, zero acts of revenge, zero incitement among its citizens – and above all, zero ambiguity in its vision. Only when these zeros are achieved can Syrians truly look to the future with confidence, certain that their country is moving along a clear path, and that its foreign policy is finally a reflection of internal strength and stability – not of fragility or confusion.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of +963.
