Since the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime in December 2024, Syria has entered a period of profound political transformation, with decentralisation re-emerging as a focal point of competing visions for the country's future governance. Recent remarks by U.S. Special Envoy Tom Barak at the Doha Forum have thrust this contentious issue back into the spotlight, drawing sharp reactions from analysts and researchers across the region.
According to The Syrian Observer, Barak stated that "decentralisation has not succeeded in the Middle East and will not succeed in Syria"—a comment widely interpreted as signalling Washington's preference for strong central authority as a means of achieving rapid stability and avoiding a repeat of the Iraqi experience. Political researcher Abdullah al-Kheir argued that the United States has adopted a firm position against political decentralisation or federalism in Syria, asserting that Barak's comments reflect a strategic orientation rather than a personal view.
Analysts suggest this position reflects the broader approach of President Donald Trump's second administration while aligning with Turkish interests that firmly oppose any form of political autonomy for minorities.
International relations researcher Firas Alawi offered a nuanced reading of Barak's remarks, arguing they were primarily directed at political decentralisation in the sense of federalism. Speaking to Ultra Syria, Alawi explained that administrative decentralisation, which already exists in limited form, could contribute to preserving Syria's territorial unity. By contrast, he described political decentralisation as historically and economically unviable in a country marked by deep population intermixing and integrated resource networks.
Alawi pointed to Iraq's failure to manage relations between the centre and peripheries as a cautionary example, adding that the absence of strong central authority during Syria's current transition heightens the risk of internal conflict.
Writer and researcher Dr Basel Marawi similarly argued that decentralisation is not a prerequisite for state success, noting that many stable and prosperous countries rely on highly centralised systems. He emphasised that Syria's transitional phase requires a strong central government capable of unifying decision-making, particularly in times of crisis.
Marawi warned that implementing decentralisation at this stage could result in a dysfunctional sectarian system resembling those of Iraq or Lebanon. He cautioned against quota-based arrangements that ultimately divide society into antagonistic components, advocating instead for inclusive national partnership.
However, al-Kheir warned that Washington's stance risks facilitating a return to centralised authoritarianism. He proposed that Syria could develop its own model of administrative and developmental decentralisation while maintaining centralised control over sovereign decision-making, suggesting practical measures such as establishing a national revenue-distribution fund and integrating the Syrian Democratic Forces into the national army under temporary international supervision.
A broad consensus has emerged among experts that political decentralisation is ill-suited to Syria's current conditions, while administrative decentralisation may represent a realistic transitional option—provided it is preceded by the restoration of strong central authority.