The National Dialogue Conference held in Damascus on February 25th had potential to be a pivotal moment in Syria’s post-Assad transition. Officially, the event aimed to provide a platform for reconciliation, constitutional reform, and national unity. However, the rushed organisation, questions about inclusivity, and subsequent developments raise critical questions about the conference’s effectiveness and long-term impact. A further blog follows to explain the consequences of the subsequent Constitutional Declaration.

The Conference: Organisation and Participation

The interim government, led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa, announced the National Dialogue conference just two weeks prior to its occurrence. The event was organised by a preparatory committee, largely composed of individuals affiliated with Hay-at Tahir al-Sham (HTS). Invitations were issued hastily, with some participants receiving less than 24 hours notice before the event.

Contrary to what is expected from a political summit, no one was invited as a representative of a political party, movement, or military group. Instead, the attendees were chosen as individuals, purportedly to avoid factionalism. However, this move has been widely criticised as an attempt to sideline organised opposition and consolidate power among groups already aligned with the transitional government. Approximately 900 participants attended but notably absent were members from key political and military factions, including:

• The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) – the U.S.-backed military coalition.
• Most exiled opposition leaders, many of whom still hold political influence.

Key discussions and outcomes

Despite its ambitious agenda, the conference lasted only two days. Discussions were segmented into several sessions, each focusing on different aspects of Syria’s transition:

Constitutional reform: A committee was formed to oversee the drafting of a new constitution, with promises to ensure justice, equality, and civil liberties. However, critics argue that without the involvement of the Kurdish leaders and opposition parties, the legitimacy of any new constitution will be questioned from the start.

The role of armed groups: President al-Sharaa announced that all military forces must be placed under state control. While this declaration was intended to signal a commitment to stability, no concrete plan was provided for integrating existing armed factions, particularly the SDF and local defence forces. The lack of a clear security strategy has already contributed to violent clashes in various parts of the country, highlighting the fragility of Syria’s landscape. Despite these challenges, the unification of Syria’s armed forces remains a crucial factor for national stability.

Economic reconstruction: Syria’s economic collapse remains one of the country’s greatest challenges. The conference briefly addressed the need for foreign investment, infrastructure rebuilding, and job creation, but offered no concrete roadmap for recovery. There was little discussion on corruption or the pressing issue of international sanctions, which remain a major barrier to economic stability. Without sanctions relief, Syria’s reliance on external actors will only deepen, leaving its economic future uncertain.

Minority rights and political freedoms: While there was general rhetoric about protecting civil liberties, no firm commitments were made regarding press freedom, political party rights, or safeguards against state repression. Given that many of Syria’s minorities were excluded from the conference, promises of inclusivity rang hollow.

Relations with Israel: A key topic of discussion was Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights and its recent security policies in southern Syria. The conference formally condemned Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plans to tighten control over the region and disarm southern Syria, stating that these measures violated Syria’s sovereignty.

Reactions and Controversies

Domestic Scepticism

The conference has been met with widespread scepticism across Syria. In Kurdish-controlled territories, the lack of representation from the SDF was seen as an intentional move to weaken their political standing. In opposition-held areas, the conference was dismissed as a staged event designed to reinforce HTS’s authority rather than create a legitimate national dialogue.

Many Syrians also criticised the format of the conference itself. The rushed organisation, lack of debate, and absence of a clear voting mechanism led many to believe that decisions had been pre-determined. Without a transparent process, the credibility of any resolutions passed remains weak.

International response

The European Union welcomed the conference, lifting selected sanctions to encourage democratic development and support economic recovery. Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, also issued statements supporting the dialogue. However, reactions from other key international players were more critical:

• The United States were wary of the legitimacy of the conference. Spokespeople stated that without participation from all major factions, the process lacks credibility.
• Turkey questioned whether the conference was a genuine step toward reconciliation or simply a way for the Islamist government to gain further legitimacy.
• The United Nations expressed concerns that the process failed to meet basic standards of inclusivity and transparency.

Implications and Recent Developments

While the National Dialogue Conference was intended to signal progress and stability, the reality on the ground tells a very different story. Major security, political, and sectarian crises continue to unfold across Syria, undermining the conference’s significance and demonstrating the deeper instability gripping the country. Rather than setting Syria on a clear path forward, the dialogue appears disconnected from the challenges unfolding simultaneously.

• Israel-Syrian Tensions and Druze Protests: Despite the conference’s strong condemnation of Israel’s policies, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plans to tighten control over southern Syria and the Golan Heights, events on the ground have shown that Syria remains vulnerable to external interference. On February 25, Israeli airstrikes targeted Syrian military sites in Kiswah and Daraa, reinforcing Netanyahu’s stance that Israel would not permit Syrian forces to operate near its borders. Meanwhile, Israel has attempted to portray itself as a protector of Syria’s Druze community, claiming they are under threat from government forces. However, Druze leaders inside Syria vehemently rejected this narrative, calling it a politically motivated attempt to exploit their struggles. Protests have erupted in Druze-majority areas, such as Suwayda, demanding both political inclusion and protection from Israel’s military actions.
• Kurdish deal: On the surface, a significant breakthrough has since occurred with a newly brokered deal between the Syrian government and the Kurdish-led SDF. The agreement stipulates that SDF-controlled civilian and military institutions in northeastern Syria will be integrated into the state’s structures. This includes transferring control of border crossings, an airport, and oil and gas fields to the Damascus administration. The deal acknowledges rights previously denied to the Kurdish community, including language and cultural freedoms. It ensures that all Syrians, irrespective of religious or ethnic backgrounds, can participate in the political process. This agreement was hoped to have marked a very significant shift in relations between the government and Kurdish leadership, potentially stabilising northeastern Syria. But it has since become fragile.
• Alawite Massacres on the Syrian Coast. At the National Dialogue Conference, Ahmed al-Sharaa presented himself as a new kind of leader — a departure from the authoritarianism of Bashar al-Assad, committed to justice, inclusivity, and national unity. However, events in Latakia and Jablah tell a different story. HTS militant groups, operating under al-Sharaa’s government, have carried out brutal massacres in Alawite-majority villages, killings thousands and displacing thousands more. These attacks have showcased some of the worst violence in years, shattering any illusion that al-Sharaa’s leadership represents a break from Syria’s violent past.

Looking at everything that has happened in Syria since the National Dialogue Conference, it is hard to see it as anything more than a symbolic exercise. While it was meant to present an image of progress, the reality on the ground – sectarian violence, external interference, and ongoing political fragmentation – shows just how little has actually changed. If this was supposed to be Syria’s fresh start, it is clear that the country still has a long way to go.