The shifting sands of Middle Eastern geopolitics have once again reaffirmed a cardinal truth of global affairs: in international relations, there are no permanent friends or enemies— only permanent interests. The recent developments surrounding Syria’s interim President Ahmed al‑Sharaa, Israel’s uncharacteristic overtures, and the West’s newfound willingness to normalize ties with Damascus reflect not a genuine diplomatic thaw but a calculated reengineering of strategic interests across the region.
That the USA— after having designated Sharaa as a former al-Qaeda commander and placing a $10 million bounty on his head— would now lift sanctions and initiate normalization speaks volumes about the elastic morality of the realpolitik that governs today’s world order.
Sharaa’s sudden rise as Syria’s de facto leader following the toppling of Bashar al-Assad in December 2024 is no isolated event. It is part of a long-incubated game plan, driven by global actors aiming to redesign the Middle East along interest-based lines. That Sharaa, once imprisoned by the USA for his al-Qaeda links, is now being courted by the very states that once hunted him, reveals the disturbing paradigm of “good” versus “bad” militants— an expedient and dangerous classification routinely weaponized to advance geopolitical objectives. Russia’s recent formal recognition of the Afghan Taliban only reinforces this view. That a permanent UN Security Council member became the first to embrace a militant regime long deemed rogue shatters any remaining illusions that ideology holds more weight than strategic leverage.
In this context, Israel’s repeated airstrikes in Syria after Assad’s fall, and its ongoing back-channel dialogue with Sharaa through Azerbaijani mediation, are not acts of moral recalibration but calculated efforts to recalibrate regional alignments. Israel’s enduring aim remains to neutralize Iranian influence in Syria, disrupt Hezbollah’s supply lines, and fortify its northern security perimeter. In Sharaa— despite his extremist past— Israel finds a potentially pragmatic actor, distanced from Iran and eager for international legitimacy. The willingness to revisit the 1974 disengagement agreement and restore the UN-patrolled buffer zone in the Golan Heights underscores both sides’ intent to temporarily shelve historical hostilities for short-term strategic gain.
However, rherein lies the deeper concern: fleeting normalization often offers a deceptive illusion of stability. The long-term implications could prove deeply destabilizing. Elevating a former militant commander to national leadership under the pretext of fostering peace may backfire dramatically if ideological undercurrents resurface or if Syria once again becomes a battleground for rival proxies. Moreover, such normalization sends an unsettling signal: in today’s world, power flows not from legitimacy or justice but from utility and alignment with hegemonic sponsors. It undermines organic political processes and legitimizes militant leaders with checkered pasts, projecting a dangerous message that anyone can be made “acceptable” if they conform to the needs of dominant powers.
Azerbaijan’s central role in facilitating these indirect negotiations should not be underestimated. As a strategic ally of Israel and a neighbor of Iran, Baku has emerged as a pivotal node in this evolving equation. Hosting Syrian-Israeli contacts is not merely a diplomatic gesture—it symbolically and strategically contributes to the geostrategic encirclement of Iran. As Israel strengthens its military and diplomatic presence in the Caucasus, while simultaneously engaging Syria, Tehran finds itself squeezed from multiple fronts, potentially provoking an aggressive counter-response that could further destabilize the region.
On a global scale, these developments epitomize the decline of ideology in foreign policy and the rise of pure transactionalism. Washington’s willingness to discard its own anti-terror rhetoric for the sake of repositioning in the Middle East, and Moscow’s similar shift toward legitimizing the Taliban, underscore a growing tendency to prioritize immediate utility over long-held principles. If the same militants once listed as international threats can be rebranded as legitimate leaders based on shifting alliances, the foundational rationale of the post-9/11 “war on terror” collapses into contradiction and farce.
In this backdrop, Pakistan’s recent assertive stance against proxy warfare is not only timely—it is imperative. In a rare show of resolve, both the military and political leadership have unequivocally committed to eliminating Indian-sponsored proxy networks responsible for destabilizing Balochistan and KP. The Corps Commanders’ Conference held in July 2025 made this clear: there will be zero tolerance for terror outfits like TTP and BLA acting as Indian proxies. Echoing this, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif stated that after India’s failures in direct conflict, it had intensified covert terror campaigns via proxies—highlighting the broader regional contest of narratives and influence.
As the global chessboard resets, Pakistan cannot afford to remain a silent spectator. Its sovereignty, ideological stability, and geopolitical relevance depend on how wisely it navigates this interest-driven terrain. By resisting proxy normalization and reinforcing principled diplomacy, Pakistan has the opportunity to emerge not just as a regional power.
This principled position, long overdue, sets Pakistan apart in a global environment increasingly tolerant of the weaponization of militancy. While others embrace the utility of former insurgents for political purposes, Pakistan’s rejection of proxy normalization aligns it with a rare moral clarity. By drawing a red line against the co-optation of militants, Islamabad sends a critical message: state legitimacy cannot and should not be bought through expedient alignments with those who thrive on violence and instability.
However, this principled stance must be institutionalized. Pakistan must avoid the temptation of tactical mimicry and instead lead by example. It must enhance its diplomatic outreach, advocate for consistency in counterterrorism norms, and collaborate with states that recognize the dangers of militant rebranding. Engagements with forums like the UN, OIC, and SCO must be leveraged to foreground the hypocrisy of global powers who shift their stance based on short-term interests. Pakistan’s policies must be anchored in constitutional law and global consensus, not the shifting winds of strategic fashion.
As the international order undergoes rapid reconfiguration, Syria, Afghanistan, and the broader Caucasus are becoming laboratories of engineered realignments, where former combatants are repurposed as negotiators, and ideological pasts are wiped clean with diplomatic handshakes. The reintroduction of the 1974 disengagement agreement between Syria and Israel—touted as a de-escalatory mechanism—risks creating a new regional order where principles are no longer sacrosanct, but merely negotiable. The irony is staggering: actors once targeted by UN sanctions and global coalitions are now being ushered into the halls of diplomacy by the very powers that sought their elimination.
This dangerous normalization will have ripple effects across the Muslim world. Movements that once viewed militancy as a last resort may now see it as the most effective path to power. From Tripoli to Kabul, the message resounds: militancy is no longer a disqualifier—it is a stepping stone, if strategically aligned. The global community, by indulging this logic, is setting a precedent that may come to haunt it in ways yet unseen.
In essence, the unfolding Israel–Syria engagement is not peace—it is a geopolitical experiment disguised as diplomacy. While the international community may celebrate it als pragmatic realism, analysts must recognize it for what it truly is: the institutionalization of militant leadership under the veneer of stability. It undermines the moral fabric of global norms and betrays the very ideals on which the post-World War II order was supposedly built.
As the global chessboard resets, Pakistan cannot afford to remain a silent spectator. Its sovereignty, ideological stability, and geopolitical relevance depend on how wisely it navigates this interest-driven terrain. By resisting proxy normalization and reinforcing principled diplomacy, Pakistan has the opportunity to emerge not just as a regional power.
