Dr. Salem AlKetbi is a UAE political analyst and former Federal National Council candidate
It is not out of wishful thinking, stoking controversy, or crystal gazing that I am not discussing a potential assassination of Ahmed Al-Sharaa (Abu Mohammad al-Julani), the leader of the new Syrian administration. Rather, my discussion stems from bewilderment at what Al-Sharaa said during a recent interview. Al Arabiya TV host Taher Baraka asked Al-Sharaa about the lack of sufficient safety measures around him and meeting journalists without the usual security protocols for high-ranking figures. In response, Al-Sharaa said: "Do not worry, security is our game."
Reading his answer brought to mind several recent events that highlight a clear pattern: those with superior technology and intelligence gathering hold the winning hand. This is not about taking sides - rather, it shows the stark reality of modern intelligence warfare. Israel, for example, thoroughly outmatched both Iran and Hezbollah's intelligence capabilities, enabling them to assassinate top Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon and strike down Ismail Haniyeh even under Revolutionary Guard protection in Iran. Yet Hezbollah demonstrated its reach by successfully targeting Prime Minister Netanyahu's home in Israel. These events underscore a sobering truth: in the world of intelligence operations, no target is truly beyond reach.
Al-Sharaa has made ordinary appearances among crowds several times since entering Damascus, Syria's capital. These appearances might aim to send a message about having security control and warning foes against attempting to target him. However, this does not eliminate danger, particularly with areas and elements still beyond control. Moreover, absolute security does not exist in reality. Even a highly advanced country in surveillance technology and intelligence operations no longer feels secure having its leaders and officials in certain areas within the country. This reflects a natural concern tied to a nation's reputation and standing. Such vulnerability strikes at the heart of national reputation and standing.
During periods of upheaval like Syria's current transition, the threat of assassination looms large over leaders and officials - a reality that any security team must place at the forefront of their planning. This makes Al-Sharaa's overconfidence particularly striking. The stakes and methods involved in targeting a de facto head of state differ vastly from those used against militia leaders. His own forces, while experienced in asymmetric warfare, lack the sophisticated technical and intelligence capabilities needed to provide comprehensive protection. In today's world, effective security - especially at the presidential level - demands extensive information sharing and cooperation between intelligence agencies across regional and international networks. No single agency, working alone, can provide the level of protection such a position demands.
Speaking more directly, many intelligence agencies in the region could eliminate Al-Sharaa with their military technology capabilities. Moreover, opposing militias like the Houthis and Lebanese Hezbollah could accomplish this if they desired, given their proven advanced drones and guided missiles. Therefore, one must question what Al-Sharaa relies upon when boasting about his organization's ability to provide necessary protection.
The Al-Nusra Front - later known as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham - has undoubtedly built up significant battlefield experience during its 12-year fight against the Assad regime. Yet protecting a head of state requires an entirely different security approach than safeguarding a militia commander. The threats are different, coming from more sophisticated actors with far greater resources. The methods used in state-level assassination attempts involve advanced technology and capabilities that far exceed the typical threats faced by militant groups.
Al-Sharaa and his security team are likely not naive about these threats. However, their confidence seems rooted in a web of mutual interests and understandings tied to his position. Multiple parties appear to benefit from his continued survival. I am not attempting to scrutinize his loyalties, ties, or allegiances here. Modern politics is a complex chess game where chance players rarely rise to prominence. Instead, the strategic interests of key players, wherever they may be, shape the selection of political figures. These same interests often determine not only who rises to power, but also when - and perhaps how - they exit the stage.
With that being said, the game is far from secure. Wherever arrangements exist, opposition follows. Some parties oppose them, while others deviate from them. Still others aim to muddy the waters. These opposing forces might be countries, organizations, or even individual leaders - whether rival, potential, or upcoming ones.
"Security is our game" appears merely as a clever response to an unexpected question. In that moment, Al-Sharaa could only draw upon his background and experience as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham's leader rather than as head of the new Syrian administration.
