Documents from the British intelligence service, obtained by the Grayzone portal, reveal London’s role in the rise of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), an Islamist group that was banned and designated as a terrorist organization until December when it took power in Syria.
LONDON’S MEDIA NETWORK
In an effort to brand a new “moderate opposition,” London established a media network in areas controlled by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), despite the fact that the British themselves had previously labeled this group as an ally of al-Qaeda. The British media outlet Declassified UK reported that British intelligence, along with the U.S. and regional powers, played a key role in destabilizing Syria since 2011. The British intelligence service supported opposition forces by providing them with military training and weapons. One of the main beneficiaries of this support was the al-Nusra Front, which was linked to al-Qaeda in Syria and later evolved into HTS. The Russian news agency TASS reported in 2021 that the leader of HTS, Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, met with a representative of the British intelligence service MI6 at the Bab al-Hawa border crossing between Syria and Turkey. During these alleged meetings, the two sides “discussed efforts aimed at rebranding the al-Nusra group.”
Since HTS took control in Syria, the main question has been whether negotiations should be held with terrorists. Many in the British government clearly believed they should. Following the news of Assad’s regime falling, the Foreign Office launched its usual cycle of media spin. Minister Pat McFadden described the situation as “very fluid,” assuring the public that HTS leader Abu Mohammed al-Jolani had “outgrown” his radical Islamism and was now a responsible figure who cares about “minorities” and “rights.” The public was expected to believe that this transition was as natural as moving from adolescence to adulthood. Former MI6 chief John Sawers took it a step further, claiming that HTS’s actions were “the deeds of a liberation movement” heroically fighting against Assad’s dynasty.
TURNING SYRIA INTO A JIHADIST PLAYGROUND
Although Keir Starmer has not yet decided whether to remove HTS from the terrorist organization list, the British government has already established “diplomatic contact” with HTS. The spectacle of “will they or won’t they” served a clear function: to mask Britain’s real intention of turning Syria into a jihadist playground.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated that it was “too early” to remove HTS from the list of banned terrorist organizations. The group was added to the list in 2017 and was perceived as one of the “alternative names” for al-Qaeda. Because of this, it was impossible for British officials to hold meetings with HTS representatives. However, on December 16, British diplomats, including London’s special envoy for Syria, Anna Snow, held a meeting with Jolani and other HTS leaders in Damascus. On the same day, The Times of London published an interview with Jolani, in which he called for the lifting of sanctions on Syria, promising that the country under his control would not “participate in attacks on Israel.” This was intended to “rebrand” HTS, and it seems that everything has been set in motion for its removal from the list of banned organizations.
CLOSE COOPERATION BETWEEN HTS AND AL-QAEDA
The “rebranding” of HTS by the United Kingdom represents the culmination of a long process that began when the group’s leadership was still closely linked to the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, and the Islamic State. While British intelligence services conducted campaigns against HTS, simultaneously supporting supposedly “moderate” factions, recently revealed documents show that British agencies ultimately played a key role in strengthening Jolani’s organization, helping it pave the way to power. These documents also suggest that, contrary to official narratives, al-Qaeda and HTS continue to closely cooperate in Syria. A 2020 document states that local branches of al-Qaeda “peacefully coexist” with HTS in the northwest of the country, which “provides space” for the formation of a “jihadist transnational group” aiming to turn Syria into a “training ground for preparing future terrorist operations” beyond its borders. However, British diplomats seem to ignore these facts as they rush to Damascus to grant legitimacy to Jolani.
MONEY WENT THROUGH BLACK FUNDS
During the Syrian civil war, the British government sought to establish so-called “black funds” to finance opposition forces. The controversial British Conflict, Stability, and Security Fund (CSSF), established in 2015, collaborated with armed groups of the “moderate opposition,” helping them better manage “territories under their control.” The fund remained active even after the myth of “moderate rebels” had been debunked. Former British Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, stated before Parliament in 2016 that “moderate” groups in the Syrian conflict were “mostly a figment of imagination.” By 2018, an inter-parliamentary group criticized Theresa May’s policy on Syria—including sanctions—as something that “prolongs suffering.” Although British “aid” almost always ended up in jihadist-controlled areas, this did not stop financial support. One CSSF project, titled the “Syrian Security Program,” involved “coordination with armed groups to facilitate service delivery.”
A review of this project from September 2017 stated that it was still being implemented despite the “resurgence of HTS in Idlib.” This aligns with what former MI6 agent Alistair Crooke stated in 2015: that while the West “does not directly hand over weapons to al-Qaeda, let alone ISIS, the system they created inevitably leads to that outcome.”
AGENTS IN CHARGE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS
Support for the Free Syrian Army (FSA), as one former MI6 agent put it, became “a kind of Walmart from which more radical groups took weapons to continue their jihad.” While it is impossible to draw a clear distinction between “Western proxies” and Islamist extremists, the British establishment had no qualms about fueling chaos to overthrow the Damascus regime.
Since the early days of the Syrian crisis, the British state secretly engaged a network of agents, consisting of military and intelligence veterans, tasked with conducting complex psychological operations. The goal was to demonize and destabilize Assad’s government, persuading the local population, international institutions, and Western citizens that militant groups looting the country represented a “moderate” alternative. In addition, British intelligence launched numerous opposition media outlets while training a small army of so-called “citizen journalists” to fabricate news for domestic and international audiences. The two leading British contractors behind this media operation were ARK and The Global Strategy Network (TGSN), both under the direct leadership of MI6 veterans. In a leaked joint submission to the Foreign Office, these contractors boasted that since 2011, they had “developed extensive networks encompassing actors across Syria—from key members of state administration structures, brigade commanders, and members of ninety ‘moderate’ armed opposition groups to civil society organizations. ARK and TGSN regularly report to [the Government] and maintain well-established, extensive research networks throughout opposition-controlled territory.”
COORDINATION WITH THE ‘WHITE HELMETS’
The official goal of ARK and The Global Strategy Network, both independently and in collaboration with Western intelligence services, was to take a leading role in efforts to “undermine” HTS through covert “strategic communication” operations and civil society projects. However, leaked documents emphasize that such initiatives should not “directly criticize HTS (or affiliated groups).” One of the reasons for this was the belief that openly condemning HTS could be “polarizing” in opposition-held areas—”for many who view the organization as a legitimate resistance force, even if they are not ready to accept it as the leading opposition faction”—as a factor that could play a role in constituting future governance structures.
Beyond psychological warfare, which revolved around promoting a “positive narrative and representation of the moderate opposition” and spreading so-called “values-based messaging,” British intelligence branches aimed to establish “safe zones for gathering people” in opposition-controlled areas. According to leaked documents, these locations would allow residents to enjoy British propaganda films glorifying “moderate” political and ideological values, as well as participate in “joint sports and artistic activities.” All of this was organized “in coordination” with Syria Civil Defence, an organization founded by ARK, better known as the White Helmets. The White Helmets were just one part of a broader effort to establish a series of foreign-controlled quasi-state entities across Syria, with parallel governance structures composed of local residents trained and financed by Britain, the EU, and the U.S. Western propaganda portrayed these organized groups as “moderate,” while in reality, they were controlled by extremists like HTS, enforcing strict Sharia law.
MESSAGES ABOUT AN ALTERNATIVE TO ASSAD’S REGIME
A 2016 document discussed the idea of “exporting” entities such as the White Helmets and the Free Syrian Police (FSP) to “newly liberated territories.” As one British agent noted in a submission to the Foreign Office, “a functional model in the liberated areas of Syria will strengthen the opposition and serve as the foundation for a new civil state and a new security architecture.” While Western logistical resources flooded opposition-controlled areas, the power of HTS grew exponentially. One particularly striking document stated that “HTS and other extremist armed groups are significantly less likely to attack opposition entities that receive support from the British Conflict, Stability, and Security Fund (CSSF).” According to British assessments, HTS’s friendly approach toward “opposition entities” such as the White Helmets and the Free Syrian Police stemmed from the fact that these groups “provide key services” to residents of occupied territories, finance social service networks, and spread a positive image of life in HTS-controlled areas.
The documents emphasize the need to “raise awareness of the importance of supporting the moderate opposition” and to expose the population to “narratives about a realistic and credible alternative to Assad’s regime.” These messages were particularly aimed at those who had grown disillusioned—former supporters of regime change as well as residents of occupied territories.
COOPERATION WITH THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT
Another document highlights that “HTS, in order to secure its dominance, was willing to cooperate with moderate groups.” This included precisely the “moderate” elements that British intelligence sought to promote. Of course, none of these factions were truly “moderate,” but their absence from the list of terrorist organizations enabled extensive collaboration with the British government. Meanwhile, in Washington, a lobbying campaign was launched in 2018 to allow HTS to receive aid—but “indirectly,” through other groups operating in Idlib. U.S. diplomat James Jeffrey claimed in an interview that Jolani told him: “We want to be your friends. We are not terrorists. We are just fighting against Assad.”
As late as 2020, British intelligence was still funneling money into Idlib for projects officially aimed at “undermining” HTS, with the expectation that their “effects” would be “long-lasting.” Accordingly, British intelligence officers warned that “jihadist actors” would increasingly “be regarded as serious opposition to Assad.” In submissions to the Foreign Office, Global Strategy admitted facing “challenges” in “securing credible data that establish causal links” between their operations and efforts to counter HTS. British intelligence ultimately realized that the rise of HTS had nullified all of London’s efforts to neutralize the influence of extremist groups in Syria. They acknowledged that al-Qaeda elements in occupied territories not only “coexisted with HTS” but that “HTS’s dominance” in northern Syria “enabled deeper connections with al-Qaeda.” From this “safe zone,” jihadist elements had the freedom to focus on “targets beyond Syria’s borders.” Moreover, it was concluded that “HTS’s consolidation of influence in Idlib” further fueled a “binary dynamic” in which HTS and Assad remained the only serious contenders to fill the power vacuum.
IF IT WORKS, IT WORKS—IF NOT, SO BE IT
However, the documents do not answer the question of whether Britain’s engagement in Syria may have contributed to the emergence of this so-called “binary dynamic.” Of course, this is not the first time that the British have used extremists rampaging through Syria to advance their geopolitical interests. In 2016, British intelligence began training “moderate” Syrian rebels at a base in Jordan. Documents reveal that agents involved in this project ultimately concluded that, despite all efforts, militants would always divert the material and financial aid they received toward al-Nusra, ISIS, and other “extremist actors.” Instead of abandoning the project, the British decided to “accept” all the risks—but only “within reasonable limits,” whatever that meant. This attitude toward extremists reveals the cynical nature of British politics, both in the public sphere and behind the scenes, following a gambler’s logic: “If it works, it works—if not, so be it.”
IMPERIAL PATHOLOGY
It is worth remembering that the U.S. employed a similar strategy with Osama bin Laden during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In 1993, The Independent published an article about “The anti-Soviet warrior leading his army on the road to peace,” describing how a “wealthy Saudi businessman” was receiving help from the mujahideen for “construction projects in Sudan,” as they had supposedly renounced their militant Islamist past. Since we know how the bin Laden saga ended, it is only logical to assume that Jolani, at some point, could also turn against his sponsors. Experience has shown that Islamic extremists are unreliable allies. However, Britain, like the U.S., continues to use them in the fight against its enemies, hoping they will exhaust themselves to the point where they no longer pose a threat to Western interests. Although Jolani now holds power in Damascus, Syria has been “feudalized” to such an extent that his authority only extends over the territories controlled by HTS forces. This very fact provides the British with a lever of control over Jolani.
Nearly a decade later, after spending tens of millions of pounds on building a supposedly moderate opposition, the British Foreign Office has officially acknowledged that the ultimate beneficiary of this covert project is none other than Jolani—the founder of al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch and a former deputy leader of ISIS—who is now considered a key political figure and the “legitimate” authority in Damascus.
The “early works” of Syria’s new leader have been almost completely forgotten, while Prime Minister Keir Starmer promises that Britain will now be “more present and take a leading role across the region.” The ones who will suffer the most from this imperial pathology are the Syrian people, while Syria itself—once a relevant player in the Middle East—has now been relegated to the status of a third-rate, quasi-state entity.
