Why Syria's new regime won global recognition while the Taliban remain isolated

Syria’s new leadership has secured widespread diplomatic recognition in just two months—an achievement the Afghan Taliban have struggled to attain in three years.

At the forefront of this transformation is Ahmed al-Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Golani, a onetime jihadist with a $10 million U.S. bounty. His rise marks a dramatic shift in Syria's international standing following the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime.

Seven weeks after leading the rebel offensive that overthrew Assad, al-Sharaa has been named president for the transitional period according to state media, cementing his journey from militant leader to head of state.

Once an Islamic State (IS) fighter and later the leader of al-Qaida’s Syrian affiliate, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), Sharaa has rebranded himself as a statesman. His evolution is more than just a name change—it is a calculated move in diplomacy, public perception, and the pursuit of political legitimacy.

Within weeks, Syria has restored diplomatic relations with Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. The European Union, led by France, Germany, and Spain, has reestablished diplomatic channels with Damascus. Even Washington has initiated tentative discussions—a development The Wall Street Journal dubbed "the West auditions," with a U.S. State Department official characterizing Sharaa as pragmatic.

Meanwhile, Russia — formerly Assad's most loyal supporter — has sent its own envoys, accepting Syria's new political landscape and reinforcing an enduring geopolitical truth: pragmatic interests ultimately supersede historical allegiances.

The situation presents a striking contrast to the Afghan Taliban's diplomatic stalemate. Despite holding power for three years, they remain internationally isolated—without state banquets or formal Western embassies.

Their relationship with Pakistan has proven volatile, oscillating between strategic partnership and border confrontations. Although India has expanded beyond basic humanitarian assistance, engaging in diplomatic discussions with Taliban leaders, formal recognition remains elusive. Even China and the UAE, while hosting Taliban representatives, have refrained from establishing official diplomatic relations.

Given that both governments emerged from insurgencies and share militant histories, what explains their divergent diplomatic fortunes? The distinction lies not in ideology but in perception.

While the Taliban maintain their inflexible governance and theological absolutism, refusing to adapt, Sharaa and his allies demonstrate political sophistication—mastering diplomatic discourse, negotiating strategic agreements, and consequently gaining legitimacy.

The extent to which Syria's new regime's international acceptance will endure remains uncertain. Yet so far, they have played their diplomatic cards skillfully. The Taliban, meanwhile, continue to await recognition that may prove permanently elusive.