Fact check: How has the Syrian government maintained control over major cities in 2025?

1. What proponents say: National reintegration and diplomatic normalization are stabilizing cities

Syrian officials framed 2025 as a year of return to international engagement and state rebuilding, with President Ahmad al-Sharaa addressing the UN and declaring Syria’s return to the global stage, and his government seeking security arrangements with neighboring states to shore up control ^{[6] [2]}. The new transitional cabinet also includes diverse figures publicly billed as a national unity project intended to persuade Western capitals to lift sanctions and re-legitimize Damascus, an outcome that would strengthen central authority in urban centers through funding and diplomatic cover ^[7]. Proponents present these moves as politically constructive steps toward consolidating state institutions and municipal governance ^[6].

2. What critics document: Coercion, evictions, and targeted population control in cities

Investigative accounts document coercive tactics used by security forces to reshape urban demographics and neutralize perceived threats, such as eviction raids in Damascus’s Alawite district where homes were marked for stay or occupation, prompting mass displacement and fear among residents ^[1]. Historical patterns of detention, torture, and disappearance highlighted in contemporaneous media and documentary releases reinforce a narrative of continuity in repressive tools—measures that suppress dissent and thereby allow control of city spaces even where popular consent is absent ^[4]. These coercive approaches underpin the government’s effective grip on major population centers.

3. Armed actors and local power bargains: Blurring lines between co-option and confrontation

Sources describe a mixed security environment where the central government relied on alliances with militias, security services, and negotiated arrangements with local actors to manage cities, even as clashes occurred between Assad loyalists and forces aligned to the new government ^{[3] [5]}. In some locations the state pursued integration of fighters into national security frameworks, while in others it used force to suppress rival networks—creating a patchwork of co-optation and confrontation that stabilized municipal control but left governance fragile and uneven ^{[8] [5]}. These bargains often prioritized immediate order over inclusive politics.

4. External diplomacy and pressure: How conversations with outside powers affected urban control

Diplomatic initiatives, including reported talks with regional actors described by the president and a U.S. push for a unified Syrian state that might pressure Kurdish forces to integrate, gave Damascus strategic leverage to claim authority over contested urban areas ^{[2] [8]}. The framing of Syria’s reinsertion into international fora (UN appearance) and the prospect of normalized relations offered incentives for local actors to accept central control; simultaneously, foreign policy shifts and envoy changes influenced the balance of power on the ground by altering external backing for rival administrations ^{[6] [8]}. These external dynamics bolstered the state’s capacity to govern cities.

5. The human cost and contested legitimacy of control in urban Syria

While control over cities was materially achieved in many cases, reporting underscores that legitimacy and social stability remain contested, with episodes of violence, displacement, and human-rights abuses undermining claims of durable governance ^{[1] [4] [5]}. The transitional government’s narrative of inclusivity sits uneasily beside documented expulsions and the persistence of armed confrontations, suggesting that municipal stability was often produced through coercion rather than popular buy-in. This tension raises questions about whether control is sustainable without broader political settlement and accountability.

6. Timeline comparison: How 2025 dynamics built on earlier patterns

Comparing sources shows continuity and change: the tactics of repression and population management echo past regime practices documented in documentaries and investigative pieces, while 2025 introduced more explicit diplomatic engagement and a transitional cabinet that sought international legitimacy ^{[4] [7]}. Violence flared episodically as loyalists and new government forces clashed, revealing that consolidation was neither linear nor complete ^[5]. The combination of old coercive instruments with new external outreach defined 2025 as a year of pragmatic authoritarian stabilization rather than comprehensive reconciliation.

7. Bottom line — control secured, consensus absent

Evidence across the supplied reports indicates that the Syrian government maintained control over major cities in 2025 through a mix of coercive on-the-ground measures, political maneuvers to normalize Damascus internationally, and pragmatic deals with armed actors, producing territorial governance but not broad legitimacy ^{[1] [6] [3]}. The clearest trade-off was stability at the cost of social fractures and unresolved violence, leaving cities under state control while critical questions about rights, inclusivity, and long-term reconciliation remain unanswered ^{[5] [4]}.