A little over a year ago, an obscure former militant leader who once went by the nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al-Jolani stood before the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus and declared a new beginning for Syria. The lightning collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s five-decade-old dynasty on December 9, 2024, marked not just the end of a regime, but the beginning of a carefully choreographed political rebirth for Jolani as Ahmed Al-Sharaa, Syria’s interim president.Twelve months on, as Al-Sharaa marks a year in power, Syria’s journey remains fragile and unfinished. The country is still deeply divided, scarred by more than a decade of civil war, sectarian violence and displacement. Localised revenge killings, unresolved grievances and fractured loyalties continue to challenge national unity. Yet despite these unresolved tensions, Syria under Al-Sharaa is no longer a pariah state knocking at the door of the international system. It is, cautiously, back inside the room.That trajectory becomes even more striking when set against another post-war regime that came (back) to power through insurgency at roughly the same historical moment – Afghanistan. It was the sudden withdrawal of the US forces in February 2020 that propelled the Taliban to victory. In Syria too, the power shift happened with head-spinning unpredictability.If geography once shaped their political destinies, turning the dense urban centres of Syria and rural heartlands of Afghanistan into chessboards for invaders and insurgents, today both nations share a set of uncannily similar challenges.Both are post-war nations emerging from the rubble and ruins of decades-long conflict and civil war. Sanctions, international isolation and economic collapse have hollowed out both countries. The resurgence of ISIS and other jihadist elements, combined with fractured government institutions, continues to undermine fragile stability. In Syria, ISIS cells have exploited governance gaps in the eastern desert, the most recent example being the ambush near Palmyra that killed two US soldiers and a US civilian interpreter. Israeli airstrikes targeting Iranian-linked assets further complicate Damascus’s sovereignty, underscoring the limits of Al-Sharaa’s control over Syrian territory and airspace. In Afghanistan, ISIS-Khorasan remains a lethal threat, carrying out attacks on civilians and minorities, even as the Taliban claims to have restored order.With the two countries standing at pivotal crossroads, one would imagine there are playbooks to learn from each other. Yet, despite these parallels, each is headed in a radically different direction, primarily due to their leadership choices. While Syria is embracing the world under Ahmed Al-Sharaa’s revamped image, Afghanistan under the Taliban is shutting itself to the world by sliding back to hardline fundamentalism. Syria is choosing pragmatism while Afghanistan is embracing puritanism. Syria is betting on diplomacy, Afghanistan on dogma.Al-Sharaa’s deftly crafted imageIn the span of a single year, Al-Sharaa has engineered one of the most improbable political transformations of the post-Arab Spring era. From a man once hunted as a terrorist to a leader courted by world capitals; from a US detainee to a guest at the White House; from a jihadist commander to the face of a state seeking reconstruction and recognition, his political reinvention has been striking.The geopolitical about-face became complete when Donald Trump symbolically washed away Al-Sharaa’s chequered past by spritzing cologne on him during a White House meeting in November.Al-Sharaa’s entry to the global stage did not begin with his diplomatic charm offensive at the White House in November 2025. It began from day one of his usurping power, with the first public address he delivered. As Syria burned, he spoke of unity, sectarian diversity and the need to protect all Syrians. He visited religious sites across sects, centralised weapons under state authority, negotiated with rival factions, and projected an image of order rather than ideological zeal.Al-Sharaa’s makeover was also meticulous. He shed the long beard and battlefield fatigues that had defined his insurgent years and reappeared in tailored suits crafted for the Oval room and Western television studios. Coming out of a decades-long civil war and a refugee crisis, Al-Sharaa knew that Syria’s survival depended on pragmatic diplomacy and global outreach. For a man seeking billions in aid to rebuild a country in tatters, he knew he had to choose statecraft over Sharia.And the results though incomplete, were tangible. The US lifted him from the terrorism sanctions list. His visit to the United Nations General Assembly also marked his first appearance on American soil. Washington now sees him not just as a stabilising figure but as a partner in its fight against terrorism and regional normalisation for Israel.This does not mean scepticism has disappeared. For many Syrians, especially minorities and victims of jihadist violence, Al-Sharaa’s transformation remains unconvincing, or conditional. His authority is judged by how efficiently he can prevent sectarian violence that can unravel the country once again. To hold his country together, he needs continued political discipline and shrewd strategy at home.Taliban’s regressionThe Taliban’s approach after reclaiming Kabul in August 2021 followed an entirely different script. When the US withdrew and ended two decades of occupation, the Taliban swept into power with speed. They consolidated control and declared the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. What followed was regression. The Taliban reinstated a strict interpretation of Sharia law, bringing back public executions, floggings and the harshest form of moral policing. In a single stroke, they reversed years of progress in civil liberties, freedom and gender rights.Girls were barred from education beyond Grade 6. Women were excluded from public employment, NGOs, and most aspects of public life. Recent decrees have even prohibited women’s voices from being heard in public spaces, prompting the United Nations to describe the situation as gender apartheid.Rather than building inclusive institutions, the Taliban built its political legitimacy almost entirely on its religious ideology. Statecraft was reduced to enforcing virtue, policing vice and elevating the doctrinal purity of Islam. At the centre of this rigidity stands the Taliban’s supreme leader, Mawlawi Hibatullah Akhundzada, an ultra-conservative cleric ruling from Kandahar, largely invisible to the population he governs. Afghanistan’s 43 million citizens remain subject to decrees issued by a leader they neither see nor question, which is a stark contrast to Al-Sharaa’s visibility-driven leadership.This ideological rigidity has come at a devastating cost. Afghanistan faces a humanitarian crisis worsened by sanctions, the collapse of aid-dependent projects, and international reluctance to engage with a regime hostile to basic rights. Nearly half the population – around 23.7 million people – now requires humanitarian assistance. Poverty, hunger, unemployment and the forced return of millions from Iran and Pakistan continue to strain an already fragile economy.Security also remains precarious. ISIS-Khorasan continues to carry out attacks on civilians, while tensions with Pakistan have escalated into deadly border clashes and hostile rhetoric. With the recent Kabul airstrikes by Pakistan and the eventual possibility of conflict, the future of Afghanistan is ever more volatile and unpredictable.The Taliban’s isolation may not be absolute. In recent months, the group has sought to project itself as a responsible regional actor, engaging cautiously with countries such as India, Russia, and the Central Asian states. These overtures suggest an awareness that perpetual isolation is unsustainable. But with no meaningful diplomatic recognition abroad, the Taliban presides over a state isolated from global finance, investment, and international legitimacy.Two insurgencies, two choicesOn the first anniversary of Al-Sharaa’s ascent, the contrast between Damascus and Kabul is striking, because one regime has chosen adaptability while the other has chosen doctrinal rigidity.Al-Sharaa has embraced selective pragmatism, image management, and strategic diplomacy to move Syria out of complete isolation, even as deep internal challenges remain. The Taliban leadership, by contrast, has prioritised ideological purity over political flexibility, ensuring that Afghanistan remains cut off from the world.If there is one thing that Syria can teach Afghanistan, it is that the international system is willing to forgive and forget if you show predictability and at least the willingness to reform. Resurrection is possible even from a deeply contentious past. The world rewards ideological flexibility. In geopolitics, no one looks for a saint but a salesman. Until the Taliban confronts this reality, Afghans will continue to pay the price of a leadership unwilling to change.Anjana Sankar is an independent journalist based in Abu Dhabi, who covers conflict, political transition, migration, and humanitarian crises across Asia, Middle East, and Europe. She has reported on conflicts in Afghanistan, Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Syria, and Gaza with a focus on forced displacement, human rights, and international diplomacy. She is the 2024 Elizabeth Neuffer Fellow chosen by the Washington-based International Women’s Media Foundation. Her bylines include The New York Times, The Boston Globe and The National.