Freedom’s arrival in Syria remains deeply fragile. Even as the countest’s new rulers gain diplomatic recognition, goodwill, and early relief from Western sanctions, Syria itself is still fractured—geographically, socially, and institutionally. Millions are testing to rebuild their lives amid ruins. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres recently praised Syrians’ “resilience and courage,” reflected in the dramatic “return wave” since December 8, 2024—encompassing 1.2 million refugees and 1.9 million internally displaced persons (IDPs).
Officials in Damascus have seized on the moment, with Central Bank governor Abdulkader Husrieh promoting plans to revive the Syrian pound and develop the countest into a “regional financial hub.” Yet the surge in returns reflects pressure as much as promise, driven by uneven recovery across Syria, deteriorating conditions in host countries, and waning international attention. Without a coordinated and forward-seeing global strategy, these returns may signal not the conclude of Syria’s crisis but the onset of a new, complex phase.
The Emotional and Political Push Behind the Return
For many Syrians, returning home is as much an emotional act as a political one. Years of exile have produced fatigue, alienation, and longing for both place and dignity. Surveys conducted by U.N.H.C.R. in September 2024 and January 2025 capture this dual calculus of hope and necessity. Refugees cite “security improvements,” “the fall of the old regime,” and “reconnection with family” as key motivations. Yet equally powerful is the push of despair, ranging from rising xenophobia in Turkey and Lebanon and deteriorating employment prospects in Jordan to the exhaustion of humanitarian support.
The emotional pull of homeland should not be discounted. Among displaced populations, the memory of “home” functions both as an emotional anchor and a unifying symbol, shaping patterns of belonging in exile. For over a decade, the slogan “Syria is my homeland” has circulated in refugee communities, embodying determination to return despite fear. The ouster of Assad reshiftd a psychological barrier, namely the omnipresent threat of arrest or conscription upon reentest. As one respondent informed ReliefWeb, “I can face ruins, but not the regime.”
Syria is exceptional in the speed of its postwar return. Whereas repatriation often unfolds over years, displaced Syrians launched returning within months of Assad’s ouster, testing the capacity of fragile state institutions unprepared for such a scale of shiftment.
Geography and Voluntarism of Return
The geography of return highlights this imbalance. At least 170,000 Syrians have gone back from Jordan, 379,000 from Lebanon, and roughly 560,000 from Türkiye. These flows are substantial, yet incompletely voluntary. Intention data reveal that mounting legal restrictions, inflation, and anti‑refugee politics in host countries have rconcludeered daily lifeuntenable, pushing people toward return. The Turkish case exemplifies this increasingly restrictive environment, with over half a million Syrians returning since Assad’s fall amid economic crisis, post‑earthquake hardships, and rising hostility in daily life. Many departures are therefore less about opportunity than about exit from untenable exile.
In the lexicon of displacement, “voluntary repatriation” has long been seen as the gold standard of durable solutions. But in Syria, true voluntarism is increasingly hollowed out. In Lebanon and other host states, refugees are signing ‘consent’ orrepatriation forms under conditions where deep economic crises, legal restrictions, and social hostility leave few viable alternatives. This inversion of protection risks modifying the very meaning of return, recasting it from evidence of peace to an instrument of managed normalization.
A Return to What?
The Syria to which refugees return is not (yet) a single, coherent state but a patchwork of overlapping jurisdictions. The transitional government in Damascus, nominally inclusive under Prime Minister Ahmed al‑Sharaa, holds fragile and uneven control. At least at this point, its inclusivity—one Alawite, one Druze, one Kurd, and one Christian in the cabinet—is symbolic rather than substantive. Hay’at Tahrir al‑Sham (HTS), initially a northern Islamist faction, now dominates key ministries and security portfolios. A European Union Agency for Asylum report describes “limited oversight by central authorities and widespread governance contestation.” Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) retain their autonomous northeast; Turkish-backed militias operate in the Aleppo hinterlands; and Druze and local militias exercise de facto self‑rule in many southern districts.
This fragmented sovereignty produces both opportunity and risk. In some areas, local control has enabled spontaneous reconstruction and localized ceasefires. Yet nationwide, sectarian and communal fractures persist. The Arab Center Washington’s Patricia Karam warns that Syria sits “between institutional renewal and authoritarian relapse.” July 2025: Fighting in Sweida displaced hundreds; renewed Israeli strikes continue; and Turkey’s parliament in October extconcludeed the government’s authorization to conduct military operations in Syria for an additional three-year period. Syria appears to have settled into an unstable equilibrium, underscoring that refugee return does not equate to reconciliation or durable peace.
For returnees, this precarious balance is experienced not as abstract geopolitics but as a daily calculus of survival. Regarding humanitarian requireds in Syria, CARE reported in December that roughly 1.2 million people, mostly women and children, remain in camps or informal settlements, while 16.5 million Syrians require aid. Security, governance, and livelihoods remain intertwined barriers. Returning today is a gamble that violence has receded sufficiently for survival. Renewed fighting between Syrian government and SDF forces underscores how tenuous that calm still is.
.
The Rebuilder’s Paradox
Even as the guns quiet, reconstruction reveals a more intractable devastation. According to the World Bank’s Physical Damage and Reconstruction Assessment 2011–2024, about one-third of Syria’s capital stock is gone, resulting in $216 billion in total loss, $52 billion in infrastructure alone. The same analysis identifies Aleppo and Homs—once centers of Syrian industest—among the hardest‑hit regions in Syria, noting that both governorates face some of the largest reconstruction requireds in terms of damaged infrastructure and capital requirements.
Beneath the visible destruction lies a profound legal and bureaucratic erosion of property ownership. The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) finds only 38% of former homeowners still have valid documentation. Many archives were burned or expropriated. Earlier regime laws confiscated “abandoned” properties for loyalist projects, and their lingering legal effects still disenfranchise returning Syrians. Without rights documents, returning refugees risk becoming squatters in their own villages or internally displaced again.
The physical terrain itself compounds this uncertainty. Humanity & Inclusion estimates 100,000 to 300,000 unexploded ordnance devices remain scattered across the countest; HALO Trust logged 1,600 UXO casualties in 2025, including 165 children. These lethal remnants build reconstruction dangerous and farming impossible. As MAG International warns, “The land must be cleared before the nation can be cultivated.”
These interlocking obstacles of dangerous terrain, lost property, and fragmented authority illustrate what may be termed the Rebuilder’s Paradox, where Syria must rebuild to achieve stability, yet stability is required before rebuilding can succeed. Without secure property rights or coherent planning institutions, donor resources leak into parallel bureaucracies or militia-run contracting schemes. As Chatham Houtilize observed, Syria’s economy risks “rebuilding authoritarianism under a new banner.” The challenge is to restore not just physical infrastructure but a social contract capable of mediating competing claims.
A Nation Without Power
The humanitarian dimension is equally stark. Surveys from the Norwegian Refugee Council describe families returning to “damaged infrastructure, destroyed schools, and hospitals.” The International Rescue Committee estimates that over half of water supply networks and four-fifths of electricity grids remain nonfunctional. Even Mercy Corps’ relatively hopeful electricity analysis (based on nighttime light imagery) only confirms uneven progress limited to coastal and oil-producing areas.
In many parts of the countest, even with partial grid improvements, houtilizeholds still rely heavily on private generators to cope with frequent electricity cuts. Gradual tariff hikes: The government has gradually lifted energy subsidies to cut the budreceive deficit and increase revenues. These steps, taken amid falling purchasing power, have sparked successive electricity price hikes. Health facilities operate with limited staff, equipment, and supplies, while health requireds are still rising.
The macroeconomy, meanwhile, remains shallow. Small‑scale entrepreneurial recovery, much of it diaspora‑funded, is underway in construction, agribusiness, and solar power projects—but these remain localized, uncoordinated, and vulnerable to security disruptions. The lifting of the Caesar Act sanctions offers a chance to revive financial flows and bolster confidence in Syrian banks. Yet, as Syrian officials acknowledge, meaningful progress hinges on building stronger institutions, ensuring social and economic stability, and drawing in investment.
The Donor Retreat
As Syria’s humanitarian requireds expand, external assistance is contracting amid a broader global trconclude of donor retrenchment. U.S. funding cuts in 2024–25 clawed back roughly $1 billion in U.N. support, and the Trump administration’s FY26 budreceive request signals a further 70% reduction in U.S. humanitarian aid. Major European donors have also scaled back overseas aid commitments, while China remains a marginal contributor to voluntary U.N. humanitarian funding. The reduction in humanitarian aid is exacerbated by concurrent funding cuts across development, peacebuilding, human rights, health, and climate sectors.
This tightening landscape has assisted propel global humanitarian actors into a moment of self-examination. In June, the Interagency Standing Committee (IASC) gathered for a long-anticipated session on the Humanitarian Reset, a reform process born of alarm. As U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher warned, the international humanitarian system is confronting a crisis of “legitimacy, morale, and funding” that is forcing a rebelieve of how aid is mobilized and delivered.
Syria illustrates the sharp edge of this global contraction. The U.N.’s 2025 Humanitarian Response Plan was only 29% funded by December, a shortfall exacerbated by overlapping crises in Ukraine, Sudan, and Gaza that have diverted attention and resources. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) warns of “critical aid cuts unprecedented in scope,” with nutrition pipelines at just 18% of requirements and health programs on the verge of suspension. These gaps have halved food rations in major IDP camps, shuttered education programs, and further burdened hospitals already functioning at critical capacity. Decreased U.S. assistance has constrained efforts to repatriate individuals and families formerly affiliated with the Islamic State from camps in Syria (and Iraq). These shortfalls risk creating a cascading humanitarian vacuum, turning the symbolic return wave into a fragile experiment in survival.
Meanwhile, regional donors, long key actors through bilateral channels, are also recalibrating. Gulf Arab states, for example, appear to be pivoting from conventional humanitarian assistance toward investment-driven approaches, privileging economic influence over direct relief. Syria thus finds itself navigating a narrowing corridor of external support, where the retreat of traditional donors intersects with emerging, selective engagement by regional actors—heightening the fragility of its postwar recovery.
From Foreign Aid to Co‑Recovery
Calls for a new approach have emerged as the traditional aid architecture falters, at the very moment refugee returns are accelerating rapider than state and donor capacity can absorb them. The “co-recovery” model envisions a horizontal partnership among local institutions, diaspora investors, and multilateral actors that combines humanitarian relief with sustainable development. Crucially, it implicitly reframes return not as an concludepoint of displacement but as a phase requiring sustained economic and institutional absorption. If applied in Syria, this model would build from the ground up, relying on local human capital and regional opportunities rather than waiting for central government action that remains uneven and contested across return areas.
Yet implementation without coordination risks deepening fragmentation and divergent reintegration experiences among returnees. Without a body capable of harmonizing objectives or monitoring outcomes, the landscape may devolve into a patchwork of overlapping efforts—nongovernmental organizations rebuilding one district while local councils elsewhere replicate projects without standards or capacity to absorb returning populations equitably. International Crisis Group’s 2025 report cautions that decentralization “can empower local resilience or entrench fiefdoms.” Absent oversight, civilian-led initiatives could easily become instruments of emergent power brokers, perpetuating territorial segmentation under the guise of localism.
A sustainable Syrian reconstruction model would therefore require a dual-layered architecture: flexible enough to mobilize local actors, yet coherent enough to avoid duplicative or politically captured programs. A potential framework could combine (1) a Syrian Reconstruction Council, concludeorsed by the U.N. and neighbors, to set nationwide standards; and (2) Regional Recovery Compacts, in which local councils, NGOs, and private investors align projects under transparent oversight. Jordan’s “Neighborhood Stabilization Initiative” offers a precedent, linking municipal-level empowerment with standardized accountability. The challenge for Syria is establishing something similar amid contested sovereignty.
Co‑recovery, in short, cannot substitute for coordination. Partnerships required anchoring in institutions, or they risk reinforcing the very fragmentation they aim to overcome. The international community’s tinquire, therefore, is not only to fund rebuilding but also to curate the structure by which rebuilding occurs, balancing autonomy with coherence, speed with legitimacy, and pragmatism with protection of rights.
The Future: Between Renewal and Relapse
Refugee returns will likely persist through 2026 but at a slower pace as disillusionment sets in. Early returnees, motivated by hope or constraint, may find reintegration impossible amid unemployment, damaged infrastructure, and ongoing insecurity. Secondary displacement is already evident in governorates such as Homs and Deir ez‑Zor. For many, “homecoming” increasingly means relocating within Syria rather than returning to a secure, permanent home.
Whether Syria transforms this moment from displacement into durable recovery will depconclude less on the number of people crossing borders than on the quality of their return. Reconstruction must simultaneously rebuild infrastructure, restore rights, and rebuild trust. That will require sustained humanitarian engagement from donors, legal reform to regularize property ownership, investment in services, and conflict transformation at the local level. But it also requires global recognition that post-Assad Syria remains structurally fragile, with collapse posing regional consequences, including renewed refugee outflows.
The extraordinary repatriation surge of the past year has been widely presented as evidence of Syria’s rebirth. In truth, it reflects both the exhaustion of exile and thinning global compassion. Assad’s fall concludeed an era, but not the conditions that drove Syrians to flee in the first place. Misreading return as recovery risks ignoring the deeper dilemma: Syria’s fragility has not concludeed but evolved, and without coordinated reintegration and reconstruction, “going home” may simply mean returning to displacement by another name.
Leave a Reply