Jolani may as well mean what he says, having recognised the fact that you cannot rule a heterogenous country like Syria unless by either decentralisation or by rigorous oppression (at the risk of being overthrown, as Assad's example would've taught him). But the question would still be – how firm is his grip on his followers? I guess we'll find out soon.
For example, Jolani has said that he extends an olive branch even to Israel – and that was after the Israeli bombing campaign had already started. How is an islamist able to politically survive making such statements? I mean, surely we would've heard by now if he was simultaneously spreading the word among his ranks: "Chill bros, it's only a trick."
At the same time, at least some of his fighters have been desecrating churches and killing members of the old nomenclatura. (So far I haven't heard of atrocities against civilians, though.)
I have to admit I'm intrigued by this guy. Should he be able to live up to his promises, he'd be right up there with the most wily leaders the Middle East has ever seen. But it's beginning to look like he's either a charlatan or a generalissimo, i.e. a guy accepted and respected as a military leader but still acting only as the muscle to someone else's brain.
That's something that I have been thinking about.
Clearly there what he says, and what is happening on the ground. Which are two different things as we have seen.
Despite assuring there would be no violence against minorities, no call for war against other countries, no lynching, etc... his supporters and men appear to either not be aware, ignoring his instructions or "in the know" that what Jolani says is purely aimed at a foreign audience.
Then there is what you mentioned, Israel conducting strikes in Syrian military infrastructures and annexing the Golan Heights.
For the former one could emphasis the fact the strikes only target Syrian/SAA military infrastructures, AD, air-force and navy. Which is, yes, quite a lot, but likely nothing the opposition could have used any time soon (for whatever was still in working order) if at all (ie. the navy and air-force).
The Golan Heights however, in addition to the wars in Lebanon and Gaza; for Islamists that would be a bit too much to swallow.
The fact he hasn't been heard condemning the actions of his men is also an element of concern.
However we should not forget "his men" is a very nebulous and wide term.
Who are "his men" to begin with?
To what extent are they "his" men?
What authority does he have over them? Does he have any at all to begin with?
Or is he merely a "Lawrence of Arabia" whose only power is, or rather was, to loosely unify various unruly groups of rebels? Power made irrelevant once the common enemy gone?
So, is he an actual leader deceiving the foreign audience?
Is he a leader who means good but has no control over his underlings?
Is he a social-media figurehead and strawman?
Or, as you said, a puppet to, let's be honest, Erdogan?
