Full Analysis Summary
Assad figures funding militias
A Reuters investigation, cited by Kurdistan24 and Al Jazeera, reports that senior figures from the fallen Assad regime—former intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Kamal Hassan and billionaire Rami Makhlouf, now based in Moscow—are financing and organising militias intended to destabilise Syria’s post‑Assad government.
Both outlets say the pair are recruiting predominantly Alawite fighters and building rival paramilitary structures, and Reuters estimates up to 50,000 recruits and the presence of 14 underground coastal command rooms and weapons caches.
The reports portray these actions as efforts to contest control of coastal Alawite areas and to maintain leverage over Syria’s future security landscape.
Coverage Differences
Tone/emphasis
Both sources report the same Reuters findings but emphasise different narrative notes: kurdistan24.net foregrounds the description of a clandestine coastal infrastructure and the concrete figure of ‘14 underground command centers,’ while Al Jazeera underscores the timing and political sensitivity by pointing to the risk of reigniting sectarian violence as Syria marks one year since Assad’s fall. Each source is reporting Reuters’ investigation rather than independently asserting new facts.
Funding and leadership roles
Reports attribute distinct operational and financial roles to Hassan and Makhlouf.
Kurdistan24 says Hassan is deploying security-service ties, payments (it cites about $1.5m for 12,000 fighters), and cyber teams to recruit and manage forces, while Makhlouf has reportedly injected at least $6m and cultivated a 'messianic, prophetic' leadership image.
Al Jazeera similarly reports Hassan's prior control of the detention system and describes Makhlouf as a messianic returner, and both outlets say fighters are economically desperate and often accept small payments from multiple patrons.
Together, these strands portray the insurgency as partly technical operational wiring and partly a personal power competition among ex-regime elites in exile.
Coverage Differences
Specific detail vs. broader framing
kurdistan24.net provides specific financial figures and operational details (e.g., a claimed $1.5m payment for 12,000 fighters and at least $6m from Makhlouf), while Al Jazeera focuses more on background and framing (Hassan’s role running detention and Makhlouf’s exile and messianic messaging). Both sources attribute these claims to Reuters’ investigation rather than presenting them as independently verified findings.
Latakia unrest and response
Both outlets report that violence and unrest have already flared.
Kurdistan24.net cites Reuters linking a failed March uprising in rural Latakia to roughly 1,500 civilian deaths and notes continuing large protests over autonomy and detainees.
Al Jazeera warns the schemes risk reigniting sectarian conflict at the sensitive political moment as the new administration works to consolidate legitimacy.
The new government under President Ahmed al-Sharaa says the bunker network has been weakened and has tasked Khaled al-Ahmad, a former Assad loyalist, with outreach and reintegration to defuse sectarian tensions.
These responses are framed as attempts to avert a deeper coastal insurgency.
Coverage Differences
Narrative focus
kurdistan24.net emphasizes concrete incidents and state responses (the Latakia uprising casualty figures and the deployment of Khaled al‑Ahmad), while Al Jazeera frames the story in terms of political timing and the broader risk of sectarian escalation as legitimacy builds for the new government. Both cite the same Reuters investigation as their source for these claims.
Assessment of reporting claims
Both kurdistan24.net and Al Jazeera make clear they are reporting a Reuters investigation rather than presenting direct evidence themselves.
Neither source independently verifies the scale (the figure of up to 50,000 fighters), the precise funding flows, or the operational status of the claimed underground command rooms.
The accounts converge on the identities and motives of Hassan and Makhlouf and on the danger of renewed coastal sectarian violence.
They differ in emphasis: kurdistan24.net supplies more granular financial and tactical detail, while Al Jazeera stresses political timing and legitimacy stakes.
Given these limits, the claims remain allegations grounded in Reuters reporting and should be treated as such until corroborated by additional independent evidence.
Coverage Differences
Uncertainty/Attribution
Both sources attribute the central claims to Reuters and thus present them as reported allegations; kurdistan24.net leans into granular operational and financial figures from the investigation, while Al Jazeera highlights political context and timing. Neither offers independent verification, which leaves the scale and operational readiness of the alleged insurgency ambiguous.