When U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack recently declared, “Ahmed al-Sharaa will visit Washington, and we hope Syria will join the international coalition against ISIS,” the statement sounded less like diplomacy and more like political comedy. At some point, we must ask a simple question: How can a man long accused of leading a terrorist organization suddenly become a partner in the fight against terrorism?
For nearly a decade, the international community viewed Ahmed al-Sharaa — better known by his former nom de guerre, Abu Muhammad al-Julani — as a dangerous terrorist leader. As the head of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a group that evolved from the al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, he was sanctioned by the United States and carried a $10 million bounty on his head. He was accused of war crimes, enforcing harsh religious edicts, and overseeing brutal campaigns during Syria’s civil war. None of this has vanished. Yet with a suit, a tie, and a new political stage, he is suddenly being presented as a potential ally of the West.
1 View gallery
Meeting between Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, US Central Command chief Brad Cooper, and US envoy to Syria Tom Barrack
This is more than hypocrisy; it raises a deeper question about international standards: Are violent ideologies forgiven the moment their holders become strategically useful?
This is a dangerous message to the region. Washington can pursue any regional strategy it wishes, but inviting such a figure sends a troubling signal — that terrorism can be “laundered” through politics, that past crimes are forgotten when headlines move on, and that Western governments will work with anyone, even former ideologues of terror, if the strategic payoff is attractive enough.
This is not only morally questionable; it damages the credibility of the global campaign against ISIS. How can a coalition claim moral authority while considering partnership with someone once accused of leading a movement inspired by al-Qaeda’s ideology — the very terrorism it claims to fight?
A polished speech and a tailored suit cannot erase a legacy of bloodshed or fanatic doctrine. The victims killed, the families shattered, the communities terrorized — they do not forget simply because a politician now speaks softly in Washington.
If the United States wants genuine partners in the fight against terrorism, it needs allies who are clean, trustworthy, and accountable — not figures arriving with sanitized histories and sudden ideological makeovers. Otherwise, the coalition risks becoming a parody of itself, appointing the arsonist as the fire chief.
If the West wants credibility, it must act like it. International security cannot rely on cosmetic transformations. A serious campaign against terrorism requires transparency, justice, and consistency. Otherwise, the world learns a dangerous lesson — that violence is forgivable when it becomes politically convenient.
The Middle East knows irony, but this proposal crosses into farce. If Washington truly wants a credible path to stability, it must stand with partners who reflect democratic values, not individuals who once justified violence in the name of religion.