Why Trump’s Recent Engagement with Syria’s Leadership is a Dangerous Gamble for America and the World
In May 2025, President Donald Trump made headlines by meeting with Syria’s interim president, Ahmad al-Sharaa, a former leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a group still designated as a terrorist organization by the United States and the United Nations. This historic meeting, coupled with Trump’s decision to lift long-standing U.S. sanctions on Syria, has sparked intense debate about its implications for American security and global stability. While some argue that this move could foster diplomatic progress in the Middle East, a closer examination reveals that engaging with a figure like al-Sharaa and legitimizing his regime is a perilous misstep with far-reaching consequences.
A Troubling Precedent: Legitimizing a Former Jihadist
Ahmad al-Sharaa, previously known as Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, has a well-documented history as a jihadist. Designated a terrorist by the U.S. in 2013 for leading al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, al-Nusra Front, al-Sharaa was once a key figure in orchestrating suicide bombings and extremist campaigns aimed at overthrowing the Assad regime. Although he publicly severed ties with al-Qaeda in 2016 and rebranded his group as HTS, the organization’s core ideology and leadership remain rooted in its extremist past. Despite al-Sharaa’s recent efforts to project a moderate image—trading military fatigues for suits and promising to protect Syria’s minorities—his transformation is viewed with deep skepticism by analysts and U.S. allies, particularly Israel.
By meeting with al-Sharaa and lifting sanctions, Trump has effectively granted legitimacy to a figure and group with a history of terrorism. This move risks normalizing engagement with designated terrorist organizations, setting a dangerous precedent for future U.S. foreign policy. If the U.S. can overlook al-Sharaa’s past because of strategic interests, what prevents other nations from engaging with similarly designated groups, undermining global counterterrorism efforts? The decision also emboldens other extremist factions worldwide, signaling that political power and international recognition can be achieved through violence and rebranding.
Undermining U.S. National Security
The decision to lift sanctions and engage with al-Sharaa poses direct risks to U.S. national security. Syria, under HTS’s control, remains a volatile region with a complex web of armed groups, including remnants of the Islamic State (ISIS) and Iranian-backed militias. Trump’s White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, stated that the president urged al-Sharaa to expel “foreign terrorists,” combat ISIS, and manage detention centers holding thousands of suspected ISIS fighters. However, entrusting these critical tasks to a former al-Qaeda affiliate is a gamble with high stakes.
HTS’s track record offers little assurance of its commitment to counterterrorism. The group’s rise to power involved brutal campaigns against rival factions, and its governance in Syria has been marked by authoritarian tactics and sectarian tensions, including reported revenge attacks against the Alawite minority. Relying on al-Sharaa to secure chemical weapons stockpiles or prevent the resurgence of ISIS is fraught with risk, especially given HTS’s history of exploiting chaos for its own gain. A misstep could see Syria re-emerge as a safe haven for terrorists, threatening U.S. interests and allies in the region.
Moreover, the lifting of sanctions opens the door for American companies to invest in Syria’s oil and gas sectors, potentially funneling resources into a regime with questionable intentions. Al-Sharaa’s pitch for sanctions relief reportedly included offers of reconstruction contracts and even a Trump Tower in Damascus, raising concerns about personal financial motives influencing U.S. policy. Such deals could inadvertently strengthen HTS’s grip on power, providing it with the economic means to entrench its rule and expand its influence.
Alienating Allies and Emboldening Adversaries
Trump’s engagement with al-Sharaa has drawn sharp criticism from key U.S. allies, particularly Israel, which views the move as a betrayal of its security interests. Israel has long opposed legitimizing HTS due to its terrorist designation and has conducted airstrikes and occupied Syrian territory near the Golan Heights to counter threats from extremist groups. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had sought a deal to keep Syrian forces away from Israel’s borders in exchange for sanctions relief, but Trump’s unilateral actions have sidelined these concerns. This risks straining U.S.-Israel relations at a time when regional stability is already precarious.
Other allies, including European nations, have adopted a more cautious approach to Syria’s new government, wary of al-Sharaa’s jihadist roots. By moving forward without broader international consensus, Trump has isolated the U.S. and weakened its ability to build a coalition to address Syria’s reconstruction and security challenges. This unilateralism could embolden adversaries like Iran and Russia, who may exploit Syria’s instability to expand their influence, countering U.S. objectives in the region.
A Threat to Global Stability
The ripple effects of Trump’s deal extend beyond the Middle East. By lifting sanctions, the U.S. has opened the door for Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar to invest in Syria’s mineral and oil reserves, potentially fueling a resource scramble that could exacerbate regional rivalries. While economic investment could aid Syria’s reconstruction, it also risks empowering a regime that may prioritize its own survival over the welfare of its people. The celebratory gunfire in Damascus following the sanctions announcement reflects public hope, but without robust oversight, these funds could be misused to consolidate HTS’s power or fund further conflict.
Furthermore, Trump’s push for al-Sharaa to expel “Palestinian terrorists” and sign onto the Abraham Accords, which normalize relations with Israel, ignores the complex dynamics of Syria’s civil war and the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Forcing Syria to align with Israel could inflame tensions with Palestinian factions and other regional actors, potentially destabilizing the fragile post-Assad order. Such a policy also risks alienating Arab populations, who may view it as a betrayal of Palestinian aspirations, further complicating U.S. efforts to foster peace.
The Risk of Ethnic and Sectarian Violence
Critics, including voices on platforms like X, have warned that legitimizing al-Sharaa’s regime could exacerbate ethnic and sectarian tensions in Syria. One post described Trump’s actions as a “death sentence” for Syria’s minorities, accusing the U.S. of giving a “green light for ethnic cleansing” by normalizing relations with a regime linked to Sunni extremism. While these claims reflect strong sentiment rather than verified evidence, they underscore the real risk of violence against Syria’s Alawite, Christian, and Druze communities, which have faced persecution under HTS’s rule. The group’s dissolution in January to form a new government does little to erase its history of sectarian policies, and without guarantees of minority protections, Trump’s engagement could embolden further human rights abuses.
A Misguided Bet on Pragmatism
Supporters of Trump’s approach argue that engaging with al-Sharaa is a pragmatic step to stabilize Syria, counter Iranian influence, and open economic opportunities. They point to al-Sharaa’s promises of inclusive governance and the potential for Gulf investment to rebuild a war-torn nation. However, this optimism overlooks the fundamental risks of trusting a leader with a terrorist past to deliver on such promises. The U.S. State Department’s own 12-point list of conditions for ending sanctions—including renouncing terrorism and protecting minorities—suggests deep reservations about al-Sharaa’s intentions, yet Trump’s hasty actions appear to bypass these safeguards.
History offers cautionary tales of engaging with former extremists without sufficient accountability. The Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan, despite assurances of moderation, has shown how quickly such groups can revert to authoritarianism. Al-Sharaa’s rise from a UN-designated terrorist to a U.S. partner is a stark reminder that geopolitical expediency can backfire, leaving the U.S. to grapple with the consequences of a strengthened adversary.
Conclusion: A Dangerous Path Forward
President Trump’s decision to engage with Ahmad al-Sharaa and lift sanctions on Syria is a high-stakes gamble that threatens American security, alienates allies, and risks global stability. By legitimizing a former jihadist and his terrorist-designated group, the U.S. undermines its own counterterrorism principles and emboldens extremist factions worldwide. The potential for Syria to become a terrorist haven, the alienation of key allies like Israel, and the risk of sectarian violence all underscore the dangers of this approach. While the promise of economic investment and diplomatic progress is alluring, the costs of misjudging al-Sharaa’s intentions could be catastrophic. For the sake of America and the world, a more cautious and principled strategy is urgently needed—one that prioritizes security, accountability, and the protection of human rights over short-term geopolitical wins.