US's Backing of Butcher al-Jolani Betrays Justice Again

If you’re a marauding terrorist with a bloodthirsty penchant for lopping people’s heads off, your chances of ever being brought to justice are slim—especially if you can offer the US something it has coveted for decades.

While acts of savagery are officially condemned, when two evil and morally compromised entities strike a deal, the adage “in a two-horse race, always back self-interest” highlights how morality often takes a backseat when power and strategic gains are at stake.

The US has long demonstrated a willingness to prioritise strategic gains over morality. This was starkly evident when Washington announced it would no longer pursue the $10 million bounty on Mohammed al-Jolani, leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), following his group’s pivotal role in toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad earlier this month.

The US’s decision signals a recalibration of US Middle East strategy amidst Syria’s shifting political landscape. However, it also underscores a troubling pattern: Washington’s readiness to engage with evil actors when it aligns with broader geopolitical objectives, raising uncomfortable questions about the cost of such alliances and what the US will do to get what it wants.

Barbara Leaf, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, recently met with al-Jolani—who now goes by his birth name Ahmed al-Sharaa—in Damascus. This marked the first formal engagement between US officials and Syria’s new leadership since the Syrian civil war began in 2011.

During their discussions, Leaf confirmed the US would drop its bounty on al-Jolani’s head, describing such a move as "incoherent" given the “positive messages” conveyed in their meeting.

Al-Jolani reportedly committed to preventing terrorist groups from threatening Syria and its neighbours, a pledge Leaf said was critical to regional stability.

However, the US’s less than convincing pragmatic approach has drawn sharp criticism. HTS, is an offshoot of al-Qaeda, and has long been designated a terrorist organization by the US and is implicated in numerous human rights abuses throughout the Syrian conflict.

Despite HTS’s recent efforts to rebrand itself as a more moderate entity, what remains a fact is the group’s history can’t simply be whitewashed for the US’s sake of political expediency.

The US’s engagement with HTS echoes a long history of prioritising strategic interests over human rights. It’s orchestration of the 1953 coup that overthrew Iran’s Mossadegh government to its covert operations across Latin America and the Middle East, Washington has repeatedly and consistently been prepared to demonstrate that its pursuit of power knows no bounds and has no limits.

The decision to work with HTS—and to absolve al-Jolani of his past atrocities and there are sure to be many more, he just won’t be the one doing the hacking and butchering —is merely the latest chapter in this troubling legacy.

While the US attempts to portray its decision move as a necessary step needed to stabilising Syria, it raises significant ethical and moral concerns about the long-term consequences of legitimising groups with extremist roots. Al-Jolani’s involvement in atrocities cannot be erased by a change of name or wardrobe, no matter how many designer suits he wears.

The overthrow of Assad’s regime has reshaped the balance of power in Syria, with international players scrambling to assert their influence. Turkey, for instance, continues to target Kurdish forces in northern Syria, while Iran and Russia—longtime allies of Assad—face diminished roles in the country’s future.

According to Leaf, Syria’s new leadership might sever ties with Iran, a prospect that aligns with US efforts to counter Tehran’s influence.

However, this realignment of alliances has also heightened instability. Kurdish leaders, who were instrumental in defeating the Islamic State (IS), now face renewed threats from Turkey, complicating efforts to create a stable and inclusive future for Syria. Meanwhile, celebrations in Damascus mask the monumental challenges ahead. Over 500,000 lives have been lost in the civil war, millions remain displaced, and international sanctions continue to stifle reconstruction efforts.

The US decision to drop the bounty on al-Jolani reinforces the moral compromises inherent in America’s foreign policy. While Washington portrays the move as a step toward stability, what it has done is to demonstrate it’s prepared to effectively normalise the actions of a group with a deeply troubling history. The US’s legitimising of HTS will perpetuate cycles of violence and instability, as the lives lost to extremism are overshadowed by the pursuit of strategic hegemony.

In the end, no amount of rebranding can erase al-Jolani’s past. As the adage goes, “you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.” No matter how the US tries to present him, al-Jolani remains a brutal figure whose actions have inflicted untold pain and suffering. The US’s decision to engage with al-Jolani not only reflects a calculated geopolitical gamble but a stark reminder of the ethical costs of power and what and how the US is prepared to do to attain its hegemonic rule and power.