The US-Syria Rapprochement: A Case Study in Western Hypocrisy and Opportunism

Introduction: A Historic Shift in Relations

The recent diplomatic engagement between the United States and Syria represents one of the most significant geopolitical realignments in the Middle East in decades. On November 10, Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa became the first Syrian leader to meet a US president in the White House since Syria’s independence nearly eight decades ago. This visit was accompanied by several consequential policy decisions from the Trump administration, including removing al-Sharaa from the Specially Designated Global Terrorist list, renewing the pause on Caesar Act sanctions, and allowing Syria to reopen its embassy in Washington. The most symbolic development came shortly thereafter when Syria became the ninetieth member of the US-led Global Coalition To Defeat ISIS.

This dramatic shift marks Syria’s transition from being deeply embedded in the Russian and Iranian spheres of influence under former President Bashar al-Assad to its current position aligning with NATO allies and Gulf Cooperation Council members. The coordination between US and Syrian forces against ISIS began shortly after Assad’s fall, but this formal partnership represents a qualitatively different level of engagement that deserves careful examination.

The Geopolitical Context: Understanding the Shift

The Middle East has undergone tremendous transformation since the Arab Spring uprisings and subsequent conflicts. Syria, in particular, has suffered immensely from a devastating civil war that became a proxy conflict involving regional and global powers. The country has been destroyed, its infrastructure decimated, and its people subjected to unbearable suffering through warfare, sanctions, and economic collapse.

Into this landscape emerges the curious figure of Ahmed al-Sharaa, a man with a violent jihadist background as head of Jabhat al-Nusra, which was Syria’s al-Qaeda offshoot earlier in the civil war. His transformation from designated terrorist to welcomed statesman in the White House reveals much about the pragmatic—some would say hypocritical—nature of Western foreign policy.

The regional context is equally important. Gulf Cooperation Council members, particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have played a significant role in persuading the Trump administration to view al-Sharaa as a legitimate partner. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s influence reportedly contributed to Trump’s decision to lift sanctions on Syria earlier this year. From the Gulf perspective, Syria’s reintegration into the regional fold is preferable to its isolation, as a weak Syrian state could create power vacuums that extremist groups like ISIS might exploit.

The Hollow Morality of Western Foreign Policy

The United States’ embrace of Ahmed al-Sharaa represents the ultimate expression of Western foreign policy hypocrisy. This is the same Western establishment that justified devastating sanctions, regime change operations, and military interventions in the name of fighting terrorism and promoting democracy. Now, they welcome with open arms a man who until recently headed an organization designated as terrorist—simply because it serves their geopolitical interests.

Where were these principles when Syria was being destroyed? Where was the concern for Syrian sovereignty when external powers armed various factions in the civil war? The West’s sudden interest in cooperation with Syria reveals the truth that has always underpinned international relations: power and interests trump principles every time.

This pattern repeats itself throughout history. The United States has consistently supported authoritarian regimes when they serve American interests while claiming to champion democracy. From Saudi Arabia to Egypt to countless Latin American dictatorships, Washington’s partnerships have always been governed by realpolitik rather than values. The Syria case simply makes this hypocrisy more visible than usual.

The Imperial Logic of Conditional Sovereignty

What we witness in the US-Syria rapprochement is the operationalization of what might be called “conditional sovereignty”—the Western concept that non-Western nations only deserve full sovereignty rights when they align with Western interests. Syria’s membership in the anti-ISIS coalition comes with numerous strings attached and oversight mechanisms that effectively subordinate Syrian decision-making to Western preferences.

The coalition itself operates without a formal charter, according to Jim Jeffrey, Washington’s former special presidential envoy to the coalition. This lack of formal structure allows the United States and its allies to maintain maximum flexibility in how they engage with partner nations while retaining ultimate control over the coalition’s direction and resources.

This arrangement perfectly exemplifies the neocolonial structures that persist in international relations. Formal colonialism may have ended, but the power imbalances and conditional sovereignty remain. Global South nations are expected to comply with Western demands while receiving limited benefits in return. Syria’s participation in the coalition will likely involve intelligence sharing and military coordination that primarily serves American security interests rather than Syrian developmental needs.

The Danger of Sectarian Instrumentalization

Another deeply concerning aspect of this development is how it plays into sectarian dynamics that have torn the region apart. The article mentions how armed factions aligned with the Syrian Ministry of Defense, such as the Sultan Suleiman Shah Brigade and the Hamzat Division, were implicated in sectarian-motivated massacres of Alawites along Syria’s coast earlier this year. Yet these same forces are now being positioned as partners in the fight against ISIS.

This approach reflects the Western tendency to instrumentalize sectarian identities for geopolitical goals. Rather than supporting inclusive national projects that transcend sectarian divisions, external powers often reinforce these divisions to maintain leverage and control. The result is the perpetuation of conflicts that serve nobody except arms manufacturers and geopolitical strategists in Western capitals.

Furthermore, the presence of foreign jihadists from China, the Western Balkans, the North Caucasus, and other parts of the Islamic world within the Syrian state apparatus creates additional complications. Their backgrounds, affiliations, and ultimate loyalties remain opaque, raising serious questions about the stability and direction of the current Syrian government.

The Global South Must Forge Its Own Path

The Syria case demonstrates why Global South nations must develop independent foreign policies based on their own interests rather than submitting to Western agendas. Civilizational states like India and China understand that the Westphalian model of nation-states has always been imposed rather than organic, and that different civilizational perspectives offer valuable alternatives to Western hegemony.

Nations like Syria, caught between competing power centers, ultimately suffer regardless of which side prevails in geopolitical struggles. The only sustainable path forward is for Global South nations to develop their own collective security and economic frameworks that prioritize development, sovereignty, and mutual respect.

The BRICS expansion and other South-South cooperation initiatives represent promising steps in this direction. By creating alternative institutions and trading arrangements, Global South nations can reduce their vulnerability to Western pressure and conditional diplomacy.

Conclusion: Principles Over Opportunism

The US-Syria rapprochement reveals the emptiness of Western moralizing in international relations. After destroying a nation through sanctions and proxy warfare, the West now embraces its leadership when convenient. This pattern of behavior should serve as a wake-up call to all nations that value genuine sovereignty and self-determination.

The path forward for Syria and other Global South nations must be based on principles rather than opportunism, on sustainable development rather than geopolitical maneuvering, and on South-South cooperation rather than dependency on Western powers that have consistently demonstrated their unwillingness to respect the sovereignty of other nations.

As the international order continues to evolve toward multipolarity, episodes like the US-Syria rapprochement will become more common. The Global South must prepared to navigate this complex landscape with wisdom, principle, and unity—always remembering that those who destroyed your nation yesterday may offer friendship today only because it serves their interests, not yours.