US President Donald Trump said that lifting the sanctions on Syria came at the request of Turkey

From Terrorist Leader to Head of State: How Did the World Legitimize Al-Joulani as President of Syria?

Ahmad Al-Sharaa, known by his nom de guerre Ahmad Al-Joulani, is a figure whose rise from a violent past to the presidency of Syria has stirred deep controversy and sparked serious geopolitical and legal debates. A former leader of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) — an organization widely designated by the United Nations, the United States, and the European Union as a terrorist group and an offshoot of Al-Qaeda in Syria and Iraq — Al-Joulani’s record is marked by violence, atrocities, and terrorism. He played a key role in founding Jabhat al-Nusra, which was central to Syria’s bloody war since 2011, making him complicit in numerous acts of brutal killings and executions of civilians and dissidents. The UN had imposed sanctions on him for terrorism and links to both Al-Qaeda and ISIS, including asset freezes and a travel ban.

Yet, by the end of 2025, the world witnessed a dramatic turn when the UN Security Council voted overwhelmingly (14 votes in favor, with China abstaining) to lift sanctions on Al-Sharaa and his interior minister, Anas Hassan Khattab. This decision signaled a decisive political endorsement of the new Syrian leadership that emerged after the ousting of Bashar al-Assad in December 2024 — a campaign led by the HTS coalition under Al-Joulani’s command. The move, initiated by the United States under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, aimed to remove their names from terrorism-related sanctions lists and lift asset freezes and travel bans that restricted their international activity. The U.S. and its allies justified the move as recognition of a “new era” in Syria, intended to reintegrate the country into the international system and facilitate reconstruction and stabilization efforts after years of conflict.

From a legal standpoint, lifting sanctions against a former terrorist who has become a head of state is unprecedented and highly complex. While the UN sanctions regime aims to combat global terrorism and violence, this decision reflects a pragmatic approach that acknowledges new realities on the ground. Such sanctions can be lifted if the Security Council unanimously deems that the individuals in question have genuinely changed, or that geopolitical circumstances require engagement rather than isolation. The U.S. asserted that Al-Sharaa is now committed to fighting terrorism — including ISIS and Al-Qaeda affiliates — protecting human rights, and allowing humanitarian access to Syria. However, this stance raises serious questions about accountability for past crimes and the danger of legitimizing impunity for war crimes.

Why Al-Sharaa specifically? His selection over other designated terrorist leaders stems from calculated geopolitical and strategic reasoning. Certain Western and regional powers view him as Syria’s de facto ruler after Assad, due to his military and political control over key territories. His apparent willingness to engage diplomatically — evidenced by meetings with U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin — suggests the potential to reintegrate Syria into broader regional stabilization efforts. Nonetheless, this pragmatic shift inherently overlooks issues of justice and the voices of victims of his past terrorist campaigns.

For Syria, the lifting of represents both an opportunity and a challenge. Economically, the decision promises relief from severe restrictions, opening new avenues for aid, reconstruction, and foreign investment. Humanitarian organizations also expect fewer obstacles in delivering assistance and rebuilding infrastructure. Politically, the move signals Syria’s return to the international stage after years of isolation — potentially reshaping regional dynamics and encouraging diplomacy over warfare. Yet, it also risks entrenching a government led by a man with a bloody terrorist past, which could undermine credibility and strain relations with nations wary of terrorism. On the international front, the decision provoked mixed reactions. While the U.S. and some regional powers endorsed it as a form of realpolitik, China abstained, citing concerns about ongoing security instability and the potential exploitation of Syria’s fragile state by foreign extremists. Critics argue that lifting sanctions on a former terrorist leader weakens global counterterrorism efforts and undermines international legal norms designed to hold terrorists accountable.

In , the lifting of sanctions on Ahmad Al-Sharaa — a former terrorist with a bloody record — to assume Syria’s presidency stands as a stark example of geopolitics triumphing over legal and moral principles. It reflects the international community’s prioritization of stability and strategic interests over justice and accountability, raising profound ethical and legal questions about impunity and the message it sends concerning past acts of terrorism.

🔵