A wave of criticism has swept across the Arab world following reports that former United States President Donald Trump met Abu Mohammad al-Julani, the ex-leader of al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchise and current head of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). The revelations have reignited long-standing suspicions of Western intentions in the Middle East, challenging America’s attempts to maintain regional alliances and pursue counterterrorism objectives.
According to diplomatic sources, Trump allegedly held a discreet discussion with al-Julani earlier this month in a Gulf state. Al-Julani, who is designated as a terrorist by the United States, led the transformation of al-Qaeda’s Syrian wing, Jabhat al-Nusra, into the more locally focused but still extremist HTS. The group retains control over large parts of Syria’s Idlib province. Though neither Trump’s team nor official US authorities have confirmed the meeting, the story’s widespread circulation across Arab media has left deep political and social reverberations.
Leading Arab commentators and editors have voiced particular frustration, citing the perceived hypocrisy: Trump, who advocated for strict travel bans on citizens from Muslim-majority countries during his presidency, is now reported to have met with a figure once at the forefront of global jihadist terrorism. Regional newspapers and broadcasters have questioned the rationale behind seeking dialogue with a man whose organization, despite distancing itself from al-Qaeda’s central command in recent years, maintains a well-documented record of human rights abuses and repression in areas it controls.
Background: The Evolution of al-Julani and HTS
Abu Mohammad al-Julani first emerged from the chaos of the Iraq War, rising through the ranks of al-Qaeda in Iraq before shifting focus to Syria. His group, initially Jabhat al-Nusra, became one of the most effective anti-Assad forces but was equally notorious for brutality and imposing radical Islamist rule. In the shifting battlescapes of Syria’s civil war, al-Julani offered nominal separation from al-Qaeda, but security analysts and governments in the region remain skeptical of any true moderation.
HTS has faced pressure both from rival jihadist factions and from Syrian regime forces backed by Iran and Russia. Yet in Idlib and parts of northern Syria, HTS has managed to establish a de facto administration. Inside Syria and throughout the region, victims of both regime and extremist violence have described continued repression and violence under HTS rule, with human rights organizations documenting arbitrary detentions, executions, and the silencing of dissent.
American Policy, Israel’s Security Concerns, and Iranian Proxies
The episode has further complicated perceptions of U.S. policy among Arab monarchies and moderate republics that see both Iranian expansion and the resurgence of Sunni jihadist groups as twin threats. While Trump’s term saw major initiatives such as the Abraham Accords and strong backing for Israel’s security, suspicions linger in many capitals that tactical American engagement with former extremists may undermine the region’s broader fight against terror.
Israeli defense and intelligence officials expressed concern following the news, echoing longstanding warnings that distinguishing between “rebranded” jihadist leaders and irreconcilable terrorists is a dangerous precedent. For Israel, constantly defending its population from Iranian-backed groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and facing threats on multiple borders, clarity in defining allies and enemies is seen as foundational.
Regional Repercussions and the Gulf Response
Prominent Gulf and Egyptian security officials expressed unease over the precedent such engagement might set. The memory of past Western mistakes—especially supporting factions in Afghanistan and Iraq who later became adversaries—remains potent. In particular, Jordanian and Egyptian authorities, fighting their own battles against local terrorist cells, have warned against any normalization of groups with extremist roots.
For many across the region, including those working to expand ties with Israel or stabilize war-torn Syria, the reported meeting underscores a perennial concern: that Western nations may prioritize short-term geopolitical interests over the principled opposition to terrorism that is essential for regional security. This perception risks undercutting security cooperation, undermining anti-extremist coalitions, and providing rhetorical ammunition to Iran and its proxies as they seek to challenge American influence in the Middle East.
Broader Context: Syrian Conflict and Foreign Engagement
The Syrian war, in its second decade, remains a complex battleground of interests. From the beginning, the United States and its allies have struggled to distinguish between secular, moderate opposition and an array of Islamist factions, often shifting support or reevaluating alliances on the ground. The rise of the Islamic State, followed by the power consolidation of groups like HTS, complicated any possibility of Western or regional consensus on a post-Assad solution.
Al-Julani’s HTS, while seeking a pragmatic relationship with external powers for its own survival amid regime and Russian offensives, continues to enforce rigid rule and operate with a history deeply tied to global jihad. Analysts caution that efforts to engage or co-opt such actors can undermine parallel campaigns against Iranian-backed Shiite militias and Sunni jihadist networks alike.
Looking Ahead
As the Arab world reacts with skepticism and frustration, the episode has prompted fresh scrutiny of America’s role as a trustworthy partner in efforts to confront both state and non-state terror threats. Allies such as Israel have reiterated the need for moral clarity and sustained vigilance, emphasizing that combating terrorism—whether Sunni jihadist or Iranian-backed—is central to regional peace and security. The continued reverberations of this diplomatic controversy highlight the enduring volatility and complexity of the Middle East’s struggle for peace and stability.
