At a time when one of the most pressing concerns for the American public and political establishment is containing the economic consequences of Donald Trump’s warmongering, particularly the fallout from the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, Washington has taken a significant step by removing Syria from its list of state sponsors of terrorism and HTS from its list of foreign terrorist organizations. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed the decision would help increase investment and strengthen Syria’s political and economic stability. The Treasury Department has described the move as part of Trump’s pledge to ease sanctions on Syria.

However, the claim that the decision is humanitarian does not align with realities on the ground or the region’s geopolitical developments. Evidence suggests that rather than seeking to fulfill humanitarian obligations, Washington is using the move as part of Trump’s psychological and political strategy to manufacture achievements and advance his hidden objectives in West Asia. Among these objectives are laying the groundwork for expanding Israel’s occupation, reshaping the region’s geopolitics, and creating alternative routes for energy transfers.

Good Terrorism: When US Interests Set the Standard

The latest US move once again exposes the long-standing pattern of “good and bad terrorism.” Groups or movements that serve Washington’s interests can be sanitized and redefined, while those that threaten US interests can become grounds for sanctions, pressure and even military intervention.

At a time when the United States faces serious challenges in energy and the security dynamics of West Asia, the removal of Syria and HTS from terrorism lists can also be assessed in connection with energy-transfer plans. The revival of old energy routes from Iraq to Syria and plans by some Arab countries to establish transit routes through Syrian territory, coupled with Washington’s propaganda efforts to downplay the importance of the Strait of Hormuz, raise a more serious question: Is Washington preparing the political groundwork for these projects?

An Alternative to Hormuz: An Admission Disguised as a Plan

Despite extensive publicity, proposed alternatives to the Strait of Hormuz are largely attractive on paper but face serious technical, security, logistical and economic obstacles in practice. Nevertheless, America’s insistence on highlighting these routes, alongside the easing of Syria’s status, could itself be significant: If Trump’s claims about the declining importance of Hormuz and Iran’s weakening were true, there would be little need for such extensive efforts to develop alternative routes.

At the same time, the failure of the United States and Israel to fully achieve the objectives of the recent war, and the exposure of vulnerabilities on this front, have increased concerns among Washington’s allies. Efforts by some countries to form new alliances, including cooperation among Pakistan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, as well as the emerging rapprochement between France and Riyadh, indicate that confidence in the United States can no longer be taken for granted. Through its move on Syria, Trump may above all be seeking to send a message that Washington remains capable of offering concessions and guaranteeing the interests of its allies.

Silence in Exchange for Concessions: Damascus Faces a Major Test

More significantly, the US decision comes as Israel advances militarily and occupies parts of Syrian territory. From this perspective, granting concessions to Damascus could be viewed as a form of political hush money: a concession expected to be met with an ineffective response from the Syrian government to Israel’s occupation, while Turkey is also expected to refrain from escalating its confrontation. Tom Barrack’s warnings about the consequences of Israel’s attack on the Abu al-Duhur air base in southern Idlib further underscore the importance of this balance.

Within the same framework, the reported announcement that the mission of the Syrian Democratic Forces has ended and that they will be integrated into government institutions, reportedly in line with the demands of Damascus and Turkey, merits attention. Damascus’s muted and passive response to the Israeli defense minister’s visit to the Mount Hermon area also offers a clear picture of the emerging environment, in which Israeli aggression is met with verbal condemnation but no practical action.

It should also not be forgotten that Trump had previously called for al-Julani to launch attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The removal of HTS from the terrorism list could therefore be part of laying the groundwork for it to play such a role, particularly as Washington’s efforts to disarm Hezbollah through political pressure and negotiations involving Lebanon and Israel have not produced the outcome it expected.

Sanctions and Concessions: Washington’s Imagined Model

The timing of this decision alongside the intensification of anti-Iran sanctions is also noteworthy. The United States appears to be seeking to promote a model under which countries that align themselves with Washington receive economic benefits, while those that oppose it face punishment. But this design reflects the White House’s calculations more than the reality on the ground, as countries such as China have continued to emphasize resistance to the pressure even after the escalation of sanctions against Iran.

Ultimately, the United States’ double standard, sanitizing terrorist groups in Syria, supporting Israel’s occupation, while labeling the legitimate resistance of the peoples of Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and Iran as terrorism, once again exposes the threatening nature of Washington’s policies. Recent experience shows that lasting regional security will not be achieved through dependence on foreign powers, but through genuine national independence, regional cooperation and the development of indigenous security capabilities.