Dipo Kehinde | News Analysis/
In a world where strategic interests often eclipse moral clarity, Washington’s recent receptions of two controversial figures, Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, formally serving as Crown Prince and Prime Minister, Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) and Syria’s newly installed President, Ahmed al-Sharaa (better known by his former nom de guerre, Abu Mohammed al-Julani), lay bare the enduring contradictions of American diplomacy under Donald Trump.
On one hand, the White House doors opened wide for a leader whom the CIA concluded had ordered the brutal murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2, 2018. On the other, a man once branded a terrorist emir, with a $10 million FBI bounty on his head, was received as Syria’s reformed head of state, hailed, in some quarters, as a partner in peace.
Al-Julani, the former commander of the al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria), now rebranded as Ahmed al-Sharaa, is being courted by Washington following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime late last year. The U.S., along with key Western allies, quietly suspended sanctions and lifted travel restrictions, effectively erasing the lines once drawn between terrorist and statesman. His visit to the White House on Monday, November 10, 2025, complete with handshakes and official photos, marks a stunning reversal of America’s long-standing policy on designated extremists.
Trump’s outreach, described by analysts as “transactional diplomacy at its boldest,” echoes his earlier pattern with the Saudi crown prince. Then, too, the calculus was clear: oil, regional stability, and countering Iran, took precedence over human rights.
Now, the logic extends to Syria, where engaging a former jihadist leader promises leverage in rebuilding a post-Assad order and containing the remnants of ISIS.
It is impossible to forget the chilling details of Khashoggi’s murder. A U.S.-based journalist lured into a consulate, dismembered by 15 agents linked to MbS security circle.
The CIA was unambiguous: Mohammed bin Salman “approved an operation to capture or kill” Khashoggi. Yet, despite bipartisan outrage, Washington chose continuity over confrontation. Trump himself dismissed the findings, citing lucrative arms deals and a “need to keep Saudi Arabia close.”
That same realpolitik now appears to govern America’s approach to Syria. Sanctions waivers and diplomatic courtesies have been extended to a man once at the heart of a terror network that terrorized civilians, journalists, and aid workers.
The controversy reached surreal levels when a retired U.S. CENTCOM commander, during a recent regional tour, reportedly told al-Julani he was a “fan” of his leadership transformation, a remark that sparked disbelief among military veterans and human-rights observers alike. The comment underscores the broader narrative: Washington’s new alliances are no longer shaped by shared values, but by short-term strategic needs.
To America’s critics, Trump’s dual embrace sends an unmistakable signal: the line between outlaw and ally is negotiable. When the stakes are energy, counterterrorism, or geopolitical influence, the U.S. can forgive even the unforgivable.
In the space of just a few years, Jamal Khashoggi’s killer and Abu Mohammed al-Julani’s successor persona have been recast, not as villains of global outrage, but as pivotal players in Washington’s evolving world order.
It is a stark reminder that in the theatre of global power, redemption often comes not through repentance, but through relevance.
0
