Strategic Hypocrisy: How US Interests Shape Terrorist Designations
By Mohamad Hammoud
The United States has long positioned itself as a global leader in the fight against terrorism, designating certain groups as threats to peace and stability. However, the inconsistencies in how the US defines and interacts with these groups reveal a troubling pattern of double standards. Rather than adhering to a principled opposition to terrorism, US policies often reflect shifting political and strategic interests.
A striking example of this is the US relationship with Jabhat al-Nusra, an Al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria. Initially designated as a terrorist organization, the group later received indirect US support when its objectives aligned with American interests in the Syrian conflict. This case exemplifies how the US selectively applies its terrorist designations, redefining relationships to suit foreign policy goals. This essay explores the double standards in US counterterrorism efforts, using Jabhat al-Nusra as a primary example, and highlights other instances where similar inconsistencies have been observed.
Jabhat al-Nusra: From Terrorist to Ally
Jabhat al-Nusra, also known as the Nusra Front, was designated a terrorist organization by the US. in 2012 due to its affiliation with Al-Qaeda and its violent activities in Syria. [Wikipedia]. However, as the Syrian War evolved, the U.S found itself in a complex situation where its interests overlapped with those of Jabhat al-Nusra in opposing the Assad regime. In 2016, Jabhat al-Nusra rebranded itself as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, distancing itself from Al-Qaeda and positioning itself as a legitimate opposition force. This rebranding created an opportunity for the US to indirectly support the group, despite its terrorist designation.
Reports indicate that the US provided arms and logistical support to so-called "moderate rebels" in Syria, many of whom cooperated with or fought alongside Jabhat al-Nusra.
Former US Special Representative for Syria, James Jeffrey, even described Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham [HTS], the successor of Jabhat al-Nusra, as an "asset" to American strategy in Syria. Similarly, in 2016, then-Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged that Nusra had become "interwoven" with legitimate opposition groups, complicating efforts to isolate it. These statements underscore the approach taken by the US, prioritizing immediate strategic interests over consistent application of counterterrorism policies.
Recent Events in Syria
The Syrian conflict has seen various factions vying for control, with the US shifting its support among groups based on evolving interests. Through its rebranding as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham [HTS], Jabhat al-Nusra positioned itself as a key force against the government in Syria. Despite its designation as a terrorist organization, HTS managed to align its objectives with US interests, particularly in countering Iranian-backed militias.
Reports suggest that this alignment led to instances where the US provided logistical support and intelligence to HTS, despite its official terrorist status. These actions underscore the complexities of geopolitical alliances and highlight the contradictions in US counterterrorism policies as it pursues strategic objectives in the region.
Other Examples of Double Standards
The Mujahideen in Afghanistan
In the 1980s, the United States supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, labeling them "freedom fighters" as their struggle against the Soviet Union aligned with US geopolitical interests. Through a covert operation known as Operation Cyclone, the US provided weapons, training, and financial aid to these groups, channeling support through Pakistan’s intelligence services. The US assistance was not driven by a commitment to freedom or democracy but by the strategic goal of countering Soviet influence during the Cold War.
However, Once the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan and US interests in the region shifted, these former allies were reclassified as terrorist threats and became enemies of the United States.
This stark reversal highlights the transactional nature of US foreign policy, where alliances are often dictated by short-term strategic objectives rather than consistent principles.
The Contras in Nicaragua
In the 1980s, the US supported the Contras, a rebel group in Nicaragua, in their efforts to overthrow the Sandinista government. Despite the Contras’ involvement in human rights abuses and acts of terrorism, they received substantial US backing. This support was justified by the broader objective of combating communism in Latin America, again highlighting the inconsistency in the US approach to labeling and dealing with terrorist organizations.
US Support for “Israel”
The US's selective approach extends beyond organizations to include its relationships with regimes. While the US condemns groups like Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, it provides unconditional support to “Israel,” even when “Israeli” military actions result in significant civilian casualties. For example, US-made weapons have been used in “Israeli” airstrikes on Gaza and Lebanon, which have been criticized as disproportionate and inconsistent with international humanitarian law [Amnesty International].
Despite these violations, the US continues to support “Israel,” citing strategic and political alliances as justification. This support persists even though US laws, such as the Leahy Law, prohibit military assistance to foreign military units that commit gross human rights violations.
Saudi Arabia and Human Rights
The US relationship with Saudi Arabia offers another glaring example of double standards. Despite Saudi Arabia’s role in the devastating war in Yemen—marked by indiscriminate bombings and a humanitarian crisis—the US has provided military support and diplomatic backing. These actions mirror the brutality attributed to groups the US labels as terrorist, yet the relationship persists due to strategic interests, including oil and regional stability [ECCHR].
Saddam Hussein and the Iran-Iraq War
During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, the US provided substantial support to Saddam Hussein’s regime, including economic aid, military intelligence, and dual-use technology. This support was part of a broader strategy to counter post-revolutionary Iran. Once the war ended, the US quickly turned against Saddam, accusing him of human rights abuses and weapons proliferation, leading to the Gulf War and subsequent conflicts.
Conclusion
The US approach to labeling and dealing with terrorist organizations is riddled with double standards. The case of Jabhat al-Nusra, along with historical examples like the Mujahideen, Saddam Hussein, and the Contras, demonstrates how strategic interests often dictate U.S. counterterrorism policies. Similarly, the US's relationships with “Israel” and Saudi Arabia reveal a willingness to overlook human rights violations when it aligns with broader geopolitical goals. While this approach may yield short-term benefits, it undermines international norms, fuels extremism, and exposes the hypocrisy in US counterterrorism efforts. To maintain credibility and uphold global standards, the US must reconcile its strategic interests with a consistent and principled stance on terrorism.
