US Designates Syrian Leader Terrorist, Then... Not Terrorist.
According to The Hill, the US government—specifically under Trump—lifted its 'terrorist' label on a Syrian leader, just in time for a potential visit. One might wonder about the criteria for such a prestigious title. Was it the use of chemical weapons? The barrel bombs? Or is 'terrorist' merely a temporary inconvenience, subject to the whims of political optics and election cycles? This isn't
geopolitical strategy; it's a rebranding exercise. The US has a long, storied history of cozying up to dictators when it suits their immediate interests, only to cry 'human rights' later. The mainstream media dutifully reports the procedural change, but leaves out the whiplash-inducing hypocrisy. It's almost as if 'terrorist' means 'ally we haven't paid off yet,' or 'obstacle to our current
strategic goal.' How many 'terrorist' designations simply vanish for a handshake?