Three episodes of the West’s contradiction in defining terrorism

 

 

According to Tasnim News Agency , the recent decision of the British government to remove “Hayat Tahrir al-Sham” from the list of terrorist organizations is not a mere political event, but a clear document of the fundamental contradiction and structural hypocrisy of the West in facing the issue of terrorism in West Asia. This action, justified under the guise of “changing the security approach”, in fact, removes another curtain from the display of the changing and instrumental definition of terrorism by Western powers. Analysis of this decision clearly reveals three key messages that require analytical vigilance.

 

Act One: The Changing Definition of Terrorism and the Violation of Human Rights Claims

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is a direct product of the organization of extremist forces in Syria and a major player in the country’s decade-long violence. The group has a history of horrific crimes, including targeted sectarian killings, such as those against thousands of Alawites in the Hama countryside and other religious minorities. It has not only been a major source of instability in northern Syria, but has also been directly involved in gross violations of international law and human rights.

 

London’s removal of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham from its terrorism blacklist clearly demonstrates that “terrorism” for the West is not a fixed moral or legal concept, but rather a temporary political label that can be rewritten according to the exigencies of the moment. This shift in definition highlights the blatant contradiction between the West and its universal slogans on human rights and the fight against extremism. When a group with a history of mass killings is transformed from a criminal to a negotiable actor due to a change in the field, the very essence of the West’s claims to unconditionally fight terrorism collapses. This contradiction greatly reduces the moral weight of any future Western stance against the military or political actions of other groups.

 

Act Two: Pure Functionalism in Regional Peer-to-Peer

 

The second message that emerges from this move is the purely functional nature of Western foreign policy towards regional actors. Keeping or removing a group from the blacklist depends not on its domestic performance, but on its alignment with the Western powers’ plan for managing the region. After several years of sporadic fighting and suppression of rival groups, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is now seen as a stabilizing force and a deterrent against state forces or Western regional rivals (such as Iran and its allies).

 

In this instrumental view, what matters is not the ideology of the group, but its effectiveness in achieving the geopolitical goals of the United States and Europe. This approach suggests that the West’s main priority is not democratization or the establishment of justice, but rather managing the continuation of the crisis in a way that ensures its strategic interests, especially the security of the Zionist regime and control of energy resources. Groups that are elevated from the “threat” stage to the “usable asset” stage are quickly purged and delegitimized in order to enter the political arena.

 

Act Three: Behind-the-scenes Actors and Insecurity Management Strategy

 

Key decisions regarding groups with strategic potential, such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, are rarely made by local diplomats; they are the product of macro and medium-term calculations by the main enemies of regional stability. This delisting should be seen as part of a complex strategy for managing the current situation in Syria. This strategy seeks not to end the war, but to establish a favorable balance of power in which independent actors and regional resistance are pressured.

 

The West’s decisions are always accompanied by a strategic attachment. The elimination of the Tahrir al-Sham is done in order to facilitate the transfer of resources, financial assistance or information to this group so that it can expand the scope of Western influence in the Levant as a geopolitical buffer. This is an active tool in line with the long-term interests of the region’s enemies. Therefore, any analysis must take into account the bitter reality that “law” and “definition” in the West’s equations are merely weapons used to attack opponents and protect their own pieces on the playing field. This contradiction is a serious warning to the nations of the region about the true nature of their interaction with the West.