Have you ever wondered what goes on behind closed doors when world leaders discuss the fate of nations? Picture this: a hushed conversation in Washington, where a king from the Middle East warns against a dangerous move that could ignite chaos. That’s exactly what happened when Jordan’s King Abdullah II cautioned the United States against targeting Syria’s new leader, Ahmed Sharaa, just before a pivotal meeting with President Donald Trump. This moment, revealed by a US senator, pulls back the curtain on the delicate dance of diplomacy in a region where every decision ripples far beyond its borders.
A Warning That Echoed Across the Atlantic
The Middle East is no stranger to tension, but the revelation that Jordan’s monarch stepped in to influence US policy on Syria adds a new layer of intrigue. According to a US senator, King Abdullah expressed concerns about rumors circulating in certain American foreign policy circles. These whispers suggested a drastic option: assassinating Ahmed Sharaa, the man who recently rose to power in Damascus. The king’s warning wasn’t just a casual remark—it was a calculated plea to avoid plunging Syria into deeper turmoil.
A change in leadership through such means would spark an all-out civil war in Syria, derailing any chance for progress.
– Paraphrased from a US senator’s recounting of King Abdullah’s concerns
Why would such a drastic idea even be on the table? To understand, we need to dig into Sharaa’s complex past and the skepticism he faces from some in the Trump administration. But first, let’s explore why Jordan’s king felt compelled to intervene.
Why Jordan’s Voice Matters
Jordan, a small but strategically vital nation, has long played the role of a stabilizer in the Middle East. Sandwiched between conflict zones like Syria and Iraq, it’s a country that thrives on diplomacy. King Abdullah II, a seasoned leader, knows the cost of instability all too well—his nation hosts millions of refugees from neighboring wars. When he speaks, global powers listen, especially when the stakes involve regional security.
In this case, the king’s warning came during a visit to Washington in May 2025, just before Trump’s unexpected decision to lift sanctions on Syria. His message was clear: eliminating Sharaa would not only destabilize Syria but also send shockwaves through the region, potentially overwhelming Jordan with new waves of refugees and violence. It’s a perspective grounded in experience, and frankly, I find it hard to argue with his logic. Stability, even if fragile, is often better than chaos.
Who Is Ahmed Sharaa?
Ahmed Sharaa is no ordinary leader. As the former commander of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a group with roots in the Syrian rebellion, he’s a polarizing figure. His journey from a US prison—where he was held after participating in the Iraq insurgency—to the helm of Syria’s government is nothing short of cinematic. Once branded a global terrorist, Sharaa has reinvented himself as a pragmatic leader, aligning with Turkey and Gulf states while navigating a minefield of international scrutiny.
Trump’s description of Sharaa as a “young, attractive, tough guy” with a “strong past” raised eyebrows, but it also hinted at a willingness to give him a chance. Yet, not everyone in Washington shares this optimism. Some advisors, reportedly from the National Security Council, view Sharaa with suspicion, pushing for concessions before fully embracing his leadership. This tension sets the stage for the drama that unfolded behind the scenes.
Trump’s Bold Move: Lifting Sanctions
In a move that caught even his own team off guard, Trump announced the removal of all US sanctions on Syria, some dating back to 1979. The decision, made public just before his meeting with Sharaa in Riyadh, was met with applause in the Middle East but grumbling in Washington. Why the sudden shift? According to Trump, two key allies—Turkey’s President Erdogan and Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman—lobbied hard for the change.
This wasn’t just about economics. Lifting sanctions signaled a new chapter for Syria, one where Sharaa could potentially lead without the constant threat of international isolation. But it also exposed rifts within the US government. Some State Department officials, expecting sanctions to remain, felt blindsided. Others, particularly hardliners, argued for a slower approach, hoping to extract promises from Sharaa first.
- Economic Relief: Sanctions removal opens Syria to trade and investment, potentially stabilizing its economy.
- Diplomatic Opportunity: Sharaa gains legitimacy, but with expectations to curb militancy and normalize ties with neighbors.
- Internal Pushback: Hardline advisors worry about giving Sharaa too much leeway without guarantees.
The Risk of Undermining Trump’s Vision
One of the most striking aspects of this saga is the suggestion that some in Trump’s administration might be working against his goals. A Democratic senator warned during a Senate hearing that certain officials could undermine the president’s initiative. This isn’t just bureaucratic squabbling—it’s a clash of visions for Syria’s future.
Trump’s nominee for a top Middle East post, Joel Rayburn, faced tough questions about these tensions. Rayburn, seen as a Syria hawk during Trump’s first term, distanced himself from any assassination talk, emphasizing alignment with the president’s bold strategy. But the fact that such questions were raised at all speaks volumes about the distrust simmering beneath the surface.
The president’s initiative offers a golden opportunity to turn the page in Syria.
– Paraphrased from a US official’s Senate testimony
What Does Sharaa Need to Deliver?
Trump’s gamble on Sharaa comes with strings attached. The White House has outlined clear expectations, which could make or break this fragile partnership. Here’s what’s on the table:
- Expel Foreign Fighters: Sharaa must remove Palestinian and other foreign militants from Syria to ease regional tensions.
- Combat Extremism: Taking on the Islamic State is non-negotiable, as the US seeks to prevent a resurgence of terrorism.
- Normalize Ties: Trump has hinted at Syria joining Israel in future peace talks, a tall order given current hostilities.
These demands are daunting, especially for a leader still consolidating power. Sharaa’s ability to deliver will depend on his skill in balancing domestic pressures with international expectations. Personally, I’m intrigued by his pivot from rebel commander to statesman—it’s a tightrope walk few could manage.
The Bigger Picture: Regional Dynamics
Syria doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Its fate is tied to the broader Middle East, where powers like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel wield significant influence. Turkey, Sharaa’s closest ally, has been instrumental in his rise, while Gulf states like the UAE are facilitating talks to de-escalate tensions with Israel. These diplomatic maneuvers are a reminder that peace in the region requires cooperation, not unilateral moves.
Israel, which has conducted strikes in Syria and occupies parts of its territory, remains a wildcard. Trump’s push for Syria to join the Abraham Accords—a framework for Arab-Israeli normalization—could reshape the region, but it’s a long shot. Still, the fact that Syrian officials are even discussing peace is a sign of how far the region has come.
| Country | Role in Syria | Key Interest |
| Jordan | Diplomatic Mediator | Regional Stability |
| Turkey | Sharaa’s Ally | Influence in Syria |
| Israel | Military Presence | Security Concerns |
What’s Next for Syria?
The road ahead for Syria is anything but smooth. Sharaa’s leadership will be tested by internal challenges, from rebuilding a war-torn economy to uniting a fractured society. Externally, he’ll need to navigate the expectations of allies and skeptics alike. Trump’s decision to lift sanctions gives him breathing room, but it’s not a blank check.
For now, the world is watching. Will Sharaa prove his detractors wrong and lead Syria toward stability? Or will the naysayers in Washington get their way, derailing this experiment before it begins? One thing’s for sure: the Middle East is never boring, and this chapter is just getting started.
In my view, the most fascinating part of this story is the human element—leaders like King Abdullah and Sharaa making choices that could shape millions of lives. It’s a reminder that diplomacy, for all its flaws, is often the only thing standing between order and chaos. What do you think—can Sharaa rise to the challenge, or is the deck stacked against him?
