The Media Line: IS Accuses al-Sharaa of Making Concessions to US in Exchange for Lifting Sanctions 

Audio By Carbonatix

Enlarge

IS Accuses al-Sharaa of Making Concessions to US in Exchange for Lifting Sanctions 

In addition, Syrian activists say Al‑Sharaa is sacrificing Syrian sovereignty for US approval and is making ‘dangerous concessions’ in the process 

By Rizik Alabi / The Media Line 

In the July 11 edition of its weekly publication Al‑Naba, the Islamic State (IS) claimed that Ahmed al-Sharaa, Syria’s transitional president, offered strategic and political concessions to the United States, ranging from resource access to chemical weapons coordinates, to secure removal from the US terrorism blacklist. 

The Islamic State alleged that al-Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Mohammad al‑Jolani, aligned himself with what the group refers to as the “American‑Zionist axis,” citing the US and Israel. The editorial described his delisting as a political payoff. 

According to IS, al-Sharaa earned a “certificate of innocence” from the US by facilitating American access to Syrian natural resources and coordinating the return of living and dead prisoners. The publication also claimed he helped Israel recover the remains of Sgt. 1st Class Zvi Feldman, a soldier killed during the 1982 Battle of Sultan Yacoub. 

One of the more startling assertions is that al-Sharaa provided coordinates for Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles to prevent extremist control. IS further accused him of waging a global ideological campaign against the group, rooted in religious differences. 

The editorial suggested this move is part of a larger US–Russia rivalry in the region; as Moscow formalizes ties with the Taliban, Washington appears to be strengthening its influence in Syria through al-Sharaa. 

Central to IS’s accusations was a May 14 meeting in Riyadh between al-Sharaa and US President Donald Trump, described at the time as “historic.” Weeks later, the US State Department lifted sanctions on the group formerly known as Jabhat al‑Nusra, erasing its terror designation on July 8. 

Lebanese political scientist Dr. Leila al‑Hassan, speaking to The Media Line, offered a pragmatic analysis: “What Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa is doing is what we call in political science pragmatic realism. We are talking about a devastated country, exhausted by war, internationally besieged, and living in a political, security, and economic vacuum,” She added that the removal is not merely an implicit recognition of the new reality in Syria. Still, a window opened for the international community to rebuild the state and its institutions.” She said that cooperation on remains or weapons sites “does not necessarily indicate submission but rather represents a political investment in redefining the relationship with major powers.” 

Dr. Al‑Hassan added, “These organizations seek to sustain chaos and reject any form of political openness. Al-Sharaa is fighting them because he is trying to build a state, and they are fighting him because they do not acknowledge the existence of any state.” She concluded, “We do not live in an ideal world, but in a region torn by conflicting balances. Al-Sharaa is not offering concessions; he is practicing politics in the language of the world we live in, not the one we wish for.” 

In contrast, Syrian activist Firas al‑Saeed from Idlib, speaking to The Media Line, criticized al-Sharaa adamantly: “Unfortunately, what Ahmed al-Sharaa is doing can only be described as dangerous concessions that trade national sovereignty for narrow political interests.” He warned that delisting a group with extremist ties “undermines public trust in the entire political process.” 

Al‑Saeed also objected to the surrender of chemical weapons information, the return of remains to Israel, and the granting of US access to Syrian resources without any parliamentary oversight. “This is not diplomatic savvy—it is negotiation from a position of weakness that sacrifices national principles,” he stated. 

He continued, “This government emerged after enormous popular sacrifices but now operates in the shadows, behind closed doors, building its legitimacy on external approval rather than internal will.” He stressed, “Even if IS is our collective enemy, that does not justify using their opposition as a pretext for every dangerous decision. We do not just need someone to fight terrorism; we need someone to preserve national dignity, independence, and sovereignty.” 

Al‑Saeed concluded: “This path does not build a state, but reproduces dependency under new disguises. Perhaps today we gain the lifting of sanctions, but we lose trust, identity, and perhaps the future.” 

The allegations highlight an ongoing battle for legitimacy among Islamist factions. As Syria’s transitional administration strengthens ties with Western powers, groups like IS seek to undermine its credibility through religious critique and conspiracy. 

For US observers, the episode offers insight into how extremist groups interpret changing American foreign policy, especially when former adversaries seek a return to the international system. 

At its heart, this dispute pits those who navigate international norms for survival against those who reject modern state systems altogether.