Terrorist Organization: A Label of Convenience for US Interests

Terrorist Organization: A Label of Convenience for US Interests

The U.S. government’s use of the term "terrorist organization" has become increasingly malleable, shaped to fit its geopolitical agenda rather than adhering to consistent moral or legal standards. Recent events exemplify this trend, as Washington appears poised to remove Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) from its list of designated terrorist organizations, even as it supports Israel’s military occupation of Syrian territory by citing the prevalence of terrorism in the region.

At a recent State Department press briefing, spokesman Matthew Miller defended Israel's aggressive actions in Syria as temporary measures aimed at “defending its borders.” He rationalized Israel's invasion and airstrikes by claiming that Syria, following Assad’s ouster, has become a haven for terrorist groups. Yet, in a striking contradiction, the U.S. is considering delisting HTS—a faction that once played a leading role in efforts to overthrow Assad and whose leader has ties to both ISIS and al-Qaeda.

Miller further stated that there is “no legal barrier” to engaging with HTS, despite its past designation as a terrorist group. Meanwhile, Politico reports a heated—though likely performative—debate in Washington about whether HTS should be removed from the terrorist list entirely.

This dual narrative is emblematic of U.S. imperial strategy: on the one hand, celebrating HTS as freedom fighters in the context of Syria’s civil war, and on the other, using the presence of “terrorist factions” as justification for Israel's territorial expansion. The contradictions reflect a policy not grounded in truth or morality but in the unyielding pursuit of global dominance.

The Weaponization of "Terrorist" Designations

The designation of a group as a terrorist organization is more about political convenience than actual behavior. Non-state actors who oppose U.S. or allied interests, such as Hamas or Hezbollah, are routinely labeled terrorists. Even official state forces, like Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, have been added to the list for resisting U.S. influence.

However, groups aligned with U.S. strategic interests often receive exemptions. For example, the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, once labeled a terrorist group, was removed from the list during the Trump administration. The group’s alignment with U.S. efforts against Assad and China made its delisting politically expedient.

The same logic extends to the ongoing U.S. support for Israel. The U.S. House of Representatives recently moved to ban the use of Gaza health ministry statistics for reporting on casualties, arguing that the ministry is linked to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization. Yet the Israeli government, responsible for widespread civilian deaths in Gaza, faces no such designation.

Empire’s Tool for Narrative Control

The label "terrorist organization" is, at its core, a narrative tool used to justify violence against those who oppose U.S. hegemony. Groups cease to be terrorists when they align with imperial interests, and atrocities committed by allies are conveniently overlooked. Civilians, meanwhile, bear the brunt of these cynical designations, with their deaths treated as collateral damage rather than war crimes.

Ultimately, the term “terrorist organization” serves less as an objective standard and more as a means of controlling public perception. Those who comply with U.S. interests are absolved, while those who resist are vilified—no matter the human cost.