The Jolani Cartoon and the Architecture of Normalisation
On 21 May 2026, a single frame began circulating across Arabic-language social media and messaging channels. It shows a figure wearing the black flag of the Islamic State, standing beneath an American flag from which a hand extends, reshaping him into a man in a suit. The caption reads: "Made in America!" The figure being remade, according to the artist, is Abu Mohammed al-Jolani — the former al-Qaeda commander who now leads Syria's transitional government as acting president Ahmed al-Shara. The cartoon appeared simultaneously across multiple channels associated with Iranian state-affiliated media on the morning of 21 May, propagating a narrative that has quietly animated regional commentary since the collapse of the Assad government in late 2024.
The image is crude as art and sharp as analysis. It does not argue a case — it asserts one. But the speed of its spread, and the conviction with which it has been received across the Levant, the Gulf, and the wider Arab world, points to something structural beneath the provocation. It captures a widely-held perception about Washington's posture toward Hayat Tahrir al-Sham: that the United States is not merely accommodating a new government in Damascus but actively constructing its legitimacy, and that the man at the centre of that construction is someone whose background should preclude exactly the normalisation now underway.
The Man the Cartoon Draws
The figure the cartoon depicts spent the better part of fifteen years as the emir of Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda's official branch in Syria. He was, at various points, on the receiving end of American drone strikes. He was held by American forces at Camp Bucca, a US-run detention facility in Iraq, after the 2003 invasion — a biography he has publicly referenced. When he broke with al-Qaeda's central command in 2016 and rebranded the organisation as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, he did so through force and negotiation, absorbing rival factions and consolidating control over Idlib province. He was never formally removed from most American designated-terrorist lists. His group remained, until recently, categorised as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation under US law.
What changed was not Jolani's biography but the political context surrounding it. The collapse of the Assad government in late 2024, following a rapid offensive by a coalition that included HTS and Turkish-backed Syrian National Army factions, left a power vacuum that demanded institutional responses. Jolani — who assumed the formal name Ahmed al-Shara upon the transitional government's formation — was not invited to lead that response by Washington. He was present in the room because his forces controlled the territory and infrastructure that everyone else needed. The normalisation of his position was a downstream consequence of military and political facts on the ground, not a Washington design imposed from above.
But the cartoon is not interested in that distinction. It wants to say: this is what America does. It manufactures acceptable faces for unacceptable forces. The language Western officials have used in the months since December 2024 — talking about "inclusive governance," "moderate factions," "regional partners" — provides ample raw material for that reading. The diplomatic vocabulary of accommodation has been deployed without ever directly addressing the question of whether the man leading Syria's provisional institutions should, by any consistent standard of counterterrorism, be allowed to lead them at all.
The Architecture of Legitimacy
The cartoon's subject line — "Made in America!" — gestures toward a second, more substantive claim: that Washington is not merely tolerating HTS but actively building the scaffolding for its international rehabilitation. The claim is not without foundation.
American forces are present in eastern Syria, deployed alongside the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and controlling the oil fields around Deir Ezzor. That presence gives Washington a structural lever over any Damascus government, regardless of its ideological colour. More concretely, the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act — the sweeping American sanctions regime enacted in 2019 and tightened through subsequent rounds — gives the US Treasury enormous leverage over any government that wants access to a financial system still denominated overwhelmingly in dollars. Syria's economy, shattered by fourteen years of war and sanctions, cannot function without at minimum a de facto sanctions accommodation.
In March 2025, the Trump administration issued a determination that effectively lifted sanctions on HTS and its leadership for an initial six-month period, with the possibility of extension. The move was framed as transactional: America would ease the economic pressure in exchange for specific HTS commitments on governance, ISIS containment, and Iran's regional posture. The precise terms of that exchange have not been made public. The lifting of sanctions was the most visible evidence that Washington was prepared to work with — and thereby legitimise — the very organisation it had spent years targeting.
This is the structural fact the cartoon is reaching toward. America did not create Jolani. America did not create HTS. But American decisions about sanctions, designation lists, diplomatic contact, and regional posture are shaping whether the HTS project in Syria succeeds or fails. The cartoon conflates influence with authorship, which is a rhetorical sleight of hand — but it is a sleight of hand that describes something real.
The Iran Angle
What complicates the cartoon's trajectory — and what its spread through Iranian state-adjacent media outlets on 21 May suggests — is the degree to which this particular image is doing diplomatic work for a specific interest.
Iran's position in Syria has weakened substantially since the fall of the Assad government. The network of Iranian-aligned militias that Tehran had cultivated over decades across Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon was anchored by the Assad regime's survival. With that anchor removed, Iran's regional posture is one of strategic repositioning: seeking new partners, managing relationships with HTS, and above all, contesting the narrative that Syria's political future is being decided on terms that exclude Tehran's interests. The framing that "America is building Syria's government" serves that contesting function. It positions Iran as a wronged party in a story where America decides who rules the Arab world.
This framing has purchase in part because the perception it addresses is accurate — Washington does have disproportionate leverage over Syria's economic and political trajectory, and American decisions are genuinely shaping the normalisation of a figure whose history should, by any consistent counterterrorism logic, disqualify him from international recognition. But the Iranian amplification of that perception is itself a strategic act. Tehran's own record in Syria — supporting a regime that killed hundreds of thousands of its own people, deploying proxy forces across the region, and constructing a logistics corridor from Tehran to Beirut — does not provide a counter-model of restraint or sovereignty.
The cartoon is thus doing work for multiple audiences simultaneously. For regional publics who distrust American regional influence, it names a grievance. For Iranian diplomatic messaging, it provides visual reinforcement for the claim that Washington is the architect of Syria's future, not a neutral observer. And for domestic Syrian audiences — who must actually live under the government being constructed — it raises a question that the political transition has not yet answered: whether the normalisation of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham represents genuine change or the recycling of the same centralised power structures that produced the original catastrophe.
What the Image Gets Right — and What It Doesn't
The cartoon succeeds analytically because it names three things that are true simultaneously. America does have structural leverage over Syria's political and economic future, exercised through sanctions, regional military presence, and diplomatic recognition decisions. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham's leadership does have a history that, by any consistent standard of American counterterrorism doctrine, should disqualify it from the normalisation currently underway. And regional audiences — across the Levant, the Gulf, and the wider Arab world — do perceive Washington's engagement with Syria's transitional government as something more than transactional.
What the cartoon misses — because it is a single frame, not an argument — is the agency of other actors. Turkey has forces in northern Syria and its own preferred outcome for the political transition. Israel has conducted strikes across Syrian territory since December 2024 and has its own red lines on Iranian presence. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have reopened diplomatic channels with Damascus and are pursuing their own commercial and security interests in any post-conflict settlement. The idea that Syria's future is simply what Washington decides is a convenient simplification for those who want to locate all regional dysfunction in a single external actor. The reality is more crowded.
The cartoon also inverts the causal sequence that its own subject line implies. Jolani did not rise because America decided to elevate him. Jolani rose because his forces won militarily, because he managed a political rebranding that held a disparate coalition together, and because no alternative structure presented itself that could govern Syrian territory at scale. Washington then adapted its posture to that reality. The lift of sanctions in March 2025 was a response to a fait accompli, not its cause.
Whether that distinction matters to the people of Idlib or Damascus is a separate question. Syria's political future is being written through a process that is genuinely uncertain, and the cartoon captures something real about the perceptions surrounding that process. "Made in America!" is, in the end, less a factual claim than a diagnostic: it says that this is what the region's publics believe about how power works in the Levant, and that belief has its own political weight.
— — —
This publication's coverage of Syria's political transition prioritises Western wire reporting supplemented by regional and Arabic-language sources. The Iranian state-adjacent framing present in the source material has been examined as evidence of Tehran's positioning strategy rather than accepted as a neutral account of American policy.
Wire provenance
This editorial synthesis draws on the following public wire/social posts:
- https://t.me/tasnimplus
- https://t.me/tasnimnews_en
- https://t.me/mehrnews