Washington DC - By any honest accounting, the current crisis spanning Syria and Iraq exposes a profound contradiction at the heart of Western foreign policy, one with grave consequences for Christians, Assyrians, and other minorities. Indeed the credibility of international law itself and American laws are being undermined.

On the one hand, Washington and its regional allies, including Israel, increasingly tolerate, or actively coordinate with, armed Islamist actors in Syria when it suits immediate strategic or economic objectives. On the other hand, the same Western governments continue to apply counterterrorism laws rigidly, even punitively, against vulnerable Christian figures whose only “crime” has been negotiating the release of hostages from those very groups. This contradiction is not merely hypocritical; it is legally corrosive and morally indefensible.

The Strategic Embrace of “Useful” Islamists

Recent developments make clear that Western policy toward Syria is no longer anchored in principles of minority protection, counterterrorism consistency, or post-conflict justice. The normalization of diplomatic engagement with the government of Ahmad al-Sharaa, an administration emerging from the remnants of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a jihadist organization, signals a calculated willingness to overlook ideological origins so long as short-term stability, border control, and energy corridors are secured.

From Baghdad’s perspective, a consolidated Syrian state promises tangible benefits: stabilized borders, reactivated oil pipelines, expanded trade zones, and access to the Mediterranean that could transform Iraq into a major regional economic corridor. These ambitions explain why both Iraq and its Western partners increasingly favor a “single authority” in Syria, even if that authority has demonstrably failed to protect minorities and has relied on Islamist militias as instruments of control.

Israel’s posture fits within this same logic: a fragmented but manageable Syria, governed by actors hostile to Iran yet pliable to external pressure, is preferable to a pluralistic but unpredictable order. In this calculus, Assyrians and Christians are not stakeholders. They are collateral variables.

Christians as the Price of Pragmatism

The consequences are already visible. As In Defense of Christians organization documents, Syrian government operations in Aleppo and northeastern Syria have displaced Christian communities that had survived the worst years of ISIS by finding refuge under alternative local administrations. The escape of Islamic State detainees from Shaddadi Prison during government advances underscores a deeper truth: security failures affecting Christians are tolerated when they do not disrupt larger geopolitical designs.

This is not neglect; it is a policy choice.

The message to Syria’s indigenous Christians - Chaldeans/Syriacs/Assyrians and Armenians - is unmistakable: protection is conditional, temporary, and expendable. Commitments to religious freedom are invoked rhetorically while abandoned operationally.

The Mar Aprem Paradox and the Collapse of Legal Coherence

Nothing illustrates the moral and legal incoherence of Western counterterrorism policy more starkly than the case of Mar Aprem, an Assyrian bishop who helped secure the release of Christian prisoners held by Islamic terrorist groups. For this act, one rooted in humanitarian necessity and pastoral duty, he was reportedly warned by Western sources that he could face prosecution for “material support to terrorism.”

This is an extraordinary inversion of justice.

Western governments negotiate prisoner swaps, pay intermediaries, and coordinate indirectly with armed Islamist factions as matters of statecraft. Yet when an Assyrian Christian cleric does the same to save lives abandoned by the international community, he is threatened with criminal liability. The law is not being applied neutrally; it is being weaponized selectively.

Under United States law, Iraqi and Syrian Christians seeking asylum, who have provided funds for the purpose of securing the release of kidnapped family members, have frequently been subjected to heightened scrutiny and, in some instances, threatened with criminal prosecution under the federal “material support” statutes, notwithstanding the humanitarian and coercive circumstances under which such payments were made (under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2339A–2339B). The statutory framework, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, does not require proof that a person intended to further terrorist activity, but only that one knowingly provided funds or resources to an organization designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. As a result, even ransom payments made under duress to secure the release of abducted relatives may fall within the statute’s broad ambit, creating significant legal exposure for members of persecuted minority communities who act out of necessity rather than ideological sympathy.

If anti-terrorism statutes are enforced only against the powerless, while states themselves freely redefine who counts as a “terrorist” based on shifting political interests, then those laws cease to be instruments of justice. They become tools of political convenience and soon lose legitimacy.

What This Means for International Law

At stake is more than minority survival. It is the integrity of international legal norms. Counterterrorism law cannot be credible if designation and enforcement are fluid, situational, and subordinated to energy routes and regional alignments. Nor can international humanitarian law survive when those who prevent bloodshed are criminalized, while those who enable or rehabilitate extremist actors are diplomatically rewarded.

For Assyrians and Christians in Iraq and Syria, the lesson is painfully clear: Western assurances are reversible, conditional, and ultimately subordinate to geopolitical expediency. For international law, the lesson is even darker: selective enforcement erodes legitimacy, invites cynicism, and guarantees future abuses.

A Reckoning Deferred but Inevitable

The West cannot indefinitely reconcile its rhetoric with its actions. One cannot champion anti-terrorism while partnering with former jihadists, nor claim moral authority while threatening bishops for saving lives abandoned by states. A legal order that punishes conscience and rewards expediency will not endure.

For the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East, this moment is existential. For the West, it is reputational. And for international law, it is a warning: principles compromised for convenience rarely survive the consequences.

What is to be done?
Middle Eastern Christians, acting in concert with other vulnerable and legally marginalized communities, must organize a sustained and coordinated effort to assert their rights and interests within international, regional, and domestic legal forums. This requires moving beyond appeals for sympathy toward a disciplined strategy of advocacy grounded in the principle of equal application of the law. Such advocacy must be deliberate, public, and forceful, leveraging existing alliances, ecclesiastical networks, civil society institutions, and diaspora influence to impose political and legal costs on inconsistency and selective enforcement.

The security and legal standing of any one Christian community in Syria is not an isolated concern but a precedent-setting issue that directly affects all Middle Eastern Christians—and, by extension, the global Christian community. Allowing their fate to be determined by shifting geopolitical priorities and transactional Western diplomacy invites continued vulnerability. Legal equality, once compromised for one community, is compromised for all. Consequently, the defense of these communities must be framed not as a sectarian appeal, but as a test case for the credibility of international law, counterterrorism norms, and the universality of justice itself.