From al-Qaeda to Elysée: Macron’s risky Syria play

French President Emmanuel Macron’s decision to host on Wednesday Ahmed al-Sharaa, Syria’s interim president, in Paris has ignited a firestorm of criticism. 

The move, seen as a bid to cement France’s role in Middle East diplomacy, has instead exposed deep flaws in Macron’s foreign policy, raising questions about consistency, principles, and long-term consequences.

Ahmed al-Sharaa, previously known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani, is no ordinary leader. A former commander in al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch, Jabhat al-Nusra, he now heads Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a jihadist group designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations and multiple Western nations. 

Under his leadership, HTS has been accused of enforcing draconian Islamist rule and committing human rights abuses in rebel-held Syrian territories. In March 2025, al-Sharaa announced a five-year transitional Islamist governance plan, a framework critics call regressive and a threat to religious minorities, women’s rights, and democratic aspirations.

Macron’s decision to welcome al-Sharaa has sparked outrage across France’s political spectrum. 

Critics argue that hosting a former jihadist risks legitimizing a figure with a troubling past, undermining France’s commitment to secularism and universal human rights. 

“This is a betrayal of our values,” said Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Rally, echoing sentiments shared by left-leaning groups and human rights advocates. The meeting has also drawn international scrutiny, with analysts questioning whether France is prioritizing geopolitical influence over ethical considerations.

This controversy fits into a broader pattern of inconsistency in Macron’s foreign policy. 

Since taking office in 2017, Macron has oscillated between championing democratic ideals and engaging with authoritarian or controversial figures. 

In the Sahel, France’s military withdrawal left allies questioning its reliability. 

In Lebanon, Macron’s high-profile diplomatic efforts yielded little progress. 

Now, in Syria, the decision to engage al-Sharaa appears to be a pragmatic but shortsighted attempt to secure a foothold in a volatile region.

Supporters of Macron argue that engaging al-Sharaa is a necessary evil. 

With Syria’s political landscape fractured and Russia and Turkey vying for influence, France risks being sidelined without bold moves. 

“Diplomacy requires tough choices,” said a French Foreign Ministry spokesperson, defending the meeting as a step toward stabilizing Syria. Yet this justification rings hollow for many, given al-Sharaa’s track record and the lack of clear assurances that HTS will moderate its policies.

The risks of this approach are manifold. Legitimizing al-Sharaa could embolden other jihadist groups, while alienating Syrian minorities and secular factions who fear HTS’s agenda.

It also undermines France’s credibility as a defender of human rights, potentially weakening its moral authority in global forums. 

Domestically, Macron faces backlash at a time when his approval ratings are already strained, with critics accusing him of prioritizing foreign gambits over pressing economic and social issues at home.

As France seeks to assert itself as a key player in the Middle East, Macron’s meeting with al-Sharaa suggests a troubling willingness to compromise principles for influence. 

Without a coherent strategy, such moves risk backfiring, eroding France’s global standing and fueling instability in an already fragile region. For a president who once promised to restore France’s greatness, this latest misstep may prove costly.