President Ahmad al-Sharaa is playing “basketball diplomacy” with his Washington and Moscow visits
Following his recent visit to Moscow, Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa paid a working visit to the United States. The purpose of the trip was to strengthen Damascus-Washington cooperation and to explore new channels of trust amid a changing regional security architecture.
The new Syrian leadership’s foreign policy approach can be described as “basketball diplomacy.” It’s an apt metaphor reflecting a genuine political style – a blend of informality, agility, and personal rapport – rooted in the president’s and Foreign Minister Assad al-Shaibani’s passion for basketball, frequently showcased in viral videos of their casual games.
The symbolic weight of this approach grew after the release of footage from a discreet visit by senior US officials to Damascus. The video showed al-Sharaa and al-Shaibani playing basketball alongside US Central Command (CENTCOM) commander Admiral Charles B. Cooper II and Brigadier General Kevin J. Lambert, head of the Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF–OIR). These images became a visual embodiment of a new model of engagement – one in which informal interaction complements, and at times even precedes, formal diplomatic agreements.
The “basketball diplomacy” of Syria’s new leadership is more than a stylistic flourish; it is an attempt to craft an image of a regime capable of turning a hard biography and a traumatic past into political capital. Ahmad al-Sharaa’s personal story – from his time in US detention in Iraq and his years in the jihadist underground to his emergence as a statesman capable of negotiating on equal terms with both Washington and Moscow – has become central to this narrative. Unlike Bashar Assad, who over time was cornered into dependence on a narrow circle of allies, the new Syrian authorities seek to project a different image: that of a state reclaiming agency, able to reshape the architecture of regional security and the configuration of coalitions.
Within this framework, the basketball court is both a visual and political code. A shared game with American officers – along with the leaders’ visible ease and openness – serves as a message of readiness for a new kind of dialogue. Not the ritualized rhetoric of “resistance” or the “axis of resistance,” but a display of confidence, manageability, and predictability.
The decision to send a high-level delegation to Moscow immediately after al-Sharaa’s Washington visit was also a deliberate signal that Damascus is trying to build a system of balance. The revival of trade, economic, and defense ties with Russia is meant to underscore that the new Syria is not severing its old connections, but rather seeking to make them more rational and pragmatic, to cleanse them of the toxicity inherited from civil war and internal repression.
The parallel rapprochement with Washington serves a different, yet complementary purpose: to legitimize the new Syrian government within the Western political sphere and integrate it into coalition and sanctions frameworks. Equally important, Washington itself – by extending or lifting sanctions exemptions – becomes part of a process in which Syria’s stability is no longer viewed as an incidental outcome, but as an intentional political objective.
Al-Sharaa’s Washington visit has become one of the most remarkable developments in the Middle East in recent years. It marked the first official visit of a Syrian head of state to the White House in modern history – and although it unfolded without the usual ceremonial pomp, its political significance was enormous.
The context of the visit was complex. After years of civil war, foreign interventions, and sanctions, Syria had been left in a state of fragmented sovereignty. For Washington, meanwhile, al-Sharaa’s arrival offered an opportunity to restore its strategic foothold in a region from which the US had largely withdrawn after 2019. During his second term, President Donald Trump has prioritized targeted deals and personalized diplomacy over large-scale military campaigns – direct arrangements with regional leaders capable of delivering concrete benefits to the US. The Syrian track has thus become a testing ground for this new model.
The format of the visit itself carried symbolic weight. The Syrian president entered the White House through a side entrance rather than the traditional front door – a deliberate gesture, signaling that the US is not yet ready for full “normalization” with Damascus, preferring to retain control over the process. Nevertheless, the Oval Office meeting with Trump, attended by Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, represented a political breakthrough. Fidan’s presence clearly indicated that Washington, Ankara, and the new Damascus are attempting to jointly reshape the Syrian agenda – above all, to resolve the Kurdish issue in a way that does not compromise Türkiye’s interests.
For Ankara, the key objective remains the dismantling of the military and political infrastructure of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which it views as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). For the United States, the priority is to preserve its influence in eastern Syria – no longer through Kurdish autonomy, but through agreements with the new central government.
Al-Sharaa left Washington with a tangible result: the signing of the D-ISIS (Defeat ISIS) agreement, described by the White House as the main practical outcome of the talks. The accord formally commits Syria to join the international coalition against the remnants of the Islamic State. Yet its significance extends far beyond counterterrorism – the agreement effectively acknowledges the new Syrian leader as Washington’s partner in the security sphere. For al-Sharaa, a former commander of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham once designated a terrorist, it marks a decisive step toward international legitimacy. Syrian sources described the agreement as a “tax” that al-Sharaa paid in exchange for the easing or lifting of US sanctions.
The sanctions issue indeed became the centerpiece of the agenda. The Caesar Act, enacted in 2019, had long been the principal obstacle to Syria’s economic recovery, blocking foreign investment and international financial operations. Since the regime change, Washington has gradually softened the sanctions, allowing limited transactions and humanitarian exemptions. Now, discussions have moved toward the possibility of a legislative repeal – a move that would require congressional approval.
Not coincidentally, immediately after the White House meeting, al-Sharaa held a late-night session with Congressman Brian Mast, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, whose vote may prove decisive. In Washington, the gradual “unfreezing” of sanctions is viewed as a strategic lever: their removal will serve as a reward for Syria’s compliance with US security arrangements and for maintaining distance from Tehran and Moscow.
For Syria itself, the visit sent a powerful signal of internal consolidation. Al-Sharaa strengthened his position among domestic elites by demonstrating his ability to negotiate with the world’s leading power and to open pathways for foreign investment. His internal legitimacy also grew because the trip undermined the influence of the SDF – the last major force controlling the country’s eastern regions. If the US and Türkiye truly intend to redistribute territorial control in favor of the central government, the SDF risks losing not only its external support but also its political relevance.
At the same time, al-Sharaa’s promises of a “five-year transition toward a pluralistic system” evoke skepticism. His armed forces have already conducted several operations against minority communities – the Alawites and Druze – resulting in hundreds of civilian casualties, casting doubt on the sincerity of his democratic rhetoric. For the United States, this poses a dilemma: on the one hand, Washington gains in al-Sharaa an effective partner against ISIS and Iran; on the other, it risks being accused of backing a regime that continues to rely on coercion and violence at home.
The regional dimension of the visit is no less significant. Türkiye, which had supported al-Sharaa during his war against Assad, is emerging as an intermediary between him and the West. This enables Ankara to advance its own strategic aims – neutralizing the Kurdish threat along its southern border and expanding its influence in post-war Syria.
Meanwhile, the Gulf monarchies – particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE – have expressed their readiness to invest in Syria’s reconstruction, provided that US sanctions are formally lifted. European nations, too, are beginning to adapt their positions, exploring opportunities to participate in humanitarian and infrastructure projects under American oversight.
Taken together, Ahmad al-Sharaa’s visit to Washington signaled the beginning of a new phase in Syrian diplomacy and a recalibration of regional alignments – one in which Syria seeks to transform itself from a passive object of great-power rivalry into an active architect of its own political future.
Although al-Sharaa’s visit did not produce the kind of headline-grabbing economic deals typically associated with Donald Trump’s style, it nonetheless fits squarely within Washington’s broader strategy of outsourcing regional issues to its partners. For the Trump administration, the current stage of US policy in the Middle East is defined less by direct intervention than by the construction of an architecture of interdependence – one in which Türkiye and the Gulf states assume primary responsibility for maintaining stability, while remaining bound to US strategic priorities.
In this emerging system, the US acts as both coordinator and arbiter: it no longer seeks to resolve the Syrian crisis directly, but instead sets the parameters within which regional actors operate. In this sense, al-Sharaa’s visit can be seen as part of a larger American design – an effort to delegate day-to-day regional management to Ankara and the Gulf monarchies while retaining control over financial flows, the sanctions regime, and the international legitimization of new political actors.
For Ahmad al-Sharaa himself, the meeting carried an even deeper meaning. It was a step toward consolidating his political stature and expanding his room for maneuver on the international stage. The new Syrian president has relied heavily on informal channels – most notably his “basketball diplomacy,” in which sports exchanges and symbolic gestures serve as a medium for demonstrating the openness and modernity of Syria’s leadership.
Through such forms of soft power, al-Sharaa seeks to soften perceptions of his controversial past and present himself as a pragmatic mediator between rival power centers. His foreign-policy course is oriented toward maintaining a delicate balance between Moscow and Washington – preserving working ties with Russia, which played a decisive role in the Syrian conflict, while simultaneously seeking political legitimacy and economic access from the West.
Although no official statements were made about the content of his conversation with Trump and Fidan, it is highly plausible that the Israeli factor featured among the topics discussed. In recent years, Israel has carried out a series of precision strikes against Syrian military and infrastructure targets, citing the need to contain Iranian influence. For the new Syrian authorities, these operations represent a serious threat: they erode domestic stability and reinforce the perception that Damascus remains vulnerable to external interference.
It is likely that al-Sharaa and Fidan sought from Washington at least informal assurances that Israel would reduce the intensity of its strikes – or ideally suspend them altogether – during Syria’s political transition. Even an unwritten understanding of this kind would provide the new government with a crucial window to pursue internal stabilization and advance political integration among the country’s diverse ethno-confessional groups, particularly the Druze, who have suffered heavily in recent clashes.
Thus, al-Sharaa’s visit to Washington was not merely an act of diplomatic recognition but an opportunity to consolidate the emerging balance of power around a new Syria. For the US, it reflects a strategy of “engaged detachment” – a policy of setting the rules of the game while avoiding the burdens of direct commitment. For al-Sharaa, it represents a bid to turn international engagement – through contacts with Trump, Fidan, and others – into a tool for reinforcing legitimacy, promoting internal stability, and crafting a new diplomatic identity for Syria within the regional order.
