LONDON - Once again, Washington returns to its old game: accusing others of terrorism while it is the one fueling and exploiting it to serve its interests. The statements made by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio during his recent meeting in Al-Quds with Benjamin Netanyahu are merely a continuation of an American policy aimed at covering up its primary role in destabilizing West Asia by supporting terrorist groups and using them as tools in its political projects.

American Admissions: From al-Qaeda to ISIS

The U.S. support for terrorism is not just an accusation made by its rivals—it is a reality confirmed by key figures within the American administration itself. In a famous statement in 2016, President Donald Trump openly declared that “Obama is the founder of ISIS, and Clinton is his co-founder.” This was not a slip of the tongue but a fact backed by evidence.

At the start of the Syrian crisis, Washington, through the CIA, provided financial and logistical support to terrorist groups under the guise of supporting the so-called “moderate opposition.” Reports by The Washington Post have repeatedly exposed this strategy.

Former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry admitted in a leaked recording that the U.S. deliberately allowed ISIS to expand in Syria in the hopes of pressuring Damascus into political concessions. In 2019, Congresswoman and current Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard revealed that the U.S. government was directly arming and funding al-Qaeda in Syria, stating that “our government was supporting al-Qaeda directly in the Syrian war.”

Just days ago, former Senator Richard Black dropped another bombshell about direct U.S. support for groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria, making one of the boldest statements yet about the hidden aspects of the Syrian conflict.

 • Black highlighted the role of terrorist groups as tools in the Syrian war, a point that has long been debated by politicians and analysts.

 • His statement aligns with reports revealing direct U.S. support for some armed factions that committed atrocities in Syria, either through funding by regional allies or by turning a blind eye to their financial sources.

 • His admission that these groups “carried out all of America’s missions” strengthens the argument that Washington used them as proxy forces against the former Syrian regime and its allies.

Historical evidence supporting the claim

Senator Black’s claims are not new but serve as further proof from an insider within the American system. United Nations reports over the past decade have pointed to U.S. support for groups like Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria) through channels in Turkey and Qatar, as part of a strategy to overthrow the Assad government.

 • This support included funding and weaponry, despite these groups’ well-known ties to terrorism.

 • Western intelligence reports confirmed that some American weapons ended up in the hands of ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra after being funneled through the so-called “moderate opposition.”

Thus, Black’s statement is not surprising, but it serves as an internal confirmation from a former U.S. official, making it harder to ignore and further exposing the American agenda in Syria.

Al-Julani: From wanted terrorist to Syria’s U.S.-backed ruler

When Rubio talks about “instability in Syria,” he conveniently ignores the fact that Washington is directly supporting one of the world’s most dangerous terrorists: Abu Mohammed al-Julani, the leader of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s official branch in Syria.

Al-Julani, once on America’s terrorist list, is now the de facto ruler of Syria after the fall of former President Bashar al-Assad. He enjoys direct and indirect American support, no longer merely the commander of a militant group but the face of a broader U.S. project to reshape Syria’s political landscape in favor of Western interests.

American media outlets like PBS have even conducted promotional interviews with him, presenting a false image of a “moderate opposition leader,” despite his long record of massacres and human rights abuses in Iraq and Syria—especially against Alawites, Christians, and Druze communities. Meanwhile, a report by the RAND Corporation revealed that Washington sees him as a “potential partner” for future cooperation, exposing the U.S.’s blatant double standards in dealing with terrorism.

Al-Julani—who has now become President Ahmad al-Sharaa—was responsible for horrific massacres along Syria’s coastal regions, where over 22,000 Alawites were killed. Yet, he has never been held accountable. Instead, he enjoys indirect U.S. support, which translates into political and media facilitation, as well as a deliberate overlooking of his crimes. Yesterday, he was a wanted terrorist—today, he is Syria’s president under American sponsorship. The goal is clear: keeping the country in chaos and preventing any stability that might return sovereign decision-making to Damascus, free from Western domination.

Unconditional support for the Zionist entity: The legitimization of terrorism

Rubio’s remarks cannot be separated from the United States’ unwavering support for the Zionist entity, which practices state terrorism daily. Since the start of the recent aggression on Gaza, the occupation forces have killed tens of thousands of civilians, including children and women, and destroyed hospitals and schools—all under the political and military cover of Washington.

 • Was it not the occupation that created the South Lebanon Army, a proxy militia that committed massacres against Lebanese civilians?

 • Is it not the Zionist entity that supported terrorist groups in Syria, provided medical treatment to injured Jabhat al-Nusra fighters, and continues to launch relentless attacks on Syria?

American support for the Zionist entity goes beyond weapons and funding—it extends to political protection in the United Nations Security Council, where Washington consistently uses its veto power to block any resolution condemning Zionist war crimes. This makes the U.S. a direct accomplice in the organized terrorism carried out by the occupation.

Double standards: “good” vs. “bad” terrorism

If Washington considers every group resisting the Zionist occupation or defending its land as “terrorist,” why does it not apply the same standard to the groups it supports in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan?

The stark contradiction in America’s stance reveals that terrorism classifications are nothing but political tools serving U.S. interests. As long as a group aligns with American goals, it is labeled “moderate opposition.” But if it resists U.S. hegemony or Zionist occupation, it suddenly becomes “terrorist.”

Iran and the resistance: A failed attempt to demonize the real enemy

Accusing Iran of supporting every so-called “terrorist group” is nothing but a repetitive and bankrupt American narrative. Yes, Iran supports the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance—but is supporting an occupied people a crime? Is defending one’s land and dignity an act of terrorism?

The U.S. wants to impose a twisted equation: those who fight occupation are “terrorists,” while those who support occupation are “defenders of democracy.” But this narrative no longer deceives anyone—especially as the crimes of the Zionist entity are broadcast live for the world to see, and as America’s ties to the very terrorists it claims to fight are being exposed.

America: The true godfather of terrorism

If Rubio is looking for “the greatest source of instability,” he should start with Washington. Between supporting al-Qaeda and ISIS, protecting al-Julani, and covering up Zionist state terrorism, it is clear that the United States is not part of the solution—it is the root of the problem.

History will not forgive those who created terrorism and then claimed to fight it, nor will the people forget who stood with their cause and who conspired against them.