Perfume, Politics, and Perfidy: The Scent of Shifting Alliances

Childhood memories have a strange way of resurfacing in the theater of global politics. I was reminded of a rhyme we used to chant in Bangla: “Pipra pipra koyta bou, saatta aatta noyta bou” (Ant, ant, how many wives; seven, eight, nine, wives). This whimsical ditty echoed in my mind as I watched Syrian President Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa stand beside President Donald Trump in the White House.

The moment was surreal. Trump, with the flair of a seasoned showman, presented President Sharaa with a bottle of perfume. Not content with merely gifting it, he spritzed it into the air. “This is the best perfume,” he declared. “This one is for you, the other one is for your wife.” Then, after a theatrical pause, came the question that seemed plucked from a colonial-era travelogue: “How many wives do you have?” Sharaa, maintaining a diplomat’s poise, smiled and replied, “One.” The room, filled with aides and officials, erupted in relieved laughter.

The moment was more than a mere cultural gaffe; it was a dense symbol of the encounter. President Trump’s assumption—that a Muslim leader must naturally preside over a harem—revealed a cartoonish understanding of the very partner he was embracing. But the true absurdity lay not in the question, but in the identity of the man being asked. This was the same Ahmed al-Sharaa who was once a commander in al-Qaeda in Iraq, a man with a $10 million U.S. bounty on his head for his role in targeting American troops. Now, he stood on the most powerful political stage in the world, not as a prisoner, but as a guest of honor. His visit, the first by a Syrian leader since the country’s independence in 1946, served as a potent testament to the cynical axiom of international relations: there are no permanent enemies, only permanent interests.

The Perfume Principle of American Diplomacy

The perfume, in this context, was not just a gift; it was an olfactory whitewash. America has a peculiar tradition of spraying a metaphorical fragrance over its former foes before pulling them into a tight embrace. The narrative flips overnight: the “rogue state” becomes a “strategic partner,” the “dictator” is rebranded a “stalwart ally.” The history of U.S.-Syria relations reads less like a diplomatic record and more like a poorly plotted telenovela—a dizzying cycle of betrayals, clandestine liaisons, and abrupt reconciliations that defy logic but captivate a global audience.

To appreciate the sheer vertigo of this shift, one must recall the recent past. In the early 2000s, Syria was a pariah state, a charter member of the “Axis of Evil.” It was accused of funneling jihadists into Iraq, assassinating political rivals in Lebanon, and operating a regime whose human rights record was a catalog of horrors. U.S. sanctions were crippling, and the rhetoric from Washington was incendiary, each statement a verbal missile. To fast-forward from that reality to a press conference where Washington hails Sharaa as a “partner for stability” is a plot twist so jarring that even Hollywood screenwriters would reject it for lacking verisimilitude.

So, what catalyzed this dramatic reversal? The transformation was not within Syria. The al-Sharaa regime remained, in essence, the same. The pivot occurred entirely within the compass of American strategic interest. Washington treats its alliances like a fast-fashion collection: styles are adopted for a season, worn until they are no longer in vogue, and then discarded to the back of the closet, their existence conveniently forgotten.

From Monster to Businessman

The rehabilitation of Ahmed al-Sharaa is a masterclass in political rebranding. Once depicted as a “monster of the Middle East,” he now strolled confidently across the White House lawn, fielding questions about regional peace with a statesman’s smile. Trump, ever the dealmaker, reportedly praised Sharaa’s “firm handshake, like a businessman.” The comment was revealing—it reduced a complex, bloody geopolitical negotiation to the terms of a potential real estate transaction. Was the firmness of the handshake a metric for trustworthiness, or merely an assessment of a counterpart’s bargaining position?

Pundits have been quick to label this meeting a “historic turning point.” Perhaps it is. But it is equally plausible that it is merely the latest episode in the long-running series, America’s Frenemies. The script is wearyingly familiar; only the names change. Recall Saddam Hussein, once a useful counterweight to Iran, then the ultimate villain, then a ghost. Remember Muammar Gaddafi, who journeyed from “mad dog” to a rehabilitated partner in the War on Terror, only to be overthrown and executed. The cycle continues, underscoring a brutal truth: America’s moral outrage has an expiration date, and it is often stamped by the Department of Defense and the State Department.

To his credit, President Sharaa is playing the game with shrewd calculation. He understands that a handshake with Washington unlocks international legitimacy, economic aid, and military backing that a clenched fist never could. His acceptance of the perfume with that knowing smile was a strategic performance. In that single, bizarre moment, he won a significant victory—not on the battlefields of the Middle East, but in the optics war that defines modern statecraft.

The View from the Ruins

For the ordinary Syrian, however, this spectacle must feel profoundly disorienting. Their nation, shattered by years of a brutal civil war where American policy often seemed aimed at toppling the very regime now being welcomed, is now witnessing its leader embraced by the power that once vowed to isolate him. The ruins of Aleppo, the chemical attacks, the refugee crises—all these grim realities form a stark contrast to the grinning photo-op in the Rose Garden. For them, this new friendship is not a cause for celebration but a lesson in the brutal pragmatism of realpolitik, where moral consistency is a luxury their leaders cannot afford.

The photograph of Trump and Sharaa, beaming beside one another, will inevitably find its way into future history books. Students will ponder the caption, struggling to reconcile the image of a former CIA target joking about perfume with an American president. The answer, of course, lies not in the pages of a moral treatise, but in the cold calculus of power. It is a timeless rule of global politics: yesterday’s terrorist is today’s strategic partner, provided the alliance smells right.

So, in the end, perhaps President Trump was more prescient than we knew. In the delicate art of diplomacy, a good fragrance can indeed cover a multitude of sins, most notably the unmistakable scent of hypocrisy.

  Donate Here