The problem with Aram/Syria is, as far as I checked Aramaic history, its basically "a bunch of city states, never united, conquered by whatever major empire was nearby"
It doesnt strike me as cool or interesting to warrant major civ... Frankly, they seemed to be one of the most "city-state-like" civs to me. Lingua franca? Cool. Rich architecture? Cool. Still - just city states, secondary actors to the Middle East, captured and recaptured by Assyria/Babylon/Persia/Macedon/Rome/whoever.
On the other hand, Palmyrene Empire under Zenobia sounds nice. But it lasted three years (13 if countong her father) and its existence was essentially "surprise rebellion, then being systematically wiped out in every major battle by Roman expeditionary force". Well...
For me Zenobia is an unfortunate case of a "leader without a civ". She is IMO very similar to Bolivar in this regard and also one other thing... The reason why Zenobia and Bolivar are popular is because of their exact historical context, as charismatic rebels against powerful empires. Now take this context away. You start as a Boliar with settler and warrior, on the ancient map without Spain. Suddenly most of things the guy is known for - L I B E R A T I O N - disappears. Similar problem with Zenobia - put her in the game without subjugation and Rome, and her entire "story arc" disappears.
And what we are left are leaders without story and civs without story.