The Sanctions Era Is Quietly Ending. The West Isn't Ready
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
On May 22, the Trump administration imposed decisive sanctions against Sudan's military leaders, accusing them of using chemical weapons on the Sudanese Rapid Support Forces (RSF). It was certainly a morally and ethically justified action to take. However, the timing reveals a troubling paradox: while the U.S. swiftly punishes Sudan, Syria, another regime guilty of repeatedly using chemical weapons, is being quietly readmitted into the global community, effectively free from lasting consequences.
The message sent by this inconsistency isn't subtle. Sanctions are no longer seen as permanent tools of diplomacy or meaningful deterrents. They've become temporary inconveniences, political bargaining chips that regimes can simply outlast. And this is something that can't be allowed to take root.
Throughout the past decade, Bashar al-Assad's regime has employed chemical weapons, sarin and chlorine gas, in civilian areas, including well-documented attacks in Aleppo. Global outrage led to intense sanctions and diplomatic isolation. Initially, these measures worked, crippling the Syrian economy and limiting Assad's influence. But Assad held out, betting on geopolitical fatigue.
President Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman attend a bilateral meeting at the Saudi Royal Court on May 13, 2025, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
President Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman attend a bilateral meeting at the Saudi Royal Court on May 13, 2025, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.Just over two years ago, Syria quietly rejoined the Arab League. And now on May 13, after the change in leadership in Syria to Interim President Ahmed Al-Shara, President Donald Trump, appearing in Riyadh, explicitly announced the U.S. was done with sanctions. No qualifications, no explanations. Just over. And the immediate result? An $800 million investment by the UAE's DP World to redevelop Syria's Port of Tartous, announced on May 16.
Syria's return isn't an isolated diplomatic shift; it's a precedent. If a regime can commit atrocities, wait patiently, and return unscathed, sanctions become meaningless. Authoritarian regimes, North Korea, Iran, and most notably in recent years, Russia, are watching this closely. And they're drawing the obvious conclusion: wait long enough, and the West's resolve fades.
Russia, currently under massive sanctions due to its war in Ukraine, is already testing this theory. After a disastrous initial economic shock in early 2022, the Kremlin adapted swiftly. Supported by a sophisticated network of partners and allies, Moscow gradually was able to sidestep sanctions.
On May 19, Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin held an hours-long phone call. Just hours after the call ended, Trump publicly suggested sanctions relief might be possible if Russia agreed to a ceasefire. The European Union, along with the United Kingdom, quickly scrambled to reaffirm its position, rapidly issuing new sanctions targeting Russia's shadow oil fleets.
Yet markets reacted calmly. The ruble recovered slightly. Asset prices slowly moved upwards. Investors grasped what politicians wouldn't say aloud: sanctions relief was becoming a realistic scenario, no longer unthinkable. This dynamic of this realization is dangerous. Sanctions only work when adversaries believe the punishment will remain in place. Once that belief evaporates, so does the level of deterrence that they carry.
This issue isn't limited to Russia or Syria. It's systemic. China, perhaps the most relevant player in a future context, has closely monitored Western responses to conflicts in Ukraine, Syria, and now Sudan's chemical weapons sanctions. China understands how and why sanctions are curated, and how quickly they also can erode. If the U.S. is sanctioning Sudan for actions that are similar to what happened in Syria, and yet actively advocating for Syria's resurgence, then new sanctions being imposed carry little credibility.
This is not abstract speculation, either. It's unfolding in real-time. Sanctions, originally considered a serious diplomatic tool, are increasingly used like political bandages, quickly slapped on, soon ignored, and easily peeled off ... but not truly addressing the pain point. Such inconsistency doesn't just confuse and irritate allies, it actively emboldens adversarial nations.
If sanctions are ever to regain their credibility, they must come with genuine long-term intent. Temporary outrage followed by quiet acceptance sends precisely the wrong signal: that international norms are flexible, atrocities forgivable, and accountability negotiable.
The real danger goes far beyond reputation. Imagine China deciding to invade Taiwan, calculating that sanctions will only be symbolic, short-lived, or broadly ineffective. The West would then face a test of resolve it's clearly unprepared for. If adversaries no longer fear economic isolation, one of the most critical diplomatic tools has been lost.
The sanctions announced against Sudan may have been justified, even morally necessary. But without consistent enforcement, they become meaningless. Syria's return, Russia's quiet negotiations, and market repositioning all point toward one conclusion: sanctions as we know them are losing their power.
The world's most dangerous players have learned that the West can be outwaited. And unless something changes soon, sanctions will no longer deter, they'll merely signal that atrocities carry a brief penalty, but no lasting consequences.
Brett Erickson is a governance strategist and certified global sanctions specialist (CGSS). He serves on the advisory board of the Loyola University Chicago School of Law's Center for Compliance Studies.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
4 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Inflation data threatened by government hiring freeze as tariffs loom
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Labor Department has cut back on the inflation data it collects because of the Trump administration's government hiring freeze, raising concerns among economists about the quality of the inflation figures just as they are being closely watched for the impact of tariffs. The department's Bureau of Labor Statistics, which produces the monthly consumer price index, the most closely watched inflation measure, said Wednesday that it is 'reducing sample in areas across the country' and stopped collecting price data entirely in April in Lincoln, Nebraska, and Provo, Utah. It also said it has stopped collecting data this month in Buffalo, New York. In an email that the BLS sent to economists, viewed by The Associated Press, the agency said that it 'temporarily reduced the number of outlets and quotes it attempted to collect due to a staffing shortage' in April. The reduced data collection 'will be kept in place until the hiring freeze is lifted.' President Donald Trump froze federal hiring on his first day in office and extended the freeze in April until late July, suggesting future inflation reports will also involve less data collection. The cutbacks have intensified worries among economists that government spending cuts could degrade the federal government's ability to compile key economic data on employment, prices, and the broader economy. The BLS also said last month that it will no longer collect wholesale prices in about 350 categories for its Producer Price Index, a measure of price changes before they reach the consumer. The cutbacks are also occurring at a time of heightened uncertainty about the economy and the impact of Trump's sweeping tariffs on hiring, growth and inflation. 'The PPI is cutting hundreds of indexes from production, and the CPI is now being constructed with less data,' Omair Sharif, chief economist at the consulting firm Inflation Insights, said in an email. 'That alone is worrying given that we're heading into the teeth of the tariff impact on prices.' Earlier this year, the Trump administration disbanded several advisory committees that worked with BLS and other statistical agencies on fine-tuning its data-gathering. The BLS said that the cutbacks 'have minimal impact' on the overall inflation data, but 'they may increase the volatility' of the reported prices of specific items. Alan Detmeister, an economist at UBS, an investment bank, said the cutbacks likely had little impact on April's inflation figures. But 'if these types of cuts continue, they will degrade the reliability and efficacy of these statistical agencies,' he said.
Fox News
9 minutes ago
- Fox News
NEWT GINGRICH: Pay less, know more — Trump is slashing red tape and lowering your healthcare costs
One of the boldest and most consistent themes in President Donald J. Trump's healthcare agenda is his determination to reduce the role and power of middlemen. From insurance companies to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) – and even hospitals –these intermediaries profit from the inefficiencies of our bloated health system. The result is higher costs for American families. As I explain in my new book, "Trump's Triumph: America's Greatest Comeback," the U.S. healthcare system isn't expensive just because care is costly. It's expensive because the system is complex – by design. The third-party payment structure, whether public or private, adds layers of bureaucracy. This opens the door for middlemen to offer supposed solutions that serve their own bottom lines – not patients. It's a vicious cycle: more rules lead to more middlemen, which lead to even more rules, red tape, and rising costs. President Trump understood this – and he took action. In his first term, he issued a groundbreaking executive order on price transparency. For the first time, hospitals were required to disclose the real cost of procedures, enabling patients to compare prices before receiving care. While the Biden administration weakened enforcement, Trump doubled down in his second term with an even stronger push for what he called "radical transparency." Radical transparency is the antidote to healthcare's worst inefficiencies. When patients and employers can see wide price differences for the same procedures – even within the same hospital system – the games played behind the scenes get exposed. These inflated prices often have little to do with quality and everything to do with how well insurers negotiate – or how many middlemen take a cut. The same is true for prescription drugs. PBMs – giant corporations that control which drugs are covered and at what cost – use their market power to inflate prices. Three PBMs control 80 percent of the market. They're often subsidiaries of major insurers, forming vertically integrated monopolies. New data from the Pacific Research Institute shows that most PBMs skim more money off high-cost prescriptions than European countries charge. It's no wonder Americans are paying more. Hospitals play a role as well. Many exploit a well-intentioned federal program known as 340B, which allows them to purchase drugs at steep discounts. Instead of passing the savings to patients, they bill insurers full price and pocket the difference. The program was meant to expand care for low-income patients, but there's little oversight to ensure this happens. President Trump's recent executive order on drug pricing targets this broken system. By creating a pathway for manufacturers to sell directly to patients, health plans, pharmacies, and clinics – without the markup – he's offering a way to bypass the middlemen. This isn't theory – it's already working. When insulin makers launched direct-to-consumer programs, they sold the same drug at one-fourth the price patients were paying through insurance – while still making a profit. That's the power of real market competition – without a single government price control. This stands in sharp contrast to the Left's top-down vision. Whether it's price controls, centralized purchasing, or government-run insurance, the left's answer is always more bureaucracy. But more bureaucracy means more complexity – and more room for middlemen to thrive. Perhaps the most visionary part of President Trump's health care agenda is his call to Make America Healthy Again. For decades, we've operated a "sick care" system focused on treating illness after it strikes. Trump's approach is different. It emphasizes prevention, lifestyle, and personal responsibility – turning Americans from passive recipients into active participants in their own health. In this model, the government's role isn't to run the system but to create an environment in which patients and doctors can lead – with access to better tools, more transparency, and useful information. That means clearer labeling for ultra-processed foods, ensuring gold standard scientific data free of conflicts of interest, and addressing environmental factors that contribute to chronic disease. These kinds of structural reforms empower people to make informed choices and live healthier lives – without mandates or micromanagement. It's a model that eliminates the ultimate middleman: the system itself. President Trump's leadership has laid the groundwork for a transparent, patient-centered, free-market healthcare system. But the job isn't done. Congress should join him in continuing this fight – not just to lower costs, but to restore power to the American people. America deserves a healthcare system that benefits Americans – not industry middlemen.
Washington Post
12 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Syria agrees to give inspectors immediate access to suspected former nuclear sites, UN watchdog says
DAMASCUS, Syria — The new Syrian government has agreed to give inspectors from the United Nations' nuclear watchdog access to suspected former nuclear sites immediately, the agency's head told The Associated Press on Wednesday. The International Atomic Energy Agency's director-general, Rafael Mariano Grossi, said in an interview in Damascus, where he met with President Ahmad al-Sharaa and other officials, that al-Sharaa had also expressed an interest in pursuing nuclear energy for Syria in the future.
