US issues orders easing Syria sanctions after Trump pledge
The Trump administration issued orders on Friday that it said would effectively lift sanctions on Syria, after President Donald Trump this month pledged to unwind the measures to help the country rebuild after a devastating civil war.
The Treasury Department issued a general licence that authorises transactions involving the interim Syrian government led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa, as well as the central bank and state-owned enterprises.
The general licence, known as GL25, "authorises transactions prohibited by the Syrian Sanctions Regulations, effectively lifting sanctions on Syria," the Treasury said in a statement.
"GL25 will enable new investment and private sector activity consistent with the President's America First strategy," the statement said.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio also issued a 180-day waiver under the Caesar Act to ensure that sanctions do not obstruct investment and to facilitate the provision of electricity, energy, water and sanitation and enable humanitarian efforts, he said in a statement.
'POSITIVE STEP'
Syria welcomed the sanctions waiver early on Saturday, which the Foreign Ministry called a "positive step in the right direction to alleviate the country's humanitarian and economic suffering".
Syria is keen on cooperating with other countries "on the basis of mutual respect and non-interference in internal affairs. It believes that dialogue and diplomacy are the best path to building balanced relations," the ministry said in a statement.
Most of the US sanctions on Syria were imposed on the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and key individuals in 2011 after civil war erupted there. Sharaa led militias that overthrew Assad in December.
The general licence names Sharaa, formerly sanctioned under the name Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani, among the people and entities with whom transactions are now authorised. It also lists Syrian Arab Airlines, the Central Bank of Syria and a number of other banks, several state oil and gas companies and the Four Seasons Damascus hotel.
Trump unexpectedly announced last week that he would lift the sanctions at the behest of Saudi Arabia's crown prince, a major US policy shift he made before meeting briefly with Sharaa in Riyadh.
It is hoped that easing Syria sanctions will clear the way for greater engagement by humanitarian organisations working in Syria, encouraging foreign investment and trade as the country rebuilds. But the US has imposed layers of measures against Syria, cutting it off from the international banking system and barring many imports, and the potential for sanctions on a country to return can chill private-sector investment.
The US first put the country on its list of state sponsors of terrorism in 1979 and since then has added additional sets of sanctions, including several rounds following the country's 2011 uprising against Assad.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
an hour ago
- Gulf Today
Outrage over Trump's electric vehicle policies is misplaced
Ashley Nunes, Tribune News Service Electric car subsidies are heading for the chopping block. A tax bill recently passed by House Republicans is set to stop billions in taxpayer cash from being spent on electric vehicle purchases. If embraced by the Senate and signed into law by President Donald Trump, the bill would gut long-standing government handouts for going electric. The move comes on the heels of another climate policy embraced by Republicans. Earlier this year, Trump announced plans to roll back burdensome rules that effectively force American consumers to buy electric, rather than gas-fueled, cars. The Environmental Protection Agency has called that move the 'biggest deregulatory action in US history.' Not everyone sees it that way. Jason Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, assailed Trump's efforts, noting that his 'administration's ignorance is trumped only by its malice toward the planet.' Other similarly aligned groups have voiced similar sentiments arguing that ending these rules would 'cost consumers more, because clean energy and cleaner cars are cheaper than sticking with the fossil fuels status quo.' Backtracking on EV purchasing mandates seems to have hit Trump haters particularly hard. That mandate — established by President Joe Biden — would have pushed US automakers to sell more EVs. Millions more. Electric cars currently account for 8% of new auto sales. Biden ordered— by presidential fiat — that figure to climb to 35% by 2032. If you believe the hype, the result would be an electric nirvana, one defined by cleaner air and rampant job creation. I'm not convinced. For one thing, cleaner air courtesy of electrification requires that EVs replace gas-powered autos. They're not. In fact, study after study suggests that the purchase of EVs adds to the number of cars in a household. And two-thirds of households with an EV have another non-EV that is driven more — hardly a recipe for climate success given that EVs must be driven (a lot) to deliver climate benefits. Fewer miles driven in an EV also challenges the economic efficiency of the billions Washington spends annually to subsidise their purchase. Claims of job creation thanks to EVs are even more questionable. These claims are predicated around notions of aggressive consumer demand that drives increased EV manufacturing. This in turn creates jobs. A recent Princeton University study noted, 'Announced manufacturing capacity additions and expansions would nearly double US capacity to produce electric vehicles by 2030 and are well sized to meet expected demand for made-in-USA vehicles.' Jobs would be created if there were demand for EVs. Except that's not what's happening. Rather, consumer interest in EVs has effectively cratered. In 2024, 1.3 million EVs were sold in the United States, up from 1.2 million in 2023. This paltry increase is even more worrying given drastic price cuts seen in the EV market in 2024. Tesla knocked thousands of dollars off its best-selling Model 3 and Model Y. Ford followed suit by cutting prices on its Mach-e. So did Volkswagen and Hyundai. Despite deep discounts, consumer interest in electrification remains — to put it mildly — tepid at best. So, when people equate electrification with robust job creation, I'm left wondering what they are going on about. Even if jobs were created, EV advocates are coy about how many of those jobs would benefit existing autoworkers. Would all these workers — currently spread across large swaths of the Midwest — be guaranteed jobs on an EV assembly line? If not, how many workers should expect to receive pink slips? For those who do, will they be able to find new jobs that pay as much as their old ones? Touting job creation for political expediency is one thing. Fully recognising its impact on hardworking American families today, another. Some Americans may decry Trump's actions on climate, but they have only themselves to blame. Many of the pro-climate policies enacted, particularly during the Biden era, deliver little in the way of climate benefits (or any benefit for that matter) while making a mockery of the real economic concerns businesses and consumers have about climate action. No more. In justifying climate rollbacks, the president says many of his predecessor's policies have hurt rather than helped the American people. He's right and should be commended for doing something about it.
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
Trump-Musk fight creates unprecedented elite power struggle in the US
It is hard to find a historic or contemporary precedent for the battle raging between Donald Trump, the president of the United States, and Elon Musk, the world's richest man. There may be a couple of examples that come close, but nothing that quite captures the current moment. For instance, in 2017, Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman rounded up his profligate cousins and businessmen at the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton for a royal shakedown. They got into line quickly. And almost two decades before, Russian President Vladimir Putin managed to bend the oligarchs who got rich off post-Soviet capitalism to his will. On its surface, the Trump-Musk feud seems to be over policy. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The Tesla chief and former head of DOGE attacked Trump's tax bill this week as a 'disgusting abomination'. Musk was channelling the concerns of deficit hawks in the US, who worry the bill will add trillions to the US debt pile at a time when the dollar has weakened and demand for more US debt is looking stretched. Trump, who has positioned the bill as a do-or-die piece of legislation, said on Thursday during a meeting in the Oval Office with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, that 'I'd rather have Elon criticise me than the bill,' adding later, 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore.' Then it got nasty. Within hours, Musk was on X calling for Trump's impeachment, to be replaced by Vice President JD Vance. The vice president himself was catapulted to power in part by Peter Thiel, a billionaire tech entrepreneur who mentored and groomed Vance's career in politics. He threatened to form a new political party and stop ferrying Nasa astronauts into space. He said Trump would have lost the US presidential election without his endorsement. And for good measure, insinuated that Trump was linked to convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Trump fired back. He suggested Musk was attacking the bill, not out of patriotic fervour, but because he had snatched away perks for electric vehicles from which Tesla benefits. 'Elon was wearing thin,' Trump said. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' Trump said in another post on Thursday night, threatening to leverage the power of the presidency against Musk's business empire, which includes Tesla and SpaceX. Tesla shares dropped about 14 percent on Thursday amid the spat. According to Bloomberg's billionaires index, Musk's net worth plunged $34bn that day. Tesla was trading up around five percent on Friday. Silicon Valley vs 'America First' nationalists The Trump-Musk feud is a decidedly American affair - partly performative, very populist, and made for social media. And on that note, Musk has been posting on X, the social media platform he bought before the US election, and Trump has been posting on Truth Social - owned by Trump Media & Technology Group - that was purposely built as a right-leaning competitor to X before Musk bought it. Of course, the US is no stranger to elite power struggles capturing the public's attention, particularly during its rambunctious, early years as a republic. Aaron Burr, a former vice president, famously killed Alexander Hamilton, the one-time treasury secretary, in a dual in 1804. A century later, Teddy Roosevelt rode a populist 'trust busting' wave that pitted him against the gilded elite, making men like JD Rockefeller his foe. But the Trump-Musk feud has key differences. JD Vance's mentor co-founded company that helps Israel generate 'kill lists' of Palestinians in Gaza Read More » The two men had forged an unprecedented alliance that, to a point, symbolised a broader one between Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs and crypto bros on one side, and working-class "America First" nationalists on the other. While some media reports say that allies of the two men are urging both to reconcile, the standard bearers of "America First" nationalism appear to be egging Trump on and savouring Musk's fall from grace. Steve Bannon, a former Trump advisor whose podcast WarRoom advocates for "America First" positions, called on Trump to seize Musk's company SpaceX and examine the billionaire's immigration status. Musk was born in South Africa. Bannon himself was critical of Trump's tax bill, but he was one of the few supporters who called for tax hikes on the wealthy. 'You're going to have a few of the tech bros and the crypto crowd stick with Elon because you have the cult of Elon. But MAGA will 100% back Trump. You aren't going to have a person in MAGA who will buy a Tesla,' Bannon said. But Musk donated over $250m to Trump's 2024 campaign and has made clear he has no qualms about deploying his cash against those who turn on him within the Republican Party. On Thursday night, Musk wrote, 'some food for thought as they ponder this question: Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years…' Do Musk and Trump have options? Trump has a history of engaging in brutal public spats, only to mend fences later. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vance both lambasted Trump during his 2016 run for the White House. But the key difference here is that neither of these men had the deep pockets of the world's richest man to endure a battle with the president. To an extent, Musk is a country unto himself. His technology, like Starlink, is hovering over battlefields in Ukraine, while his company ferries Nasa astronauts into space. The knowledge he has gained of Trump's family and the inner workings of the White House would make him a valuable catch for any foreign leader, including US allies. More broadly speaking, the feud is likely to reaffirm a perception among American friends and foes that something within the US system is cracking. In less than one day, the president of the US threatened on social media to use the power of his office against a comrade-turned-foe, while the world's richest man called for his impeachment. Elon Musk: How a tech nerd became Trump's 'first buddy' Read More » Many observers said the bonhomie between Trump and his former 'first buddy' was bound to implode eventually, given both men's power and outsized egos. Musk also felt his investment in Trump's campaign wasn't paying off, reports suggest. In May, The Wall Street Journal reported that Musk tried to block OpenAI from building one of the world's largest artificial intelligence data centres in Abu Dhabi. Trump and his aides rejected Musk's bid to cancel the deal in favour of his AI company. On Wednesday, Jared Isaacman, a tech billionaire friend of Musk, suggested Trump pulled his nomination to run Nasa because of his ties to Musk. Things could get ugly if the feud refuses to die down, and the president has several institutions that could be weaponised against Musk and his businesses. Trump has not been shy about using state leverage to settle old scores since his return to power. However, Musk has pockets deep enough to make mid-term elections an uphill battle for Trump and his loyalists. If the gloves come off, the world will have a front row seat to an unprecedented battle between the world's most powerful politician and the world's richest man, as it all plays out in real time on social media.
Middle East Eye
7 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
US sanctions four ICC judges over Israel and Afghanistan investigations
The administration of US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued sanctions on four judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC) over investigations into the US and its ally Israel. The sanctions build on the designation of ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan in February, carried out under an executive order issued shortly after Trump assumed office. "This is an escalation in a series of attacks by the US government against this global judicial institution, which was created to end impunity for the worst crimes," said Meg Satterthwaite, the UN's special rapporteur on the independence of judges, speaking to Middle East Eye. "It is shocking to see a country that has for decades championed the rule of law using a tool usually reserved for corrupt or criminal actors against judges of this global judicial body." The sanctioned judges, all women, are: ICC Second Vice-President Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini Gansou (Benin), Solomy Balungi Bossa (Uganda), Luz del Carmen Ibanez Carranza (Peru) and Beti Hohler (Slovenia). New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Gansou and Hohler have been sanctioned in connection with their decision as pre-trial judges to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant in November over charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Gaza. The US and Israel are not state parties to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC in The Hague in 2002. Both states have opposed the court's investigation into the situation in Palestine, launched by the ICC's previous prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, in 2021. 'It is shocking to see a country that has for decades championed the rule of law using a tool usually reserved for corrupt or criminal actors against judges of this global judicial body' - Meg Satterthwaite, UN rapporteur The court's jurisdiction was based on the accession of the state of Palestine to the Rome Statute in 2015. Accordingly, the court can investigate Israeli individuals for crimes committed in occupied Palestine, which includes the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. However, Israel and the US have challenged the court's jurisdiction, saying they do not recognise Palestine as a state, and that Israel is best placed to investigate itself under the principle of complementarity as set out in Article 17 of the Rome Statute. Trump's order of 6 February reiterated this view and described the arrest warrants as an abuse of power, an allegation refuted by the ICC. The ICC is the only permanent international court tasked with the prosecution of individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. 'President Trump's sanctions on ICC judges aim to deter the ICC from seeking accountability amid grave crimes committed in Israel and Palestine and as Israeli atrocities mount in Gaza, including with US complicity,' Liz Evenson, international justice director at Human Rights Watch, told MEE. Under Netanyahu's government, Israel has faced accusations of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. The US is the largest supplier of arms to Israel and has backed its offensive in Gaza since October 2023, triggering accusations of aiding and abetting alleged crimes. Israel's war on Gaza has killed more than 54,000 Palestinians, forcibly displaced most of the 2.1 million population and made the enclave largely uninhabitable. Obstruction of justice Experts who spoke with MEE in the aftermath of Trump's order have suggested that the ICC should bring charges of obstruction of justice against the US president and any individuals behind the sanctions, based on Article 70 of the Rome Statute. The article prohibits offences against the administration of justice, including: "Impeding, intimidating or corruptly influencing an official of the Court for the purpose of forcing or persuading the official not to perform, or to perform improperly, his or her duties; and retaliating against an official of the Court on account of duties performed by that or another official." UN rapporteur urges EU to use legal powers to protect ICC from Trump sanctions Read More » The ICC has jurisdiction over Article 70 offences, irrespective of the nationality or location of the accused individuals. The Slovenian foreign ministry reacted to the sanctioning of Hohler, saying it will support her in carrying out her mandate. It also said it would propose the activation of the EU Blocking Statute. The statute primarily focuses on shielding EU operators, such as the Netherlands-based ICC, from certain US sanctions considered to have extraterritorial reach, like those against Cuba and Iran. Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot has also said his government would ask the EU to activate the statute. "While this would be the first time the blocking statute is applied in defense of the ICC, Belgium believes it is essential to protect the Court's independence and its crucial role in delivering justice for the gravest crimes," he said on Friday. The pre-trial chamber that issued the Netanyahu and Gallant decision included Gansou and Hohler, as well as French national Nicolas Guillou. It remains unclear why Guillou has been excluded from the sanctions. Legal scholar Kevin Jon Heller, who is Khan's war crimes advisor, argued that the US has sanctioned individuals who are perceived to be nationals of weaker states. 'The US seems to have sanctioned only the judges who come from smaller and less powerful states,' Heller said. The two other judges, Bossa and Ibanez Carranza, have been sanctioned for being part of the 2020 appeals chamber that authorised the ICC's investigation into crimes committed in Afghanistan since 2003. This included actions by the Taliban, Afghan National Security Forces, and US military and CIA personnel. Heller pointed out that Canadian judge Kimberly Prost was part of the same panel as the Ugandan judge Bossa and the Peruvian judge Ibanez Carranza, but she has been excluded from sanctions. 'The US seems to have sanctioned only the judges who come from smaller and less powerful states' - Kevin Jon Heller, legal advisor to Karim Khan 'That supports the 'weak state' explanation, because Judge Prost (Canada) was part of the same AC and is still an ICC judge,' he wrote on X. In response to the ICC's decision to investigate crimes in Afghanistan, the previous Trump administration imposed sanctions on ICC officials, including then-prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, and revoked her US visa. But since 2021, the ICC has shifted its strategy under current prosecutor Khan, deprioritising investigations into alleged crimes by US forces - a move widely denounced by human rights groups. Khan stated that the focus would instead be on crimes committed by the Taliban and the Islamic State - Khorasan Province, citing resource constraints and the need to concentrate on those most responsible for the gravest crimes. In January 2025, Khan applied for arrest warrants for two Taliban leaders for the crime against humanity of persecution on the grounds of gender. No applications for arrest warrants for US nationals have been made by the prosecutor. What is the impact of sanctions? The sanctions will have a wide-ranging financial impact on the affected judges, particularly on any property in the US and any transactions involving US citizens. 'As a result of today's sanctions-related actions, all property and interests in property of the sanctioned persons described above that are in the United States or in possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked and must be reported to the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC),' the State Department said. The three ICC judges who issued the historic Netanyahu arrest warrant Read More » 'Additionally, all individuals or entities that are owned, either directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked.' The ICC denounced the sanctions, saying they aim at hindering its efforts to bring justice to victims of atrocities worldwide. 'These measures are a clear attempt to undermine the independence of an international judicial institution which operates under the mandate from 125 States Parties from all corners of the globe,' a statement by the ICC read, saying the sanctions will affect all situations being investigated by the court beyond Palestine. 'These sanctions are not only directed at designated individuals, they also target all those who support the Court, including nationals and corporate entities of States Parties.' Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp said the Netherlands 'disapproves' of the sanctions and stands behind the court and its officials. However, he has yet to announce specific measures to protect the sanctioned officials. MEE has reached out to the Dutch and Slovenian foreign ministries for comment.
