Trump to end US sanctions on Damascus, greet Syria's Sharaa in Saudi Arabia
Also in Middle East
Syrian president sends FM to Arab League summit in Baghdad
Turkey says its anti-PKK operations continue despite progress in peace process
Iraq, Jordan, Egypt discuss tripartite cooperation mechanisms
Iran calls PKK decision to disband 'important step'
A+ A-
ERBIL, Kurdistan Region - US President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he will lift sanctions on Syria as part of a broader push to normalize relations with Damascus. The move comes hours after a White House official confirmed that Trump is expected to 'say hello' to Syria's interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa during his visit to Saudi Arabia on Wednesday.
"I will be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance at greatness," Trump declared during a speech in Riyadh.
Earlier in the day, a senior White House official, speaking on background to reporters, including Rudaw's, stated that 'the President has agreed to say hello to the Syrian President while in Saudi Arabia tomorrow [Wednesday].' No further details were provided.
The remarks come a day after President Trump on Monday stated that he may ease US sanctions on Syria to allow Damascus a 'fresh start.'
'We're going to have to make a decision on the sanctions, which we may very well relieve. We may take them off of Syria because we want to give them a fresh start,' he said, noting that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and 'many people' had urged him to do so.
'The way we have them sanctioned, it doesn't really give them much of a start. So we want to see if we can help them out. We'll make that determination.'
On December 8, a coalition of opposition groups led by Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), then commanded by Sharaa, ousted the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Sharaa was appointed interim president in late January.
While HTS remains designated as a terrorist organization by the US, Washington previously offered a $10 million reward for Sharaa's capture, but the bounty was dropped in late December.
A meeting between the US president and Sharaa would mark a major diplomatic boost for the interim Syrian government.
Since taking power, the new leadership in Damascus has repeatedly called on the international community to lift Assad-era sanctions, arguing that they are hindering the country's economic recovery and post-war reconstruction.
For its part, the US had issued a six-month sanctions exemption to facilitate humanitarian aid, though Syrian officials have said the move had limited effect.
In March, Washington presented Damascus with a list of eight conditions for potential sanctions relief. These included the destruction of any remaining Assad-era chemical weapons and guarantees that no foreign nationals would hold senior positions in the new government.
Speaking to Rudaw on Saturday, Syrian Economy Minister Mohammed Nidal al-Shaar notably anticipated stating that the international sanctions issue 'will be resolved in the near future.'
The US President's remarks come as he is currently in Saudi Arabia - the first stop on a regional tour that also includes the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.
The visit marks a significant diplomatic and economic initiative in his second term, with a strong focus on securing major investment deals and enhancing regional ties.
During his stay in Riyadh, Trump secured a landmark $600 billion investment commitment from Saudi Arabia, covering key sectors such as artificial intelligence, energy infrastructure, and healthcare.
Additionally, the US and and Saudi Arabia finalized a $142 billion arms deal, reinforcing the strategic and defense cooperation between the two allies.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Shafaq News
2 hours ago
- Shafaq News
Turkiye's Fidan: Both Russia and Ukraine now eye ceasefire
Shafaq News/ On Friday, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan noted that both Russia and Ukraine are seeking a ceasefire, urging both sides to reaffirm their readiness to negotiate. While traveling to Kyiv by train, Fidan described the atmosphere surrounding the conflict as increasingly constructive. 'I see the situation taking a more optimistic turn with the start of negotiations. Both sides want a ceasefire. No one is rejecting the idea,' he remarked to Anadolu Agency. Earlier this week, Fidan visited Moscow, where he met with President Vladimir Putin. A Turkish diplomatic source indicated that discussions focused on efforts to end the war, along with developments linked to the previous negotiations hosted in Istanbul. Russia has also proposed holding a second round of direct talks with Ukraine in Istanbul on June 2. The first round took place in the same city on May 16. That meeting marked the first official contact between Russian and Ukrainian delegations since March 2022. Although no ceasefire was reached, both sides agreed to exchange 1,000 prisoners of war and submitted written outlines of their respective positions. Moreover, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova confirmed to Russian media that the upcoming delegation will remain unchanged, comprising a presidential adviser, a senior diplomat, and senior officials from the military and intelligence services.
Memri
18 hours ago
- Memri
America's (And Israel's) Ottoman Gamble
That the foreign policy of the new Trump Administration has been bold and disruptive is something most observers would agree. Some see it as catastrophic, others (I am one of those) see it as a long-needed corrective to past disasters. But it is still evolving. A recent tweet by the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack caught some flack in the Middle East. The ambassador wrote on May 25 that: "A century ago, the West imposed maps, mandates, penciled borders, and foreign rule. Sykes-Picot divided Syria and the broader region for imperial gain – not peace. That mistake cost generations. We will not make it again. The era of Western interference is over. The future belongs to regional solutions, but partnerships, and a diplomacy grounded in respect."[1] The tweet garnered some criticism from regional voices, especially in Lebanon (ironic in that Barrack is himself of Lebanese Christian origin) because the French Mandate led to the creation of the state of Lebanon.[2] Others might have noted that Anglo-French "imperial gain" prevented Turkish imperial gain, which is why Mosul is still part of Iraq and Aleppo still part of Syria. Still others may recall when the terrorist Islamic State announced the "end of Sykes-Picot."[3] The idea that Western imperialism, including Sykes-Picot, is the principal reason for all the region's ills (including the creation of Israel) is a staple of Arab Nationalist and Islamist propaganda. But Barrack is not wrong to criticize the bane of Western interference in past decades (quoting President Trump's important Riyadh speech).[4] This not only brought us trillion-dollar wars and thousands of American dead but failed states in the region and turbo-charged global Jihadism. "Regional solutions" is clearly an administration priority and so far, there is positive movement toward a better vision for the region. Trump has given the hard-pressed Syrian people (and President Ahmed Al-Sharaa) renewed hope with the lifting of draconian sanctions. Under American auspices (Barrack is also the Special Envoy for Syria), Israelis and Syrian officials are meeting and negotiating.[5] The U.S. is also mediating between Turkey and Israel, trying to gain a ceasefire in Gaza, a nuclear agreement with Iran, disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon and forge closer ties with Sunni Arab states and Turkey in order to secure regional security and counter the ambitions of Iran, China, and Russia. That is an impressive effort in only four months! The question is not so much if this is the right American strategy for an America that wants to focus on its core interests and get allies to take up more of the burden. It is. The question is whether the pieces will actually fit together (and stay together) toward a more stable region or whether, in leaving past conflicts, we are preparing the stage for future ones. It was less than five years ago that Turkey was openly abetting Islamist revolution in the Arab Middle East.[6] Islamist stations in Istanbul would broadcast against regimes in Egypt, Jordan and the Arabian Gulf while Erdogan saber-rattled against most of its immediate neighbors while actually waging war in Syria, Iraq, Armenia, and Libya. Turkey's policies are not limited to one man and its leadership today has not changed – it is still the same mix of convinced Islamists and extreme nationalists – but its behavior has moderated.[7] Faced with economic headwinds, Erdoğan buried the hatchet with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE.[8] While discourse in the country is deeply antisemitic and anti-American, the rhetoric has usually not translated into concrete actions against the U.S. or Israel. The fall of Assad in Syria in 2024 and Turkey's importance on issues such as the Russia-Ukraine War have created a kind of "Neo-Ottoman Moment."[9] This is all happening almost exactly a century after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the end of the Ottoman Caliphate. But it seems that Turkey is finding that it can gain more with "honey than with vinegar," that being helpful to the Trump Administration will pay greater dividends than overt hostility.[10] Not so surprising actually, given the tactical flexibility and pragmatism of Islamists in general, and of Erdoğan's ideologically-motivated regime in particular. The parameters of this gamble are very much along the lines promoted in the past by American strategist Michael Doran – a coming together of Turkey, Israel, and the United States (and Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan and Qatar) in a grand strategic alliance that enhances the security of all sides and benefits all parties.[11] Under such a scenario, the United States gains by having reliable regional hegemons who can presumably provide security and stability, keeping out unfriendly powers, fighting terrorism and freeing American resources and interests for other areas. This vision seeks to solve the "problem" of Iran – which was empowered by the policies of the last two Democratic Administrations – by empowering Sunni powers as their adversaries. While we might be skeptical of such a scenario, it is not like the previous, costly strategy of direct US involvement in places like Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Libya worked particularly well. Israel supposedly would gain because of inferred (in some cases explicit) informal security arrangements and understandings with important Sunni powers like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, potential threats from Syria would be neutralized and Iran and its proxies are kept away from Israel's borders.[12] The Sunni powers gain the powerful backing of the Americans and the benefit of tacit understandings with Israel. This also means a certain amount of carte blanche or green light when it comes to these states' dealings with internal issues and with other countries outside the circle of trust as long as these dealings do not conflict too directly with current American or Israeli interests (for example, America's interests in Armenia or Israel's interests in Southern Syria).[13] It might work, especially in the short run, as long as ambitions remain in check and interests and equities are regularly deconflicted. But it is a risk because it assumes that, for example, Turkish ambitions – the same state that supports Hamas today and openly facilitated the rise of Islamic State fighters a decade ago – would not come into conflict with Israeli ones. That Turkey's interests are limited in Syria to the PKK and returning refugees. Or that an Islamist-ruled Syria would not (unlike all other Islamist states in the past like National Islamic Front-ruled Sudan or Taliban-ruled Afghanistan) become an exporter of extremism. With American imperial overreach a very real issue, this is a gamble worth taking, but with eyes wide open. Empowering Sunni allies like Saudi Arabia is, in principle, a very good idea. With Turkey, the hope is that it is "domesticated," rather than just using one wild, fierce beast against another one and expecting a positive outcome in sync with our interests. Time will tell whether this was bold and timely cleverness or merely American (and Israeli) wishful thinking along the road to unimagined future conflagrations. *Alberto M. Fernandez is Vice President of MEMRI.
Memri
18 hours ago
- Memri
Iranian Majlis National Security And Foreign Policy Committee Member Ahmad Bakhshayish Ardastani: As Part Of Its Mediation Efforts In The U.S.-Iran Nuclear Talks, Oman Proposed That We Stop Enriching
In a May 26, 2025 interview with the Didbaniran website, Ahmad Bakhshayish Ardastani, a member of the Iranian Majlis National Security And Foreign Policy Committee, detailed the main points of an Omani mediation offer proposed to Iran on May 23, as part of Oman's mediation efforts in the U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, and announced that the quantity of 60%-enriched uranium in Iran was enough for 10 nuclear bombs. The interview was removed from the Didbaniran website shortly after it was posted. The Omani proposal, conveyed to Iran in the fifth round of the talks, covered two areas. First, it proposed that Iran would agree to temporarily suspend its uranium enrichment for six months, after which it would restart it. In the interview, Bakhshayish Ardastan stressed that Iran had not yet agreed to this proposal due to its lack of confidence in the U.S., and added that Iran already had enough uranium enriched to 60% to make several nuclear bombs that "Iran is capable of building." He said: "The 300 kilograms of the uranium stored in Iran is equal to 10 nuclear bombs, and if Israel continues its threats, we will be able to increase the enrichment level even more." The second area in the Omani proposal concerned the idea of a regional nuclear consortium that Iran had agreed to, provided that it retains the right to enrich uranium on Iranian soil and to be paid by Arab countries to share its nuclear achievements with them. Bakhshayish Ardastani clarified that Iran was making any agreement to increased international oversight of its nuclear facilities conditional upon a lifting of all U.S. sanctions on it – something that has been Iran's main aim in the negotiations with the Trump administration. Also in the interview, Bakhshayish Ardastani assessed that President Trump and his advisor Steve Witkoff were working to artificially increase the pressure on Iran as a negotiating tactic, but that they would not give up on achieving an agreement because they need to show that their diplomacy is effective. He stressed that ultimately it would be the Americans who back down from their positions, and that Iran would hold to its red line – the right to enrich uranium on its soil. Bakhshayish Ardastani (Source: May 26, 2025) He also called on Qatar and Oman to come up with interim solutions in order to arrive at an agreement with the Americans. Addressing the Arab states, and hinting that military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran would severely impact them, Bakhshayish Ardastani assessed that President Trump would refrain from going to war and would turn to sanctions, as he had in the past. He warned that if Israel attacks Iran, "the [Israeli] nuclear facility in Dimona on occupied territory will be under threat" and that Israel would be facing Iranian attacks of "hundreds or thousands of missiles." He added that if Iran and the U.S. reach an agreement, it would also serve Israel, which would be able to enjoy more peaceful relations with Iran. The following is a translation of Bakhshayish Ardastani's interview with the Didbaniran website, which as noted was removed from the website shortly after it was posted: Bakhshayish Ardastani: "It Is Unlikely That The Other Side [The U.S.] Will Leave The Negotiating Table... It Needs An Agreement With Iran As An Achievement Of [Trump's] Diplomacy... It Is The Americans Who Will Ultimately Change Their Positions – Not Iran" Bakhshayish Ardastani said in the interview: "Despite the difficulties on the path to reaching an Iran-U.S. agreement, the overall assessment of the negotiation process is positive, and it appears that these negotiations will attain results. The longer the negotiations last, the more likely it is that both sides will arrive at an understanding of their differences, and their continuation is not necessarily a sign that they are progressing badly. "We have had problems with the West on the nuclear issue for some 36 years, of the 47 years since the Islamic Revolution. Of course, during the past few decades, Iran has successfully achieved independence in its nuclear industry thanks to the initiative of its scientists, and the [uranium] enrichment program is the result of the efforts by our elites. Iran has no problem with other countries in the region activating their own nuclear industry, but the thing is that if the Arab countries want a nuclear program, they need to purchase their infrastructure from other countries. Happily, we have succeeded in building all the required infrastructure in our own country. "The longer the negotiations last, the more interested the sides are in reaching a solution, although there is no doubt that significant obstacles lie in the path of a possible agreement. In any event, the [2015 JCPOA] nuclear agreement remains the basis of the current negotiations, and since this agreement allowed Iran to enrich uranium to 3.67%, Iran now wants to advance at least one step beyond that agreement. Trump also wants to show Obama that he can be a stronger diplomat than him, and therefore he does not want to accept continued Iranian uranium enrichment. "So far, both Iran and America have held fast to their red lines, but given that Trump and Witkoff are both [real estate] mediators, and had experience in real estate before they were [political] negotiators, they are deliberately increasing the pressure so that Iran will maybe agree to back down from its red lines. But if Iran does not do so, it is unlikely that the other side [the U.S.] will leave the negotiating table, because it needs an agreement with Iran as an achievement of [Trump's] diplomacy. Therefore, it is the Americans who will ultimately change their positions [i.e. not Iran]." "Both Oman And Qatar Must Help Propose Interim Solutions Acceptable To Both Sides" Bakhshayish Ardastani continued: "Today, both Oman and Qatar must help propose interim solutions acceptable to both sides. One of these solutions is establishing a nuclear consortium of the countries of the region, with Iran at its center. That is, provided that [uranium] enrichment takes place on Iranian soil, international institutions will monitor the activity of this consortium in order to clarify that Iran is not planning to use its enriched uranium for building an atom bomb. "Some Arab countries may think that if an Iran-U.S. war breaks out, it will be over in two or three weeks. But Iran is stronger than this talk. Iran is a country that fought Iraq for eight years, and America recently launched an unceasing attack on the Houthis [that has been continuing] for over a month, but it has not been able to defeat them. Thus, if there is an Iran-America war, the region will definitely have to deal with tensions over time. For this reason, Trump is moving away from war and will ultimately move to 'maximal pressure' in the event that no agreement is reached." "We Are Willing To Put Our [Nuclear] Achievements At The Disposal Of Arab Countries In Exchange For A Reasonable Fee" "During the last [i.e. the fifth] round of talks, Oman set out two proposals for Iran, and according to [Iranian] Foreign Minister [Abbas Araghchi], our country is examining these proposals. One is to establish a nuclear consortium, with the participation of the Arab countries, that can increase monitoring of Iran's activity, in order to prove to America that Iran is not increasing its uranium enrichment above what is noted in a possible future agreement. Iran welcomed this proposal, because we are confident about our domestic nuclear industry and are willing to put our achievements at the disposal of Arab countries in exchange for a reasonable fee. "Oman [also] told us to stop the enrichment for six months and then restart it. Of course, Iran has not yet accepted [this] second Omani proposal, because, based on previous experience, there is a possibility of additional demands from the other side [the U.S.]. For example, the last time we agreed, in the [2015 JCPOA] nuclear agreement, to exceptional oversight of our nuclear facilities, but then the Americans again increased the pressure [on us]. Therefore, Iran is not likely to accept this offer. But the longer the negotiations continue, the more interim solutions will certainly be proposed by the mediators." "The Whole World Knows That Iran Is Capable Of Building Nuclear Weapons, But... We Are Not Advancing Towards Producing An Atom Bomb" "Iran does not fear increased international monitoring of its nuclear activity. The whole world knows that Iran is capable of building nuclear weapons, but since there is no intention to do so in our country, we are not advancing towards producing an atom bomb. We have a home-grown nuclear industry and we have no problem with oversight by international organizations, provided that along with increased oversight, we will obtain the necessary relief – that is, the sanctions imposed on Iran are lifted and our country's frozen funds are restored to us. Thus, we even accept oversight beyond [what is stipulated in] the NPT, as long as America lifts the sanctions and as long as we can enrich [uranium] to a certain level within the country. "The Zionist regime cannot carry out an attack without approval from America, and as long as the negotiations are underway, the U.S. will not give such approval to the Zionist regime. Second, if Israel attacks Iran, the nuclear facility in Dimona, in the occupied territories [Israel], will be under threat. Third, the True Promise I and II operations [Iran's April and October 2024 missile and drone attacks on Israel] proved to Israel that Iran is not like an Arab country – it is a strong country that cannot be attacked without consequences. "At this time, the Houthis can easily fire their missiles without Israel's defenses being able to intercept them, and in recent weeks they have repeatedly targeted Ben Gurion airport. Therefore, Israel knows that it is located in a small area and cannot withstand the hundreds or thousands of Iranian missiles that will be launched into the occupied territories if our nuclear facilities are attacked. Overall, it would be in Israel's interest for Iran and America to reach an agreement and then an understanding, so that Iran and Israel can also enjoy a more peaceful relationship with each other. "Despite the hostile relationship between Iran and the Zionist regime, it is unlikely that this regime will attack Iran. But it is the nature of the Zionists [to carry out] terrorism and sabotage. On the nuclear issue, the assassinations and sabotage carried out by Israel set back Iran's nuclear program, but nevertheless we did not stopped advancing, and now we have reached a point where we already have enough 60%-enriched uranium to produce several atomic bombs. The 300 kilograms of uranium stored in Iran is equivalent to 10 atomic bombs – and if Israel continues its threats, we will be able to increase the enrichment level even more. "Israeli lobbyists' pressure on American politicians is another move that has always been made against Iran, and they are now working to disrupt a possible agreement. In the current negotiations, we saw that by the end of the third round, Trump was willing to accept Iranian uranium enrichment. But then [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's words reached Trump's mouth, and he [Trump] emphasized that there must be zero uranium enrichment. "Of course, in the end, it is America that will back down from its demands, and Iran will not abandon its red lines."[1]
