Syria's post-sanction future
It was meant to be a quick 'hello' during the US president's whirlwind tour of the Middle East. But Donald's Trump's unexpected meeting with Syria's interim president Ahmed al-Sharaa on 14 May in Saudi Arabia would yield one of the most significant, and surprising, results of his trip: the lifting of US sanctions on Syria, which could open avenues for oil exports, remittance flows, and reconstruction financing, and a newfound optimism for a country ravaged by 14 years of civil war.
Trump's announcement was met with widespread celebrations across Syria and reaffirmed the unilateral nature of the US president's decision-making – several of his advisers were said to be against such a move, including the head of counterterrorism at the White House, Sebastian Gorka, and the former Syria Envoy in Trump's first administration, Joel Rayburn. Yet after the president's declaration in Saudi Arabia, the Trump team characteristically fell in line. In his Senate hearing for the top Middle East job at the State Department, which took place the day after Trump met with al-Sharaa, Rayburn was asked about 'rumours' of US plans to assassinate al-Sharaa. Rayburn said that the rumours were 'clearly not in line with the president's intention that he stated or his description of Mr. Sharaa in the last couple of days'.
Trump's decision to lift sanctions also indicated a new strategy for the Middle East: one that favours diplomacy over war and centres economic integration as a pillar of stabilisation. In this new landscape, Syria, having long been a proxy battleground where regional and global powers played out their rivalries, stands not only to benefit economically but to play a role in shaping the future of the region. The next several months will be critical: Syrians, as well as US and European governments, will be watching whether al-Sharaa uses incoming investments and economic opportunity to address structural challenges – think corruption and institutional weaknesses following decades of control by Bashar al-Assad's cronies and the military, as well governance challenges and sectarian tensions – or whether he turns towards autocracy by consolidating control in the presidential palace.
Given the complexity of lifting the sanctions on Syria, little is expected to change overnight. Some sanctions will require US Congressional approval to be permanently dismantled, while others were enacted via previous executive orders and can be lifted by another presidential executive order. For now, US secretary of state Marco Rubio has stated that a 180-day waiver will be implemented against the sanctions to ease the entry of humanitarian assistance into the country, implicitly underscoring that the US will be watching al-Sharaa's actions closely and that the waivers can be rescinded if need be. That said, several countries have already signalled their willingness to engage Syria economically, and Saudi Arabia and Qatar have confirmed they have paid off Syria's debts to the World Bank. This means that Syria is once again eligible for grants to fund reconstruction, which the World Bank estimates could run between $250bn to $1trn.
While much has been made of the economic significance of Trump's decision to lift sanctions, it would be a mistake to underestimate the vast geopolitical and security implications. Syria's neighbours, which collectively host millions of Syrian refugees, will be looking for signs that the country is safe for return while they also seek opportunities for cross-border trade. Turkey, a long-time patron of anti-Assad and anti-Kurdish armed groups in the north-east, will be keen to deepen its influence through institutionalised security and diplomatic ties with the al-Sharaa government. Israel, which has made the protection of the Druze in the occupied Golan Heights a stated priority and excuse to conduct military strikes throughout the south, will have to decide whether to cooperate with al-Sharaa's government on security issues or continue to view him as a jihadi in a suit. Reports that al-Sharaa has authorised quiet engagement with Israeli security officials, coupled with his public statements in favour of peace – if not full normalisation just yet – with Israel, may calm Benjamin Netanyahu's aggression for the time being.
In their meeting, Trump also put several demands to al-Sharaa, one of which was to expel foreign fighters from Syria and, more challengingly, take over the administration of the Isis camps in the north-east from the Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES). The camps hold thousands of foreign fighters who came to Syria to join the messianic terrorist organisation beginning in early 2012, as well as their families, including children who have been effectively renounced by their (mostly European) governments and have spent their lives in a no-man's land (Shamima Begum, whose British citizenship was revoked by then home secretary Sajid Javid on national security grounds, is currently in one such camp). The Isis file will surely be one of the most significant challenges facing al-Sharaa moving forward.
All of this is not to detract from this immense opportunity for the new Syrian government, not to mention Syria's long-suffering population. The country's economy has been devastated by years of conflict and sanctions. The lifting of sanctions could be transformational. However, the economy faces deep structural issues, including rampant inflation and institutional decay, which sanctions relief alone cannot resolve. While Syria's government – indeed the country's Arab neighbours and Turkey – view the sanctions relief as an opportunity for economic revival, the path to recovery will require both substantial international support and internal reforms. Whether al-Sharaa will capitalise on this opportunity is not yet certain.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
[See also: What is Trump thinking?]
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
White House just watered down the only concession it can claim Trump won from Putin — Ukraine security
But comments from the White House, European leaders and Russia on Monday and Tuesday make it clear that there's still at least one major gulf that needs bridging. Trump returned to Washington this weekend from Alaska, where the U.S. president met for a summit with Russia's Vladimir Putin that was sharply criticized by his adversaries and a source of real concern for Europe, after which it appeared that the U.S. was on the verge of negotiating away swaths of Ukrainian territory without any input from Kyiv. On Monday, he met with Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House alongside a cadre of European leaders from Germany, France, the U.K. and elsewhere. An eyebrow-raising scene played out this time in Washington, D.C., as world leaders crowded around the Resolute Desk like schoolchildren and Trump at one point dismissed them for an impromptu call with Putin. Afterwards, the pro-Ukraine delegation was echoing a level of optimism that the White House was eager to echo at a press briefing on Tuesday. Yet, there was one other development that took place over Monday and Tuesday that could keep progress towards a peace agreement elusive. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that the Trump administration was wholly opposed to deploying troops to support Ukraine under any circumstances, and was only considering acting as a coordinator for a security agreement between Ukraine and its European neighbors. She couldn't tell reporters where common ground on the issue still existed with Russia — which separately indicated through statements that a European security force in Ukraine was off the table. "U.S. boots will not be on the ground in Ukraine,' Leavitt said on Tuesday. 'But we can certainly help in the coordination, and perhaps provide other means of security guarantees to our European allies.' The erosion of that common ground that Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff eagerly proclaimed had been found in an interview Sunday could present the biggest obstacle to a long-term peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia going forward. On Sunday, the administration's go-to conflict resolution expert was on CNN, telling Jake Tapper that Putin had agreed to allow 'Article 5-like protections' to Ukraine, something he called a 'game-changer' in the path towards a peace deal. 'We got to an agreement that the United States and other European nations could effectively offer Article 5-like language to cover a security guarantee,' Witkoff said. By Tuesday afternoon, it was completely unclear whether that was still a feasible suggestion. Russian officials repeated their objections to NATO forces entering Ukraine under any circumstances. The White House rejected the prospect of U.S. boots on the ground at any point. Yet Zelensky, in his own statements, has made clear that his government will not lay down arms without a concrete arrangement protecting his country's sovereignty and borders from future Russian aggression. He wrote on Saturday on Twitter/X: 'Security must be guaranteed reliably and in the long term, with the involvement of both Europe and the U.S.' It's a demand seen all the more crucial by Kyiv, given that Trump is now talking openly about ceding the Donbas region, part of which is occupied by Ukrainian forces, to Putin as a concession to make a deal. On Tuesday, Leavitt was pressed further to confirm that Vladimir Putin agreed to meet with Volodymyr Zelensky within two weeks, something the Kremlin has not yet stated definitively. Just the development of the two leaders in the same room would present a massive step forward in the Russia-Ukraine peace talks. But Russian officials previously agreed to begin 'direct' talks with Ukraine in May, only for those plans to be abandoned. Kremlin officials seemed to already be moving in that direction on Tuesday, saying that talks needed to begin 'gradually'. "We're going to find out about President Putin in the next couple of weeks," Trump himself told reporters on Tuesday. "It's possible that he doesn't want to make a deal."
Telegraph
21 minutes ago
- Telegraph
A heartening display of European resolve in support of Ukraine
SIR – What impressed me most about Monday's events at the White House was the sight of European leaders stepping up to the plate for once (report, August 19). Instead of the usual vacuous babble, here were our elected representatives behaving like statesmen, determined to influence the course of history. And it was heartwarming to see our own Prime Minister playing a pivotal role. Whether this will result in a peace deal that doesn't sell out Volodymyr Zelensky remains unclear. But it's good to see that serious, civilised politics is back. Stan Labovitch Windsor, Berkshire SIR – The presence of the European leaders at the talks was largely an irrelevance – an expensive, taxpayer-funded photo opportunity. Sir Keir Starmer should be in Britain. There is plenty for him to deal with here. David Saunders Sidmouth, Devon SIR – Donald Trump's friendly, even affectionate, attitude towards Volodymyr Zelensky has been taken by some as a sign that he will treat the Ukrainian leader more fairly. Would it were so, but I have my doubts. One cannot forget the American president's fury at the idea of Mr Zelensky conspiring against him with the Biden family, as Charles Moore says (Comment, August 19). Mr Trump has been steadily manoeuvring Mr Zelensky into a corner. Mr Zelensky is forbidden by the Ukrainian constitution from ceding territory. Yet if he refuses to cooperate, he will, as Lord Moore puts it, '[bring] down upon his head a tide of American denunciation and, more importantly, a withdrawal of US aid of all description'. This, then, is the context in which a smiling Mr Trump has declared himself ready to deliver Mr Zelensky to Vladimir Putin to conclude the negotiation. Gordon Bonnyman Frant, East Sussex SIR – Donald Trump was overheard appearing to suggest that he thought Vladimir Putin wanted to make a peace deal for him. Sadly, I fear Mr Trump is seriously mistaken. There is no evidence that Putin genuinely wishes to make peace, but he has fooled Mr Trump into believing that he does, playing on the American president's conceit and plying him with empty praise. Putin will play this game for as long as possible, taking as much Ukrainian territory as he can, until America wakes up and smells the coffee. At the heart of all this is a simple but self-evident truth: Putin only really respects superior strength and overwhelming force, whether military, economic or political. The European leaders know this, but have to tread on eggshells in dealing with the mercurial Mr Trump. Sooner or later, though, they must all confront him and clearly state what he needs to hear. David Platts Newark, Nottinghamshire
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
This is when UK could send troops to Ukraine
The UK is preparing to deploy troops to Ukraine as a reassurance force if a peace deal is reached with Russia. A meeting of the "coalition of the willing", co-chaired by Sir Keir Starmer, saw over 30 international leaders discuss further sanctions on Russia and security guarantees for Ukraine. Donald Trump has indicated the US is willing to provide security assistance, such as air support, but will not commit ground troops to Ukraine. Volodymyr Zelensky has welcomed the promise of security guarantees as a major step forward, expecting them to be formalised soon. Donald Trump stated he has spoken directly with Vladimir Putin to plan a meeting between the Russian leader and Mr Zelensky, followed by a three-way meeting including Trump. UK preparing to send troops to Ukraine as part of 'reassurance force' if peace deal is struck
