
With sanctions lifted, Syria looks to solar power as more than a patchwork fix to its energy crisis
Al-Jenan went thousands of dollars in debt to buy his solar panel in 2019. It was an expensive coping mechanism at the time, but without it, he couldn't charge his phone and run the refrigerator.
Syria has not had more than four hours of state electricity per day for years, as a result of the nearly 14-year civil war that ended with the ouster of former President Bashar Assad in December.
Syria's new leaders are hoping renewable energy will now become more than a patchwork solution. Investment is beginning to return to the country with the lifting of U.S. sanctions, and major energy projects are planned, including an industrial-scale solar farm that would secure about a tenth of the country's energy needs.
'The solution to the problem isn't putting solar panels on roofs,' Syria's interim Energy Minister Mohammad al-Bashir told The Associated Press. 'It's securing enough power for the families through our networks in Syria. This is what we're trying to do.'
Some of the efforts focus on simply repairing infrastructure destroyed in the war. The World Bank recently announced a $146 million grant to help Syria repair damaged transmission lines and transformer substations. Al-Bashir said Syria's infrastructure that has been repaired can provide 5,000 megawatts, about half the country's needs, but fuel and gas shortages have hampered generation. With the sanctions lifted, that supply could come in soon.
More significantly, Syria recently signed a $7 billion energy deal with a consortium of Qatari, Turkish, and American companies. The program over the next three and a half years would develop four combined-cycle gas turbines with a total generating capacity estimated at approximately 4,000 megawatts and a 1,000-megawatt solar farm. This would 'broadly secure the needs' of Syrians, said Al-Bashir.
While Syria is initially focusing on fixing its existing fossil fuel infrastructure to improve quality of life, help make businesses functional again, and entice investors, the U.N. Development Program said in May that a renewable energy plan will be developed in the next year for the country.
The plan will look at Syria's projected energy demand and determine how much of it can come from renewable sources.
'Given the critical role of energy in Syria's recovery, we have to rapidly address energy poverty and progressively accelerate the access to renewable energy,' Sudipto Mukerjee, UNDP's resident representative in Syria, said in a statement announcing the plan.
While the war caused significant damage to Syria's infrastructure, crippling Washington-led sanctions imposed during the Assad dynasty's decades of draconian rule made it impossible for Syria to secure fuel and spare parts to generate power.
'Many companies over the past period would tell us the sanctions impact matters like imports, implementing projects, transferring funds and so on,' al-Bashir said.
During a visit to Turkey in May, the minister said Syria could only secure about 1700 megawatts, a little less than 20%, of its energy needs.
A series of executive orders by U.S. President Donald Trump lifted many sanctions on Syria, aiming to end the country's isolation from the global banking system so that it can become viable again and rebuild itself.
The United Nations estimates the civil war caused hundreds of billions of dollars in damages and economic losses across the country. Some 90% of Syrians live in poverty. Buying solar panels, private generators or other means of producing their own energy has been out of reach for most of the population.
'Any kind of economic recovery needs a functional energy sector,' said Joseph Daher, Syrian-Swiss economist and researcher, who said that stop-gap measures like solar panels and private generators were luxuries only available to a few who could afford it. 'There is also a need to diminish the cost of electricity in Syria, which is one of the most expensive in the region.'
Prices for electricity in recent years surged as the country under its former rulers struggled with currency inflation and rolling back on subsidies. The new officials who inherited the situation say that lifting sanctions will help them rectify the country's financial and economic woes, and provide sufficient and affordable electricity as soon as they can.
'The executive order lifts most of the obstacles for political and economic investment with Syria,' said Qutaiba Idlibi, who leads the Americas section of the Foreign Ministry.
Syria has been under Washington-led sanctions for decades, but designations intensified during the war that started in 2011. Even with some waivers for humanitarian programs, it was difficult to bring in resources and materials to fix Syria's critical infrastructure — especially electricity — further compounding the woes of the vast majority of Syrians, who live in poverty.
The removal of sanctions signals to U.S. businesses that Trump is serious in his support for Syria's recovery, Idlibi said.
'Right now, we have a partnership with the United States as any normal country would do,' he said.
Meanwhile, Al-Jenan is able to turn on both his fans on a hot summer day while he watches the afternoon news on TV, as the temperature rises to 35 degrees Celsius (95 F). He doesn't want to let go of his solar panel but hopes the lifting of sanctions will eventually bring sustainable state electricity across the country.
'We can at least know what's going on in the country and watch on TV,' he said. 'We really were cut off from the entire world.'
___
Chehayeb reported from Beirut.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Equities Fall Intraday as Trump Announces 25% Tariffs on Japan, South Korea
US equity benchmarks fell intraday after President Donald Trump announced 25% tariffs on imports fro Sign in to access your portfolio


Forbes
31 minutes ago
- Forbes
The People Have Spoken About Trump's AI Plan. Will Washington Listen?
Tech leaders urge light-touch regulation as public calls for accountability grow — a divide at the ... More heart of the U.S. AI Action Plan, due out any day now. U.S. Senate Commerce Committee hearing on AI on May 8, 2025. (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI) This article was written by Paulo Carvão, with Mizuki Yashiro, a sophomore studying Economics and Government at Harvard, serving as the Director of Strategy at Harvard Venture Capital Group and a data science automation intern at Ategrity Specialty Insurance, and Shaurya Jeloka, a sophomore studying computer science and economics at Harvard and interning as a software engineer at Amazon Robotics. The U.S. Artificial Intelligence Action Plan is due any day now, and the stakes couldn't be higher. The Trump administration asked the public earlier this year to help shape the plan. Over 10,000 responses poured in from tech giants, startups, venture capitalists, academics, nonprofit leaders and everyday citizens. What emerged from this unprecedented consultation is not just a collection of comments. It's a revealing portrait of the tensions shaping America's AI debate. The country is divided, not only between industry and civil society, but within the tech sector itself. If the U.S. is to lead responsibly in AI, federal policymakers must look beyond industry talking points and confront the deeper-value conflicts that these responses lay bare. Our team analyzed the full set of public comments using a combination of machine learning and qualitative review. We grouped responses into six distinct 'AI worldviews,' ranging from accelerationists advocating rapid, deregulated deployment to public interest advocates prioritizing equity and democratic safeguards. We also classified submitters by sector: big tech, small tech (including VCs) and civil society. The result offers a more structured picture of America's AI discourse and a clearer understanding of where consensus ends and conflict begins. Industry and civil society are polar opposites: 78% of industry actors are accelerationists or national security hawks, while close to 75% of civil society respondents focus on public interest and responsible AI advocacy. The Innovation vs. Governance: A Fault Line Tech companies overwhelmingly support U.S. global leadership in AI and warn against a fragmented regulatory landscape. OpenAI called on the federal government to preempt the 'patchwork of regulations' that risk 'undermining America's leadership position.' Meta warned that diverging rules 'could impede innovation and investment.' Leading VCs, including Andreessen Horowitz and True Ventures, echoed these concerns, cautioning against 'preemptively burdening developers with onerous requirements' and pushing for a 'light-touch' federal framework to protect early-stage startups from compliance burdens. The House included a controversial provision in Trump's budget bill that would have imposed a 10-year ban on state-level AI regulation, but the Senate struck it down Tuesday, sparking renewed debate. Yet these voices are far from unified. Traditional enterprise firms like Microsoft and IBM adopt a more measured stance, pairing calls for innovation with proposals for voluntary standards, documentation and public-private partnerships. In contrast, frontier labs and VCs resist binding rules unless clear harms have already materialized. Meanwhile, civil society groups, ranging from the Electronic Frontier Foundation to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, argue that those harms are not hypothetical, but are here now. Biased hiring algorithms, surveillance creep in policing, and opaque decision systems in healthcare and housing have already caused real damage. These organizations support enforceable audits, copyright protections, community oversight and redress mechanisms. Their vision of 'AI safety' is grounded not in national competitiveness, but in civil rights and systemic accountability. Shared Priorities, Divergent Principles Despite philosophical divides, there is some common ground. Nearly all industry actors agree on the need for federal investment in AI infrastructure, energy, compute clusters and workforce development. Microsoft has committed $50 billion to U.S. AI infrastructure; Anthropic warned that powering a single model might soon require five gigawatts of electricity. Industry wants government support to scale AI systems and do it fast. But when it comes to accountability, consensus collapses. Industry prefers internal testing and voluntary guidelines. Civil society demands external scrutiny and binding oversight. Even the very definition of "safety" differs. For tech companies, it's a technical challenge; for civil society, it's a question of power, rights and trust. Why This Matters for the Action Plan Policymakers face a strategic choice. They can lean into the innovation-at-all-costs agenda championed by accelerationist voices. Or they can take seriously the concerns about democratic erosion, labor dislocation and social harms raised by civil society. But this isn't a binary choice. Our findings suggest a path forward: a governance model that promotes innovation while embedding accountability. This will require more than voluntary commitments. It demands federal leadership to harmonize rules, incentivize best practices, and protect the public interest. Congress has a central role to play. Litigation and antitrust cases may offer remedies for past harms, but they are ill-equipped to prevent new ones. Proactive tools, including sector-specific regulation, dynamic governance frameworks and public participation are needed to build guardrails before disaster strikes. Crucially, the government must also resist the temptation to treat 'the tech sector' as a monolith. Our analysis shows that big tech includes both risk-conscious institutional players and aggressive frontier labs. Small tech spans open-source champions, privacy hawks and compliance minimalists. Civil society encompasses not only activists, but also major non-tech corporations such as JPMorgan Chase and Johnson & Johnson, whose AI priorities often bridge commercial and public interest values. Bridging the Divide There is no perfect formula for balancing speed and safety. But failing to bridge the value divide between industry and civil society risks eroding public trust in AI altogether. The public is skeptical, and rightfully so. In hundreds of comments, individuals voiced concerns about job loss, copyright theft, disinformation and surveillance. They didn't offer policy blueprints; instead, they demanded something more essential: accountability. If the U.S. wants to lead in AI, it must lead not just in model performance, it needs to lead in model governance. That means designing a system where all stakeholders, not just the largest companies, have a seat at the table. The Action Plan must reflect the complexity of the moment and should not merely echo the priorities of the powerful. The people have spoken. The challenge now is whether Washington will listen — not just to those who build the future, but to those who must live in it.


Atlantic
31 minutes ago
- Atlantic
What Schwarzenegger Knows About George Washington
On July 4, Arnold Schwarzenegger made his first pilgrimage to Mount Vernon. The former California governor was there to congratulate 100 individuals from nearly as many countries, ranging from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, as they became American citizens. In doing so, he joined a long line of distinguished individuals who have come to pay homage to a man whose leadership was defined not by how he wielded power, but by how he gave it up. That ideal of voluntary restraint inspired a much earlier visitor, the Marquis de Lafayette. In 1784, less than a year after the end of the Revolutionary War, Lafayette journeyed from France to the banks of the Potomac River in Virginia, and from there to Mount Vernon. The nobleman and Continental Army general was the first foreigner to visit George Washington after he gave up power. Writing to his wife, the marquis declared, 'In retirement, General Washington is even greater than he was during the Revolution.' Lafayette understood greatness to lie in what one chooses not to do. Washington's decision in 1783 to relinquish command of the Continental Army shocked the world. His further refusal to seek a third presidential term solidified his status as a latter-day Cincinnatus, the Roman leader who returned to his farm rather than cling to power. King George III, upon hearing that Washington intended to resign, said that his decision would make him 'the greatest man in the world.' Lafayette also believed that Washington wasn't the father of just his country, calling him the 'patriarch' of liberty. In 1790, after the storming of the Bastille announced the advent of the French Revolution, Lafayette sent Washington the key to the notorious prison, which still hangs at Mount Vernon. Would-be Washingtons like the Hungarian Lajos Kossuth, foreign royalty such as Prince Albert (later King Edward VII), and fellow cigar smokers including Winston Churchill and Fidel Castro—a steady parade of visitors have made their way to Mount Vernon. When Prince Albert visited, in 1860, a London newspaper noted the irony of royalty paying tribute to someone who had refused a crown: 'Without royal state, royalty contemplated the last abode of one who, though once pronounced a rebel and a traitor by the very ancestors of the prince, now ranks above all kings.' Lindsay Chervinsky: The 'dirty and nasty people' who became Americans In 1969, Washington caught the attention of a recent Austrian immigrant. Schwarzenegger, who was a fan of Richard Nixon, was given a book incorrectly listing the first president as a member of the Republican Party. He was led to believe that the Founding Father, who was famous for having no political party, was 'where it all began' for the GOP. Schwarzenegger still has the book in his office, but his appreciation of Washington has gained a sounder historical footing over time. Like many other leaders, Schwarzenegger is particularly fascinated by Washington's willingness to step aside. 'When he was offered the ultimate power, he refused it,' he told me. 'He could have run another five times, but he didn't. He went back to farming. To me, that is the ultimate of great.' After two terms as governor, Schwarzenegger didn't retire to agricultural pursuits—unless you count his miniature pony, miniature donkey, pig, and two dogs. 'Instead of going back to a farm, I went back to blowing things up on movie sets,' he wrote in 2021. Yet there is a certain parallel, evident in the way that Washington's legacy speaks to those who conceive of leadership not as wielding power, but as civic stewardship. And the annual naturalization ceremony at Mount Vernon proves that this vision still matters. It matters to the 100hundred new citizens who took their oath. It matters to an immigrant who became governor. And it matters to a country constantly negotiating what it means to be American and what it means to be great. 'Not in my wildest dreams,' Schwarzenegger said, 'did I think that one day this immigrant would be asked to lay a wreath at George Washington's tomb.'