Latest news with #ex-Syrian
Time of India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Who is Austin Tice? Leaked documents uncover startling truth about his capture and secret detention
What new information do the leaked papers show? Live Events How do the results go against what was said before about his fate? Why has the red tape made it harder to bring him home? FAQs (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The fate of American journalist and Marine veteran Austin Tice has been unknown for more than a decade. His case has gotten a lot of attention around the world since he was captured in Syria in 2012. Now, newly released government papers show that officials knew a lot more about his detention than previously the newly released U.S. intelligence documents give detailed accounts of Austin Tice's captivity, including the medical care he got, thirteen years after he was kidnapped in Syria. The results go against earlier claims about what happened to him and give his family hope that he will come home safely as they keep looking for him, as quoted in a report by Marine 2012, Austin Tice's family has been haunted by his disappearance. On Thursday, his parents talked about shocking things they found in newly released government files to mark the 13th anniversary of his Tice's mother, Debra Tice, and his father, Marc Tice spoke at the National Press Club about going through eight huge binders, each four inches thick, that held intelligence reports. Most of the information was heavily redacted, but there were a lot of details that weren't made of the things that came out was proof that U.S. officials knew almost every day what was going on with Tice while he was in papers also claim that he got medical care while in Syrian custody, which his family had never been told about before. These new pieces of information give us a better idea of what it was like for him to be in prison and make us wonder why the government kept this information secret, as per a report by Marine recent years, speculation about Tice's fate has intensified. An ex-Syrian official said in June that Tice was killed in 2013 on direct orders from then-President Bashar al-Assad after a short attempt to escape. But the Tice family looked over the documents and they don't seem to support this documents presented to them, according to Debra Tice, contradict this assertion, which was made by Assad's inner circle member and strategic advisor Bassam al-Hassan. Hassan asserted that after Tice briefly escaped his prison cell in 2013, Assad gave the order to kill him, as quoted in the report by Marine the same event, Nizar Zakka, who used to be a hostage and is now the head of Hostage Aid Worldwide, completely denied the claim. Zakka said, "Assad will never, ever give the order to kill an American citizen." He also said that the claim was not true. Officials in the U.S. told The Washington Post that these reports are still not experts think that internal red tape has been holding back progress for a long time, even though new information gives them hope. Kieran Ramsey, who used to be the director of the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell and worked on Tice's case, said that government red tape was "the ultimate agent of evil" in keeping him from coming said that proving a hostage's death needs the same level of proof as proving they are alive, and in Tice's case, there isn't any proof of to this inefficiency, the Tice family has had to deal with years of uncertainty. But their determination is still strong. Debra Tice told reporters, "My son is not dead, and we are working to get him home." Her voice was strong and Tice's story is more than just a headline; it's proof of a family's unbreakable will and a reminder of the hidden political forces at work in international hostage cases. The new documents have brought the case back into the public eye and given the family hope that Austin will come home one is a Marine veteran and freelance journalist who was taken hostage in Syria in 2012 while covering the civil family is very sure of it, and there is no proof that he is dead.
L'Orient-Le Jour
09-08-2025
- Politics
- L'Orient-Le Jour
Hezbollah convoys: The army ready to act against any ‘breach of civil peace,' 7 protesters arrested
The Lebanese Army stated on Saturday that it will tolerate no violation 'of security or civil peace,' nor any road closures, in response to demonstrations the previous evening by Hezbollah supporters protesting the government's decision to disarm the party-militia by the end of the year. A source within the army also confirmed that seven people were briefly arrested on the sidelines of the convoys. In a statement, the troops mentioned 'the exceptional challenges Lebanon is currently facing,' including daily Israeli attacks and the 'delicate security situation.' In this context, it denounced 'manipulated' videos circulated online and calls to demonstrate 'aimed at fueling tensions between citizens,' warning against 'any action whose consequences could be unpredictable.' The army proceeds with arrests 'While respecting peaceful freedom of expression, the army will tolerate no violation of security or civil peace, no roadblocks, nor any violation of public or private property,' the statement added, calling on all parties to 'act responsibly' and promote 'unity and solidarity.' Although the statement gave no information on arrests during the convoys the previous day, a military source confirmed to our publication that seven people were briefly detained during the protests and then released. Several videos circulating on social media and verified by L'Orient Today showed protesters presumed to be Hezbollah supporters being arrested Friday night by soldiers in various regions. Some footage notably shows arrests on the newly renamed 'Ziad Rahbani Highway,' formerly known as the ex-Syrian dictator Hafez al-Assad Highway, renamed Tuesday. The government of Nawaf Salam announced Tuesday that it had tasked the army with preparing a plan to implement the disarmament of militias, including Hezbollah, before the end of the year. Meanwhile, on Thursday, the cabinet approved the 'objectives' defined in the roadmap proposed by U.S. envoy Tom Barrack to ensure proper implementation of the ceasefire agreement. This agreement came into effect on Nov. 27, 2024, after 13 months of war between Hezbollah and Israel, but is violated almost daily by the Israeli state, which continues to occupy five points in southern Lebanon and attack several regions of the country. At the same time, Tel Aviv accuses Hezbollah of seeking to rebuild its infrastructure south of the Litani River. The 'Barrack plan' envisions the disarmament of Hezbollah and other armed groups by the end of the year, along with a series of other measures, such as implementing reforms, supporting the Lebanese army, and delimiting borders with Syria and Israel. The protests on Thursday and Friday nights against this plan took the form of dozens of motorcycle convoys whose drivers and passengers, waving Hezbollah's yellow flags, traveled through various areas of the country, notably the southern suburbs of Beirut. On Friday, Hezbollah's motorcycle convoys attempted to reach the road leading to the Baabda Presidential Palace but were stopped at several army checkpoints deployed in the area. The protest, which involved convoys of motorcycles waving Hezbollah's yellow flags, moved through various parts of the country, including Beirut southern suburbs, with participants voicing opposition to the Cabinet's recent adoption of the 'objectives' outlined in the U.S.-backed roadmap. The plan calls for the disarmament of Hezbollah and other armed groups by the end of the year, among a set of other measures including reforms, support to the Lebanese Army and border delineation with Syria and Israel. The Army Command warned citizens "against endangering the country's security through uncalculated actions." "While the army respects the right to peaceful expression of opinion, it will not allow any breach of security, disturbance of civil peace, road blockages, or attacks on public and private property," the statement said. Hezbollah motorcycle convoys attempted to reach the route leading to the Baabda Presidential Palace but were stopped at multiple army checkpoints deployed throughout the area. The Lebanese Army also began arresting protesters along the airport road and the Ziad Rahbani highway according to the videos circulating on social media. The Ziad Rahbani highway, in Beirut southern suburbs, named after the famous musician and playwright who died two weeks ago, was previously called Hafez al-Assad highway. It's been renamed after a cabinet meeting on Tuesday. The Army hasn't posted any official statement commenting on the arrests, and a spokesperson contacted by L'Orient Today didn't give any further details. 'Humiliation and submission to an American directive' Speaking to Al Jazeera on Saturday, Deputy Head of Hezbollah's Political Council and former minister Mahmoud Qamati criticized the government's decision. 'No internal escalation,' according to a Hezbollah official Alongside the protests, and a few hours before the Lebanese Army's statement, Hezbollah's Political Council Vice-President and former minister Mahmoud Comati said in an interview on al-Jazeera that the government's decision 'will not lead to any internal escalation or confrontation' in Lebanon. 'The government's decision to restrict arms to the State is a humiliation and submission to an American directive,' criticized Mr. Comati, who believed it 'will neither be adopted nor implemented.' 'We are studying our options regarding whether or not to remain in the government' for ministers affiliated with the group, he added. The four Shiite ministers present at the meeting — three of whom come from the Hezbollah-Amal coalition — left the room when discussions turned to the American document. Hezbollah had previously called on the government to reverse its decision made on Tuesday.
New Indian Express
21-06-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Not as easy as strong Israel vs weak Iran, Netanyahu must be stopped: Daniel Levy
Israel and Iran are now locked in a war that's probably the most worrying in recent times. More so with President Donald Trump's overt support, both on Truth Social and with his statements, for Israel. Will it light up a Middle East that was already a tinderbox? What about Trump's "within-two-weeks" deadline? Will the US step in after that? And what are the long-time implications that the world has to fear? Daniel Levy, peace negotiator under Israeli Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak, and now the President of the US Middle East Project shares his thoughts in this interview with The New Indian Express. Excerpts: Can we begin with your thoughts on the Israel-Iran war? It began with Israel launching an attack just days ahead of Iran's sixth round of talks with the US. Iran was caught unawares… I think one has to see this in the context of a few things. Firstly, that narrow angle of Israel-Iran. People may be aware that Prime Minister Netanyahu, especially, has spoken about the Iranian threat for three decades. But, and this is quite important, there was no intelligence, credible information that Iran was hurtling towards weaponising its nuclear enrichment programme. Iran has certainly advanced the levels of enrichment ever since Trump, at the request of Israel in his first term, chose to pull out and therefore nullify the nuclear agreement that had been reached in 2015. But Israel is making the claim that this had to happen now since Iran was tipping into an urgent attempt to weaponise. That doesn't seem credible. You could argue that operationally, with the successful degradation of Hezbollah by Israel, with (ex-Syrian President) Assad being removed, not by Israel, but internally, and with Iran's air defences being weakened, this was operationally an opportunity. But I think one has to look at at least three other vectors, and I'll list them very briefly. Number one, the Israelis were probably worried, and Netanyahu specifically, that if the latest round of US-Iran talks advanced, then the US would give a clear no in terms of Israel's desire to strike at the Iranian facilities and to strike at Iran more generally. So, the timing, I think, was designed to undermine those talks. Perhaps Trump believed it would help the talks, but I don't think that's how most people see it playing out. Secondly, you always have to look a little bit at the domestic politics inside Israel. Netanyahu is in a coalition crisis. He has held his government together, which is a remarkable success, but he is entering election season and needs something to reshuffle the deck. He's losing in every opinion poll. This was probably his last big roll of the dice. And thirdly, this of course happens against the backdrop of what has been going on with Israel's assault on the Palestinians. And, in particular, you beginning to see perhaps a tipping point being reached with the images out of Gaza — the intentional starvation programme and another level of cruelty with the shooting of people there. Israel's war crimes in Gaza were beginning to move even Israel's Western allies to question them. This war has been a fabulous distraction. So, if you package that together, I think you can understand the backdrop. Coming specifically to the US intelligence report that said Iran was at least three years away from developing a nuclear bomb. Does that not question the very rationale of the war? Yes, I think most people on the outside do question the rationale of the war. I think the Israeli claim as to why they are doing this doesn't stack up with the evidence and the composite picture one can establish of what's going on. But now that the war is on, let us look at what Netanyahu has tried to do. He has been focussing really in one space, that tiny bit of real-estate between the ears of the American president. And he has tried to create an equation where he brings the US into this war to directly engage, because they can do things that the Israelis can't, because then it becomes America's problem. So, I think that's also an important prism through which to understand this. Can they bring the Americans in? I think the Israelis are now trying to communicate the message to the Americans that with us having gone this far, it's more dangerous not to finish the job. Because the Iranians may now decide they have to change their strategic posture. They're trying to create a fait accompli. It looked like Trump was going that way. Now there is apparently a pause in the American decision-making structure. Let's talk about the situation on the ground. Is it as simple as a very strong Israel versus significantly weakened Iran? Really interesting question. I don't think it's that simple. One of the reasons it's not that simple is the need to factor the pain threshold of the respective parties. Let's look at the nature of the Iranian economy. They are very used to running a resistance economy, living under sanctions. Israel is the opposite, a very plugged-in nation. What the war does to Israel's economy — when you can't go in and out of the country, the airspace inside Israel is largely or almost entirely closed to commercial vehicles, where Israel is brought to an economic standstill —can hurt it deeply. And then there's the more simple pain threshold. Israelis have never seen these kinds of strikes deep inside their own cities and towns before. And although while they are able to inflict pain on Iran that is more dramatic, more devastating, Iran doesn't have to meet them one for one. Israelis are also looking at a couple of other things. They do not have an endless supply of interceptor missiles. Their interceptors don't get knocked out of the factory at the rate of hundreds a day. That supply is, I think, a limiting factor. Then there is their Air Force operating 2,000 kilometres from their border in the skies. These can be quite draining on their pilots after a point. So, there are factors here that could mean Israel doesn't have the capacity to continue this indefinitely. Israel is also a small country. Its population of approximately 10 million, even less, limits those whom it can draw into the ranks of its military, especially when two large population groups, the ultra-orthodox and the Palestinians, don't serve. Israelis are exhausted from the amount of reserve duty they've been doing. If we factor all of this in, it's not a cakewalk for Israel. I'm hearing that Iran is capable of producing missiles at a pretty good clip when compared to Israel. Is that true? Well, I'm reading the same information. I think it's sufficiently sourced and it sounds quite credible. So, Israel is now focussing on the missile launching facilities spread across Iran. It hasn't managed to take those out thus far. I think we cannot know for sure how depleted Israel's interceptor missiles are. Just as we cannot know exactly how many missiles Iran has left, how able it is to replenish those stocks. But it does seem like Iran is able to continue to inflict a not-so-insignificant degree of pain. And let's just acknowledge that there are things that Iran has not brought into the equation yet. Number one, they've chosen not to expand the circle of the conflict. They have been targeting Israel directly. The other factor that hasn't come into play is that the Houthis and the militias in Iraq have been very quiet. These two factors are perhaps being kept in abeyance to wait and see where this goes, and also to signal to the US that we still have other assets that we can bring in to play that could threaten you directly. But we're not doing that, because you haven't joined this war directly. There is what is happening in Gaza for over 600 days. And there is Iran now. What are your thoughts about the way the world has reacted? We all may come to look back on what is happening and rue the fact that we let it happen. We may ask where we were when relentless war crimes were being committed against the Palestinians in Gaza. We may live to regret that because it may make it harder to hold others to any kind of standard in the wake of this. What Israel was doing to the Palestinians for decades in the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem — the unwillingness to end an occupation that has now been declared by the International Court of Justice as illegal in its very nature, the relentless closures, denial of human rights and dignities — all of these have been left to fester. Hamas responded to this by carrying out its own violations of international law. And Israel's response was to double down and to pursue a policy that doesn't make sense in any which way. It only makes sense if you factor in much broader, problematic, and let's just use the honest words, extreme messianic goals, which seem to be making the Palestinian territories unlivable for Palestinians. They have openly declared their intention to ethnically cleanse. And that's why, with significant credibility and in the international court, this is now being judged as a genocide. But the world stood by. Let's narrow that down a little. Israel's Western allies stood by and allowed this to happen, continue to arm Israel, continue to provide diplomatic cover, of course, with the US in the lead. But it wasn't just the US. I think as much of the rest of the world and the global majority global South totally failed. I certainly think we have set ourselves on a very dangerous path. The most vital question now is if Donald Trump will join the war. There's already been a significant level of support from the US for Israel. But now that the US President has come out with his 'within two weeks' statement, do you sense a keenness to do a deal? This is really the question that everyone is toiling with. And it's so difficult because we know because this is a president very capable of flipping on a dime. We also know that two weeks may not be two weeks. What is interesting to look at is the serious contestation of the need for war within the Trump world, within MAGA, the Make America Great Again community. There is serious pushback here. You have some of the most significant figures who helped get Trump elected, saying, "Wait a minute! you said you were the peace guy, not the war guy. You said you would put American interests first. How is this an American interest?" They say Israel started this war. Israel is trying to drag America into this war. We have no existential challenge here. Our Gulf allies don't want us to do this. This isn't going to be good for our economy if oil fields burn, if others are brought into this. They say we've been here before. This isn't our first rodeo. America got dragged into the Iraq war by domestic neoconservatives lying and by Israel pushing. They are asking Trump is he is going to be another American president led by the nose by an Israeli prime minister? On the other hand, there are those saying, Mr President, everyone's now calling you the TACO president. Trump Always Chickens Out. You've got to prove that that's not the case. This could reset the deck in terms of you showing that you can use force, but you're ready to make deals that can help you in other circumstances. Israel and (many in the Jewish lobby in America) will be making that case. We've teed this up for you, Mr President. You know, the guy likes Golf. Israel would say we've taken the ball right up to the hole. All you have to do is a gentle little putt, blow up Fordo (Iran's nuclear plant hidden in the deepest of their bunkers) and don't worry. What could possibly go wrong? The question is going to be, do those who make the what could possibly go wrong argument win? Or will it those who say I'll list for you what could go wrong. That's the dynamic. But we have to also be acutely aware that if you wait for two weeks, you can be a hostage of events, of circumstances, of developments. Does Iran get provoked to an extent that it does something that makes the Americans feel they have to come in? Do the Israelis conduct some kind of provocation with a view to bringing the Americans in? I do worry that if this is pushed further, the consequences are going to be significant. They may be ones that we haven't anticipated. The expectation of the 'dealmakers' is that Iranians will do all the yielding. How likely is that? I think this is the distinction between a peace deal and a diktat that amounts to demanding a capitulation. I don't see the second option being accepted. I think those who do want to bring Trump into this militarily are trying to set up the equation that says, of course you can negotiate if Iran comes and says we'll give up everything — we'll give up not only our rights under the NPT, under the non-proliferation treaty for civilian nuclear enrichment, but we'll also give up all our missile programme. Basically, tell the Americans and Israel, you guys take over. It's almost the same as regime change. So, I don't think that that is a negotiating format that can deliver a result, which is precisely why some are saying that's the only negotiated outcome you should accept, Mr President. There's a zone of agreement. But it's not the one that American negotiators have been willing to contemplate thus far. Hopefully, it could change. I mean, you clearly again have these competing factions. And according to what we've read and what we're led to believe, Steve Witkoff was in a negotiation with the Iranians where there were possibly mutually acceptable solutions on the enrichment issue. Now we're going to have to see whether they take a maximalist line or whether there is wiggle room for an agreement. Let's also just step back and acknowledge that Witkoff is zero for three. They went in during Russia, Ukraine, Iran and the Gaza ceasefire. And in all three places, conflict is now more intense than when Witkoff started. You have been a seasoned negotiator yourself at the very highest levels. If you were put in charge of this peace negotiation, how would you have gone about it? I think there's a quite simple rule of negotiation. Of course, the details always matter. That simple rule is, of course, you can use pressure. Of course, you try to influence the negotiating margins of the other side. But in negotiation, you have to create a situation where both parties can have a narrative that works in their political setting. They must be able to turn to their own people and say, look, the other side are going to be saying X. But here's why, for our side, this is a not only a dignified, but also good outcome. There isn't a way that you can negotiate if you don't hold that in your mind. I'd also say the details do matter. And there is a genuine question and concern here. Are the Americans up to speed on the details of the files that this team is dealing with? Look, we've all had experience with a US that comes in with preconceived notions that gets things wrong. But here, I think you have a more distinct problem, which is have they dispensed with so much of the expertise that you have people insufficiently familiar with the files? That can be a good thing if they don't carry all the baggage, some of which was unhelpful from the past. But it can be bad if they don't know what they're supposed to be negotiating. Going by what you say, is this negotiation then already doomed to fail? I don't want to say that, not only because I want to have a reason to get out of bed in the morning, but because it depends what intentionality you go in with. If both Israel and Iran are convinced that the other options are worse for them, then I still think they can get to a negotiating position that could see this deescalate rather than the opposite. But it's not the path we seem to be on. We seem to be on a path where either America will be pulled in, and then this really becomes, in a more direct way, America's war. In some respects, both Gaza and Iran already have an element in which they're America's war. We either seem to be on the path to that, or on the path to, at some stage, Israel deciding that without America, there's not much more it can do. Israel has done an awful lot. It's beginning to suffer exhaustion on its home front. So, it could declare unilaterally this is over, daring the Iranians to violate that. But, having already perhaps caused enough chaos and anger, even if there is short-term quiet, we may well have the reverberations and the repercussions and the dangers that flow from this for quite some time to come. The negotiating door is still open. But it's difficult right now. Finally, this war is playing out in the Middle East, and there are the many religious fault lines to consider. Many of the humanitarian red lines have also been crossed. What do you see as a long-term impact, and how worried should we be? I think the news here is not good. What I'm saying is that there are lines that have been crossed, which we may well all regret. The long-term effect of this, I fear, in the region itself, is that more and more of the public, but also in their own ways, more of the leaderships, are going to be convinced that Israel is acting like a radicalising, destabilising, revisionist state, which is a problem. Because when your population is watching these images every day, it winds that population up. It becomes a security issue for Israel. And so, I think people would really like to see Israel step back from this, be encouraged to step back from this, also for its own good, for its own well-being, by its friends. It has friends in the West, it has friends elsewhere. But Israel needs to step back from this, because otherwise we are in a very significant downward spiral that won't just end in the Middle East.
The Hill
24-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Trump administration eases sanctions on Syria
The Trump administration announced Friday that it would ease sanctions against Syria, making good on President Trump's promise from earlier this month to roll back penalties against the country roiled by years of civil war. The Treasury Department confirmed the move in a statement Friday, saying it issued Syria a General License (GL) 25, authorizing transactions involving the country's new government headed by Ahmad al-Sharaa. GL 25 will allow for new investment and private sector activity, positioning Syria to be free of the sanctions — most of which were imposed during ex-Syrian President Bashar Assad's rule. Assad was driven out of the office by Syrian rebels late last year. Secretary of State Marco said on Friday that he issued a 180-day waiver to make sure that sanctions don't hamper the U.S.'s partners from making investments. The waivers facilitate the provision of water, energy, electricity and allow for a more 'effective' humanitarian response all around Syria, according to Rubio. 'Today's actions represent the first step in delivering on the President's vision of a new relationship between Syria and the United States,' the secretary of state said in a statement. 'President Trump is providing the Syrian government with the chance to promote peace and stability, both within Syria and in Syria's relations with its neighbors.' 'The President has made clear his expectation that relief will be followed by prompt action by the Syrian government on important policy priorities,' he added. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent noted in a statement that Syria has to continue working to become a 'stable' nation that is at 'peace' and that the federal government's action on Friday will 'hopefully put the country on a path to a bright, prosperous, and stable future.' Trump vowed earlier this month, during his multi-stop trip to the Middle East, that he would lift sanctions against Syria. He added that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan advocated for the sanctions to be lifted. The president met with al-Sharaa last week and encouraged the new leader to reject Palestinian and Syrian terrorists and help prevent the resurgence of ISIS, according to the White House.
Yahoo
10-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Putin's refuge for Bashar al-Assad in Moscow impacting Russian efforts to keep forces in Syria, says UK
Vladimir Putin offering refuge to ex-Syrian tyrant Bashar al-Assad in Moscow is undermining Russia's talks to keep its forces in the wartorn country, according to British defence chiefs. They believe that Russia is carrying out an evacuation from its Mediterranean naval port of Tartus in Syria. In its latest intelligence update, the Ministry of Defence in London said: 'On 28 and 29 January 2025, Russian merchant vessels SPARTA II and SPARTA reportedly departed Tartus, Russia's strategically important naval base in Syria. 'The two merchant vessels are highly likely returning evacuated equipment and personnel to alternative basing locations away from the Mediterranean Sea, accompanied by four Russian Federation Navy vessels.' The update added: 'Negotiations between Russian Government representatives and Syria's ruling administration, Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), regarding the future of Russian bases, are almost certainly ongoing. 'Russia is almost certainly continuing to actively engage HTS to develop ties and promote itself as a beneficial partner. 'However, Russia is in a weaker negotiating position due to various factors, likely including the Syrian leadership's hostility towards the former Syrian dictator, Bashar Al-Assad, currently harboured by Russia.' Britain, the US, Ukraine and its other allies are fighting an information war against Russia so their briefings need to be treated with caution, but are far more believable than Kremlin propaganda. Russia propped up Assad's brutal regime for years, including with air strikes on rebel forces as they swept across the country in a lightning uprising which toppled him in December. Assad, who was dubbed the 'Rat of Damascus' by Foreign Secretary David Lammy, fled to Russia where he was offered refuge. Putin's regime has since been in talks with Syria's new administration led by HTS, a former al-Qaeda affiliate, to allow Russian forces to remain at the country's Khmeimim Air Base in Syria's Latakia province and the port of Tartus. Western sanctions on Syria's banking sector are preventing critical investments in the war-ravaged economy despite huge interest from Syrian and foreign investors since the fall of Assad, the country's investment chief said. 'Sanctions have stopped everything. Right now, they are primarily on the Syrian people and are increasing their suffering,' stressed Ayman Hamawiye, the 36-year old head of the Syrian Investment Agency. The US in January issued a six-month waiver to its Syria sanctions, focused on the energy sector and financial transfers to Syrian governing authorities, but kept sanctions in place on the central bank, keeping Syria cut off from the international financial system. The EU in late January also agreed on a roadmap to ease its wide-ranging Syria sanctions, which EU diplomats say may include lifting some measures in place on the banking sector, but details are still being worked out in Brussels. 'The steps taken so far on sanctions are inadequate,' said Mr Hamawiye. 'In my opinion, everyone has an interest in these transactions going through a banking system with oversight and transparency rather than through informal transfer networks.'
