By Abby Lurensky ’27; Image by The European Council on Foreign Relations
In December of 2024, rebel forces–led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)–overthrew the longstanding Assad regime in Syria. Under its new leader, Ahmed al-Shara, the new HTS-led government has begun making overtures to the international community to improve relations and ease sanctions. However, this shift in Syrian politics has come at the same time as American foreign policy is realigning with the election of Donald Trump: under the Trump administration, the United States is staying far away from conflict in the Middle East. However, without a major country backing it, the new Syrian government is suffering under the weight of American sanctions. For the first time in decades, Washington has the opportunity to form an alliance with Damascus by lifting sanctions. Without a policy shift from the U.S., Shara’s government is likely to turn to Turkey, Russia, or even China as major partners. Lifting sanctions would both empower the Syrian government to fight the Islamic State (a key objective of the United States) and cut against China’s and Russia’s growing international influence.
Currently, the Syrian government is the target of sanctions from the United States, a holdover from the Assad regime. But after fourteen years of civil war, Syria is in need of foreign investment to rebuild its civil infrastructure and maintain its fledgling military. Although the Qatari government has shown interest in providing funds to increase government-sector salaries, they have hesitated in supplying the funding due to concerns of violating U.S. sanctions. As it currently stands, U.S. policy is isolating Syria from the global economy and hobbling its recovery.
These financial woes will only compound the political instability within the country and potentially weaken the new government, which could hinder their counter-terrorist efforts. Interim President Shara has himself noted that internal security and economic growth are linked, with US sanctions holding back both: “We cannot establish security in the country with sanctions still in place against us.” As a result, Syrian reconstruction of vital infrastructure and continued military funding will be difficult without Syria turning to non-US allied states, such as Russia or China.
In a recent New York Times interview, Shara hinted at future military aid from Russia. While Chinese support for the HTS government would be complicated (due to the involvement of Uyghur fighters in Assad’s overthrow), it’s not inconceivable due to China’s demonstrated desire to improve relations with the HTS government. While both Russia and China would likely support counter-IS operations, a close alliance with Syria would still weaken U.S. power internationally.
In the face of normalized relations between Syria, Russia, and China, the United States should follow the lead of the United Kingdom and the European Union by lifting sanctions. Not only would this prevent outsized Chinese or Russian control within Syria, it would also open up the possibility for improved Syrian-American relations. The new HTS government–at its full potential, without restraining US sanctions–could become the United States’ new partner in the region in the fight against the Islamic State. As such, closer Syrian-American relations remain within American interests.
In the past, HTS has shown its commitment and capability for IS counter-terrorism, and has recently pursued operations against leaders of the Islamic Jihad within Syria. If the Syrian government were able to fully fund its military, the United States could drastically scale back its forces in Syria without worries of an ISIS resurgence. Indeed, this is a crucial moment in the fight against the Islamic State, as concerns of a major IS prison break heighten. If the Syrian government is unable to fully fund its military (due to U.S. sanctions), then an IS prison break operation becomes more feasible, which could serve as a jumping-off point for a resurgence. In this context, the removal of Syrian sanctions becomes crucial, as it would support the fight against the IS without the need for direct U.S. support.
However, some Americans may worry that lifting sanctions might condone recent events within Syria: namely, the government’s potential acceptance of sectarian violence and an apparent lack of centralized control over the military.
Many Syrians and outsiders feel that the new government has not fulfilled its promises of an ethnically and religiously inclusive government. Though there have been some signs of hope (the inclusion of minorities in the presidential cabinet and the treaty between the SDF and the government), there has also been sectarian violence that killed over 1,000 Alawites and at least 16 Druze civilians. These instances of violence are horrific, and the U.S. should hold Shara’s government to its promises to prosecute the perpetrators. However, as much of this violence was linked to rebelling forces within the Syrian military, it doesn’t necessarily follow that U.S. sanctions will discourage this type of action in the future. Rather, if sanctions persist, then the government will find it harder to fund the military, and rebellion against central authority may increase. If the Syrian government had easier access to the international economy, it could then better fund its military, which might bring it more under control.
Moreover, this very lack of control over the military could be seen as grounds for retaining sanctions; in other words, the United States shouldn’t have diplomatic relations with a country that doesn’t have complete control over its military. However, one could argue that sanctions themselves prevent the Syrian government from exerting control over its military by depriving it of the capital necessary to fund it. As such, the Trump administration should seriously consider lifting the sanctions on the Syrian government in the interest of broader stability within the region.
As of now, the Trump administration has made little official contact with the new government in Syria, but the recent congressional visit to Damascus holds potential. Indeed, on this visit, President Shara opened up the possibility of normalizing ties with Israel, which could be read as a Shara attempting to play ball with broader American objectives in the region. The Trump administration should capitalize upon this early progress by lifting sanctions on Syria (following the lead of the UK and the EU). If the United States doesn’t, then we might see either a resurgence of the IS or the spread of Russia and China’s influence in the Middle East.
