On Monday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to lift sanctions on Syria to promote the safety and prosperity of Syrians. The Syrian sanctions program has served as a testament to aggressive U.S. foreign policy with Syria since 1979. Once a country designated a state sponsor of terrorism, Syria now looks toward a rekindled relationship with the U.S. and potential reconciliation with Israel.

EXECUTIVE ORDER

Since May, Trump has made clear his desire to support Syrians and their new government following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in 2024. The order specifies:

• The removal of sanctions on Syria, maintaining sanctions on Bashar al-Assad, his associates, human rights abusers, drug traffickers, persons linked to chemical weapons activities, ISIS or its affiliates, and Iranian proxies.
• Secretary of State directed to evaluate suspending sanctions, either in whole or in part if specific criteria are met, under the Caesar Act, a law that sanctions the Assad regime for atrocities.
• Export controls on certain goods to be relaxed and restrictions waived on certain foreign assistance to Syria.
• Secretary of State directed to review Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham’s (HTS) designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
• Secretary of State directed to review HTS and Ahmed al-Sharaa’s designations as Specially Designated Global Terrorists.
• Secretary of State directed to review Syria’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.
• Secretary of State directed to explore avenues for sanctions relief at the United Nations to support stability in Syria.

Encouraging the al-Sharaa government to chase this “chance at greatness”, Trump acknowledged the initial necessity of sanctions to work as an important and crippling function at the time of the Assad regime.

State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce shared a statement from the White House during Monday’s briefing, pertaining to sanctions that will remain on Bashar al- Assad and related entities.

These sanctions will remain on account of the prior government’s aggression toward Israel, orientation with Russia and Iran, and hostility toward the U.S.

CAESAR ACT

One specific aspect to the order identifies the implication of the Caesar Act. This is a law that instills sanctions on Assad by condemning foreign businesses from entering into business that may continually prosper the prior government.

Fully known as the “Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019”, it was created to institute accountability for atrocities committed by the Assad regime.

State wrote in 2020 that sanctions implemented under this order “are not intended to harm the Syrian people.” They include travel restrictions to the U.S., isolation from the U.S. financial system for certain foreign entities, mainly targeting those who “facilitate the Assad regime’s acquisition of goods, services, or technologies that support the regime’s military activities as well as its aviation and oil and gas production industries.”

DO THEY WORK?

Sanctions remain a controversial tool used by governments to further foreign policy initiatives for counterterrorism, non-proliferation, human rights and general conflict resolution.

The Council on Foreign Relations specifically defines sanctions as, “the withdrawal of customary trade and financial relations for foreign and security policy purposes.”

Examples of sanctions include travel bans, frozen assets, arms embargoes (restriction on transfer of military weapons), foreign aid reductions, trade restrictions, etc.

For the United States, sanctions have been used regularly following 9/11.

The question remains – did the Syria sanctions program really work to destabilize the Assad regime? Will the lifting of sanctions bring notable relief to Syrians?

In 2021, the Middle East Institute wrote that the Assad regime was evading U.S. sanctions by employing international networks and business ownership schemes to transfer wealth over.

This means that, in spite of U.S. sanctions and the intentions behind them, Assad was most likely exploiting regulations and prohibitions; essentially operating untouched by U.S. efforts. Of course, I cannot presently state this as a proven fact. What we may
deduct from this is that, perhaps U.S. sanctions weren’t as directly detrimental to Assad’s regime as the U.S. had hoped.

If anything, statistics show that Syrians remained horribly impacted by the Assad regime without seeing direct benefit from U.S. or European sanctions targeting the former Syrian President.

The Carter Center released a report in 2020, in which indirect impacts from unilateral measures in 2011 were recorded. In short, these led to major portions of the economy transforming into informal sectors with increased transaction costs that Syrians bore
the brunt of, “profiting the repressive forces and armed groups on all sides.”

When a country falls subject to an increasingly informal economy, many consequences may arise. Economically, it may lead to slow economic growth, decreased government resources, lesser productivity, difficulties in implementing policies, and a perpetuation
of a vicious cycle that forces more companies to begin operating informally. Socially, this will increase poverty and accelerate work deficits.

In 2023 the European Union reported that around 70% of Syrians remained in dire need of humanitarian assistance as the country entered its 13 th year of its’ civil war.

“EU sanctions are designed to have minimal impact on the civilian population … Nevertheless, humanitarian operators report that unintended ‘side-effects’ of the sanctions have complicated their activities.”

NPR released an interview with host Juana Summers and multiple guests in 2023, who said that foreign banks were hesitating on behalf of financial penalties to import basic needs to the war-stricken country like medicine.

Especially following the 2023 earthquakes in Syria, many sources reported that the Assad regime deliberately delayed aid from reaching regions that were occupied by rebels.

“The Syrian government has for many years weaponized aid and obstructed it from crossing front lines from government-held parts of the country into nongovernment- controlled territory,” wrote the Human Rights Watch.

They continued to say that, following the first earthquake, the government remained adamant that all aid must only arrive from government-controlled areas.

Today, Syrians are subject to one of the “largest displacement crises globally” where over 13 million people have remained displaced since 2011. 90% of the Syrian population lives below the poverty line.

For the 500,000 that have returned to Syria since the transition of government in 2024, they are confronted with a severely damaged infrastructure, ongoing food scarcity, and debilitated facilities like hospitals.

A blog published by the Wilson Center suggests that sanctions on Syria have served as a major barrier to reconstruction. Because of this, the country faces economic collapse if investment is not readily pursued.

The New Arab writes that sanctions on Syria had devastated the country’s economy by limiting its’ access to foreign capital and necessary imports. Additionally, it imposed significant damage to humanitarian efforts both in regions controlled and not
controlled by Assad during his rule.

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

U.S. relations with Syria seem to be improving as Trump takes the initial step to lift certain sanctions. Of course, it’s fair to wonder if this will be enough in light of sanctions that will remain and the devastation that continues to plague Syrians.

As Trump first announced in May that he would lift particular sanctions on Syria, U.S. envoy Tom Barrack reopened the U.S. ambassador’s residence in Damascus. This has been regarded as a sign of “growing ties between Washington and the new Syrian government.”

The White House has stated that it has big hopes for the new al-Sharaa government pertaining to counterterrorism initiatives, the integration of Kurdish forces, as well as widespread respect and acknowledgment of minorities in the country.

One of the biggest things that the U.S. is eager to reach with Syria is a bilateral agreement between the new government and Israel. The two nations have sustained hostilities with one another despite a ceasefire arrangement that was established in 1974.

Israeli Prime Minister Bejamin Netanyahu communicated with Barrack earlier in June that he is considering working with al-Sharaa to reach an agreement. He hopes to “use momentum from the Trump-al-Sharaa meeting to start U.S.-mediated negotiations with Syria.”

This would be the first attempt at peace between the two countries since 2011.

A piece published in the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs states that Israel’s main objectives in Syria include ensuring national security, suppressing hostile threats from radical groups, preventing an Iranian military presence in Syria, and maintain occupation of the Golan Heights that Israeli forces had seized during the 1967 Six-Day War.

In a blog published by the Atlantic Council, some perceive this agreement as a “double-edged sword” for Israel.

In a positive light, al-Sharaa has secured sanctions relief from the U.S., shared an agenda pushing for a balance of power, recognition of minority rights and gradual economic development, and refuses to engage with Hamas.

The other side of the sword remains equally prevalent. If minority “sectarianism” prevails, this may fragment Syria, cultivate different militias, and give rise to terrorist organizations by weakening the central government. Alas, the debate for and against central government pervades the global stage.

Other concerns include the opportunity for Turkish influence in Syria to further escalate border tensions, and the reintegration of the Syrian military. The council’s blog concludes by proposing an unprejudiced perspective on the situation.

“Israeli policymakers need to recognize that the new government in Damascus is not Hamas and does not appear to be pursuing open confrontation … Israel should explore more comprehensive engagement with the new government that prioritizes regional integration over tactical dominance.”