US President Donald Trump announced a partial lifting of sanctions on Syria imposed over more than a decade—a key tool in isolating the Syrian regime and pressuring it to comply with international resolutions and to hold perpetrators of severe human rights violations accountable.
But what does this decision actually mean? What types of sanctions have been lifted? And how will this impact Syria’s economy and the United States’ relations with countries currently engaging with Damascus?
According to a statement issued by the US Treasury Department, the partial relief includes facilitating financial transfers and international aid to humanitarian organizations operating in Syria, permitting limited activities in agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and civil infrastructure projects within government-controlled areas. Additionally, rules will be loosened around remittances, which will allow Syrians abroad to send money more freely to family members inside Syria.
However, sanctions under the Caesar Act—the most severe component of the US sanctions regime against Syria—remain fully in place. These target government officials and entities doing business with the regime, particularly in the oil, gas, military, and security sectors.
US sanctions on Syria date back to the early 2000s and were significantly expanded following the outbreak of the Syrian uprising in 2011. The regime was accused of widespread human rights abuses, including the use of chemical weapons, arbitrary detentions, and starvation tactics.
Sanctions peaked with the passage of the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act in 2019, which conditioned any sanctions relief on the criteria that Syria end attacks on civilians, initiate a political transition, release detainees, and allow unrestricted humanitarian access.
This new decision has sparked intense debate among economists and officials in Syria and abroad, especially as the country faces a severe economic collapse marked by a plummeting currency and stagnant industrial and commercial activity.
Could this lead to economic revival?
Not immediately. While it may offer short-term relief for certain sectors and improve Syrians' ability to receive remittances, it is unlikely to trigger a broad economic recovery. It could, however, stimulate small-scale agricultural and service-based projects.
Will the average Syrian benefit?
The answer remains complex. Without transparent distribution mechanisms independent of the central government, the benefits could disproportionately favor elite networks tied to the regime — a pattern seen during previous episodes of limited economic relief.
What about tourism and investment?
The move might be seen as the first step toward re-integrating Syria into regional economic frameworks. This could encourage countries like the UAE or Jordan to re-establish trade ties or reopen tourism routes. However, such developments will hinge on remaining sanctions and broader political considerations.
Easing sanctions without tangible concessions from Damascus raises questions about shifting priorities in US foreign policy. Some analysts interpret the move as:
An attempt to open indirect communication channels in the context of broader regional negotiations, including Iranian influence, refugee returns, and Israeli security.
A tactical maneuver linked to domestic electoral agendas or wider international negotiations.
However, human rights advocates argue that this step ignores victims’ suffering and weakens accountability mechanisms, particularly given the lack of progress on detainee releases or missing persons cases.
Impact on International Policy Toward Syria
Syrian analyst Mustafa Al-Nuaimi told The Media Line that partial sanctions relief could widen the gap in international approaches toward Damascus. He added, "European nations like France, Germany, and the UK are expected to maintain a hardline stance against normalization without tangible progress on political transition and justice.”
In contrast, countries such as the UAE or Algeria may view the US move as an opportunity to accelerate Syria’s reintegration into the Arab League and promote joint economic ventures. Al-Nuaimi warned that this divergence could undermine UN-led peace efforts and further complicate the political landscape.
Similarly, Syrian journalist Firas Al-Ali told The Media Line that lifting sanctions — whether partially or fully—is essential for reviving Syria’s economy.
“Now more than ever, Syria needs to regain its vitality. Sanctions must be lifted to enable a comprehensive national revival across all sectors,” he said.
While even a partial lifting of sanctions represents a significant development with far-reaching implications, it does not automatically signal a path toward political resolution unless accompanied by concrete steps toward transitional justice, accountability, and creating a safe environment for refugee return and national reconciliation.
The core dilemma remains: how to alleviate Syrians' economic suffering without rewarding those responsible for abuses?
Unless the US and other influential players can craft a balanced roadmap that reconciles political interests with demands for justice, any sanctions relief will remain controversial, potentially deepening divisions rather than advancing a shared Syrian future.