Was Trump mistaken to give Syria a pass?

Since 1979, Syria has faced sanctions imposed by the United States, with additional measures imposed in 2004, 2011, and 2019 targeting the Assad regime. These sanctions helped to devastate Syria’s economy, isolating it from global financial systems, restricting trade, and stifling development. Following the fall of dictator Bashar al-Assad, a new government under interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa assumed power and openly sought sanctions relief to rebuild the country. However, a significant challenge complicates this transition: Until earlier this year, al-Sharaa himself was a designated terrorist with decades-long affiliations with ISIS and al-Qaeda, bearing responsibility for the deaths of many innocents, including Americans.

Consequently, President Donald Trump’s decision to lift sanctions on Syria—announced on May 13 during his visit to Saudi Arabia—has ignited considerable debate.

Is Trump right or mistaken in lifting the sanctions?

The issue is highly complex, with no simple solution to Syria’s dilemma. In truth, all options for Syria are fraught with challenges. The rise of a former terrorist and the fall of the Assad dictatorship could potentially pave the way for a resurgence of ISIS in the destabilized region, perhaps under a new guise. Therefore, embracing the new regime as the only viable option, and guiding its policies within the international community, appears to be the most practical approach. Trump’s decision seems reasonable for now, but future steps must be based on the actions and decisions of Syria’s interim president.

Four key observations support this perspective.

First, lifting sanctions should be seen as a pragmatic step toward Syria’s political stabilization and economic recovery. Trump, a seasoned dealmaker, likely anticipates opportunities for regional cooperation and U.S. strategic gains, particularly in fostering a more stable Middle East. His decision lays the groundwork for Syria to join other Arab Muslim nations in normalizing relations with Israel under the Abraham Accords, which would be a significant achievement. Central to this strategy is Saudi Arabia’s pivotal role, which Trump seeks to amplify as a key regional ally. By lifting sanctions, Saudi Arabia benefits as well, as this move discourages the emergence of a neo-ISIS and shifts Syria from being an Iranian ally to a partner of the Sunni Kingdom.

Second, lifting sanctions makes sense due to the fact that the existing measures are now outdated, originally imposed due to Syria’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism and its human rights abuses under Assad. Maintaining them would hinder a government seeking Western and Gulf support, risking Syria’s economic collapse. Such a collapse could fuel extremism or force reliance on adversarial powers. Removing sanctions is essential to prevent these outcomes and support Syria’s recovery.

Third, lifting sanctions represents a proactive and pivotal U.S. policy move. Trump’s decision is not a passive or non-interventionist stance, as some critics suggest, but a calculated effort to shape outcomes by balancing risks and rewards. His track record demonstrates a willingness to exit deals that fail to deliver results. By showing goodwill, Trump is cautiously engaging the new Syrian government while relying on Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to oversee its transition. The removal of sanctions signals to the world that Syria is open for business, potentially integrating it into the international community with both opportunities and responsibilities.

Fourth, lifting sanctions will directly benefit the Syrian people. Under Assad’s regime and the weight of crippling sanctions, Syrians endured severe hardship and limited access to resources. The sanctions obstructed humanitarian aid and economic progress, exacerbating suffering. Their removal facilitates the delivery of essential services, such as healthcare and education, which are critical for rebuilding. It also allows international actors to engage with Syria, restoring a long-lost sense of accountability absent under Assad’s rule.

Thus, Trump’s decision to lift sanctions is a constructive step at this juncture. Are there risks? Undoubtedly.

However, Trump’s history suggests he could swiftly reinstate sanctions if necessary. His broader strategy appears to focus on building a robust coalition of Middle Eastern allies against Iran, leveraging Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and to some extent Qatar and Turkey, to foster regional prosperity.

While Israel has publicly opposed Trump’s decision, this move could ultimately prove to be a transformative step for the Jewish state’s security and prosperity. Envision a future where Syria, followed by Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, achieves stability and normalizes relations with Israel. This may seem an optimistic scenario, but in these challenging times, hope looks for real change for the good of the Syrian people.