Hassan Ibrahim | Ali Darwish

The change in the Syrian scene politically and economically has brought the issue of sanctions imposed on Syria back to the discussion table. Following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime and the elimination of the justifications for the broad sanctions, aside from those targeting individuals and entities responsible for violations and crimes against the Syrian people or linked to combating “terrorism,” calls for lifting these sanctions have increased.

With the formation of an interim government in Damascus, calls for lifting the sanctions on Syria have been reiterated, most notably by the leader of the new Syrian administration, Ahmed al-Sharaa who stated, “The torturer is gone, and the victim remains in Syria,” demanding the lifting of sanctions.

These calls were met with US exemptions for sectors related to meeting humanitarian needs for a period of six months, which is extendable, accompanied by European movements and an intention to lift “restrictions” and discuss easing sanctions during the upcoming Brussels meeting on January 27.

In this lengthy report, Enab Baladi sheds light on the sanctions imposed on Syria and calls for their removal, questioning both the interim Damascus government about its measures and the European Union and the United States about their roles and stances. It also discusses with experts and researchers the possibility of sanctions becoming a tool for pressure and blackmail and their impact on hindering economic and political recovery and stability in Syria.

Damascus government awaits: European movements and US exemptions

Since the outbreak of the Syrian revolution in 2011, sanctions have served as a pressure tool on the former Syrian regime, backed by opposition activists and efforts from individual and collective human rights and humanitarian organizations. This led to the imposition of sanctions and measures targeting key sectors of the Syrian economy to disrupt the regime’s activities, reduce its revenues, restrict Bashar al-Assad’s ability to fund repression, and compel him towards a political solution in line with international resolutions, particularly UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

Sanctions have also targeted individuals, entities, and elites affiliated with the regime that facilitated its operations, as well as groups like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), and its leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa (Abu Mohammad al-Jolani), who leads the new Syrian administration.

Despite the clear objectives and positives of the sanctions, their broad scope has become a topic of controversy in Syria because their repercussions have affected the Syrian people, exacerbated their suffering, and strengthened al-Assad’s authority by bolstering the war economy and empowering loyal networks.

More than 20 Arab and foreign countries, including the Gulf Cooperation Council states, Turkey, Egypt, France, Italy, Germany, Jordan, Spain, Britain, Northern Ireland, Lebanon, representatives of the European Union, the Arab League, and the UN Special Envoy to Syria, have called for lifting sanctions on Syria, along with demands from human rights and humanitarian organizations.

Washington monitors and sets conditions

US sanctions have played a role in undermining the capabilities of the former Syrian regime, targeting Bashar al-Assad himself and family members, down to the government, economic, and military figures supporting him. Among the most significant sanctions negatively affecting the lives of Syrians is the US Caesar sanctions law, which was extended at the end of 2024 for an additional five years.

After expectations and discussions about lifting US sanctions on Syria, on January 6, the US Treasury Department issued License No. 24, which includes exemptions aimed at facilitating humanitarian aid to Syria and ensuring that sanctions do not hinder essential services, including the provision of electricity, energy, water, and sanitation for six months, subject to monitoring developments in Syria.

On January 15, the United States took additional measures to ease sanctions regarding Executive Order No. 13894 issued on October 14, 2019, concerning “prohibiting property and suspending entry of certain persons who contribute to the situation in Syria.”

The amendments included removing references to Turkish military intervention in northeastern Syria and updating provisions related to freezing assets and supporters of individuals subject to sanctions. The decision aims to address recent developments in the Syrian situation while adhering to applicable laws.

License No. 24 (GL24) issued by the US Treasury Department allows:

• Transactions with governing institutions in Syria after December 8, 2024.

• Transactions to support the sale, supply, storage, or donation of energy, including petroleum, petroleum products, natural gas, and electricity, to or within Syria.

• Transactions that are typically incidental and necessary for processing personal non-commercial remittances to Syria, including through the Central Bank of Syria.

• This license is permitted until July 7, 2025, with the possibility of renewal.

• The license does not lead to the lifting of the prohibition on the property or interests of any person prohibited under any US sanctions programs.

• No financial transfers to any prohibited person are allowed, except for certain authorized payments to governing institutions or service providers in Syria.

A US State Department official told Enab Baladi that the issue of sanctions is complex, with different types of sanctions that require study and examination, not only from the US side but also from other countries, and in some cases under a UN Security Council mandate.

The official reminded that the US Treasury Department issued License No. 24 to help ensure that sanctions do not impede essential services and the provision of basic humanitarian needs while maintaining the continuity of governance functions throughout Syria, including the provision of humanitarian aid, electricity, energy, water, and sanitation.

This license also allows Syrians abroad to send financial remittances through the Central Bank of Syria, and it remains in effect for six months as the US government continues to monitor the evolving situation on the ground, with the potential for renewal after six months.

 

The Congress included the renewal of the Caesar sanctions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025, extending them until 2029. The provisions of the Caesar law remain in effect even after al-Assad’s departure, as we monitor how things progress in Syria and the nature and behavior of any future government.

A US State Department official to Enab Baladi

 

Regarding concerns about politicizing the issue of sanctions and linking their lifting to specific actions or measures by the Damascus government, and whether there are any US conditions for lifting them, the State Department official said that Washington supports a comprehensive political transition led and owned by Syrians. This transitional process should lead to a reliable, comprehensive, representative, and non-sectarian governance that meets international standards for transparency and accountability, in the spirit of UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

According to the US official, the transition process and the new government should clearly adhere to the following:

• Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all people in Syria, including women and members of diverse Syrian communities.
• Ensuring the flow of humanitarian aid to all in need.
• Preventing Syria from being used as a base for terrorism or posing a threat to its neighbors.
• Securing any remaining elements of the chemical weapons program, declaring them, and safely destroying them under international verification.

The official added that the new US administration will make any further decisions regarding the sanctions.

Damascus government: Temporary license is not a comprehensive solution

Iyad Najjar, the director of public relations at the economy ministry of the interim government of Damascus, stated to Enab Baladi that the anticipated outcome of the American license is to facilitate the flow of essential goods and services, particularly in the energy sector, while allowing for limited financial transactions. Nonetheless, the impact of this step will remain limited due to the temporary nature of the license.

He added that easing the sanctions may lead to a slight improvement in the value of the Syrian pound due to increased financial inflows and heightened confidence in the local economy. However, due to the limited scope of the exemptions and their temporary nature, the positive impact on exchange rates will be constrained.

According to Najjar, this license is considered an initial step toward easing some restrictions, but the complete lifting of sanctions will depend on political developments.

He clarified that the license allows transactions related to energy, including oil, gas, and electricity, in addition to facilitating non-commercial personal remittances through the Syrian Central Bank. While this may help improve infrastructure and pave the way for commencing some reconstruction projects, the effect will remain limited due to the short duration of the license, with the complete lifting of sanctions necessary for genuine economic recovery.

Najjar emphasized that the temporary license cannot be regarded as a comprehensive solution to the Syrian crisis, as the imposed sanctions remain a major barrier to achieving comprehensive economic recovery and rebuilding the country.

With the removal of the Assad regime, which was the primary reason for imposing these sanctions and destroying Syria and impoverishing its people, it has become crucial to lift the sanctions entirely to give the Syrians a real opportunity to rebuild their homeland and achieve stability and development, according to Najjar.

 

The continuation of these sanctions, despite changing conditions, keeps the Syrian people under the burden of suffering and hinders the reconstruction efforts needed for Syria’s future.

Iyad Najjar, Director of public relations at the economy ministry of the interim government of Damascus

European demands… Eyes on Brussels

The movement of European Union countries regarding the lifting of their imposed sanctions on Syria has become evident, reflected in statements and visits from European officials to Damascus, alongside documents that have surfaced in the media containing European conditions and priorities in exchange for support and lifting restrictions, awaiting actual translation during the upcoming Brussels meeting scheduled for January 27.

The EU countries’ efforts have centered on a temporary suspension of sanctions imposed on Syria, intersecting on several points according to German officials and documents regarding the calls made by countries, and meetings reported by Reuters and Euronews, which are:

• Lifting restrictions on airlines, such as Syrian Arab Airlines.
• Removing the ban on exporting oil and gas technologies.
• Lifting restrictions on exports and participation in infrastructure and financing projects.
• Lifting restrictions on high-value commercial assets, such as vehicles.
• Reopening investment and banking relationships between Syrian banks and EU banks.
• The issue of lifting sanctions on Hayat Tahrir al-Sham requires UN coordination and monitoring of developments on the ground.

The European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas, announced a meeting of the EU Foreign Ministers in Brussels (on January 27), stating that the European decision to ease sanctions will be conditional on the new Syrian government’s approach to governance, which must include various groups and women and “avoid extremism.”

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock linked the EU’s lifting of sanctions to political progress in Syria, stating that all Syrian factions, including women and Kurds, must be included in the political transition process if Damascus seeks European support.

Baerbock suggested adopting an “intelligent” approach to dealing with sanctions, for Syrians to receive relief and quickly reap the benefits of the power transition, without clarifying what this approach entails.

German Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development Svenja Schulze said that although she made promises to help rebuild Syria’s health system, it should not be understood as political support for the “new de facto rulers.”

The European Commissioner for Equality, Preparedness, and Crisis Management, Hadja Lahbib, stated that the sanctions were formulated in a way that does not affect humanitarian work, and many of them were eased following the 2023 earthquake. These sanctions were imposed on the previous regime, but Europe is awaiting the establishment of an inclusive government and a comprehensive state that encompasses all Syrians in their diversity.

 

Some European countries are in favor of lifting sanctions, but consensus is required on this matter; the ball is now in the court of the current authorities as well.

Hadja Lahbib, EU Commissioner for Equality, Preparedness, and Crisis Management

 

Complex sanctions hinder economic recovery

Researchers and experts describe the sanctions imposed on Syria as complex, as they were not imposed overnight but were the result of years of actions, some of which predate the Syrian revolution. However, the most clamored for lifting now are those imposed after the revolution.

The American easing is not sufficient

According to an analysis published by the Observatory of Political and Economic Networks, Dr. Karam Shaar and Benjamin Feve noted that License “24” represents a positive development, but it does not rise to the level of enhancing long-term recovery and investment, as it excludes provisions related to broader economic participation and reconstruction efforts.

Economic researcher Zaki Mahshi stated to Enab Baladi that the general license issued by the US Treasury is “a positive signal regarding the Syrian situation,” as most if not all American sanctions were imposed with the aim of changing the behavior of the Assad regime.

Mahshi believes that the easing of sanctions is a positive signal for the Syrian economy, especially in terms of providing assistance and support for Syria, as dealing with government institutions will become easier, allowing for direct engagement with them.

This is “very important” in the current situation in Syria to assist the current administration and the Syrian community, which is in dire need of humanitarian aid, as poverty levels rise and prices increase significantly.

In addition, there is now greater capacity for individual money transfers, but there remain sanctions on transferring funds through the central bank for commercial activities.

Mahshi pointed out that there are ongoing challenges, the most prominent of which is the continued impact of “over-compliance.” Most global companies, banks, and financial institutions cannot invest in Syria and enter the Syrian market while sanctions are in place, as they will not take that risk.

This negative effect of “over-compliance” will continue to affect global financial and commercial institutions as long as sanctions exist.

Another challenge relates to the current economic situation; even if all sanctions were lifted and not just eased or granted a general license, the Syrian economy or Syria remains “unattractive for investment,” except for expatriates wanting to invest in their country.

The issue of sanctions

Ayman Dasuki, a researcher in political economy at the Omran Center for Strategic Studies, explained that the issue of sanctions is composed of several layers and targets various levels of individuals, institutions, companies, and others, thus requiring a long time and multiple mechanisms to address it.

Dasuki added in an interview with Enab Baladi that despite the importance of the exceptions announced recently by the US administration and the willingness of European countries to temporarily lift sanctions, which carry positive political signals regarding the changes occurring in Syria, “the narrow time frame of these exceptions, the overlap of sanctions, and the continual threats to reinstate what has been temporarily frozen—conditional on political, human rights, and humanitarian requirements—are likely to maintain a state of uncertainty that negatively impacts the recovery of the Syrian economy.”

The complexity of sanctions and the abundance of details are problems highlighted by Samir Alabdullah, director of the Policy Analysis Department at the Harmoon Center for Contemporary Studies.

Alabdullah noted to Enab Baladi that some sanctions have been in place since 1979, so it is not expected that they will be lifted soon.

Attempts and calls for lifting sanctions

The lifting of some sanctions that do not have a direct impact on the Syrian economy and the lives of people can be linked to practical steps taken by the new Syrian administration, according to researcher Samir Alabdullah.

He stated that these steps include enhancing political participation, initiating a new constitution, or paving the way for free and fair elections, and “these demands are not a form of political extortion but are rather fundamental commitments derived from UN resolution 2254,” which was agreed upon by both the regime and the opposition at the time, making its implementation necessary to escape the political and economic isolation.

Some Arab countries’ and Turkey’s efforts to ease sanctions are driven by economic and strategic reasons, as these countries hope to enhance Arab investments in the post-Assad phase and create a more stable environment to drive the reconstruction process.

However, this trend “faces obstacles due to the differences in international positions and the pressures exerted by major powers to maintain sanctions as a tool of pressure to achieve tangible political changes,” according to Alabdullah.

Therefore, the lifting of sanctions on Syria remains conditional upon a genuine political will to implement fundamental reforms, as per Alabdullah, and cannot rely solely on regional moves to break the international isolation unless these efforts are translated into practical steps internally.

Among these efforts is a national conference that outlines a roadmap for the upcoming phase, representing most of the Syrian components and regions, followed by a transitional technocratic government to prepare the country for writing the constitution and elections.

Key sectors

Western sanctions have targeted key sectors of the Syrian economy, such as oil, banking services, and trade, alongside individual sanctions targeting the regime’s affiliated elites.

The goal has been to restrict Assad’s ability to fund repression and force his regime to reach a political settlement in line with the UN resolution 2254.

While sanctions have disrupted regime activities and reduced revenues, they have also solidified Assad’s power by reinforcing the war economy and empowering loyal networks, thereby exacerbating civilian suffering in the process, according to analysis published by the Social Networks Observatory.

Researcher Ayman Dasuki indicated that sectors that should have their sanctions lifted are those related to the energy and financial sectors since ensuring stable supplies of fuel and electricity is essential for the recovery of productive economic activities. The financial and banking sector must also be facilitated to ease trade and investment flows in Syria.

The continuation of sanctions has a political, economic, and even societal impact that hinders the rebuilding of the Syrian state and the stability of Syrian society. Continuing sanctions is likely to entrench the war economy with its networks and mechanisms at the expense of the official productive economy.

Maintaining sanctions also keeps Syria in a state of political isolation, negatively affecting the efforts of regional countries working to provide conditions for the stability of the Syrian state and undermining the process of reforming its institutions. Societally, sanctions, if combined with the persistence of spheres of influence, could contribute to deepening societal division.

Sanctions: Easy to impose, Hard to remove

Aron Lund

Researcher specializing in Syrian affairs at the Century International Center

American and European leaders are concerned about the stability of Syria, as they view Ahmed al-Sharaa government’s new leadership as weak and likely to struggle to expand its influence unless it manages to revitalize the economy.

In reality, while sanctions obstruct trade and investment in Syria, they simultaneously serve as a pressure tool for Western capitals that want to ensure Syria does not end up resembling the regime in Afghanistan.

From a stability perspective, the best solution might be to lift sanctions or at least suspend them temporarily; however, sanctions are useful for maximizing Western influence, or at least that is the idea in Western capitals.

There is a risk that sanctions may remain in place longer than necessary, ultimately harming Syria and complicating the transition process.

The United States has already temporarily eased some sanctions, which helps Syria economically; these sanctions have also obstructed neighboring supportive countries, such as Qatar or Turkey, from assisting Syria’s energy sector, which can now receive such assistance.

At the same time, Washington has not permanently lifted sanctions and can reimpose them if circumstances change. It is likely that the Trump administration will have less interest in the humanitarian situation in Syria, but it still values the country’s stability; we will have to wait and see.

The European Union is likely to follow the US lead, and EU foreign ministers will convene in Brussels to discuss the sanctions imposed on Syria. I expect they will suspend some sanctions, similar to what the US has done.

However, European sanctions do not pose as much of a problem for Syria compared to US sanctions, which are more stringent. Even if Europe lifted all its sanctions, the difference would not be significant if the United States kept its sanctions in place.

As for the sanctions on officials and former businessmen of the Assad regime who worked with the ousted regime, the US and the EU have no desire to lift these sanctions.

The issue of designating Hayat Tahrir al-Sham as a terrorist organization is a separate matter and may be more complex to resolve. It is not impossible to deliver aid to areas controlled by factions listed as terrorist, or to trade with them; Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has controlled Idlib for many years, and there are still ways to provide the region with Western aid and trade from Turkey, but of course, that remains a challenge.

Many companies are hesitant to engage with Syria, even if it is legally permissible, due to the numerous sanctions and terrorism lists, and these companies cannot easily navigate the maze of regulations.

The financial penalties for violating sanctions can be severe, and in many cases, banks or other companies simply refuse to deal with Syria or Syrians, even when it is entirely legal. Syrians are well aware of this, as many refugees have faced issues with banks and money transfer companies.

Even I, who am not Syrian, have occasionally faced personal transaction bans from European and American banks simply for writing about Syrian issues; of course, these barriers can be resolved, and they were not a significant problem for me, but they illustrate the extent of the impact of these sanctions.

In reality, these sanctions have always surpassed their intended target, which is the Assad regime, and now that the Assad regime is no longer there, the sanctions remain in place, demonstrating how easy it is to impose sanctions and how difficult it is to remove them.