In a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy, President Trump last week announced the lifting of sanctions on Syria after a high-profile meeting with Syria’s de facto leader, Ahmad al-Sharaa. Though this move has been lauded in some circles as a step toward stability, it is dangerously premature and potentially detrimental to long-term U.S. interests, regional stability and the Syrian people whom the sanctions were meant to protect.
Although some argue that sanctions have outlived their purpose, lifting them without securing a legitimate political transition or a plan for accountability risks empowering the very forces that brought Syria to the brink of collapse.
A regime without legitimacy
Since the ousting of Bashar Assad in December, Syria has been governed by an unelected transitional regime led by Mr. al-Sharaa, a former al Qaeda operative who until recently was wanted with a $10 million bounty on his head, now reinvented as a reformist. Despite this rebranding, Mr. al-Sharaa’s regime has not been tested by democratic elections nor demonstrated a commitment to inclusive governance or institutional reform. Some of its top officials remain under U.S. sanctions for their roles in human rights abuses and war crimes. The lack of vetting or transition mechanisms suggests that authoritarianism is being repackaged, not dismantled.
Further, the provisional constitution still emphasizes the Arab identity of the Syrian state, marginalizing the country’s mosaic of national, ethnic and religious groups, including Kurds, Druze and Assyrians. The new regime has made no meaningful effort to embrace pluralism or federalism, essential components of a stable and just postwar Syria.
Violence against minorities and a fragile status quo
Although Mr. Assad is gone, the scars of his rule remain. The new leadership has already been accused of targeted violence against minorities, particularly Alawis, Christians and Druze. If it were not for the military capacity and political organization of the Syrian Democratic Forces and de facto Israeli support, the Kurds would likely have faced the same brutality. Mr. al-Sharaa’s regime has yet to consolidate control over large parts of the country, including the Kurdish Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (roughly 30% to 40% of Syria’s territory), Druze regions in the south and Alawis’ presence along the Mediterranean coast.
Syria today is not a unified or rehabilitated nation; it is a fragmented land where different groups maintain uneasy autonomy. Lifting sanctions without requiring a national dialogue, a reconciliation mechanism or a road map for power-sharing is not a strategy. It is abdication.
No accountability, no reform
One of the most glaring omissions in the new U.S. approach is the absence of a framework for accountability. Neither the crimes of the Assad era nor the current regime’s abuses are being addressed. Syria’s judiciary remains unfit to handle transitional justice, and no international mechanism has been proposed. Without accountability, war criminals will walk free, emboldened by impunity and international recognition. There has also been no announced resolution of several outstanding issues on the State Department’s agenda. These include the total elimination of the Assad regime’s chemical weapons arsenal and production capacity, a critical demand that remains unresolved despite years of multilateral efforts.
Institutional reform is similarly absent. Syria’s bureaucracies, security services and economic sectors remain riddled with factionalism. No system of checks and balances exists, and the absence of financial regulation allows for elite enrichment and the entrenchment of patronage networks. In the absence of a functioning economy and oversight, lifting sanctions will simply inject cash into these networks, mirroring the Iranian experience after 1979, where revolutionary elites reaped the rewards while the population remains, to this day, mired in poverty.
Sanctions relief without a grand strategy
In theory, sanctions relief can be a powerful incentive for reform and peace-building. Used carelessly, however, it becomes a reward without responsibility. Mr. Trump described the move as “a chance” for Syria, but a chance for whom, specifically? Without a comprehensive political agreement, power-sharing guarantees or safeguards for human rights, lifting sanctions hands the keys of Syria’s future to the same elite circles that oversaw its destruction. U.S. policy, once rooted in the pursuit of democratic governance and protection of vulnerable communities, now appears adrift, driven by short-term optics rather than long-term vision.
This policy vacuum creates space for regional actors such as Turkey and Qatar to expand their influence, often at the expense of pluralistic forces inside Syria. By withdrawing without clear terms, the U.S. does not promote stability; it allows authoritarian regional powers to fill the gap, potentially igniting a new phase of proxy competition.
The betrayal of Syria’s true partners
Perhaps the most alarming dimension of this decision is the exclusion of America’s real allies: the Kurds. The SDF, led by General Mazloum Abdi, has been the most reliable and effective ally of the U.S. in the fight against the Islamic State group and extremism across the Kurdistani regions in Iraq and Syria. The Kurds, who have lost over 12,000 fighters and seen 15,000 injured in Syria, have built a pluralistic administration that protects Christians and Arabs alike — despite repeated Turkish incursions since 2018. Yet while Mr. al-Sharaa was granted a presidential meeting, General Abdi was not at the table. Despite the Kurds’ sacrifices, their vision of a pluralistic and decentralized Syria has been ignored to normalize a regime that remains exclusionary, unstable and undemocratic.
Recognizing the Kurds must be a sound strategic investment in a future Syria built on federalism and even their independence. Turning away from them sends a chilling message: Loyalty and sacrifice matter less than political convenience.
A reckless precedent
The question must be asked: Have U.S. standards changed, or have they simply been abandoned? Is this the new bar for recognition: mere survival and a show of stability, regardless of governance, justice or inclusivity? This move risks establishing a dangerous precedent: that transitional regimes can gain international legitimacy without reform, elections or justice. It tells authoritarian leaders everywhere that the West will eventually tire and that the door to normalization will swing open with time, not transformation.
The future of Syria must be one of accountability, reform and inclusivity. Lifting sanctions could be part of that process, but only if embedded in a coherent, values-based strategy. Right now, it is none of those things.
If the United States is to remain a credible actor in Syria and the region, it must reassert its principles and correct this course. It must recognize its true partners, demand accountability from new regimes and refuse to trade long-term stability for short-term optics, even for the sake of chipping away at Iran’s influence.
Anything less is irresponsible and a betrayal of the very ideals the U.S. once championed in Syria.
Published originally on May 20, 2025.
