Why lift sanctions on Syria?

Sanctions on Syria could have lasted for another year or more due to various considerations, including the uncertainty surrounding the country’s political future, reservations about its new leadership or concerns from powers like Israel. The US does not lift sanctions except after a lengthy evaluation. For example, it previously signed a deal with the Taliban, yet Afghanistan remains under economic sanctions. Moreover, there are divisions within the US administration itself over whether to lift the sanctions.

That is why a direct appeal was made to President Donald Trump, through a trusted ally, Saudi Arabia, as the shortest route. But it still requires complementary efforts from Ahmad Al-Sharaa’s government, which must first provide further assurances about containing local factions, protecting minorities and doing more to combat extremist ideologies that could threaten the president’s authority if left unchecked.

The viewpoint of those opposing the lifting of sanctions rests on the notion that members of the new Syrian government were formerly associated with a designated terrorist organization and they must prove those links have been severed. There are conditions set by the US government — five of which Trump mentioned after his meeting with Al-Sharaa: the removal of foreign fighters; assisting in fighting terrorist groups in Syria; expelling Palestinian factions; managing the detention centers holding Daesh fighters; and establishing a relationship with Israel.

But before discussing the feasibility of these conditions for the Al-Sharaa government, it is important to argue why the new Syrian government deserves to be given a “chance,” as Trump said.

Weakening the new government could bring Iran back, either through the ensuing chaos or due to a weakened Damascus

Abdulrahman Al-Rashed

First, Al-Sharaa and his government are now a reality that everyone must deal with — just as is the case with other governments in the region that include or cooperate with militias. The reality is that government change is off the table, war is rejected and the Syrian people deserve to emerge from this dark tunnel.

Second, the removal of Iranian influence from Syria is a hugely significant outcome that has changed the course of the region’s history and future — not just for Syria, but for Lebanon and Palestine too. Had it not been for Iran’s overreach in Damascus and its devastating consequences, the previous status quo might never have changed. Weakening the new government could bring Iran back, either through the ensuing chaos or due to a weakened Damascus.

Third, reimposing sanctions is easier than lifting them — if it turns out that Damascus fails to uphold its commitments. Conversely, not lifting them now could fuel rebellion and chaos or push Damascus toward other alliances that would increase regional tensions.

Fourth, Israel is now the dominant force setting the tone in the region. One cannot compare Damascus to Kabul or the Al-Sharaa government to the Taliban, which lacks neighboring powers to keep it in check. Damascus is within reach of Israeli forces, which now enjoy wide-ranging influence and have drawn red lines for their neighbors regarding weapon types, distances and positions. Israel has, in effect, become the guarantor of its own strategic interests. Lebanon today serves as an example of Israeli security engineering.

Between accepting the reality on the ground, fears of chaos and the potential return of Iran, the safest option for the international and regional community is to give Damascus what it needs to revive this devastated country. Everyone has the right to set conditions that ensure both Syria’s stability and the region’s security. Syria sits at the heart of the crisis zone and, if left alone, it will descend into chaos with severe consequences. The least-risky option remains giving it a chance, even if that carries some risk, as it can be managed in the worst-case scenario.

The American demands may seem awkward in public, but they ultimately work in Damascus’ favor

Abdulrahman Al-Rashed

Arab cooperation with Damascus today, up close, is better than trying to fix the situation later. If we come back in a year or two to try to repair the damage, the relationship will likely be harder to mend. One can say that between Dec. 8 (when the Assad regime fell) and today — between fears and hopes — the Al-Sharaa government has shown evidence of openness and willingness to cooperate. Certainly, more is expected of it.

The American demands may seem awkward in public, but they ultimately work in Damascus’ favor. Banning foreign fighters is a requirement for all governments and combating terrorism is an international obligation. As for the Palestinian factions in Syria, they are, in reality, militias affiliated with the former Assad regime, which used them in Lebanon against Arab states. The exception is Hamas, which was not Syrian.

It is expected that Al-Sharaa will expel all these groups willingly, as Jordan did before and as Lebanon is currently trying to do with the remnants.

What about the condition of engaging in an agreement with Israel? It is worth recalling that Al-Sharaa and his ministers previously spoke — even before Trump — about their willingness to do so within the framework of an Arab peace initiative. Regardless of the remaining concerns, which I will not elaborate on here, the region is capable of adapting and changing and this remains better than leaving the country to fall prey to chaos, which would be more dangerous for everyone.

We expect the Damascus government to understand this and steer clear of regional and international entanglements. To be fair, President Al-Sharaa has repeatedly hinted in his statements at his openness to all and his desire to focus on development and progress.

• Abdulrahman Al-Rashed is a Saudi journalist and intellectual. He is the former general manager of Al-Arabiya news channel and former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, where this article was originally published. X: @aalrashed