Trump’s move to lift sanctions against Syria: A humanitarian move or carrot-and-stick politics?

With Syria entering a new phase under the leadership of Ahmad Al-Sharaa, the new government has faced several barriers, notably the sanctions imposed by the United States (US) on Syria. In response, on 13 May, 2025, the new US President Donald Trump announced that his administration would lift the sanctions on Syria, expressing the need to give the new Syrian government a chance to revive the country. Following this announcement, Trump signed an executive order on 30 June, 2025 to terminate US sanctions on Syria, in an attempt to support the country’s reconstruction efforts.

Yet, Trump’s move to remove sanctions on Syria comes with mixed, highly politicised messages, revealing the non-humanitarian side of his gesture. While the benefits of this move to Syrian people and its significance for political stability, economic growth and long-term future of Syria are indisputable, this raises questions about the future of Syria.

READ: Israel abducts several people from southern Syria for ‘interrogation’

The end of decades-long US sanctions on Syria

Sanctions have served as a critical tool for the US and other Western governments to exert political pressure on countries other than Syria, such as Iran and Venezuela. The US sanctions on Syria date back several decades. After Syria’s support for the Iranian revolution in 1979, sanctions were imposed on Syria and regime-affiliated individuals by the US administration, considering it sponsoring terrorism. This was later followed by other waves of sanctions in 2004, 2011 and 2019, known as the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act in 2019. These sanctions detrimentally affected Syria, isolating the country from the global financial system and placing severe economic restrictions for over a decade and thereby impeding any form of economic recovery and reconstruction. These sanctions persisted even after the fall of Assad, forming a significant obstacle to the new government’s efforts to lead an effective transition. More importantly, the Syrian people were unable to meaningfully participate in the country’s transformation amid prolonged chaos.

As a result, the new Syrian government’s core focus turned to liberating the country for the second time; after the fall of the Assad regime, the government sought an end to the sanctions imposed by the US on Syria. The aim behind this strategy is to enhance Syria’s economy, facilitate humanitarian efforts aimed at contributing to Syrian people’s survival, and re-integrating Syria into the globalised world after being isolated for decades. In fact, Trump lifted the sanctions in less than four months after his arrival at the presidential office.

Sanctions-free Syria: Humanitarian framing, political action

Despite the importance of Trump’s sanctions removal for Syria, several questions arise regarding the underlying nature of this move. Trump’s decision is considered as a humanitarian effort, especially given his emphasis on the challenges faced by people in Syria and the importance of giving the Syrian government a chance to lead the country towards stability and prosperity. The US president ended his speech by saying “Good luck, Syria. Show us something very special,” expressing his desire to see the administration in Damascus succeed.

Right after Trump’s announcement, investors from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other key international actors showed interest in investing in Syria, as reported by the Syrian Finance Minister Yisr Barnieh. Consequently, the economic growth in Syria will play a fundamental role in the recovery efforts, particularly in the reconstruction of key sectors—health, energy and education—and infrastructure. Such efforts contribute significantly to addressing other major issues, such as unemployment, poverty and the refugee crisis, with millions of refugees having the chance to return to their country to play a part in its revival.

In fact, Trump practiced the age-old carrot-and-stick politics with Al-Sharaa, promising to lift sanctions on Syria if his requests were met. For Trump, Al-Sharaa must deport Palestinians, considering them terrorists, assume responsibility for detention centres for the fighters of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) in northeast Syria and most significantly, that Syria must sign the Abraham Accords with Israel. In turn, Al-Sharaa signaled his willingness to cooperate. He offered Trump other incentives to secure sanctions’ removal, including the US access to Syrian oil, assurances for Israel’s security and establishment of a Trump tower in Syria’s capital. This signals that the sanction removal was a conditional move in which Al-Sharaa was rewarded for his willingness to act in line with the interests of the US. Thus, the move was political rather than humanitarian, serving the US strategic goals, with humanitarian language being substantially used for political and diplomatic gains.

READ: Syria to hold indirect negotiations via mediators to stop Israeli aggression

Political acts in the name of humanitarianism? Lessons Learned

The US sanctions imposed on Syria hindered the ability of several international donors and organisations to engage effectively in humanitarian activities within the country. This not only risked the lives of millions of people but also created a severe dependency on the statements issued and decisions made by key governments like the US. Now, after Trump lifted sanctions on Syria, people are allowed to receive aid from and collaborate with international actors to launch the reconstruction efforts and lead their country toward prosperity; thanks to the policy shifts implemented under the new US government.

In sum, Trump’s sanctions removal and its implications should be understood as part of the wider political calculus that defines international humanitarianism—in terms of the system as a whole and operations. The current international political structure exposes how humanitarian efforts and decisions are used to advance the interests of global powers. The decades-long sanctions on Syria were lifted just because doing so offered tangible gains to the US and its allies. This dilemma reflects a hybrid logic of compassion and control, where humanitarian decisions are taken to ensure control over fragile countries in dire need of support for survival. Therefore, the US decision to remove sanctions on Syria cannot be considered as purely humanitarian. Instead, this represents a humanitarian carrot, with long-term geopolitical ends in mind.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.