On his very lucrative (for Donny mostly) trip through the hell hole many call the Middle East our boy Donny has decided to be magnanimous and lift the sanctions that have been place for many decades basically because Syria was labeled as a ‘terrorist state’…..why is he being so generous?
But now they can return to the fold of the ‘good guys’….I mean what could go wrong after all the new president of Syria was a commander in al-Qaeda. (Remember them?)
But that aside what does this turn of events mean?
President Trump’s Tuesday announcement that he would lift US sanctions on Syria was greeted with jubilation in the streets of Damascus, with the AP reporting people “whistled and cheered the news as fireworks lit the night sky.” Here’s what you need to know about what the move could mean for the country:
- History: Syria was designated a state sponsor of terrorism in December 1979, which Middle East Eye reports put it in the same bucket as Iran and Cuba and put financial restrictions on things like US foreign aid; defense sales were banned. More sanctions came in the early 2000s. They reached their extreme in 2011 as the US responded to Bashar al-Assad’s crackdown on protesters.
- Historic numbers: Middle East Eye reports “bilateral US-Syria trade, which still stood at roughly $900m in 2010, dropped below $60m in 2012.”
- A decimated economy: The New York Times reports the sanctions “effectively cut Syria out of the international banking system and isolated it from the global economy, blocking money transfers, restricting imports, and barring activity by most international companies.”
- A February report: The UN found that 25% of Syrians were unemployed and 90% lived in poverty. The report held a “stark warning,” it noted: “At current growth rates, Syria’s economy will not regain its pre-conflict GDP level before 2080. Annual economic growth must rise six-fold to shorten recovery to ten years, and an ambitious ten-fold rise would be needed over 15 years to bring the economy to where it would have been without conflict.”
- ‘Game changer’: Those are the words the Times uses for what Trump’s move could mean for Syria. It reports that countries that back Syria’s new government, like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, would be able to send financial aid without fear of negative consequences; Syrians abroad could more easily send funds home; and “private companies from Turkey and elsewhere could seek contracts in construction and other sectors.” Al Jazeera echoes that, noting, “Whether the US itself invests in Syria remains to be seen, but increased Arab and Turkish investment is likely.”
- Mechanics: The Times notes that Trump has the power to lift some of the sanctions, but Congress will need to have a hand in removing others.
All that is well and good but I want to know how Israel is going to react since they have occupied part of Syria for 50 years and they are still bombing Damascus.
Will Israel play nice or will it just be the same as usual with the US covering their asses for them?
Or for that matter…..how will Iran react?
Any thoughts?
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
Oh yes, I have a few thoughts on lifting those sanctions:
The decision by President Donald Trump to lift U.S. sanctions on Syria, announced on May 13, 2025, marks a significant shift in U.S. policy toward a country long designated as a “state sponsor of terrorism” since 1979. This move, celebrated in Damascus, aims to support Syria’s new government under interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa, who led the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad in December 2024. However, the post raises valid concerns about the implications of this policy change, particularly how Israel—a nation with a 50-year occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights and a history of military actions in Syria—will respond. Below, I analyze Israel’s likely reaction, the broader Israel-Syria conflict, and whether the U.S. will continue to shield Israel’s actions.
Israel’s Strategic Concerns and Likely Reaction
Israel’s response to the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Syria is shaped by its national security priorities, particularly its focus on countering Iranian influence, preventing the re-emergence of hostile forces near its borders, and maintaining control over the Golan Heights. The following factors inform Israel’s stance:
Skepticism of Syria’s New Leadership: Israel views Syria’s transitional government, led by Ahmed al-Sharaa (formerly associated with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, an ex-al-Qaeda affiliate), with deep suspicion. Despite al-Sharaa’s efforts to distance himself from jihadist ideologies and engage in pragmatic diplomacy, Israeli officials fear that his government may not fully control extremist elements or could align with anti-Israel actors. Reports indicate Israel lobbied the Trump administration to maintain sanctions as leverage to ensure Syria’s compliance with security guarantees, such as protecting minorities like the Druze and preventing threats to Israel. The decision to lift sanctions despite Israel’s reported opposition suggests a divergence in U.S.-Israel priorities, which could heighten Israel’s sense of vulnerability.
Continued Military Operations: Israel has intensified airstrikes in Syria since Assad’s fall, targeting military sites, former regime assets, and infrastructure it perceives as potential threats. For example, on May 2, 2025, Israel bombed areas near Damascus’ presidential palace, framing the strike as a warning to al-Sharaa’s government not to allow “hostile forces” (e.g., Iranian proxies or Hezbollah) to operate in southern Syria. These actions, coupled with ground incursions in southwest Syria and a new position on Mount Hermon, demonstrate Israel’s proactive approach to shaping Syria’s security environment. The lifting of sanctions, which could enable Syria to rebuild its economy and military with support from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, may prompt Israel to escalate its strikes to deter any rearmament or alignment with its adversaries.
Golan Heights Occupation: Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights in 1981, following its capture in 1967, remains a flashpoint in Israel-Syria relations. The lifting of sanctions could embolden Syria to assert sovereignty claims over the Golan, especially as al-Sharaa seeks international legitimacy. However, Israel is unlikely to relinquish control, given the Golan’s strategic importance for water resources, military positioning, and border security. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s calls for a “demilitarized” zone in southern Syria reflect a desire to maintain a buffer against any Syrian military presence near the Golan, suggesting continued tension regardless of sanctions relief.
Regional Rivalries: Israel’s actions in Syria are also driven by its rivalry with Turkey, a key backer of Syria’s new government. Israel has accused Turkey of seeking to establish a “protectorate” in Syria, and airstrikes on Syrian military bases (e.g., Hama and T4 in April 2025) appear calibrated to counter Turkish influence. The lifting of sanctions, which could facilitate Turkish investment in Syria’s reconstruction, may intensify Israel’s efforts to disrupt Ankara’s plans, potentially through targeted strikes or diplomatic pressure on the U.S. to limit Turkey’s role.
Israel’s reaction is unlikely to involve “playing nice” in the sense of reducing its military posture or engaging diplomatically with Syria’s new government. Instead, Israel will likely maintain or increase its airstrikes and ground operations to enforce its red lines, particularly preventing Iranian or Hezbollah re-entrenchment and ensuring southern Syria remains demilitarized. Posts on X reflect this sentiment, with some users noting Israel’s determination to “prevent harm to the Druze” as a pretext for strikes, while others criticize Israel’s actions as violations of Syrian sovereignty. These operations risk escalating tensions with Syria’s backers, including Turkey and Qatar, but Israel appears willing to bear this cost to secure its interests.
U.S. Role in Covering Israel’s Actions
The post questions whether the U.S. will continue to “cover” Israel’s actions, a reference to Washington’s historical support for Israel’s security policies, including its strikes in Syria. The lifting of sanctions suggests a U.S. priority on stabilizing Syria and fostering economic recovery, potentially at odds with Israel’s aggressive stance. However, several factors indicate the U.S. will likely maintain its support for Israel
Strategic Alliance: The U.S.-Israel relationship, underpinned by military aid, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic backing, remains a cornerstone of U.S. Middle East policy. While Trump’s decision to lift sanctions may have disregarded Israel’s preferences, his administration has emphasized Israel’s security, as seen in his meetings with Netanyahu and Gulf leaders in May 2025. The U.S. has historically refrained from condemning Israel’s strikes in Syria, with officials like Pentagon Deputy Press Secretary Sabrina Singh in April 2024 deferring to Israel to comment on its operations. This pattern is likely to continue, with the U.S. avoiding direct criticism to preserve the alliance.
Diplomatic Ambiguity: The U.S. has maintained a policy of ambiguity regarding Israel’s actions in Syria, neither endorsing nor opposing them. For instance, after Israel’s strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus in April 2024, U.S. officials clarified they had no involvement or prior knowledge, focusing on de-escalation rather than condemnation. This approach allows the U.S. to balance its support for Israel with efforts to engage Syria’s new government, as evidenced by Trump’s planned meeting with al-Sharaa in Riyadh. The U.S. is unlikely to pressure Israel to halt its strikes, especially if they target perceived threats like Iranian proxies.
Sanctions as Leverage: While the lifting of sanctions reduces U.S. economic leverage over Syria, it does not preclude Washington from tacitly supporting Israel’s military actions as a means of enforcing security conditions. Israel’s lobbying for the Trump administration to tie sanctions relief to Syrian concessions (e.g., destroying chemical weapons, limiting foreign fighters) suggests coordination on broader security goals. Even with sanctions lifted, the U.S. may view Israel’s strikes as complementary to its diplomatic efforts to shape Syria’s transition.
However, the U.S. may face challenges in fully covering Israel’s actions if they provoke significant backlash from Syria’s allies. Qatar’s condemnation of the May 2, 2025, strike near Damascus and Turkey’s accusations of Israel “destabilizing” the region highlight growing regional frustration. If Israel’s actions undermine U.S. efforts to stabilize Syria or strain relations with Gulf partners, the U.S. could adopt a more critical stance, though likely in private channels rather than public rebukes.
Implications for Israel-Syria Relations
The lifting of U.S. sanctions could theoretically open a path for Syria to normalize ties with Israel, as al-Sharaa has expressed interest in de-escalation to secure sanctions relief. A Syrian letter to the U.S. in April 2025 pledged not to threaten Israel and to monitor Palestinian factions, indicating a willingness to accommodate Israeli security concerns. However, Israel’s ongoing airstrikes and occupation of the Golan Heights make meaningful dialogue unlikely in the near term. Syria’s government, while pragmatic, faces domestic pressure to resist Israeli aggression, as seen in public outrage over the May 2025 Damascus strikes. Israel’s insistence on a demilitarized southern Syria and its distrust of al-Sharaa’s intentions further dim prospects for cooperation.
The Israel-Syria conflict is likely to persist as a low-intensity confrontation, with Israel using military force to shape Syria’s security landscape and Syria responding with diplomatic condemnations but limited retaliation due to its economic and military constraints. The U.S. lifting of sanctions may indirectly exacerbate this dynamic by enabling Syria to attract investment and rebuild, prompting Israel to act preemptively to prevent any shift in the regional balance of power.
Critical Perspective
The original post’s sarcastic tone and reference to Syria’s new leader as a former al-Qaeda commander reflect a broader skepticism about U.S. policy shifts and their consequences. While Trump’s decision is framed as magnanimous, it aligns with his administration’s focus on deal-making and economic opportunities, as hinted by discussions of a potential “Trump Tower in Damascus.” However, the post rightly questions the risks of empowering a government with questionable credentials without addressing Israel’s security concerns or the Golan Heights dispute.
Israel’s reaction, characterized by continued military aggression, underscores its prioritization of unilateral security measures over diplomatic engagement. This approach, while effective in the short term, risks alienating Syria’s new government and its regional backers, potentially destabilizing the very transition the U.S. seeks to support. The U.S.’s likely continued support for Israel, despite lifting sanctions, highlights a contradictory policy that may undermine Syria’s recovery while perpetuating regional tensions.
In conclusion, Israel is unlikely to “play nice” and will continue its airstrikes and occupation to enforce its security red lines, with the U.S. providing diplomatic cover through ambiguity and non-condemnation. The lifting of sanctions may improve Syria’s economic prospects but will not resolve the Israel-Syria conflict, which remains a complex interplay of historical grievances, strategic interests, and regional power dynamics.
I agree Israel is on an empire building roll with BiBi…..chuq
New Trump hotel in Damascus is my bet.
Best wishes, Pete.
And possibly more that we do not know the details yet. chuq
I’m not at all into the history or actions of the involved countries, but I will say this … Trump is reveling in the celebrations and jubilations that took part related to his actions. That’s what he LIVES for. Political/worldly repercussions be damned. So long as Trump is the STAR, he’s convinced in his own mind that he made a good decision.
I was just thinking that, too. If he thought of it (or thinks he did), then it’s good and we should be proud. or, er, something. and yes, a building for his majesticness. probably gold plated.
I think this could come back and bite him in the butt….well maybe not him but the US for sure. chuq