Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1617657037-scaled

US has no plans to aid civilians, reconstruction in Syria

Trump's Syria envoy said the US is discouraging aid efforts despite widespread poverty and imminent economic collapse.

Reporting | Middle East

The United States will “not contribute to reconstruction" in Syria and will "discourage others from doing so" until a political solution can be reached, Special Envoy Joel Rayburn told the House Foreign Affairs Committee in a Wednesday hearing.

Syria is facing an economic meltdown as the Middle Eastern country seeks to rebuild after ten years of civil war. More than 80 percent of Syrians now live below the poverty line — and many have been forced to wait on six-hour bread lines for food — as neighboring Lebanon undergoes a banking crisis

But the Trump administration and members of Congress from both parties continued to hammer away at the Syrian economy, arguing that Syrian ruler Bashar al-Assad is still a threat to civilians and must be pressured into relinquishing his grip on power.

Last year, Congress passed the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, which is named for a Syrian defector who exposed war crimes by the Assad regime. The law aims to deter reconstruction investment from flowing into Syria until certain political conditions are met.

 “We lead efforts to withhold normalization and reconstruction aid to the Syrian government absent progress on the political process,” Rayburn said at Wednesday’s hearing.

He added that the economic pressure is meant to “push for a political solution to the conflict,” and to “deter the Assad regime from continuing this brutal war against his own people.”

Fighting is still ongoing in the rebel-held province of Idlib in the northwestern corner of Syria near the Turkish border.

The United States is demanding a negotiated end to the war under United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254. Trump administration officials have previously stated that they cannot see a path forward as long as Assad remains in power.

“Our leverage in Syria is increasing,” Rayburn claimed at the hearing. “Each of our major goals in Syria is within reach.”

He said that ”the Caesar Act has had a remarkable chilling effect on those outside Syria who might have otherwise restored relations with the Assad regime.”

The Biden administration may continue a similar approach.

Secretary of State nominee Antony Blinken said in a May 2020 interview that the United States can use reconstruction aid as leverage to demand “some kind of political transition that reflects the desires of the Syrian people,” although he did not explicitly state that he would discourage other nations from providing their own aid.

Some members of Congress — including outgoing House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Eliot Engel (D–N.Y.) and his Republican counterpart Ranking Member Michael McCaul (R–TX) — praised the pressure campaign.

Others expressed skepticism that U.S. policy is working.

Rep. Susan Wild (D–Pa.) asked whether the Trump administration “should re-evaluate our sanctions policies towards Syria…in light of the unintended effects that the sanctions appear to be having on everyday Syrians’ food supply in areas controlled by the Assad regime.”

Rayburn blamed a “propaganda campaign” by the Assad regime, claiming that sanctions do not target food production, and that the United States itself has spent $1.7 billion on humanitarian aid to Syria over the past fiscal year.

“Certainly, Assad and his allies have subverted humanitarian aid,” Rep. Joaquin Castro (D–TX) said. “Still, most [non-governmental organizations] working on the ground say our sanctions are actively hindering our ability to deliver assistance to the Syrian people.”

The United Nations and other humanitarian organizations report that sanctions have had a chilling effect, dissuading banks for dealing with even legitimate aid activities. Rayburn insisted that humanitarian assistance is still legal under U.S. sanctions, but conceded that “over compliance” with sanctions has caused some issues.

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D–N.Y.) had the most harsh criticism. He asked Rayburn whether “the replacement of the Assad regime” is the end goal of U.S. policy.

Rayburn declined to answer, stating that the specifics of a political solution to the war should be up to the Syrian people.

Connolly asked whether there was any kind of “mechanism” to “accurately reflect the voice of the Syrian people.”

Rayburn responded that U.N.-sponsored peace negotiations are “the best mechanism that we could hope for,” but requires the United States to “continue to employ our pressure tools” for Assad to accept them.

“Well, good luck with that,” Connolly concluded. “I don't see a lot of evidence that it's working.”


Aftermath of the Syrian government strike in Idlib, January, 2020. (Photo: Karam Almasri via shutterstock.com)
Reporting | Middle East
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.