Follow us on social

Donald Trump

Trump's wise, bold Syria reset

Lifting sanctions won't be easy but his announcement — and brief meeting with al-Sharaa today — is more evidence of Israel's waning influence

Analysis | Middle East

President Trump kicked off his Gulf tour this week in Saudi Arabia by delivering a speech at the Saudi Arabia Investment Forum on Tuesday, in which he announced the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Syria.

Then on Wednesday morning, local time, he met briefly with Syria's President Ahmed al-Sharaa on the sidelines of the regional summit — the first such meeting of Syrian and American leaders in 25 years.

"After discussing the situation in Syria with the Crown Prince [Mohammed bin Salman (MbS)] and also with President [Recep Tayyip] Erdogan of Turkey, who called me the other day and asked for a very similar thing ... I will be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance at greatness," declared Trump on Tuesday to his audience, which responded with a standing ovation.

Describing the U.S. sanctions as “brutal and crippling,” Trump went on to say that now is the time for the Syrians “to shine” and he wished the war-torn country “good luck.”

Implemented in mid-2020, the Caesar Syrian Civilian Protection Act (a.k.a. the Caesar Act) constitutes the most stringent U.S. sanctions ever imposed on Syria. These derivative sanctions have been strangling the Syrian economy, both before and after Bashar al-Assad’s fall. The lifting of U.S. sanctions marks a significant shift in Washington’s approach to Syria a little more than five months into the post-Assad era.

Trump's meeting with Sharaa — described in papers Wednesday as an "encounter" — took place after the new Syrian leader paid his first trip to Bahrain since Assad’s ouster. The last time the presidents of the U.S. and Syria met in person was in 2000, when Bill Clinton and Hafez al-Assad were in Switzerland discussing efforts to broker an Israeli-Syrian peace deal.

“This indicates that Trump is willing to break with the precedent that has been set by the U.S. since the fall of the regime and introduction of [Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)] leadership, entertaining not only direct engagement, but a monumental shift in U.S. Syria policy through sanctions relief,” Caroline Rose, a director at New Lines Institute, told RS.

Even if just a "hello" to Sharaa, who remains on Washington’s “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” list, this illustrates how “Trump is open to pragmatism when there’s a regional consensus,” according to Francesco Salesio Schiavi, an Italian analyst and Middle East expert, who spoke to RS.

“It reflects a shift from doctrinal isolation to transactional engagement, especially if Sharaa is seen as a potential bulwark against Iran and a vehicle for stabilizing post-conflict Syria,” he added.

“While this is far from formal recognition, I think it plants the seeds for a phased normalization process, starting with limited contact and possibly leading to re-engagement on counterterrorism, reconstruction, and border security, provided Sharaa can credibly distance himself from his militant past,” commented Schiavi.

This move on Trump’s part speaks to the extent to which Turkey and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states have significant influence with the current U.S. administration. Notably, Israel, which is extremely skeptical of the Sunni Islamist leadership in Damascus that took power late last year, has been lobbying the Trump administration to avoid moves that could legitimize Syria’s new government or ease the pressure that it is currently under. Thus, Trump’s decision to disregard Israeli interests on this issue fits into a trend that has been emerging whereby Trump is increasingly sidelining Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to align U.S. foreign policy more closely with Ankara, Doha, and Riyadh.

The administration’s approach to diplomacy with Iran, the pact with the Houthis, the de-linking of possible U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s nuclear ambitions and a Washington-Riyadh defense treaty from Israeli normalization, and the securing of Edan Alexander’s release through direct U.S.-Hamas talks all underscored this overall pivot away from an Israel-centered Middle East foreign policy.

“After almost six months of hard resistance against sanctions relief and direct engagement from cabinet members, congressional voices, and advisors, the fact that this policy shift occurred within less than 24 hours when Trump touched down in Riyadh signals the large weight that the Crown Prince MbS wields over Trump’s decision-making in the Middle East,” explained Rose.

“MbS was successful in encouraging Trump to open the ‘flood gates’ of relief efforts and allow both Saudi Arabia and Qatar to lead these initiatives for reconstruction — efforts that were blocked by U.S. sanctions and non-engagement,” she added.

The fact that the driving force was ultimately MbS — alongside the influence of advisers like Steve Witkoff, pressure from President Erdoğan, and some competition on the part of France whose president hosted Sharaa last week — highlights the extent of Trump’s flexibility on Middle East policy.

Trump has signaled his desire to offer Syria an opportunity to begin its long journey of reconstruction and redevelopment, which will require luring a massive amount of foreign investment. Nonetheless, because many elected officials in Washington remain extremely suspicious toward the HTS-dominated government in Damascus, certain aspects of sanctions relief which require congressional approval might not necessarily move ahead as quickly as Trump and his friends in Turkey and the Gulf would like.

Regardless of how sanctions relief plays out in practice, Trump making this bold announcement and meeting Sharaa in Riyadh are major wins for the Saudi leadership, which has proven to be an effective bridge between post-Assad Syria and the U.S. With Saudi Arabia taking the lead within the GCC when it comes to outreach to the new Syrian government, the Kingdom has demonstrated its ability to use its influence to advance interests shared by all the Gulf Arab monarchies amid a period of regional crises and intensified geopolitical instability worldwide.

“The Trump-Sharaa meeting in Riyadh reflects Saudi Arabia’s capacity to align U.S. policy with shared strategic goals, notably containing Iran and managing the risks posed by HTS. For Trump, the Saudi setting offers political cover, framing the engagement as part of a broader Arab-led initiative rather than a unilateral move,” Schiavi told RS.

Trump’s decision to lift U.S. sanctions on Syria marks a bold reset. Originally designed to isolate and squeeze Syria’s Ba’athist government, the argument in favor of maintaining the Assad-era sanctions following the change of regime late last year has grown unconvincing. Trump now extends not just economic relief but a political overture — offering Syria’s Sunni Islamist leadership a chance to gain greater recognition and legitimacy in the eyes of Western leaders and statesmen, reflecting Trump’s characteristically transactional foreign policy approach.

If Sharaa, in this upcoming period, delivers on access to resources, economic openings, and regional stability, Trump may come to find the former militant as a leader whom he can make many deals with. This factor is particularly important within the context of a possible complete withdrawal of American military forces from Syria. Under that scenario, the White House would have greater incentive to foster positive relations with whichever government holds power in Damascus given that the U.S. would lack any presence on the ground.

In a wider context, great power competition probably played a significant role in Trump’s decision. Continuing to strangle Syria with U.S. sanctions would only open the door to China and Russia to gain greater clout in the country, particularly in the domains of defense and reconstruction.

Ultimately, although certain voices in the U.S. will inevitably find Trump’s move controversial and reckless while pointing to Sharaa’s extremist past, Trump is, to his credit, choosing to be pragmatic above all else.


Top image credit: U.S. President Donald Trump attends the Saudi-U.S. Investment Forum, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, May 13, 2025. REUTERS/Brian Snyder
Analysis | 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.