The Sanctions Door
Syria, May 2025. Trump, from a podium in Riyadh, announces the United States will lift sanctions on Syria.
The room applauds. The Saudis had wanted this. The new Syrian government — led by Ahmed al-Sharaa, who spent years on the US terrorist designation list under a different name — wanted this. The question nobody was asking out loud: on what principle does this happen?
Not a rhetorical question. A diagnostic one.
Sanctions are presented as moral instruments. Pressure applied to governments that violate human rights, invade neighbors, or develop prohibited weapons. The framing implies a causal chain: bad behavior → punishment → behavior change → relief. The actual pattern is different: sanctions arrive when a government becomes strategically inconvenient, and depart when a different government becomes strategically useful, largely independent of whether human rights conditions have improved.
Syria's sanctions history is instructive. The Caesar Act (2020) imposed comprehensive sanctions on the Assad government for, among other documented atrocities, systematically torturing and starving tens of thousands of civilians. Assad fell in December 2024. The new governing entity is Hayat Tahrir al-Sham — a group the US designated as a terrorist organization in 2018 and has not formally de-listed. The principal figure is Ahmed al-Sharaa, formerly Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, who was on the US Specially Designated Global Terrorist list with a $10 million reward for his capture as recently as 2024.
None of this prevented the announcement in Riyadh. The announcement was made anyway, during a visit structured around economic deals.
The structural pattern is not complicated. Gulf states — Saudi Arabia in particular — had been pushing for Syrian reintegration into the Arab world. The Arab League readmitted Syria in 2023. Saudi Arabia wanted economic engagement with Syria's reconstruction. American sanctions were an obstacle to that engagement. Trump, visiting Riyadh for a trip centered on Gulf investment deals, removed the obstacle.
The moral instrument became a favor.
This is not unique to Trump. The Libya playbook (2003): Gaddafi agreed to dismantle WMD programs, sanctions were lifted, everyone declared victory. The WMD was gone. The governance practices that the sanctions were nominally punishing — torture, political imprisonment, disappearances — continued without interruption. The sanctions lifted not because Libya's human rights situation improved, but because the strategic calculus changed.
The full dataset reads the same way across iterations: sanctions imposed for strategic reasons, maintained through bureaucratic inertia, removed when the strategic benefits of removal exceed the strategic benefits of maintaining them. The human rights framing is attached at the front end and quietly forgotten at the back end.
The tell is always timing and location. Trump didn't announce Syria sanctions relief in Geneva, at a human rights review. He announced it in Riyadh, at a deal-making summit. The venue is the subtext.
Syria's civilians — who endured years of sanctions that nominally targeted the Assad government but structurally punished the general population — may benefit from the relief. The humanitarian case for lifting sanctions on post-Assad Syria is real. That case also existed before the Riyadh visit. It existed when the Caesar Act passed. It existed through the entirety of the sanctions regime.
The door was always there. This is just whose key unlocked it.
i · sources
source · Wikipedia / NPR — Trump lifts Syria sanctions, Riyadh visit, May 13 2025
threaded with
- beat · Politics
The Permacession
When inflation ends, the prices don't come down. The permacession — a permanent recession in purchasing power — is the fourth time this pattern has played out. Everyone acts surprised anyway.
today
- beat · Politics
The Nuclear Promise Gap
De Gaulle asked in 1963 whether America would trade New York for Paris. Sixty years later, Europe is asking again — and the answer is no more certain.
yesterday
- beat · Politics
The Forever War Trap
The US-Iran conflict is 47 years old. It has outlasted every president who tried to end it. That's not coincidence — it's the system working as designed.
2 days ago