A year after the United States lifted sanctions and removed Syria from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, the analyst who originally argued that sanctions relief was a necessary tool for positive engagement with President Ahmed al Sharaa’s government has issued a sober reassessment: while al Sharaa has won diplomatic breathing room abroad, deep-rooted domestic problems — economic stagnation, lagging reconstruction, and questions over governance — threaten to undermine his leadership.
In a 2025 article for War on the Rocks, analyst Rob Geist Pinfold made the case that the West should engage with post-Assad Syria by lifting economic sanctions, arguing that punitive measures were hindering reconstruction and giving space to spoilers. A year later, after that relief materialised — alongside Syria’s removal from the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list — Pinfold has revisited his position.
“Al Sharaa has achieved a genuine foreign policy victory,” Pinfold writes in his new assessment, titled “‘Zero Problems’ Abroad, Plenty at Home.” “He has normalised relations with regional neighbours, secured international diplomatic recognition, and avoided the isolation that has paralysed other post-conflict governments.”
Yet the domestic picture, he argues, is “far less encouraging.” Reconstruction of Syria’s shattered infrastructure remains painfully slow, with foreign investment failing to materialise at scale. The economy, already devastated by years of civil war, continues to struggle under inflation and unemployment. And while al Sharaa’s government has promised an inclusive political transition, critics say power remains tightly concentrated in a narrow circle around the president.
“The ‘zero problems’ foreign policy has bought time, but it has not bought legitimacy,” Pinfold cautions. “Syrians who hoped that sanctions relief would translate into tangible improvements in their daily lives are growing disillusioned.”
The article does not suggest sanctions relief was a mistake, but it does reframe the debate. Where Pinfold once emphasised the benefits of engagement, he now stresses that international goodwill must be matched by domestic reform — and that external actors should not assume al Sharaa will deliver on his promises without consistent pressure.
The piece is likely to fuel an ongoing divide among Syria watchers. Some argue that the U.S. moved too quickly and that al Sharaa’s government has not earned the benefits it received. Others counter that without relief, the situation would be far worse, and that the slow pace of change is a function of the enormity of the challenge, not a failure of will.
For now, al Sharaa appears to be walking a tightrope: a statesman abroad, a leader grappling with intractable problems at home.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The U.S. decision to lift sanctions and delist Syria was one of the most consequential shifts in Middle East policy in recent years. Its outcome will influence whether similar engagement models are applied to other post-conflict states.
- If al Sharaa fails to deliver domestic stability, Syria could relapse into violence or see a new wave of migration — directly affecting Europe and the wider region.
- The debate between “engagement now” and “reform first” is not abstract: it shapes billions of dollars in aid, trade, and diplomatic recognition.
Background
After the fall of the Assad regime in late 2024, Ahmed al Sharaa emerged as Syria’s most powerful figure, leading a transitional government. The U.S. and European allies faced a choice: maintain the crippling sanctions designed to isolate Assad, or lift them in hopes of stabilising the country and encouraging democratic reform.
In early 2025, Washington began easing some restrictions, and by mid-2025 had removed Syria from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list — a step many analysts saw as the strongest signal of support. Pinfold’s original 2025 article argued that sanctions relief was not a reward but a tool: without it, reconstruction could not begin and extremist groups would exploit the vacuum.
A year on, the region has changed. Syria has reestablished diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey. But the promised “consultative council” and national dialogue have been delayed, and reports of politically motivated detentions have raised alarms.
Key Perspectives
Supporters of engagement: Argue that one year is too short to judge. Sanctions relief has unlocked some aid flows and allowed banks to process remittances. Al Sharaa is prioritising security first, and political reform will follow. The alternative — renewed isolation — would be far worse.
Critics and skeptics: Contend that al Sharaa has pocketed the benefits without delivering on commitments. They point to the lack of transparent budgeting, slow progress on human rights, and a concentration of power in the presidency. The U.S. gave away its leverage too quickly.
Syrian civil society: Voices within Syria express frustration that international attention has shifted away. Many feel the government’s foreign policy wins have not translated into jobs, electricity, or freedom of expression. Some warn that if the economy does not improve, anger could boil over.
What to Watch
- Syria’s currency and inflation figures: If the pound continues to slide, domestic pressure on al Sharaa will intensify.
- The next round of UN-facilitated constitutional talks: A delay or breakdown would signal that political reforms remain stalled.
- U.S. congressional hearings on Syria delisting: If bipartisan criticism grows, Washington may impose new conditions.