Attention is turning to a potential shift in US policy toward Syria after President Donald Trump announced his intention to proceed with removing Syria from the United States’ list of state sponsors of terrorism. If the required legal process is completed, the step could represent one of the most significant changes in relations between Washington and Damascus in more than four decades.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Wednesday, July 8, that the United States had begun the procedures for removing Syria from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
Agence France-Presse reported that Rubio had formally notified Congress of the start of the process. The removal is expected to take effect within 45 days unless lawmakers reject it, which the agency said was unlikely.
Although the decision has not yet entered into final effect, the announcement that the process had begun prompted broad questions about the reasons behind the shift, its political and strategic implications, and its potential impact on Syria’s future and its regional and international relations.
Why Did Washington Add Syria to the List in 1979?
The United States placed Syria on its list of state sponsors of terrorism on December 29, 1979, during the rule of then-President Hafez al-Assad.
The designation was based on the US Foreign Assistance Act, which gives the State Department the authority to designate countries it believes have repeatedly supported acts of international terrorism.
Washington justified the decision at the time on several grounds, most notably:
- Accusations that Damascus supported armed Palestinian groups that the United States considered terrorist organizations.
- Political and logistical support for movements such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah during the 1980s. Washington later designated Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.
- Accusations that Syria provided refuge or facilities to some armed groups operating in the region.
Damascus also adopted policies that successive US administrations viewed as threats to regional stability, causing the designation to remain in place for decades.
Syria remained on the list despite changes in US administrations. Sanctions against the country were later expanded, particularly after the Syrian revolution began in 2011, through separate packages that included the Caesar Act, which targeted individuals and entities linked to the Syrian government. The law was repealed in December 2025.
The Syrian government welcomed the US announcement that procedures had begun to remove Syria’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, July 8, the Syrian Foreign Ministry said President Trump’s notification to his Syrian counterpart of his intention to take the step represented an important development in relations between the two countries, which it said were based on dialogue, mutual respect, and shared interests.
Reshaping Washington’s Syria Policy
President Trump’s announcement is not viewed merely as an administrative decision concerning a list issued by the US State Department. It carries deeper political implications, reflecting a shift in Washington’s approach to Syria after many years of isolation and pressure.
Amer Fakhoury, a professor of public international law and researcher in international relations, told Enab Baladi that the development remained at the stage of initiating the legal procedures required to remove Syria from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
He stressed that the decision had not yet entered into final effect. Politically, however, the announcement alone represented the largest shift in the US position toward Syria in more than four decades.
Fakhoury said viewing the decision as a direct reward for Syria’s new government would be an incomplete interpretation. In his assessment, the measure was connected more closely to a broader restructuring of US policy in the Middle East than to a change in Washington’s position toward Damascus alone.
He added that the United States had not reached this point because it had changed its convictions regarding Syria. Rather, Washington had concluded that traditional methods of pressure, particularly economic and political isolation, were no longer producing the results it had sought in previous years.
According to Fakhoury, the experience demonstrated to the US administration that Syria’s continued isolation could produce the opposite outcome. It could weaken state institutions, create a security vacuum that extremist organizations could exploit, and increase Damascus’ dependence on its traditional allies, primarily Iran and Russia.
Ali Fawzi, a researcher specializing in Arab affairs, agreed with that assessment. He said the US announcement reflected a new interpretation of the changes that had taken place in the region in recent years, with Washington beginning to treat Syria as part of the regional stability equation rather than solely as a target of sanctions and political pressure.
Fawzi said the step, if its legal procedures were completed, could establish a different phase in relations between Damascus and the international community. However, it would not necessarily end all US restrictions imposed on Syria.
Syrian Stability Among Trump’s Main Motives
Experts believe the potential decision is being driven by several strategic considerations that extend beyond bilateral relations between Washington and Damascus and relate to a reordering of US priorities in the region.
Fakhoury placed stability at the forefront of these considerations. He said the United States had come to view the existence of a stable Syrian state, regardless of the challenges it faced, as less costly and more consistent with US interests than continued collapse or chaos.
He cited the experiences of Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, which, in his view, demonstrated that the collapse of state institutions did not spread democracy or establish security. Instead, it created environments conducive to terrorism, organized crime, and irregular migration, challenges that pushed Washington to reassess its policies.
Fakhoury said giving Syria an opportunity to open up to the Arab world and the West would help reshape the regional balance of power.
He also pointed to the economic dimension, explaining that Syria’s reconstruction could not be achieved through government aid alone and would require significant private-sector investment. Such investment would be difficult to secure while Syria remained officially designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Removing the designation would send a reassuring message to international banks, insurance companies, financial institutions, and investors more than it would send a message to the Syrian government itself, he said. The measure would reduce the level of legal risk associated with operating in the Syrian market.
Fakhoury added that the decision was also consistent with a US inclination to support Syria’s reintegration into its Arab surroundings. This could allow Gulf and other Arab countries to play a larger role in reconstruction projects, rather than leaving the economic arena entirely to Russia, China, and Iran.
He did not rule out an element of international competition. Washington recognizes Syria’s important geopolitical position on the eastern Mediterranean and understands that reconstruction will open a substantial economic market. Continuing the policy of isolation could therefore give competing powers greater opportunities to consolidate their influence.
Fawzi said the US administration’s motives combined political, economic, and strategic considerations. Washington seeks to support stability, prepare the conditions for US and Western companies to enter the Syrian market in the future, and strengthen its presence during reconstruction while responding to regional changes that have imposed a different approach to Syria.
What Would the Decision Mean if Finalized?
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the measure as a historic step by President Trump to give the Syrian people an opportunity to rebuild their country.
He added that lifting restrictions on Syria would open the door to international trade and investment, give Syria an opportunity to rebuild, and begin a new chapter for the Syrian people. A stable and unified Syria at peace with itself and its neighbors would benefit not only the region but the entire world, Rubio said.
Fakhoury said the consequences of the decision would be significant but would not appear immediately, because removing Syria from the list would not automatically terminate all US sanctions.
Politically, he believes the decision would carry implicit US recognition that the Syrian state had become a partner with which Washington could engage. This could encourage several countries to expand their diplomatic and economic relations with Damascus.
Economically, Fakhoury expected the largest effect to be felt in the financial sector. International banks and financial institutions would become more willing to deal with Syria as the legal risks connected to its designation declined. This could facilitate bank transfers, letters of credit, trade financing, and investment.
The decision could also encourage foreign companies to examine investment opportunities in the Syrian market, particularly in infrastructure, energy, and housing. Removing the designation would signal that the United States no longer considered Syria a state sponsor of terrorism.
Fakhoury nevertheless cautioned against overstating the expected results. He said other US restrictions would remain in place, including sanctions targeting specific individuals and entities, as well as measures related to combating money laundering and terrorist financing. The Caesar Act itself, however, was repealed in December 2025. The path toward full economic recovery would therefore remain long despite the broader sanctions relief.
He concluded that the decision should be viewed as the beginning of a new process, not its conclusion. The process would depend on the Syrian government’s ability to establish internal stability, strengthen the rule of law, continue combating terrorism, and build trust with the international community.
Fawzi similarly said the political and economic gains would not be achieved automatically. They would remain linked to the Syrian government’s ability to implement genuine economic and administrative reforms, improve the investment environment, and rebuild confidence with international financial institutions.
He said the next phase would be a genuine test of Syria’s ability to use the shift to improve living conditions, attract capital, and gradually reintegrate its economy into regional and international systems, ultimately supporting reconstruction and development.
The post What Would Removing Syria From the US List of State Sponsors of Terrorism Mean? appeared first on Enab Baladi.