Seven Ways Iran Spends its Money in the Syrian War

Fighters run for cover as a tank shell explodes during heavy fighting in Syria. (Reuters)
Fighters run for cover as a tank shell explodes during heavy fighting in Syria. (Reuters)
TT

Seven Ways Iran Spends its Money in the Syrian War

Fighters run for cover as a tank shell explodes during heavy fighting in Syria. (Reuters)
Fighters run for cover as a tank shell explodes during heavy fighting in Syria. (Reuters)

“Get out of Syria! Think about our plight!” This was one of the slogans canted during last December’s nationwide protests in more than 100 Iranian cities.

Seven years ago when Iran started getting involved in the Syrian conflict the narrative promoted by the authorities was that Iran was going there to protect “the Shi’ite holy shrines” against attacks by “Sunni extremists”, a defensive strategy, and would not become involved in the broader struggle for power between regime leader Bashar al-Assad and his opponents. Falling victim to mission creep, however, Iran was quickly re-cast as the chief guarantor of the survival of the regime, an objective labeled as “vital” for Iran’s own security.

Russia’s involvement two years after the Syrian conflict had started, and President Vladimir Putin’s quick emergence as the key setter of agenda in Syria, punctured the myth of Iran as the key player in Syria. That, in turn, has inspired complaints, at first sotto voce, but more recently openly, about the reasons for what Islamic Majlis member Mahmoud Sadeqi in Tehran has dubbed “our Syrian adventure.”

President Hassan Rouhani has tried to re-tell the Syrian story by claiming that Iran was showing a high degree of altruism by helping “our Syrian brothers in need.”

“Even in harsh circumstances we cut our own needs in order to help our Syrian brothers,” he said last month.

With the high number of human losses sustained by Iran and “allies” including Lebanese, Pakistani and Afghan mercenaries admitted officially, the question that people now ask is focused on the financial cost of “our Syrian adventure.”

Iran’s financial commitments in Syria could be divided into seven categories.

The first consists of the value of arms and other military materiel supplied by Iran to forces supporting Assad. These include Iranian-made surface-to-surface missiles modeled on the Chinese Silkworms originally developed for use at sea. Another major item consists of armored cars of which Iran is reported to have delivered over 400 to replace losses sustained by Assad’s elite 4th Armored Division. According to estimates by researchers in Iran, Iran has also supplied Assad with over 500 pieces of Russian-made heavy artillery for use against urban centers.

Because of many of the arms supplied to Syria come from Iran’s own stocks, often dating back to years, it is hard to put a price on them. It is even possible that Iran has tried to recycle its old arms as part of a broader plan to renew its arsenal of weapons.

However, some analysts, including Reza Saberi, claim that arms supplied by Iran could be valued at around $1.2 billion.

The second item on Iran’s expenses’ list in Syria consists of delivery of oil and petroleum products to Assad forces. This is done in the context of a credit line that Iran has opened for Syria. The most credible figure cited by the Iranian media puts the size of that “line” at between $2-3 billion a year. The total “credit line” allows for up to $6 billion a year and includes food and medical supplies which Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif has put at around $2.5 billion a year.

The third item in Iran’s “Syria expenses” list consists of what the central Bank of Iran calls “transfer funds”. This means Iran exporting a certain quantity of its own oil on behalf of Syria with the understanding that Syria will repay in due course in an interest-free arrangement.

According to Jesse Shahin, spokesman for the office of Staffan de Mistura, the United Nations’ Special emissary on Syria, the “transfer funds” amounts to Iran giving the Assad regime an average of $6 billion a year, sums largely spent on paying civil servants and the forces still more or less loyal to the regime.

The fourth item in Iran’s expenses consists of “emergency funds” made in 2012 and 2103. According to Nadim Shehadah, professor at the Tufts University in the US, cited by BBC researcher Ali Qadimi, that amounted to $14-15 billion.

Tehran sources say the “emergency funds” were disbursed with the help of Austrian and Italian private banks over 30 months in tranches of $300 to $1.2 billion.

The fifth item of Iranian expense consist of funds needed to maintain several paramilitary forces made up of “volunteers for martyrdom” from Afghanistan, Pakistan and, in much smaller numbers, Iraq. The umbrella organ for these forces is the so-called Fatemiyoun Division, formerly a brigade, which was built up to 12,000 men in 2016.

At the time, General Qasem Soleimani, Commander of the Quds Corps, the organ that is supposed to coordinate Iranian operations in Syria, claimed that “volunteers for martyrdom” received no more than $100 a month in cash.

However, several Majlis members, speaking on condition of anonymity, claim that the payment is closer to $1,000 a month as Quds Corps also pays “subsistence pay” to families of the “volunteers for martyrdom.” All in all, the Fatemiyoun Division and ancillaries cost Iran around $1 billion a year. That does not include the $800 million paid annually to the Lebanese branch of “Hezbollah” led by Hassan Nasrallah.

A sixth source of income to finance the war on Assad’s side is provided by what Tehran terms bilateral trade. Much of this, of course, is more in the nature of transit trade with Iranian companies selling Syria’s oil and gas and phosphate to third countries. According to General Yahya Rahim Safavi, a military adviser to “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei, in addition to that trade Iran has won a major mobile phone contract in Syria with the prospect of creating a major new source of income to finance the war.

A major source of income for Assad consisted of money spent by over 1.2 million Iranian pilgrims, who visited Syria each year prior to 2011. However, the flow of pilgrims has almost completely dried up with Iranians preferring to visit “holy shrines” in Iraq. Meanwhile, some of the infrastructure, including over 100 hotels, built with Iranian money have either been badly damaged or left abandoned in previously peaceful areas turned into battlefields.

According to some studies, Iran’s losses on that score could be put at over $2 billion as much of the infrastructure may no longer be recoverable.

A seventh source item of cost for the Syrian war is represented by what Iran spends on keeping around 13,000 of its own troops, often presented as advisers or technicians, in Syria. No official figures are available. But if Iranian troops in Syria receive the same treatment as comparable military ranks inside Iran itself the annual cost could be around $3 billion in salaries and upkeep, not taking into account the cost of weapons and materiel used. The most conservative estimate would see Iran spending an average of $12.7 billion a year in Syria of which less than $2 billion may be recovered in trade deals using Syrian energy and raw material.

According to Tehran sources, part of the funds needed is raised through a special one per cent tariff imposed on all car imports in Iran with the proceeds credited to a special “Resistance Account” controlled by the office of the “Supreme Guide”.

Another source of funds is provided by “voluntary donations” supposedly for the defense or rebuilding of “shrines ”. Under that scheme 26 of Iran’s 31 provinces are assigned quotas to fulfill by raising funds from local businesses and through donations collected at mosques and bazaars. Provinces with a Sunnis majority are excluded from the scheme. As these “donations” are collected by local Friday prayer leaders, it is hard to know what percentage is actually transferred to the central fund and how much is kept by the involved clerics themselves.

Tehran University Professor Sadeq Ziba-Kalam recently invited the leadership in Tehran to review involvement in Syria. He was rewarded with a prison sentence of 18 months.

Nevertheless, many Iranians are beginning to realize that Syria is a costly war, both in terms of human losses and financial burden. And that, some analysts, believe is already encouraging a re-think of what some Iranians regard as a losing strategy.



What Does Removing Syria from the US List of State Sponsors of Terrorism Mean for Its Economy?

US President Donald Trump holds a bilateral meeting with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa alongside the NATO leaders summit at the Bestepe Presidential Compound in Ankara, Türkiye, July 8, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
US President Donald Trump holds a bilateral meeting with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa alongside the NATO leaders summit at the Bestepe Presidential Compound in Ankara, Türkiye, July 8, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
TT

What Does Removing Syria from the US List of State Sponsors of Terrorism Mean for Its Economy?

US President Donald Trump holds a bilateral meeting with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa alongside the NATO leaders summit at the Bestepe Presidential Compound in Ankara, Türkiye, July 8, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
US President Donald Trump holds a bilateral meeting with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa alongside the NATO leaders summit at the Bestepe Presidential Compound in Ankara, Türkiye, July 8, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

The US administration’s decision to begin the process of removing Syria from its list of State Sponsors of Terrorism (SST) - where it has remained since 1979 - marks the country’s most significant political and economic shift in decades.

The designation was more than a political label; it served as the legal cornerstone of the extensive US sanctions architecture imposed on Syria. Its removal could reopen the door to trade, investment, and large-scale reconstruction.

The announcement followed what Washington described as “positive changes” by the Syrian government and formal assurances from Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa that Syria would not support acts of international terrorism in the future.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio subsequently notified Congress of President Donald Trump’s intention to rescind the designation after the required 45-day congressional notification period, describing the move as “historic” and saying it offers Syria a genuine opportunity to rebuild and open a new chapter for its people.

Syrian officials welcomed the decision. Finance Minister Mohammad Yosr Barnieh called it “a historic moment” heralding a new era of prosperity, investment, and economic recovery. He said the move would open a new chapter for the Syrian economy, accelerate recovery, encourage investment, and facilitate Syria’s reintegration into the global economy.

Central Bank Governor Safwat Raslan likewise described the decision as “a positive turning point” that would strengthen confidence, attract investment, and help reintegrate Syria into the global financial system. He reaffirmed the central bank’s commitment to reforms, monetary stability, and long-term economic recovery.

Reconnecting to the Global Financial System

In practical terms, the decision paves the way for Syrian banks to gradually reconnect with the global financial system, correspondent banking networks, and the SWIFT international payments system. The terrorism designation had effectively prevented foreign correspondent banks from dealing with Syrian financial institutions for fear of US legal penalties.

Reintegration could improve access to trade finance and sharply reduce the cost of remittances from Syrians abroad. For years, expatriates have relied on costly informal channels to circumvent sanctions. Easier remittance flows would provide a direct boost to household incomes and financial stability.

Removing Barriers to Investment

For years, US secondary sanctions linked to the terrorism designation discouraged foreign companies from participating in reconstruction projects, fearing hefty fines or exclusion from the US market.

Highlighting the policy shift, the US administration quoted Trump as telling Al-Sharaa: “I promised to remove all the barriers preventing you from rebuilding your country, and very soon you will finally be able to do so.” Trump also said US companies are already interested in investing in Syria.

Removing the designation significantly reduces reputational risk and gives multinational companies greater legal and procedural certainty to invest in infrastructure, real estate, telecommunications, and other sectors.

Reviving Trade and the Energy Sector

Foreign trade is also expected to benefit. Previous restrictions limited imports of advanced industrial equipment and technology classified as “dual-use” goods with potential civilian and military applications. Easing those restrictions would allow Syrian manufacturers to import production lines, agricultural equipment, and medical supplies with far fewer regulatory hurdles.

The energy sector, which has suffered years of severe deterioration, could also benefit. International companies would be able to provide spare parts, technical expertise, and technology needed to rehabilitate damaged oil and gas fields and repair aging power plants, helping ease chronic electricity shortages and support industrial production.

Restoring Access to International Financing

Syria’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism also triggered an effective US veto on loans, grants, technical assistance, and other support from international financial institutions, particularly the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

With the designation removed, Damascus could theoretically begin negotiations with these institutions to secure development financing, support economic restructuring, and implement monetary and fiscal reforms.

From Blanket Prohibition to Risk-Based Assessment

Legal experts say the decision fundamentally changes how international companies and financial institutions assess Syria.

Previously, US law effectively imposed a blanket prohibition on doing business with Syria, leaving banks and corporations with virtually no room for discretion. Now, the automatic legal barrier is removed. Banks and companies can independently assess the remaining legal and commercial risks and proceed with transactions that comply with other applicable sanctions. This represents a fundamental shift, giving investors and financial institutions flexibility that has not existed since Syria was added to the terrorism list in 1979.

Why the Economic Crisis Will Not End Overnight

Despite the significance of Rubio’s announcement and the June 30, 2025 executive order easing certain restrictions, the economic impact is unlikely to be immediate.

The biggest constraint is that removing Syria from the terrorism list does not dismantle the broader sanctions regime. Numerous US laws and executive orders targeting key economic sectors, entities, and individuals remain in force.

In addition, Syria is likely to face prolonged caution from international banks — a phenomenon known as “over-compliance.” Many financial institutions are expected to spend months, if not years, conducting extensive legal reviews before reopening accounts or facilitating trade with Syria, seeking to avoid penalties under the sanctions that remain in place.

Ultimately, Syria’s economic recovery will depend not only on the easing of US restrictions but also on its ability to implement deep structural and institutional reforms, improve the business environment, and maintain monetary stability.

Removing Syria from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list is a major step toward reducing reputational risk and reopening international markets. But a full recovery remains a long-term process that will require the gradual dismantling of the remaining sanctions, which continue to pose the greatest obstacle to Syria’s reintegration into the global economy.


Who Benefits from the Damascus Bombings at Such a Sensitive Time?

Syrian security personnel inspect a burned vehicle near the Four Seasons Hotel after two explosions rocked the area earlier while Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa was meeting French President Emmanuel Macron at the presidential palace, in Damascus, Syria, Tuesday, July 7, 2026. (AP)
Syrian security personnel inspect a burned vehicle near the Four Seasons Hotel after two explosions rocked the area earlier while Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa was meeting French President Emmanuel Macron at the presidential palace, in Damascus, Syria, Tuesday, July 7, 2026. (AP)
TT

Who Benefits from the Damascus Bombings at Such a Sensitive Time?

Syrian security personnel inspect a burned vehicle near the Four Seasons Hotel after two explosions rocked the area earlier while Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa was meeting French President Emmanuel Macron at the presidential palace, in Damascus, Syria, Tuesday, July 7, 2026. (AP)
Syrian security personnel inspect a burned vehicle near the Four Seasons Hotel after two explosions rocked the area earlier while Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa was meeting French President Emmanuel Macron at the presidential palace, in Damascus, Syria, Tuesday, July 7, 2026. (AP)

Two successive explosions struck one of Syria’s most sensitive locations at a particularly delicate moment for the country’s authorities, occurring about 10 kilometers (6 miles) from where French President Emmanuel Macron was staying during his visit to Damascus.

Sources close to the Syrian government told Asharq Al-Awsat that several parties could stand to benefit from the attack, foremost among them remnants of the former regime and those opposed to the growing French-Syrian rapprochement.

Other sources monitoring the security situation, however, said initial indications point more toward ISIS, which remains Syria’s foremost security challenge.

At least 18 people were injured, including the assistant tourism minister and four police officers, in twin explosions near the Ministry of Tourism, close to the Four Seasons Hotel Damascus, where Macron was staying.

The attack came less than a week after a bombing at a lawyers’ cafe near the Palace of Justice that killed 10 civilians and wounded about 20 others.

Security expert Abdullah Al-Najjar told Asharq Al-Awsat that the bombings bore the hallmarks of remnants of the former regime seeking to derail the transitional justice process, “which will certainly reach them.”

The attack also aims to portray Syria as unsafe. He said the improvised explosive devices were crude and indiscriminate, targeting civilians and security personnel alike. Their purpose was to create the impression of weak security control rather than expose a genuine collapse in security.

Syria's Interior Minister Anas Khattab (C) inspects an area near the Four Seasons Hotel following two blasts in Damascus on July 7, 2026. (AFP)

He noted that any criminal could plant a crude explosive device in a trash container and another in a parked vehicle, like what happened in Tuesday’s attack.

Former diplomat and political analyst Bassam Barabandi told Asharq Al-Awsat that whenever Syria shows “serious signs” of recovery, forces threatened by the country’s improving fortunes respond.

In his view, the interests of remnants of the former regime converge with those of ISIS, Hezbollah, Iran, and Israel.

Barabandi noted that many individuals who served under the former regime remain embedded throughout Syrian society, while state institutions are still being rebuilt and newly recruited security personnel have yet to acquire the experience needed to fully maintain security.

The scale of the bombings suggests either individuals or small groups seeking revenge, or an organization capable of mounting larger operations whose objective is not widespread destruction in a country already devastated by war, but rather to spread instability across Syria, he remarked.

Barabandi also stressed that international support for stabilizing Syria remains strong and is likely to translate into greater assistance for rebuilding the country’s security institutions.

Major investments are unlikely to be affected because they are driven largely by political considerations, although local economies and small businesses are expected to bear the brunt of the impact, he added.

Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, left, and French President Emmanuel Macron arrive for an agreement signing ceremony in Damascus, Syria, Tuesday, July 7, 2026. (AP)

Sources close to the government told Asharq Al-Awsat that crude explosive devices of this kind often evade explosives detection and are intended more for political messaging than military effect.

They added that preliminary assessments point more toward remnants of the former regime than ISIS, whose attacks typically target security personnel, soldiers, and those it considers apostates. ISIS operations also tend to inflict far greater casualties, unless the group has radically changed its tactics.

Security expert Diaa Qaddour described such assessments as speculative because so many parties could benefit from bombings at such a sensitive moment for Syria.

Nevertheless, he said it was impossible to ignore that ISIS remains “the largest and most prominent security challenge in Syria.”

Qaddour told Asharq Al-Awsat that Tuesday’s coordinated bombing resembled an attack in Damascus’ Bab Sharqi district in May near a Defense Ministry building that killed a soldier and wounded several civilians. ISIS claimed responsibility for that attack.

He stressed that the greater danger lies not only in the existence of an experienced ISIS cell operating in the heart of the capital and one of its most sensitive districts, but also in its ability to strike whenever it chooses despite extensive counterterrorism efforts by the Interior Ministry.

The recent rise in attacks has tarnished the image of the relative stability Syria had enjoyed in recent months, precisely the outcome sought by those behind the bombings, Qaddour said.

He urged the Interior Ministry and intelligence services to undertake a thorough review of their approach to security threats and develop a comprehensive strategy to eliminate or at least contain them.


What to Know About China’s Rare Ballistic Missile Test and Why It Raises Concerns

 In this photo released by Xinhua News Agency, a long-range ballistic missile bursts out of the sea during a test launched from a Chinese nuclear-powered submarines in the South Pacific on Monday, July 6, 2026. (Li Xiangchao/Xinhua via AP)
In this photo released by Xinhua News Agency, a long-range ballistic missile bursts out of the sea during a test launched from a Chinese nuclear-powered submarines in the South Pacific on Monday, July 6, 2026. (Li Xiangchao/Xinhua via AP)
TT

What to Know About China’s Rare Ballistic Missile Test and Why It Raises Concerns

 In this photo released by Xinhua News Agency, a long-range ballistic missile bursts out of the sea during a test launched from a Chinese nuclear-powered submarines in the South Pacific on Monday, July 6, 2026. (Li Xiangchao/Xinhua via AP)
In this photo released by Xinhua News Agency, a long-range ballistic missile bursts out of the sea during a test launched from a Chinese nuclear-powered submarines in the South Pacific on Monday, July 6, 2026. (Li Xiangchao/Xinhua via AP)

China's navy test-launched a long-range ballistic missile Monday from a nuclear-powered submarine — a move that experts said showed Beijing's increasing skill and capability as part of its nuclear deterrence strategy.

The move also drew protests from the US, as well as countries in Asia and the Pacific. It was the second time China had fired a ballistic missile into international waters in recent years.

While it gave some countries in the region prior notice, some said it was not enough notice, and experts say the launch exacerbates tensions around increasing militarization in Asia.

Here's what we know, and what we don't, about the missile launch.

Experts think it could be a JL-2 or a JL-3 ballistic missile

China announced the missile test publicly on Monday only after the launch, saying that it was fired into the Pacific Ocean. In a brief statement, the official Xinhua News Agency said the launch was part of routine annual training, complied with international law and practice, and was not directed against any country or target. It didn't provide details about the type of missile.

The missile was carrying a dummy warhead, not a nuclear one. The act of launching in international waters was rare, although the US has also done so with its own missile testing.

Xinhua published a photo of the missile on Tuesday without additional details. Experts say it could be either a JL-2 or a JL-3, both submarine-launched ballistic missiles, though most said the available imagery was not clear enough to tell.

The state-owned tabloid Global Times said it was “most likely” a JL-3 missile with a range exceeding 10,000 kilometers (6,200 miles). The JL-2 has a shorter range.

The New Zealand government said the missile was launched into treaty waters in the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone, violating the intention of the agreement.

The zone was established by the 1986 Treaty of Rarotonga, which prohibits nuclear weapons throughout the region. China ratified the protocols in 1987, pledging not to test nuclear weapons within the zone or threaten to use them against signatories with territory in the region.

Australia, Japan, and other countries protest While China has told other countries to “avoid over-interpretation” in response to the criticism, experts say the concerns from other countries have some basis.

Much of the concern is a result of lack of clear information, said Drew Thompson, a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore. “China’s military modernization and buildup have occurred without concurrent increases in openness and transparency, resulting in uncertainty about China’s intentions.”

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said that China did not provide enough notice to the government.

“There is no doubt that this is a provocative act by China which does destabilize the region,” he told reporters Tuesday while in Honiara, in the Solomon Islands.

“This was a test of a nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile fired from a nuclear-powered submarine. That is of real concern because what we need is less nuclear weapons, certainly not more. And the fact that this test took place yesterday with very little notice is of real concern,” Albanese added.

New Zealand had said the same Monday, with Foreign Minister Winston Peters calling it “unwelcome and concerning.”

Solomon Islands Prime Minister Matthew Wale, also speaking to reporters in Honiara Tuesday, said that “China is a good friend of Solomon Islands, but this is not something a friend does. This is not ... good in our region.”

“We don’t want to see any more countries — China, America, anybody — we don’t want anybody testing their ICBMs in the Pacific Islands region. Be our friend, but don’t threaten us,” Wale added.

Test comes amid increasing militarization in Asia

China's leader Xi Jinping has made modernization of the People's Liberation Army a top priority in his rule.

China already has the largest standing army in the world and the world's largest navy. While its nuclear arsenal lags that of the US and Russia, it has been actively expanding its stock of nuclear warheads. It has also actively been developing new longer-range missiles and advanced drones.

China’s defense budget, which is projected to be at $270 billion in 2026, has grown at roughly 7% for the past four years, and hovers below 2% of its gross domestic product. However, independent analysis suggests the real spending could be much higher. For example, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates the overall figure for 2024 at $313.7 billion.

Much of the security worries about whether or not China's military would get involved in a war centers on Taiwan, the self-ruled island that China claims as its own and for which it has not ruled out the use of force to bring it under its control.

China also regularly sends warplanes and navy ships in the waters around the island in what it says are military exercises.

In response to China's expanding military and activity, countries in the region have increased their own defense spending, including Japan which is breaking with its long-held cap of 1% of GDP to double the budget to 2%.

Meanwhile, the Philippines agreed to allow the US to expand its military presence in the country by adding access to four more bases.

“The Chinese launch exacerbates already deeply strained relations between Beijing and Tokyo. Since (Prime Minister Sanae) Takaichi’s comments last year suggesting that Japan would engage in a conflict over Taiwan, China has tightened export controls on Japan and accused it of embracing a ‘new time of militarism,’” said Emma Chanlett-Avery, director of Political-Security Affairs at the Asia Society Policy Institute.