Washington’s Conditions for Normalizing Ties with Damascus Vs. Criteria for Lifting Sanctions on Syria

A Syrian boy looks at an American military patrol east of the Euphrates region in Syria, (AFP)
A Syrian boy looks at an American military patrol east of the Euphrates region in Syria, (AFP)
TT
20

Washington’s Conditions for Normalizing Ties with Damascus Vs. Criteria for Lifting Sanctions on Syria

A Syrian boy looks at an American military patrol east of the Euphrates region in Syria, (AFP)
A Syrian boy looks at an American military patrol east of the Euphrates region in Syria, (AFP)

Washington has set seven conditions for lifting sanctions imposed under the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019. But to normalize ties with Damascus, the US is demanding authorities in the Levantine country to first meet six conditions, four of which have been set before civil war breaking out in 2011.

With nearly three months having passed since the Biden administration took over in Washington, it is becoming more and more evident that Syria is not an immediate priority for the new US leadership.

While the previous two US administrations appointed a special envoy to Syria, US President Joe Biden has not yet done so, although he has assigned special envoys to Lebanon and Iran.

Brett McGurk, the former US envoy for the International Coalition against ISIS, is now the White House coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa and is responsible for maintaining light supervision of US policy on Syria.

Nevertheless, the US continues to impose sanctions to pressure the Syrian regime headed by President Bashar al-Assad to comply with implementing UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which calls for a ceasefire and a political settlement in Syria.

But the Syrian regime can get rid of the bans if it gets the incumbent US president to agree it had met Caesar Act’s seven conditions for suspending sanctions.

The seven criteria include the following:

i. The Syrian and Russian governments cease using Syrian airspace to target civilian populations

ii. Areas of Syria not under government control are no longer cut off from international aid and have regular access to humanitarian assistance, freedom of travel and medical care

iii. The Syrian government release all political prisoners and allow access to detention facilities

iv. The Syrian government and its allies cease the deliberate targeting of medical facilities, schools, residential areas and other civilian targets

v. The Syrian government take steps to fulfill its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and make “tangible progress” toward becoming a signatory to the Convention Prohibiting Biological and Toxin Weapons

vi. The Syrian government permit the safe, voluntary, and dignified return of Syrians displaced by the conflict

vii. The Syrian government takes “verifiable steps” to establish meaningful accountability for perpetrators of war crimes in Syria and justice for victims of war crimes committed by the Assad government.

But for the Syrian regime to get Washington to normalize ties with Damascus it must fulfill different conditions that have been put in place by the former Trump administration.

According to the peace plan drafted by the ex-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the Assad government would have to stop supporting terrorism, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah militia.

It would also need to cease threatening neighboring countries, give up weapons of mass destruction, back the voluntary return of Syrian refugees and deliver war criminals to justice.

Some are arguing that US sanctions could be adversely affecting Syrians who are already suffering the scourge of an ongoing civil war and the fallout of a crippling economic crisis. But since coming to power, the Biden administration has launched a general revision of US sanctions everywhere based on ensuring they do not restrict the flow of humanitarian aid and efforts to fight the coronavirus pandemic.



Iran Faces 'Snapback' of Sanctions over its Nuclear Program. Here's What that Means

The Iranian flag waves in front of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headquarters, before the beginning of a board of governors meeting, amid the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in Vienna, Austria, March 1, 2021. (Reuters)
The Iranian flag waves in front of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headquarters, before the beginning of a board of governors meeting, amid the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in Vienna, Austria, March 1, 2021. (Reuters)
TT
20

Iran Faces 'Snapback' of Sanctions over its Nuclear Program. Here's What that Means

The Iranian flag waves in front of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headquarters, before the beginning of a board of governors meeting, amid the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in Vienna, Austria, March 1, 2021. (Reuters)
The Iranian flag waves in front of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headquarters, before the beginning of a board of governors meeting, amid the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in Vienna, Austria, March 1, 2021. (Reuters)

France, Britain and Germany have threatened to trigger the “ snapback mechanism ” that automatically reimposes all United Nations sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, saying Iran has willfully departed from their 2015 nuclear deal that lifted them.

The European countries, known as the E3, offered Iran a delay of the snapback during talks in July in exchange for three conditions for Iran: resuming negotiations with the United States over its nuclear program, allowing UN nuclear inspectors access to its nuclear sites, and accounting for the over 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium the UN watchdog says it has.

Tehran, which now enriches uranium at near weapons-grade levels, has rejected that proposal.

The US and Iran tried to reach a new nuclear deal earlier this year, but those talks have not resumed since the 12-day Israeli bombardment of Iran's nuclear and military sites and the US bombardment on June 22.

How snapback works Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action reached between world powers and Iran in 2015, Iran agreed to limit uranium enrichment to levels necessary for civilian nuclear power in exchange for lifted economic sanctions. The International Atomic Energy Agency was tasked with monitoring Iran’s nuclear program.

The snapback mechanism’s purpose is to swiftly reimpose all pre-deal sanctions without being vetoed by UN Security Council members, including permanent members Russia and China.

The process begins when one or more nuclear deal participants notify the UN secretary general and Security Council president about Iran’s “significant non-performance of commitments.”

That triggers a 30-day window during which a new resolution to continue sanctions relief must be adopted. Since that's unlikely, as the US, Britain and France would veto such a resolution, all UN sanctions automatically “snap back.” At this stage, no further vote is needed and no Security Council member can block reimposition.

The snapback mechanism expires in October The Europeans agreed with the US earlier this year to set an end-of-August deadline for triggering the snapback mechanism if no agreement is reached with Iran.

The US itself cannot activate the snapback since US President Donald Trump withdrew the US from the nuclear deal in 2018.

Two factors drive the approaching deadline.

First, the power to automatically snap back sanctions expires on Oct. 18. After that, sanctions efforts could face vetoes from China and Russia, which have provided some support to Iran in the past.

Second, Europeans want to trigger the snapback mechanism under South Korea’s Security Council presidency in September, before Russia takes over in October. While Russia cannot veto the reimposition of sanctions under the mechanism, diplomats say Moscow could use procedural delaying tactics until the nuclear deal expires.

The E3’s position European nations assert that Iran has “willfully and publicly departed” from the nuclear deal’s commitments.

In May, the IAEA said Iran had amassed 408.6 kilograms (900.8 pounds) of uranium enriched up to 60% purity. If it is enriched to 90%, it would be enough to make nine nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick, though a weapon would require other expertise, such as a detonation device.

The IAEA also estimated that as of May 17, Iran’s overall stockpile of enriched uranium stood at 9,247.6 kilograms (20,387.4 pounds).

The amounts far exceed the limits set out in the nuclear deal, under which Iran was allowed to enrich uranium up to 3.67% and maintain a uranium stockpile of 300 kilograms.

In addition, in 2022, Iran removed most monitoring equipment, including IAEA cameras. A year later, Iran barred some of the agency’s most experienced inspectors.

Iran’s position Iran has long maintained that its nuclear program serves peaceful purposes only. Tehran also argues that it has the right to abandon the nuclear deal’s limits because Washington withdrew from the deal in 2018 and reimposed its own sanctions.

Before 2019, when Iran gradually began to breach the deal’s limits, the IAEA confirmed Tehran adhered to all commitments.

Iran contends there is no legal basis for the Europeans to reimpose UN sanctions via snapback, claiming the countries failed to uphold the accord after the US exit.

Tehran has also threatened to withdraw from the global Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons if snapback is triggered. By ratifying the NPT in 1970, Iran committed to not developing nuclear weapons.

Other options Once the snapback mechanism is triggered, there remains a slim chance for a diplomatic solution, said Ali Vaez, Iran project director at the International Crisis Group.

If the West and Iran reach a diplomatic agreement within the 30-day window, a resolution could be introduced to push back the mechanism's Oct. 18 expiration date, he said.

“The timing is, in one sense, auspicious because it overlaps with the UN General Assembly’s annual high-level week, which will bring to New York high-level leaders who could huddle over ways to head off execution,” he said.

But he added that the snapback issue is likely to resurface unless Washington and Tehran can hammer out a new nuclear deal.


What to Know About John Bolton, Former Trump Adviser Whose Home and Office Are Searched by FBI

National Security Adviser John R. Bolton listens while US President Donald Trump speaks to the press before a meeting with Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban in the Oval Office of the White House on May 13, 2019, in Washington, DC. (AFP)
National Security Adviser John R. Bolton listens while US President Donald Trump speaks to the press before a meeting with Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban in the Oval Office of the White House on May 13, 2019, in Washington, DC. (AFP)
TT
20

What to Know About John Bolton, Former Trump Adviser Whose Home and Office Are Searched by FBI

National Security Adviser John R. Bolton listens while US President Donald Trump speaks to the press before a meeting with Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban in the Oval Office of the White House on May 13, 2019, in Washington, DC. (AFP)
National Security Adviser John R. Bolton listens while US President Donald Trump speaks to the press before a meeting with Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban in the Oval Office of the White House on May 13, 2019, in Washington, DC. (AFP)

John Bolton, whose home and office were searched by federal agents on Friday, has been one of the most vocal critics of President Donald Trump since serving as a national security adviser in Trump's first administration.

After serving in the White House, Bolton wrote a scathing book that portrayed Trump as grossly ill-informed about foreign policy. FBI agents' searches of Bolton’s Maryland home and Washington office, purportedly part of an investigation into the handling of classified information, raise the question of possible future actions against critics of the Republican president who have voiced their opinions.

Bolton was not detained and has not been charged with any crimes, a person not authorized to discuss the investigation by name told The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity.

Here's more information on Bolton, a Republican and foreign policy hawk:

He served as one of Trump's national security advisers

Bolton served as Trump’s third national security adviser, appointed in 2018 after Trump dismissed H.R. McMaster.

Bolton's 17-month tenure was rife with clashes over countries including North Korea and Iran, with him voicing skepticism over Trump's outreach toward and summit with Kim Jong Un. On Iran, Bolton backed Trump's decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal but favored regime change and was frustrated when Trump called off a planned military strike in 2019.

Those rifts ultimately led to Bolton's departure, with Trump announcing on social media in September 2019 that he had accepted Bolton's resignation.

He wrote a scathing book about Trump's first administration

Bolton's 2020 book, “The Room Where It Happened,” painted an unvarnished portrait of Trump and his administration, amounting to the most vivid first-person account at the time of how Trump conducts himself in office. The 577-page book portrayed Trump as grossly ill-informed about foreign policy, with Bolton writing that the president “saw conspiracies behind rocks, and remained stunningly uninformed on how to run the White House, let alone the huge federal government.”

Bolton wrote that while he was at the White House, Trump typically had only two intelligence briefings a week and “in most of those, he spoke at greater length than the briefers, often on matters completely unrelated to the subjects at hand.”

On Ukraine, Bolton alleged that Trump directly tied providing military aid to the country’s willingness to conduct investigations into Joe Biden, soon-to-be Trump's Democratic 2020 election rival, and members of his family. In one conversation, Trump said “he wasn’t in favor of sending them anything until all the Russia-investigation materials related to Clinton and Biden had been turned over,” Bolton wrote.

Bolton also wrote that he felt “hard-pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during my tenure that wasn’t driven by reelection calculations,” noting how Trump “pleaded” with China’s Xi Jinping during a 2019 summit to help his reelection prospects.

Trump responded by slamming Bolton as a “washed-up guy” and a “crazy” warmonger who would have led the country into “World War Six.” Trump also said at the time that the book contained “highly classified information” and that Bolton “did not have approval” for publishing it.

The White House worked furiously to block the book, unsuccessfully asking a federal court for an emergency temporary restraining order against its release.

His criticism has continued, including in recent days In an interview that aired Wednesday on NPR, Bolton said little has changed in bringing an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine, pointing to Trump’s efforts to secure a Nobel Peace Prize as the president's motivation to end the conflict.

“There’s no indication at all that Russia has in any way changed its objective, which is to bring Ukraine into the greater Russian Empire,” Bolton said. “Nor is there any real sign that Zelenskyy is prepared to do the sorts of things that Russia has demanded of President Trump, such as ceding a substantial part of the Donetsk Oblast or province, which the Russians have not yet been able to conquer militarily.”

On Thursday, Bolton posted to X that “Putin’s KGB training and flattery campaign is working Trump over, as seen by Trump’s statement recently about how Ukraine shouldn’t have taken the war on. It’s important to remember: Ukraine didn’t take anything on, they were invaded.”

And in an Aug. 14 interview with CBS News, Bolton castigated Trump’s decision prior to his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, continuing that criticism following the meeting on X.

“In Alaska, President Trump did not lose, but Putin clearly won,” Bolton posted. “Vladimir has his old friend Donald back.”

Trump reportedly doesn't like Bolton's mustache Trump has spent a career fixated on image, prizing striking looks and frequently boasting about family members and Cabinet officials who look like they “stepped out of central casting.”

Bolton’s bushy mustache simply didn’t fit the part.

During the transition period following his 2016 election, Trump reportedly ruled out choosing Bolton to serve as secretary of state in part because he disliked his signature bushy mustache.

Following a meeting with Bolton at Trump Tower, Trump told confidants that the hawk’s trademark mustache would never be a fit in his administration, although he kept an admiring eye on Bolton’s frequent cable TV appearances, during which he often defended the policies of the president even when they ran counter to what he had preached for decades.

According to Bolton's 2019 book, however, the president told him that his facial hair “was never a factor” in appointing him to any position.

He backed George W. Bush's war in Iraq

When George W. Bush became president, Bolton served as the State Department’s point man on arms control, where he battled other governments on nuclear weapons tests, land mines, biological weapons, ballistic missile limits and the International Criminal Court.

An unabashed proponent of American power and a strong supporter of the Iraq War, Bolton was unable to win Senate confirmation after his nomination to the UN post turned off many Democrats and even some Republicans. He resigned after serving 17 months as a Bush recess appointment, which allowed him to hold the job on a temporary basis without Senate confirmation.

Bolton also held positions in President Ronald Reagan's administration.

He pondered a run for president

In the run-up to the 2024 campaign, Bolton said he was motivated to run after Trump, still obsessing over his loss of the 2020 election, in 2022, called for the termination of the Constitution to reinstate him to power.

“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” Trump wrote on his social media site, though no evidence has emerged to support his claims.

Bolton called the comment “disqualifying” and cast a possible second Trump term as a threat to national security.

He had also considered running both in 2016 as well 2012, when he later endorsed and advised the eventual GOP nominee, Mitt Romney.


Sweida Emerges as First Big Test for Syria’s New Era

An aerial view shows smoke rising over Sweida during clashes between Druze and Bedouin tribes, July 19, 2025. (DPA)
An aerial view shows smoke rising over Sweida during clashes between Druze and Bedouin tribes, July 19, 2025. (DPA)
TT
20

Sweida Emerges as First Big Test for Syria’s New Era

An aerial view shows smoke rising over Sweida during clashes between Druze and Bedouin tribes, July 19, 2025. (DPA)
An aerial view shows smoke rising over Sweida during clashes between Druze and Bedouin tribes, July 19, 2025. (DPA)

In late July, the spiritual leadership of Syria’s Druze minority in Sweida announced the creation of legal and security committees to run the southern province, a dramatic step that underscored its deepening rift with Damascus and the fragile hold of the country’s new rulers.

The move came after days of deadly clashes in mid-July, marking a turning point for a province that for more than a decade had remained on the margins of Syria’s war. It has now emerged at the center of a struggle that will test President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s efforts to unify the country after the fall of Bashar al-Assad.

Damascus said its security forces had intervened only to end fighting between Druze and Bedouin tribes. Druze leaders accused the state of trying to reassert control through tribal allies – a claim they said was backed by documents in their possession.

The clashes left dozens dead and brought government troops into Sweida city. But their presence was short-lived: after Israeli airstrikes struck what appeared to be Syrian army positions on the outskirts, Damascus ordered its forces to withdraw. The pullback created a vacuum Druze leaders say they were forced to fill.

Sweida, home to Syria’s majority-Druze community, has long been distinct in the country’s sectarian mosaic. The Druze, who number fewer than 1 million across Syria, Lebanon and Israel, have historically pursued autonomy and avoided entanglement in wider conflicts.

During Syria’s 13-year war, Sweida largely stayed out of direct combat. Local communities resisted conscription into Assad’s army, and the province preserved a degree of autonomy with its own armed groups maintaining order.

That balance fractured last month. Violence between Druze gunmen and Bedouin tribes spiraled, with Damascus portraying its forces as neutral peacekeepers, and Druze leaders insisting the state had tried to impose its authority by force.

The government’s retreat after Israeli airstrikes reinforced local perceptions that the province was left exposed. For Druze leaders, the episode highlighted the need to build their own administrative structures.

Druze Leadership Realigned

The crisis reshaped internal dynamics within the Druze clergy. For years, the leadership was split: Sheikh Hikmat al-Hijri opposed Damascus, while Hammoud al-Hanawi and Youssef Jarboua maintained channels with the state.

In July, that divide closed. Both Hanawi and Jarboua issued statements condemning the government’s conduct and urging international investigations. Hijri followed with a video demanding accountability, calling for an international probe and accusing the state of backing armed factions against Sweida. He went further by publicly thanking Israel for its support.

The alignment of all three authorities marked an unprecedented rupture between Sweida’s Druze and Damascus, turning a once-divided leadership into a united front.

Committees Fill the Vacuum

The withdrawal of state institutions and forces left Sweida’s leadership to create its own mechanisms.

Safaa Joudieh, spokeswoman for the newly formed legal committee, said the bodies were established in response to what she described as the “systematic destruction of infrastructure, power and water cuts, and a blockade of food and medicine.”

“These committees are tasked with running services and easing people’s suffering,” she said. “They are temporary, civil and humanitarian. They carry no political project at this stage.”

But she made clear that ties with Damascus were severed. “Sweida’s people have endured massacres, arson and a suffocating siege,” she said. “Any talks with the government must begin with compensation and lifting the blockade.”

She added that the initiative had broad local support and that Sweida was open to cooperation with other Syrian entities, including the Kurdish-led administration in the northeast, though alliances of a military or political nature were beyond the committee’s mandate.

Independence Calls

Beyond administrative measures, demands from the street went further. On July 16, thousands gathered in Sweida’s al-Karama Square, with protesters calling for independence from Syria – an unprecedented development.

Some waved Druze flags alongside Israeli ones, images that stirred sharp criticism not only from government supporters but also from opposition figures, who said rejecting Damascus did not justify abandoning the country.

Damascus reacted firmly. In a televised speech, President Sharaa ruled out partition. “Syrians categorically reject any project of division,” he said. “Those who call for it are ignorant dreamers. We brought down Assad’s regime in the battle to liberate Syria. Ahead of us now is the battle to unify it.”

He dismissed secessionist calls as unrealistic, saying no party in Syria possessed the means to impose partition and accusing foreign states of exploiting local grievances.

Damascus Treads Carefully

Despite the escalation, Damascus has avoided an all-out confrontation with Sweida. The government has emphasized unity while taking a measured approach on the ground, apparently seeking to contain rather than inflame the situation.

Mustafa al-Naimeh, a Syrian researcher, said the developments in Sweida amounted to “an attempt to control part of the province outside the authority of the state through armed groups supported by foreign agendas.”

He warned that such moves risked “deepening internal divisions and spreading instability beyond Sweida to areas under the influence of US and Kurdish forces.”

Al-Naimeh added that international conditions were not favorable to secessionist experiments. “Global powers today are focused on sustainable development,” he said, describing projects aimed at fragmentation as “regionally funded and internationally rejected.”

He also argued that Israel was “trying to export its internal crisis by fueling tension in Syria,” and that the rise of armed groups in Sweida had worsened humanitarian conditions by keeping the province outside state authority.

Al-Naimeh said Damascus was pursuing “gradual containment” to defuse the crisis, dismantle armed groups and reintegrate Sweida through political and security channels. He noted that the process would be long but described it as “the most effective path to reduce the cost of bloodshed.”