عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

What Are the Political Messages Behind the ‘Biden Sanctions’ on Syria?

US President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands in Geneva. AFP
US President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands in Geneva. AFP
TT
TT

What Are the Political Messages Behind the ‘Biden Sanctions’ on Syria?

US President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands in Geneva. AFP
US President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands in Geneva. AFP

The first list of sanctions imposed by the administration of US President Joe Biden on Syrian entities and figures, has many indications, and confirms a US intention to deal with Syria, after months of delay and consultations within American institutions amid different or contradictory priorities. Here are 10 notes on the “Biden List”:

1. Extensiveness: In contrast to the lists of President Donald Trump’s administration since the implementation of the Caesar Act in June 2020, which included 113 figures and entities in the security, economic and political sectors of the Syrian regime, the first “Biden list” extended to 8 prisons, 5 security officials and two military factions, one of them is Ahrar al-Sharqiya, which is affiliated with the opposition, in addition to two figures who financed al-Qaeda and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

The new procedures dealt with figures in the regime, the opposition and terrorists, but did not include any political or government figure or a Syrian businessman, unlike the lists issued during the Trump era, which punished businessmen accused of “engaging in construction” and officials from the “narrow circle” of President Bashar al-Assad, his wife and their family.

2. Accountability: After the sanctions were issued, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced that punishing Syrian officials aims to enhance accountability for entities and individuals, who have caused the Syrian people’s suffering, and “affirms America’s commitment to promoting respect for human rights and accountability for violations against Syrians.” As for punishing two individuals on charges of financing Al-Qaeda, it aims to confirm US commitment to disrupting the support networks of Al-Qaeda, Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham and other terrorist groups that seek to attack America and its allies.

In contrast to the current focus on “human rights” and “fighting terrorism,” former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, days before leaving his post, said that 18 individuals and entities were punished for supporting the regime’s war machine and obstructing efforts to end the Syrian conflict.

3. The Caesar Act: The recent list reinforced adherence to the “Caesar Act”. Washington said that the prisons, which were included in the sanctions, were those that appeared in the photos submitted by Caesar, who defected from the regime after he was working as an official photographer for the army, and revealed the harsh treatment of detainees. The measures advance the goals of the law named after him - the 2019 Caesar Civilian Protection Act in Syria - which seeks to promote accountability for regime violations.

4. The Detainees: Sanctions reinforce Washington’s determination to open the file of the detainees and the missing. It sought with its allies to advise the UN envoy, Geir Pedersen, to work on this file in parallel with his efforts to facilitate constitutional reforms and to hold a meeting of the committee in Geneva in the coming weeks.

The US statement stated that the regime has detained and mistreated a large number of Syrians since the beginning of the conflict, and this has been documented by the United Nations committee. The Syrian Network for Human Rights reported that more than 14,000 detainees died after being tortured, and 130,000 Syrians are still missing or detained.

5. Aid: The sanctions come after the US-Russian agreement on a joint draft to extend an international resolution to deliver “cross-border” humanitarian aid away from the authority of Damascus. The draft included Washington’s acceptance of three concessions: “Across the Lines” aid, reports from Secretary-General Antonio Guterres settling the issue of extending the resolution for another six months and supporting “early recovery.”

“Our sanctions do not impede the delivery of humanitarian assistance, early recovery programs, humanitarian resilience, or relief from COVID-19,” a US official said.

6. The Kurds: The sanctions also targeted the opposition Ahrar al-Sharqiya faction, which Washington accused of having ISIS members. It also said that the movement looted civilian property, prevented the displaced from returning to their homes, and was involved in the killing of Syrian Kurdish politician Hevrin Khalaf in October 2019. This reinforces the US administration’s interest in the Kurdish file and its military presence in northeastern Syria. Biden criticized Turkey more than once, unlike Trump, who supported President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on several occasions, including giving him the “green light” to the incursion between Tel Aviv and Ras al-Ain east of the Euphrates in October 2019.

7. The absence of Iran: Trump’s team had set the ousting of Iran from Syria as a strategic goal, and announced using “tools of pressure and isolation” for this purpose. Sanctions were among the tools used (in addition to the military presence east of the Euphrates, Al-Tanf base, the Arab and European isolation of Damascus, support for Turkey’s presence in northern Syria, and support for Israel’s attacks).

However, the “Biden List” and the accompanying statements did not include a reference to geopolitical concessions required from Damascus.

8. “Change of behavior”: The Biden administration’s decision to reduce its list of goals in Syria was reflected in the demand to “change the behavior of the regime” and not “change the regime,” with the absence any reference to “political transition” or the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

These sanctions should serve as a reminder that the United States will use all of its diplomatic tools to advance accountability for people who have committed abuses against the Syrian people, said Aimee Cutrona, a State Department official in charge of Syrian affairs.

In contrast, Pompeo said after announcing the last list of sanctions during his term: “We stand by the people and reaffirm our support for the path of peace stipulated in Resolution 2254.”

9. Three goals: During a closed meeting on Syria in Rome at the end of June, Blinken said that Washington had three goals in Syria: fighting ISIS, humanitarian aid, and a comprehensive cease-fire. In the press briefing after the announcement of the sanctions on Wednesday, US officials said that the new measures were among the “tools” used by Washington to achieve its goals, including fighting ISIS, aid, “not tolerating human rights violations”, and a comprehensive truce...with the hope of providing conditions for a political solution in accordance with Resolution 2254.

10. Russia and “Caesar’s Sword”: Russia launched a campaign against “illegal unilateral sanctions”, and its officials informed their US counterparts of the need to take steps in this direction. Biden’s decision to impose the sanctions and to remind of the Caesar Act, following his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Geneva, will surely not echo positively in the Kremlin.
Moreover, the “Biden List” reminds Arab, regional and European countries and the private sector of the possible restraints to the “normalization” with Damascus.

It is true that Blinken’s team agreed to the requests of Arab and European countries not to include an item opposing “normalization” in the joint statement after the Rome conference, but the “Biden List” is a reminder that the American “Caesar Act” is a “legislative sword”, which was approved by Congress with the acceptance of a majority from the Democratic and Republican parties and sets the limits of the political movement.

Most Viewed

 
 
Features

What Will the Next Leader of the UN Need to Get the Job Done in an Increasingly Complex World?

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres receives a standing ovation after speaking during the 81st United Nations General Assembly at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, on September 22, 2026. (Photo by ANGELA WEISS / AFP)
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres receives a standing ovation after speaking during the 81st United Nations General Assembly at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, on September 22, 2026. (Photo by ANGELA WEISS / AFP)
TT
TT

What Will the Next Leader of the UN Need to Get the Job Done in an Increasingly Complex World?

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres receives a standing ovation after speaking during the 81st United Nations General Assembly at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, on September 22, 2026. (Photo by ANGELA WEISS / AFP)
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres receives a standing ovation after speaking during the 81st United Nations General Assembly at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, on September 22, 2026. (Photo by ANGELA WEISS / AFP)

On Jan. 1, the next United Nations secretary-general will take over an aging organization still controlled by World War II powers. What will the world need from that person?

Once a major player in solving conflicts and crises around the world, the 81-year-old institution has been sidelined from the top table in trying to end the wars in Iran, Ukraine and Gaza. And its precarious financial situation — caused mainly by the billions of dollars the United States owes — has forced major cuts to its humanitarian and development programs where it has remained a key player.

The annual global gathering of world leaders at the United Nations that ended last week shed some light on what the next UN chief needs to focus on and pursue.

In his farewell address to the General Assembly, outgoing Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told global leaders, “The world does not need a weaker United Nations.”

“It needs a UN strong enough to face the world as it is," he said, “and determined enough to build the world as it should.”

But is that even possible?

Much talk of a shared future with the UN at the center

After 10 years at the helm of the United Nations, Guterres said he is strongly convinced that its greatest power is to build a tomorrow that works for everyone. As he put it, “Our shared future will be forged by whether humanity can govern power wisely.”

Guterres then issued challenges to the United Nations that will be led by his successor, the 193 countries in the General Assembly “and humanity itself."

Will you “uphold the law before impunity becomes normalized?” Will you “end wars before they consume generations?” Will you tackle inequality “before societies fracture?” Will you accelerate climate action “before tipping points are crossed?” Will you govern artificial intelligence “before it governs us?" Guterres asked.

For the next secretary-general — the selection process is ongoing — the top priority will be reconfiguring the United Nations to reflect the 21st century rather than the post-World War II era when it was established.

The new UN chief “will have the most monumental task that the UN has faced in decades because you have a UN that’s going through this critical reform process that it has not gone through for a long time,” said Kizito Byenkya, the Open Society Institute’s advocacy director.

The UN's financial crisis has led to budget cuts and efforts to consolidate programs and agencies, and eliminate hundreds of mandates ordering the UN Secretariat to take a wide variety of actions and deliver reports, many that never get read. That's just to name a few.

At the same time, Byenkya told The Associated Press, “You have huge pressure on all sides for the new secretary-general to act like a general and really play a central role in mediation for world conflicts.” He cited the late secretary-general Kofi Annan, who became directly involved in some conflicts and was a skilled mediator and negotiator.

“If you look at the conflicts we've been facing in the last few years, let's say from Gaza to Sudan to Ukraine and more, you often have to ask yourself: Where has the role of the United Nations been with all of these?,” he said. “In the time of Kofi Annan, he was center to all.”

Reform sounds good but is a lot harder than one might think

During high-level week, leader after leader spoke of the need for reform. But when it comes to taking action, serious and sometimes impossible differences emerge, especially when it comes to reforming the Security Council, the UN’s most powerful body and still controlled by the World War II victors.

All UN member nations want to see the council reflect the 21st century world, but there are huge national differences on how it should be expanded. That has stymied progress for decades.

The five permanent members — the US, Russia, China, Britain and France — hold veto power, which gives them ultimate control. Africa, home to 1.5 billion people, has no permanent seat. Neither does Latin America. Neither do the collection of island nations whose existence is threatened by climate change.

“Security Council reform is not a favor to Africa,” Ghana’s President John Mahama told world leaders last week. “It is an imperative for the legitimacy, credibility, and survival of the United Nations.”

Mahama also raised perhaps the most difficult problem that will confront the next UN chief: the world’s “intense fragmentation, deepening inequality and eroded trust in our multilateral system.”

“We must address the alarming breakdown of global order today,” he said, pointing to “the dangerous drift toward unilateralism."

Mahama lauded the UN Charter, whose opening words say the organization was founded to prevent a repetition of the 20th century’s two world wars. That, he said, “must reign supreme over the cynical doctrine that `might makes right.’”

Features

Thousands of Young Sailors Adjust to Iran War Aboard USS George Washington

Night Aircraft Handling Officer Breana Royston and AE1 Andrew Schmucker coordinate aircraft positioning aboard the USS George Washington in the Arabian Sea, September 13, 2026 (Reuters)
Night Aircraft Handling Officer Breana Royston and AE1 Andrew Schmucker coordinate aircraft positioning aboard the USS George Washington in the Arabian Sea, September 13, 2026 (Reuters)
TT
TT

Thousands of Young Sailors Adjust to Iran War Aboard USS George Washington

Night Aircraft Handling Officer Breana Royston and AE1 Andrew Schmucker coordinate aircraft positioning aboard the USS George Washington in the Arabian Sea, September 13, 2026 (Reuters)
Night Aircraft Handling Officer Breana Royston and AE1 Andrew Schmucker coordinate aircraft positioning aboard the USS George Washington in the Arabian Sea, September 13, 2026 (Reuters)

An emergency alert blares from a loudspeaker, and Damon Dennard and other sailors on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS George Washington are scrambling. Dennard, 23, is readying bombs for loading onto aircraft as his crewmates race to their positions.

“It has been eventful,” said Dennard, an aviation ordnanceman airman apprentice. Once the alert ends, he takes a breath, sits on one of the bombs and jokes that he probably expected an easier deployment.

“It’s crazy, but at the end of the day, it’s work. That’s all.”

Dennard was one of dozens of sailors Reuters spoke with in September on a rare visit to a US warship that is central to the Iran war.

The visit began at a particularly tense moment, just three days after the US military blew up five Iranian oil tankers in retaliation for Iran targeting a US Navy warship.

The George Washington’s mission near the Strait of Hormuz which has no defined end-date came as a surprise to the crew, who were deployed from Japan at the end of August to relieve another carrier.

The aircraft carrier is effectively a floating city of around 5,000 personnel, each with their own mission, from Majesta Ochoa, who operates a cash register, to Lieutenant Commander Brody Samaha, a “shooter” who helps oversee the launch of aircraft from the carrier’s catapults.
But there is a sense of synchronization as the sailors go about their jobs, crew say.

The aircraft carrier is effectively a floating city of around 5,000 personnel, each with their own mission, from Majesta Ochoa, who operates a cash register, to Brody Samaha, a “shooter” who helps oversee the launch of aircraft from the carrier’s catapults.

“It’s a dance, with lots of people checking each other,” Samaha said, before adding that the flight deck is also a “very dangerous place to be. It’s very unforgiving.”

Ouija Board

Breana Royston, the night aircraft handling officer, or ‘NACHO,’ has a unique perspective over the dangerous maneuvering on the flight deck.

Her job is to supervise aircraft movement, including bringing fighter jets up to the flight deck and back down to the hangar bay via massive elevators.

To do that, she uses what’s known in Navy parlance as a “ouija board” — a real-time model of the deck, with miniature aircraft all lined up in their current positions. It looks a little like a strategy board game.

“We’ve been on our toes the last week, maneuvering and everything — with everything that's going on,” Royston said, adding it’s been “kind of crazy, really busy.”

“It’s nerve-wracking, but it’s fun,” she said.

The Iranian government has repeatedly condemned US military actions in the Strait of Hormuz. On September 25, the Iranian foreign minister said the insecurity prevailing in the strait was the “direct result of the aggressive actions of the United States and the Israeli regime.”

The war began in February with joint strikes on Iranian targets by the US and Israel. US President Donald Trump has said many times the conflict would soon be over, but it persisted for longer than initially expected.

In August, in response to reports of deteriorating conditions, low morale and suicide attempts on the Lincoln, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said the accounts “misrepresented” the reality, praising sailors who endure austere conditions.

Extended Deployments Pose Strain on Crew

Still, extended deployments can pose enormous strain on crews’ mental health, particularly in wartime, and are a challenge for any navy. Sailors must maintain a state of alert and readiness, heightened in the case of the George Washington due to the threat of drone and missile attack from Iran.

“Morale is really important to us,” said Rear Admiral Jeffrey Heames, the commander of Carrier Strike Group 5.

Heames talked about ensuring the ability of the crew to contact home and receive mail.

“Some of those things affect how sailors hold up out in this kind of environment,” Heames said. “They are huge focus areas for me.”

Reuters spoke with Seaman Deandre Cook as he checked in with his wife back home on a video call. She was holding one of their young daughters on her hip.

It was hard being away from his family, Cook said, but added: “The distance makes the relationship stronger.”

Growing Up

As jets thundered off the carrier’s deck above them, hundreds of members of the George Washington’s crew gathered for a ceremony to mark the 25th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks — an event many of them were too young to remember.

Al Qaeda’s attacks on New York and Washington propelled the US into two decades of war that sent troops to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. Many supporters of Trump had hoped Middle East wars were a thing of the past.

After a sailor sang the national anthem, the chaplain on board, Ben Garrett, delivered a prayer as the assembled crew bowed their heads.

“Help us honor those who have gone before us,” Garrett said.

Garrett later told Reuters that many of the crew members are still learning the basics of growing up, including skills like patience, managing relationships and career expectations.

“A huge percentage of this ship are between the ages of 19 and 24 years old,” said Garrett, a Roman Catholic priest. “So they’re trying to figure out being an adult while they’re out here.”
Sometimes sailors enlist to get away from a small town or a situation back home, Garrett added.

Lieutenant Commander Brian Lasley said there were more people on the George Washington than back in his hometown of Fredericktown, Missouri, whose population was 4,429 in the 2020 census.

Camren Pollard, 24, an interior communications electrician third class, said he joined the Navy on a spur-of-the-moment decision after seeing older coworkers unhappy in his previous job. “I wanted to change things in my life,” he said.

“My mom freaked out more than anything. My little brother thought it was kind of cool.” For Pollard, however, “I don’t think about it a whole lot. It’s work for me.”

Features

US-led Troops Exit Iraq: What's Next for Pro-Iran Groups?

A giant Iraqi flag hangs off the reconstructed 12th century "Hadba" leaning minaret at the historic Great Mosque of al-Nuri in the old city of Mosul on September 29, 2026 as Iraq marks the withdrawal of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition forces from the country. (Photo by Zaid AL-OBEIDI / AFP)
A giant Iraqi flag hangs off the reconstructed 12th century "Hadba" leaning minaret at the historic Great Mosque of al-Nuri in the old city of Mosul on September 29, 2026 as Iraq marks the withdrawal of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition forces from the country. (Photo by Zaid AL-OBEIDI / AFP)
TT
TT

US-led Troops Exit Iraq: What's Next for Pro-Iran Groups?

A giant Iraqi flag hangs off the reconstructed 12th century "Hadba" leaning minaret at the historic Great Mosque of al-Nuri in the old city of Mosul on September 29, 2026 as Iraq marks the withdrawal of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition forces from the country. (Photo by Zaid AL-OBEIDI / AFP)
A giant Iraqi flag hangs off the reconstructed 12th century "Hadba" leaning minaret at the historic Great Mosque of al-Nuri in the old city of Mosul on September 29, 2026 as Iraq marks the withdrawal of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition forces from the country. (Photo by Zaid AL-OBEIDI / AFP)

With the US-led anti-extremist coalition leaving Iraq, Baghdad faces mounting pressure to rein in Tehran-backed armed groups, a difficult task in a country long caught between its allies, the US and Iran.

Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi, who assumed power earlier this year with the United States' blessing, has pledged that after the coalition exits on Wednesday, pro-Iran groups would hand over their weapons to the state.

But the issue has proven far more complicated than simple announcements, said AFP.

Iraq has long been a proxy battleground for the US and Iran, with each interfering in major political decisions and government formation.

The ongoing Middle East war, during which Iran-backed groups in Iraq targeted US facilities there and around the region hundreds of times, has deepened Iraq's entanglement.

- 'Tricky' -

Several senior Iraqi officials told AFP that Iran will not accept that the factions hand over their weapons, especially amid the regional war, and its officials have clearly relayed the message.

"If there's a deal between the US and Iran, I think that this whole issue becomes very easy to deal with," Iraqi political analyst Sajad Jiyad said.

But Jiyad said "Iran has been very clear that while there is a conflict going on, they cannot give up their strategic capabilities", including the Iraqi groups and "their ability to attack US interests in Iraq and the region".

It is, however, a "tricky situation", because Iran doesn't want an "unstable Iraq", he added.

"Iran's agenda is to reach a deal with the US, so that these groups will naturally reduce their visibility and activity," without giving up capabilities.

The factions also want assurances that the US won't target them before they consider surrendering their weapons.

But if no progress is forthcoming in terms of disarming these groups, then "the US is not going to make a longer-term commitment of not targeting them", he said.

It will continue on its usual paths: diplomatic and economic pressure through sanctions, and occasional strikes.

- 'Liability' -

The US-led coalition deployed to Iraq and Syria in 2014 to fight the ISIS group, which seized large swathes of both countries and committed atrocities.

Both the coalition and Tehran-backed groups fought ISIS, their common enemy.

After ISIS's defeat in Iraq in 2017, those groups demanded the withdrawal of US troops and began targeting them with drones and missiles, triggering US retaliatory strikes that killed several of their commanders over the years.

US pressure on successive Iraqi governments to disarm the factions mounted, especially after they intervened in support of Palestinians during the Gaza war in 2023, and later backed Tehran in the Middle East war.

Political analyst Jiyad said little should be expected after the coalition's pullout.

"We are not going to get disarmament... but there has to be some sort of progress and some plan," he said.

"What is probably going to happen is the process begins" towards a solution, but it will require time and "trust-building measures".

The Tehran-backed groups feel the government is unable to protect them from the US, and the government sees them as a "liability," he added.

- No plan -

While some groups said they would disarm, other powerful factions refuse to do so.

But the government "does not even have a plan" for how it is going to disarm them, a diplomatic source in Baghdad said.

Two senior politicians told AFP that Zaidi, a newcomer to politics, had repeatedly said he was ready to "confront" the groups if they don't disarm.

For weeks, tensions grew until an unannounced truce was reached, with the intervention of senior politicians who are now hoping to work out a deal.

An Iraqi official said that "the issue needs time to reassure the factions, and prevent any confrontation between Iraqi forces and the armed groups".

Kazem al-Fartoussi, spokesperson for the Kataeb Sayyid al-Shuhada armed group, said the factions don't want a confrontation with the state because "there will be no winners".

But "our weapons are precious, so we have said these weapons are in exchange for sovereignty," including the withdrawal of foreign troops and an end to American political and economic interference.

Fartoussi said the factions are in talks with the government about "regulating" their weapons, as well as their relationship with the state, but he doesn't trust the US.

For the Americans and Israelis, their objective is "nothing other than eliminating the factions, not the weapons," Fartoussi said.

If the issue is the factions' "existence", then "we reject any discussion".