Normalization of Ties with Damascus and Caesar Act

A truck crosses the Syria-Jordan border after it was reopened on Wednesday (Reuters)
A truck crosses the Syria-Jordan border after it was reopened on Wednesday (Reuters)
TT
20

Normalization of Ties with Damascus and Caesar Act

A truck crosses the Syria-Jordan border after it was reopened on Wednesday (Reuters)
A truck crosses the Syria-Jordan border after it was reopened on Wednesday (Reuters)

The train of normalization of ties bound for Damascus has departed. Still, the dispute remains over how fast it should go, the stops it should make, and the challenges and reforms needed for its railway to reach the Syrian capital.

A few have boarded the train openly, others secretly, while some have booked a ticket and set conditions for them to make the trip. However, many are waiting for the test results, monitoring the regime’s behavior while betting on sanctions and isolation taking effect.

In late 2018, Damascus received the first dose of Arab normalization of ties with the UAE, Bahrain, and other Arab countries, reopening their embassies. They joined a host of other nations like Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Iraq, and Algeria. These countries did not shut down their embassies in Syria, even after the Arab League had suspended Damascus’ membership in 2011.

The Czech Republic was the only European country that kept its ambassador in Damascus to represent both itself and US interests.

Since the spring of 2012, Western countries have either altogether boycotted Damascus and shut down their embassies or resorted to transferring their ambassadors to Beirut for “security reasons” and allowing them to make periodic visits to Syria.

The same applies to Syria’s embassies abroad, most of which have been closed, except for some capitals, which either maintain a good political relationship with Damascus (such as Bucharest) or have international institutions that require the presence of a representative for the Syrian government, such as Vienna, Geneva, Paris, and New York.

The second dose of normalization took place this year, as European countries expanded their contacts with Damascus.

Some countries, such as Cyprus, Greece, and Spain, have extended the stay of their diplomats in Syria or have begun to dust off diplomatic headquarters in Damascus.

More so, Athens agreed to the presence of Syrian diplomats for the first time in years, and Ankara decided to replace diplomats at the Syrian consulate in Istanbul.

Security-wise, most of these countries were establishing or resuming intelligence contacts with Damascus.

Ali Mamlouk, the head of the National Security Bureau, had visited European capitals, including Rome, and stopped by Arab countries either overtly or covertly.

Mamlouk received several western intelligence officials from major European countries and envoys from the previous US administration to investigate the file of the missing US journalist, Austin Tice.

What’s New in Terms of Normalization of Ties?

Today, Damascus is taking its booster shot regarding the normalization of ties with officials taking the relationship beyond its security and diplomatic scope to the open political level. This can be witnessed at ministerial meetings with government delegates in New York when dealing with the Syrian opposition’s delegation is waning.

It can also be noticed through direct contact with President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus.

Previously, several countries avoided political contacts or direct communication with Assad in public.

Some countries even avoided changing their ambassador or appointing a charge d’affaires in Damascus in order not to give the Syrian president any credibility.

Nevertheless, matters appear to have changed now.

Without surprise, Iran and Russia, key regime backers in Syria, sent officials to Damascus to meet with Assad.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s public visit to Damascus, the first in a decade, took place on July 17, the same day Assad was sworn in as president once again. The top Chinese diplomat’s visit symbolically acknowledged the validity of Syrian presidential elections that were otherwise slammed by the West and the local opposition.

As far as communication with Assad goes, Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed phoned the Syrian president concerning “humanitarian” support in the face of the “coronavirus pandemic” in early 2020.

Later, Iraqi President Barham Salih called Assad to explain why he was not invited to a recent summit in Baghdad.

However, what attracted attention was Jordanian King Abdullah II’s phone conversation with Assad a few days ago. The call had different dimensions.

Firstly, it came after the Jordanian monarch had met with US President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin in July and August.

Amman revealed that the monarch reaffirmed “Jordan’s support for efforts to preserve Syria’s sovereignty, stability, territorial integrity, and people.”

Secondly, the call comes after King Abdullah telling CNN that the “Syrian regime was there to stay.”

Thirdly, Jordan has hosted the operations room led by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to train thousands of Syrian opposition fighters against Damascus since 2013.

Fourthly, the call comes after Russia and Jordan succeeded in pushing Syrian opposition fighters in Daraa to surrender and hand over their arms, helping Assad’s government to fully return to the war-torn country’s south.

Fifth, it follows Amman hosting several Syrian ministers, including Defense Minister Ali Ayoub, to review the situation at borders between Jordan and Syria.

Sixth, the call ensues Amman getting the green light from the US to run natural gas pipelines and electricity networks from Egypt to Syria without facing sanctions.

What’s the Difference Between Normalization and Sanctions?

Washington had sanctioned more than 600 Syrian individuals and entities as of mid-2020, when the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act went into effect. Meanwhile, European countries sanctioned 350 individuals and entities.

The UK, after exiting the EU, issued its own sanctions list.

According to the Caesar Act, there are seven official stipulations to lift sanctions off Damascus and six political conditions to normalize ties with the Syrian capital. Four of the conditions for normalization date back to before the events of 2011.

Legally, any change to the Caesar Act requires Congress voting. But the US president has the right to suspend all or part of the sanctions for renewable periods not exceeding 180 days, if specific criteria are met:

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.

What is clear is that “normalization doses” are clashing with the “Ceasar Act virus,” which first demands a strategic change in Syria and a vote in Congress. This explains the cautious steps the Biden administration is taking towards Assad and his government, as well as the public criticism leveled by US officials and legislators against the actions taken by Amman towards Damascus.



How Assassinations Reshaped Hamas’ Decision-Making Mechanism

Palestinians carry the coffin of Ismail Barhoum, a member of Hamas’ political bureau in the Gaza Strip, on March 24, 2025 (AP)
Palestinians carry the coffin of Ismail Barhoum, a member of Hamas’ political bureau in the Gaza Strip, on March 24, 2025 (AP)
TT
20

How Assassinations Reshaped Hamas’ Decision-Making Mechanism

Palestinians carry the coffin of Ismail Barhoum, a member of Hamas’ political bureau in the Gaza Strip, on March 24, 2025 (AP)
Palestinians carry the coffin of Ismail Barhoum, a member of Hamas’ political bureau in the Gaza Strip, on March 24, 2025 (AP)

Hamas is facing major challenges in its efforts to reorganize after Israel assassinated several high-ranking figures from its political bureau, both in and outside the Gaza Strip, including key figures in the political, military, and governance wings of the movement.

During the 58-day truce—collapsed in March—Hamas leaders in Gaza had begun restructuring the organization by appointing new officials to key positions. There was a move to quickly hold internal elections to confirm Khalil al-Hayya as head of the political bureau in Gaza, a decision that was agreed upon due to his previous role as deputy to Yahya Sinwar, who was killed in clashes with Israeli forces in Rafah in October 2024.

Administrative Vacuum

Al-Hayya, based in Qatar and shuttling between Egypt, Türkiye, and other countries as he leads Hamas’ delegation in ceasefire talks, tried to work closely with figures in Gaza such as political bureau members Mohammed al-Jamassi, Yasser Harb, Ismail Barhoum, and Issam al-Daalis to reorganize the movement’s internal operations. However, many of these individuals were later assassinated by Israel following the resumption of its military campaign.

As a result, Hamas is now grappling with a leadership vacuum inside Gaza, particularly as Israel continues targeting its on-ground operatives. This leadership disruption has contributed to delays in salary disbursement for government employees, although some political and military members received partial payments—up to 60%—on the second day of Eid al-Fitr.

Hamas sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that the salary delays are partly due to the leadership void and the difficulties in decision-making, as many of those responsible for finances and internal affairs have been assassinated. The sources confirmed that the wave of assassinations has significantly impacted the group’s internal administration in Gaza.

How Hamas Operates Now

Leadership in Gaza traditionally handled central and strategic files within Hamas’ political bureau, meaning that the assassinations in the Strip had a ripple effect across the broader organization. With the deaths of top leaders like Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July and his successor Yahya Sinwar in Gaza three months later, Hamas formed a temporary governing body known as the “Leadership Council” to oversee the movement’s affairs.

Due to the inability to hold internal elections to select a new political bureau chief and deputy, the Leadership Council—comprising regional heads—was empowered to make collective decisions. While the traditional structure relied on consensus among bureau members with deference to the president, vice president, and heads of the West Bank and external wings, the council now makes urgent decisions, consulting other bureau members only when necessary.

The council includes political bureau members from Gaza, the West Bank, and abroad, with decisions taken by consensus among those who can be reached—communication challenges within Gaza often complicate this.

The de facto head of the Leadership Council is Mohammed Darwish, chair of Hamas’ Shura Council, following the assassination of Osama al-Muzaini in an Israeli airstrike on his Gaza City apartment in October 2023. The precise number of council members remains unclear, but sources estimate it includes between 5 and 7 individuals, while the political bureau consists of over 20 positions. Israel has assassinated around 15 Hamas political bureau members in Gaza alone, in addition to leaders abroad like Saleh al-Arouri and Haniyeh.

Decision-Making Process

According to Hamas sources, for security reasons and the ongoing threat of Israeli targeting, decisions are now made through the Leadership Council without reverting to the Gaza leadership unless in urgent cases.

The sources noted that the council briefly assumed this role during the war, particularly just before the last ceasefire in late January. While some normalcy returned during the lull, renewed assassinations and resumed fighting pushed Hamas back into emergency decision-making mode.

Nevertheless, the sources stress that there are “clear red lines”—such as ceasefire negotiations—that require consulting all political bureau members, especially those still in Gaza, and military leaders from the Qassam Brigades, Hamas’ armed wing. Among these is Mohammed Sinwar, the brother of Yahya Sinwar, who now leads Qassam after Israel assassinated Mohammed Deif and his deputy Marwan Issa.

Hamas sources say Mohammed Sinwar plays a central role in strategic decision-making, especially in military operations and negotiations over Israeli hostages. Still, neither he, nor al-Hayya, nor Darwish can make critical decisions unilaterally; all major moves require consensus between the council, political bureau, and Qassam’s military command.

The sources acknowledge communication difficulties between Gaza and the outside world due to ongoing security threats and Israeli surveillance, sometimes delaying responses to mediators and stalling negotiations.

However, they emphasized that these delays have had limited impact lately, as Israel continues to reject international proposals, diminishing the effect of Hamas’ internal constraints on the overall diplomatic process.