Yesterday condemned, today embraced

Donald Trump announced on May 13th 2025 that he plans to lift sanctions imposed on Syria since 2004, by virtue of Executive Order 13338, upgraded in 2011 (in addition to Syria's designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1979). Now that the Assad regime was toppled, Syria is being removed from the orbit of evil. 

Since 2011, the Syrian government and people have been cut off from the global economy, shunned from the banking system, crippled by trade restrictions, denied investment opportunities, and condemned to isolation owing to the oligarchic regime that was inherited by the now ousted Bashar Al Assad. Any compliance officer would raise the red flag the moment a company has any ties with Syria - not the regime, not the political sphere - but Syria. 

Yesterday, magically, the US realised that the Syrian baker does not actually represent global menace. SMEs do not stand for all evil. The collective punishment of the Syrian people for accepting the iron-fist rule of the Assad clan - for 45 years - does not sound reasonable anymore. Having impoverished and shut off a nation for half a century by arbitrary sanctions suddenly does not seem quite right.

Arbitrary decisions by individual leaders based on whims and visions is the sad reality of postmodern politics. Trump said that he made the decision after discussing the issue with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, as well as with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. It is unclear whether a magical potion was slipped into the Turkish coffee, or the Saudi qahwa. What is clear however is the nonsensical, contradictory, hypocritical policies followed by the US.

The last round of sanctions on Syria emerged in response to the Syrian civil war in 2011 with two main stated objectives: cessation of Syrian regime violence and introduction of political reforms. Over the course of the Syrian conflict, sanctions have evolved from targeting individuals and entities involved in regime violence towards a “de facto regime of comprehensive sanctions with an extra-territorial dimension targeting third-country individuals and entities that overlap with UN counter terrorism sanctions.” 

The morality and utility of sanctions imposed on Syria have been debated by academic and policy thinkers: Landis and Simon (2020) questioned the ‘pointless cruelty’ of US sanctions, stressing their failure in achieving their declared strategic objectives while ‘immiserating’ the Syrian people. Official Syrian data shows the economy more than halved in size between 2010 and 2022. The World Bank indicated an 83% contraction between 2010 and 2024. Syria was reclassified as a low-income country in 2018, with more than 90% of its near 25 million population living below the poverty line, as per UN agencies. Syria owes between $20 billion and $23 billion, whilst dwindling oil and tourism revenues slashed Syria's exports from $18.4 billion in 2010 to $1.8 billion in 2021. Key imports were paid for with illicit cash from sales of captagon, or from fuel smuggling. Conflict and drought reduced the number of farmers, damaged irrigation and cut access to seeds and fertilizers. In short, sanctions damaged the livelihood of Syrians, who still, to this day, do not fully understand why they were blamed for the actions of a ruling elite. 

Sudan has its own civil infighting, Myanmar, Libya, Yemen…the list of infighting and conflict is sadly long. And longer is the list of human rights violations, committed by allies and neighbours and households themselves. A young Syrian IT specialist would not understand why, for the past decade or so, was unable to tap into any funds. The Syrian farmer would not be able to phantom the logic behind such denial to access necessary resources. The Syrian doctor would not be able to forgive the death of her patient because sanctions prevented the repair of CT scanners owing to sanctions. 

Trump came in riding his white horse, freeing the Syrian national from the shackles of US sanctions. But just as arbitrary and unilateral this generous step is, as easily it is to be reversed at the personal whims and interests of a Trump-alike. The carrot and stick method did not work - but maybe the gentle pull of the bridle would.

Not joining the circus

“It’s not a complex thing to do. With the United States being in control of that piece of land — that fairly large piece of land — you’re going to have stability in the Middle East for the first time.” Donald Trump.

One can only imagine how a king would react to such ignorant words uttered before him, with the world watching. In addition to the feeling of embarrassment by association, the head of the Jordanian state must have been dumb-folded. Instead of sinking low, as a royal he chose the route of diplomacy and regal etiquette, and got media backlash for that. 

The February 2025 meeting between King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Donald Trump in the White House shed the light on the dangers of misinformed public perception, and expectations. Some hailed the monarch, and other criticized him for avoiding the use of stern, confrontational statements. The divide in reactions in the media is extremely clear and confirms the takeover of political binarism. One is either with or against, pro or contra, right or left. Such clarity of position is hailed in some circles, the same circles that praised the US President for speaking his mind and calling things as they are. The same circles that also cheer for revolutionary leaders and outspoken political figures who fear nothing and no one. 

Whilst there is indeed some longing for unapologetic justice and clear positions, politics does not function that way. The dark web of interests, power, alliances, dependence, agendas, weaknesses, and strengths render the gray, lukewarm world of slow diplomacy a necessity. 

The King of Jordan realised in his meeting that years of friendship with the US cannot, and must not, turn into animosity because of one deranged leader. The US is much more than Donald Trump and his policies, and if the latter is too near sighted to appreciate this friendship, then the former must remind him. And that is exactly what he did.

Jordan and the US enjoy long years of reciprocal benefits exchanged. Economic, diplomatic, and security ties link the two nations. Jordan needs the US, and the US - to a varying extent - also needs Jordan. Agreements were inked, missions were coordinated, and favors were exchanged for decades. This friendship cannot be forgone at the first mishap. King Abdullah could have used passionate statements of indignation, but he opted for patience and kind redirection of proposed plans. When asked whether Jordan would receive Palestinians displaced from Gaza, he clarified that he would do what is “best” for his country, and that Arabs would come up with a counter proposal. His answers were measured, poised, and inclusive of the opinion of other Arab states.

However, it should have ended there. There was no need for subsequent messages shared on social media and though Jordanian political figures. The position of Jordan is clear. The respect that the King has for Jordanians and Palestinians alike does not need affirmation and bold statements. The meeting could have ended as it did without the need for additional reassurances and confirmations. This route is followed by the likes of Trump, who constantly feel the urge to share, explain, and clear contradictions in their contradictory, non nonsensical statements.

Personally, I found a lot of merit and elegance in the King's exchanges with Trump. After all, when a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace turns into a circus. The Jordanian King did not, and will not, join the circus.