How’s Syria A Week After Historic Al-Sharaa-Trump Meeting? Everything And Nothing Has Changed

-Analysis-

DAMASCUS — If you had asked 10 political analysts 10 days ago whether a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Syria’s interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa was possible, at least nine would have said: impossible.

Yet on May 13, Trump surprised analysts — and the world — by meeting al-Sharaa in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in the presence of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (via video). The meeting was followed by the announcement of Trump’s decision to lift U.S. sanctions on Syria. Preceding this was a meeting between al-Sharaa and French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris.

This development has come at a critical time for Syria and the region — after more than a decade of isolation, sanctions, regional and international conflict over Syria. The meeting was not merely a diplomatic formality; it symbolized a major strategic shift in U.S. policy on Syria that could have long-term consequences.

It was likely the result of weeks of intense diplomatic movement led by key regional actors, especially Riyadh and Ankara, who brought Syria back onto the table as a shared political priority. In this light, lifting the sanctions was not a unilateral U.S. decision, but rather the outcome of both a regional and international consensus to reintegrate Syria into the regional order within a new geopolitical framework.

Trump certainly had his own calculations. He cares little about the Syrian people and, as usual, played a clever game that made him the center of global attention. For Syrians, the lifting of sanctions was a legitimate demand and the streets erupted in joy upon hearing the news — knowing that without lifting the sanctions, there would be no aid, electricity, reconstruction, or jobs.

In the U.S., reactions were split into three camps: Trump loyalists supported him unconditionally; others were cautiously optimistic that lifting the sanctions might alleviate Syrian suffering; and a third group was outraged, arguing that Trump had just shaken hands with a “terrorist” linked to the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

In an editorial published after the meeting, The Wall Street Journal — while acknowledging the need for realism — expressed concern over Trump’s shift away from liberal democratic values. Others in Congress and media warned that “betting on a former jihadist” could backfire unless accompanied by significant behavioral change from the new Syrian leadership.

Cold pragmatism

What happened wasn’t a minor policy tweak but a foundational shift in the doctrine that had guided U.S. Middle East policy since 2011. After years of pursuing isolation and maximum pressure, Trump’s approach flipped the script — abandoning state-building and democratization in favor of cold pragmatism.

The real surprise wasn’t just the lifting of sanctions, but who received the embrace: a man once designated a terrorist, wanted by the U.S. with a multimillion-dollar bounty, whose movement is still on terrorist watchlists. Now, the U.S. portrays him as a strong leader with real potential to stabilize Syria. This rhetorical pivot signals the near-end of the “war on terror” as a guiding American principle — replaced by unfiltered pragmatism.

This moment didn’t emerge from nowhere. It was the result of a broad diplomatic effort involving Saudi Arabia, Turkey and France. Lifting the sanctions crowned a period of coordination aimed at reincorporating Syria into the regional fold under new arrangements that serve shared interests.

Vacuum in Damascus

Despite the gravity of the event, the transitional Syrian government failed to properly manage its political messaging. No immediate official statements were issued to explain or chart a roadmap for utilizing the sanctions relief. The vacuum was filled with celebratory public rhetoric — at times triumphalist — evoking old authoritarian narratives of domination.

Al-Sharaa appeared days later in a lengthy speech thanking Arab and Western leaders who supported Syria. However, the speech leaned more toward emotional slogans than a sober political vision. It lacked concrete plans to address Syria’s serious institutional, security and economic challenges.

Rather than outlining how to use this moment to unify the country, al-Sharaa celebrated diplomatic relations and sanctions relief without presenting policies to build a post-factional national state.

His speech reinforced doubts internally and abroad. It lacked the tone and content of a statesman; instead, it resembled an old-style partisan rally. Key democratic concepts — citizenship, human rights, power rotation — were absent, while references to “neighbors” were repeated, hinting at regional debts. Trump was praised for his “historic and brave decision,” portrayed as the savior of the Syrian people and regional stability.

Lifting sanctions was indeed momentous — but the president should have used it to call for unity and responsibility. Instead, it felt like an Assad-style speech, casting sanctions relief as a partisan victory rather than a national turning point.

Deteriorating security

While the government focuses on external PR, it struggles to improve domestic conditions. Unemployment is rampant, personal revenge attacks are increasing and security is deteriorating — particularly in Alawite areas where people feel unsafe and marginalized.

The state is absent in addressing religious extremism that is spreading

De facto, the country remains divided. The government controls a narrow corridor from Aleppo to Damascus. The northeast is under Syrian Democratic Forces; Turkey-backed militias dominate parts of the north; the government has no real authority in Suwayda, Daraa, or parts of rural Damascus.

There is a resurgence of ISIS in the desert. The state is absent in addressing religious extremism that’s spreading in public life — streets, schools, institutions — despite official reassurances about preserving freedoms.

The case of Mira Jalal Thabet

This absence was symbolized by the case of Mira Thabet — an Alawite girl from rural Homs who vanished after being summoned to a teacher training center. Days later, she appeared on Syrian TV fully veiled, whispering that she “married for love.” Her subdued expression, her companion’s grip on her wrist, and her unfamiliar clothing raised suspicions of abduction and forced marriage. The government denied involvement; her father was arrested. The official story of “legal marriage” was used to shield the state from accountability.

Mira became a metaphor for Syria’s new regime and its collective cognitive dissonance. Was she kidnapped? In love? Married by force? The tragedy lay not in the answer but in the very nature of such questions. Where was the state? Why didn’t it intervene?

Will Syria seize the opportunity or squander it again?

Society, complicit in silence, prefers clinging to illusions of revolution and rebirth rather than confronting brutal realities.

The real question is no longer: What does lifting sanctions mean? But: How will it be used? Will Syria seize the opportunity or squander it again?

This is just the beginning of a path — which could lead to real stabilization or a new breakdown if old patterns persist. Responsibility lies first and foremost within Syria. The government must either form an inclusive transitional authority that restores national institutions, or continue recycling crises under a shakier disguise.

As Trump said: “Syria, show us something very special..”

Will we?