Wherever you look in Syria, the landscape tells a story of utter devastation. Buildings, homes, streets, and hospitals lie in ruins, their skeletal remains barely standing, teetering on the edge of collapse as the partial relief of sanctions stalls reconstruction. As night falls, darkness is everywhere. Only the dim of old vehicles light the roads.
Electricity is a luxury in Syria. By daylight, hundreds of thousands of displaced families return to the rubble of what was once their homes, to find a way to rebuild from scratch.
The Latest: UNDP Report (February 2025)
The figures in the latest report from the United Nations Development Programme are not as revealing as the stark reality, which paints an even more catastrophic picture of the economy.
According to preliminary UN estimates, the war has led to the destruction of around one-third of housing, resulting 5.7 million people in need of shelter. In addition, more than 10 million are without access to clean water due to the damage of plants and sewer systems.
This means that millions of families are wandering aimlessly, without a roof over their heads or a place to call home and are increasingly susceptible to disease.
According to the UNDP, restoring the $800 billion lost because of the war to pre-conflict levels would take 55 years. To complete this herculean task within 15 years, an annual growth rate of 5% is required, while catching up to a no-conflict scenario would necessitate a growth rate of 13.9%.
Structural Issues on Recovery: Absence of Post-War Economic System
The problem is that there is no fully functioning economic system to compensate this loss and mount these trajectories to recovery, even over the predicted 55 years.
Despite the ongoing political transition, in Syria, the economy remains entrenched in a “war economy”.
The legitimate aspects, sustained primarily by micro projects, rely entirely on individual efforts and financial transactions from the diaspora.
Even the agricultural sector, a longstanding pillar of the Syrian economy, is struggling to operate after years of hardship that began in 2007. Back then, Assad’s government eliminated state subsidies for the farming industry, which was exarcebated by severe droughts.
This fragile economic structure cannot transition from a war economy to one of economic stability unless capital is allowed to flow into the country. The lack of accessible credit, limited capital circulation, and the absence of external financial capital by neighbouring states is deeply troubling.
Despite this very bleak reality, it is important to recognise that Syria is neither historically nor naturally poor. The country’s current state stems from the Assad regime’s exploitation of national resources to fuel its aggression against its own people.
Yet, Syria still holds significant assets—rich natural resources such as phosphates and oil, a strategic location on the Mediterranean, and a historically productive workforce. These resources remain largely untapped and offer potential for wise investment.
A significant part of the current catastrophe could be addressed by entirely lifting sanctions, rather than the partial measures and step by step approach currently pursued by the US and EU, which risk escalating the challenges even further.
Syria Sanctions Post-War: Counter-Productive
Together, the international community believes that sanctions can be an effective tool to encourage the new leadership in Syria to pursue an inclusive political transition.
In reality, however, this could not be further from the truth.
The lesson from Afghanistan remains fresh, where ongoing sanctions triggered food insecurity and deepened the Taliban’s political and economic isolation. Both outcomes proved counterproductive for its people.
In Syria’s case, decades of international sanctions placed the country among the most heavily sanctioned countries globally.
Sanctions have not protected innocent people from bearing the brunt of economic strangulation, and they have failed to bring about any change in Assad’s brutal repressive behaviour, not even by a centimetre.
Currently, the original rationale for such sanctions has largely dissipated with Assad’s fall, and there is no rationale for them to remain in place. In fact, sanctions have and continue to be counterproductive.
Failed Strategy: Partial Sanctions Relief is Flawed Thinking
Although the United States issued a partial six-month waiver in early 2025 and the European Union is gradually easing certain sanctions, these temporary measures are far from sufficient to pave the way toward stability.
Partial relief fails to provide the necessary guarantees to attract investments, which are the essential factor for restoration of basic services, such as electricity.
No company can commit to investing without a realistic feasible economic study. Such a study would support the establishment of essential operations, such as opening bank accounts, securing SWIFT access, and setting up logistics which exceeds six months.
A one-time, short-term waiver offers no certainty, making meaningful economic engagement nearly impossible.
Of course, investors would rather wait-and-see for evidence indicating that the international community is serious in pushing Syria to deliver on set political goals.
Seismic Geopolitical Shifts
The United States did not prioritise any comprehensive policy on Syria in the same way it has focused on ending the war in Ukraine or planning for the aftermath of the conflict in Gaza.
Meanwhile, the European Union has called for a thorough evaluation of the situation in Syria as a precondition for lifting sanctions.
Russia is actively seeking to exploit the delay, positioning itself to fill the void and strengthen its influence in Syria.
Time is of the essence. Prolonged hesitation by the west in fully lifting sanctions or their continued use of sanctions as bargaining chip for political gains not only undermines Syria’s recovery but also risks reigniting internal tensions.
Such instability could provide opportunities for external actors, such as Iran and China, to exploit the situation and deepen their influence there.
Encouraging Diaspora Buy-In and Investment
The international community must avoid placing the entire responsibility on Syrians to create a flawless environment for lifting sanctions. Certainly, this is putting the cart before the horse.
Instead, a transparent, practical, and realistic strategy that goes beyond vague demands is essential. A focus on words of “inclusivity” or “woman rights”, in the immediate term, does not address the urgent need for stability and economic reform.
Coalition of Support: Foreign and Regional Support
The full relief of sanctions must be accompanied by both foreign and regional support.
Sanctions relief should not be limited to financial aid. Instead, sanctions relief must include technical assistance to maximise the growth potential of industrial and agricultural sectors.
Lifting sanctions would also allow the Syrian government to establish a national fund from the Syrian diaspora totalling over five million people.
If just two million people of this diaspora were to contribute a modest sum of $20 per month, this would generate approximately $40 million monthly. Such contributions could cover salaries and provide for basic needs, offering vital support for our homeland’s recovery.
Lifting sanctions on Syria must be the starting point.
It is a bare minimum to establish a clear economic vision whilst giving Syrians the opportunity to begin the 55 years journey of healing, after 55 years of rule under the Assad family.
Keep up with Daily Euro Times for more updates!
Read also:
Assad in Exile: A Test for International Justice
France Lauds Assad’s Downfall, Calls for Orderly Transition
From Terrorists to Rebels: Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham
