Event Recap
Johns Hopkins SAIS Europe hosted a panel on the legacy of sanctions in Syria, bringing together experts who have followed the conflict and its economic consequences for more than a decade. The conversation moved gradually from the early expectations surrounding sanctions to the complex realities that unfolded as the civil war deepened and the country became increasingly isolated. The panelists also reflected on what these experiences might mean for future sanctions design.
Karam Shaar began by describing how slowly the West reacted to the Assad regime's violent response to the 2011 protests. Many Syrians, he recalled, expected outside pressure to arrive earlier. Sanctions eventually came into effect, first from the EU and then the United States, with the hope of pushing Assad toward negotiations. Early measures focused heavily on Syria's oil exports, which at the time represented a major share of government revenue. Over the years, sanctions grew broader and, in many cases, became a substitute for military action. They kept the regime under pressure, but they also imposed heavy costs on civilians. Shaar explained how Assad responded through a mixture of patronage, coercion, and later by creating shell companies to bypass restrictions. As the conflict subsided and the economy continued to crumble, the regime's support network narrowed, revealing deep structural weaknesses inside the state.
Delaney Simon then turned to the United States and described a sanctions regime that became extraordinarily extensive. Measures dating back to 1979 were layered with new congressional acts, executive orders, and other restrictive measures. The result was almost complete economic isolation. She noted how difficult it became for Syrians to access basic goods, not only because of the war but also due to the restrictions that complicated everything from financial transfers to the import of humanitarian equipment. Years of advocacy eventually led to the introduction of humanitarian carve outs, which facilitated aid operations. Even so, she emphasized that practical obstacles remained and continued to affect Syrians in need.
Marco Prencipe offered the European perspective and discussed the political process behind EU decisions. Achieving consensus among member states was challenging. Italy, he said, was among the first countries to advocate for renewed engagement demonstrating its commitment by reopening its embassy in Damascus in 2024 ahead of others. The EU initially viewed sanctions as a means to promote regional stability, reduce the flow of foreign fighters, and signal support for international law. More than a decade later, the expected political changes have not occurred. During this period, Syria's foreign partnerships have gradually shifted, resulting in a greater dependence on a limited number of international partners.
Prencipe noted that the gradual easing of restrictions stems both from changing regional dynamics and from the recognition that complete isolation had reached its limits.
Joining the conversation online, Ivonne Duarte Peña explained the UN's more targeted approach. UN sanctions did not apply to the Syrian state directly but focused on entities linked to terrorism under the ISIL and al Qaeda framework. These listings were narrow, but they carried symbolic weight, especially for efforts involving mediation and political outreach. Duarte Peña also described the humanitarian carve out adopted in 2022, which offered relief to aid organizations. However, she underlined that broader economic engagement with Syria remains severely constrained and that many legal uncertainties continue to shape how governments and private actors navigate the landscape.
Across the panel, a common theme emerged. Sanctions were intended to pressure the Syrian government and uphold international norms, yet their practical effects became more complicated over time. They weakened state resources but also contributed to economic collapse, creating new hardships for civilians and limiting the space for recovery. The speakers agreed that future sanctions regimes must be more carefully designed and more responsive to changing realities, so that accountability and humanitarian considerations can be better balanced.
