The question is no longer whether the designation has been lifted, but whether its removal will translate into banks willing to deal with Syria, easier financial transfers, foreign investment, and financing for reconstruction

[DAMASCUS] The United States announced on Aug. 24 that it was rescinding Syria’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, ending a status that had been in place since 1979 and removing an additional layer of legal restrictions that had shaped the country’s relationship with the international financial and commercial system for decades.   

The move opened a new chapter for the Syrian economy—but it does not mean that money and investment will flow into the country overnight.  

This decision is part of a broader US effort to ease restrictions on Syria following the fall of the former government. The United States also delisted Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, the group led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa before he took office, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist organization in the same announcement. Washington ended its comprehensive Syria sanctions program in 2025, and the Caesar Act was repealed in December of the same year.

The significance of the latest decision, therefore, does not lie in lifting all remaining sanctions on Syria at once, but in removing a legal and political designation that had affected foreign assistance, certain export controls, financial transactions, and the US position on financing for Syria through international financial institutions.  

For Syrians and investors, however, the more important question is no longer whether the designation has been lifted, but whether its removal will translate into banks willing to deal with Syria, easier financial transfers, foreign investment, and financing for reconstruction.  

Syria was placed on the US list of State Sponsors of Terrorism on Dec. 29, 1979, and was among the countries originally designated when the list was established.  

Over the following decades, Washington linked Syria’s continued presence on the list to the Syrian government’s support for groups the United States designated as terrorist organizations, the presence of leaders and members of Palestinian organizations in Damascus, and, later, Syria’s relations with and support for Hezbollah and Iran.  

The designation carried a range of legal restrictions, including bans on US arms exports and sales, controls on certain dual-use goods, restrictions on US foreign assistance, and financial constraints, as well as US opposition to certain forms of financing for Syria through international financial institutions.  

The US sanctions architecture targeting Damascus gradually expanded far beyond the State Sponsor of Terrorism designation.  

In 2004, additional restrictions took effect under the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, targeting exports and dealings with Damascus over Syrian policies in Lebanon and its support for groups designated by Washington as terrorist organizations.  

After protests against Bashar Assad’s government erupted in 2011, Washington imposed successive rounds of sanctions targeting Syrian officials and entities over the repression of protesters and human rights abuses.  

Pressure intensified again when the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act took effect in 2020. The law authorized sanctions against Syrian and foreign parties providing material support to the Assad government and, alongside earlier measures, contributed to Syria’s increasing isolation from the international financial and investment system.  

Syria’s removal from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list in 2026 therefore closes the oldest layer of a US restrictions framework dating back to 1979, while forming part of a broader process of dismantling restrictions accumulated over decades.  

Saudi-Syrian businessman Nabil al-Mazloum told The Media Line that the decision changes how investors view the Syrian market, even if it does not make investing in the country risk-free.  

Removing Syria from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list does not mean the market became safe overnight, but it fundamentally changes the way we look at it

“For us as businesspeople, removing Syria from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list does not mean the market became safe overnight, but it fundamentally changes the way we look at it,” al-Mazloum said.  

He said the obstacle in recent years had not simply been a lack of investment opportunities, but also difficulties with transferring money, dealing with banks, obtaining financing, and ensuring that a transaction would not become a legal risk due to sanctions.  

“When a barrier of this magnitude is removed, an investor can move from asking, ‘Can I even enter Syria in the first place?’ to asking a completely different question: ‘Where should I invest, with whom, and what return can I achieve?’” he said.  

Syria needs substantial amounts of capital to rebuild sectors severely damaged during years of war, from electricity, energy, transportation, and infrastructure to industry, housing, services, and banking.  

Al-Mazloum said the scale of the country’s needs creates significant investment opportunities but stressed that US political decisions alone will not be enough to attract capital.  

“Capital does not move on emotion or political decisions alone. Investors want to see banks capable of processing transfers, stable laws, enforceable contracts, guarantees protecting property rights, and the ability to repatriate profits,” he said.  

Investors who enter the Syrian market early may encounter greater opportunities, al-Mazloum added, but will also assume greater risks than those who wait until the market’s rules become clearer.  

The banking sector may prove to be one of the clearest indicators of whether the shift in US policy moves from the political sphere into the real economy. Even when certain transactions were legally permitted during earlier periods, years of sanctions and restrictions led many international financial institutions to avoid dealings with Syria due to legal risks and compliance costs.  

Anas Bitar, a businessman working in real estate development and money transfers in Damascus, told The Media Line that removing the designation carries economic and banking significance that goes beyond its political implications.  

He said Syria’s presence on the list had increased the perceived risks associated with virtually any financial dealings involving the country, prompting banks and international institutions to stay away from the Syrian market.  

Bitar said removing the designation could gradually ease that caution, open the way for the restoration of banking relationships, facilitate transfers and trade financing, and signal to foreign investors that dealing with Syria no longer carries the same level of legal and political risk.  

The effects, however, will not be immediate, he said. “International banks move very cautiously and need time to reassess risks, update their compliance policies, and verify which entities and individuals remain subject to sanctions.”   

One of the most important potential developments would be the restoration of correspondent banking relationships between Syrian banks and foreign financial institutions. Such relationships are essential for international transfers, trade financing, and the normal processing of cross-border payments.  

“The real indicator of whether this step succeeds will be seeing foreign banks restore correspondent relationships with Syrian banks, dollar and euro transfers taking place normally, and international companies able to finance their investments and repatriate their profits,” Bitar said. “Only then can we say that removing the designation has moved from a political decision to a tangible economic impact.”  

The real indicator of whether this step succeeds will be seeing foreign banks restore correspondent relationships with Syrian banks

Despite the significance of the decision, Syria’s removal from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list does not mean that all US sanctions connected to the country have ended.  

The United States continues to retain authorities allowing targeted sanctions against Assad and his associates, human rights abusers, those involved in the Captagon trade, and certain actors linked to destabilizing activities, terrorism, or proliferation.  

Syrian legal expert Fadi al-Hawari told The Media Line that distinguishing between removing the designation of the state itself and lifting all sanctions is essential to understanding the decision’s actual consequences.  

“From a legal perspective, removing Syria from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list does not mean that all US sanctions and restrictions related to Syria automatically disappear, because the designation represents a specific legal framework, while other measures and sanctions are based on different laws and executive orders and may target specific individuals or entities,” al-Hawari said.  

In his view, Syria’s removal from the list eliminates “an important legal layer of restrictions that surrounded its foreign relations for decades” and provides governments, institutions, and companies with a clearer legal basis for reassessing their dealings with the country.  

Reducing legal risks could open the door to greater participation by foreign companies in Syria’s reconstruction, but it does not resolve domestic problems that could continue to deter investors from entering the market.  

Foreign banks and companies will also need to continue screening the parties with which they do business to avoid transactions involving individuals or entities that remain under US sanctions.  

Al-Hawari said this will continue to influence decisions by international institutions because companies and banks consider not only whether a transaction is currently permitted but also the risk of future sanctions or legal exposure.  

The decision also carries a political benefit beyond its economic implications. Syria’s removal from a list it had been on since 1979 eliminates one of the most prominent symbols of the country’s decades-long isolation and opens the way for rebuilding its relations with the United States and international institutions on a different footing.  

Al-Hawari said the durability of the opening will depend on the Syrian state’s conduct and international commitments, as well as the ability of Damascus and Washington to build a political and legal framework that gives investors and international institutions confidence that the new course “is not temporary and subject to rapid reversal.”  

For Syria, then, the greatest value of the decision may not be an immediate influx of capital, but rather the removal of one of the barriers that for years kept the country outside the normal calculations of banks, companies, and investors.  

The real test will come later: when a foreign company attempts to transfer millions of dollars into a project in Syria, when a Syrian bank seeks to restore a correspondent banking relationship in New York or Europe, or when an international investor decides whether the opportunity presented by a market requiring extensive reconstruction is worth the risk.  

Only then will it become clear whether Syria’s removal from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list merely closed a legal and political chapter—or whether it helped open a new economic one.