Trump orders review of Syrian leader's terrorist designation
Trump signed the order on Monday, easing broad financial restrictions while maintaining targeted sanctions against Assad and his former government, which was deposed late last year by militants led by the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).
US sanctions against designated terrorist groups will also remain in place. However, Trump's order directs Secretary of State Marco Rubio to review HTS's designation as a 'Foreign Terrorist Organization,' as well as al-Sharaa's label as a 'Specially Designated Global Terrorist.' Washington will also revisit Syria's status as a 'State Sponsor of Terrorism,' a designation first imposed in 1979.
The decision follows Trump's May meeting with al-Sharaa in Riyadh, where discussions focused on Syria's reconstruction and potential normalization of relations with Israel. At the time, Trump pledged to give the new leadership in Damascus 'a chance at greatness.' To oversee Washington's growing ties with Damascus, he appointed Thomas Barrack, his ambassador to Turkey and longtime confidant, as US Special Envoy for Syria.
Speaking to reporters on Monday, Barrack acknowledged the 'controversy here, of somebody who had been al-Nusrah and had been considered a bad guy who all of a sudden becomes the leader' – drawing a historical parallel between Syria's political shift and the early years of American independence.
'If you remember, we had a revolutionary war that lasted 14 months. And we had brutality… And from 1776, when we declared independence, it was 12 years until we got a president. And who was the president? The president was a general… It was George Washington,' Barrack told reporters during a State Department briefing call.
So if you take Syria… you have a general who transitioned from wartime into a position of being the leader of a reframed new country that needs everything – and that's basically what's happening.
Rubio previously warned that Syria had become 'a playground for jihadist groups, including ISIS and others,' acknowledging that the new Syrian leadership 'didn't pass their background check with the FBI,' but insisted the US must support them to prevent wider regional instability.
'The US is taking further actions to support a Syria that is stable, unified, and at peace with itself and its neighbors,' Rubio wrote in a post on X on Monday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
MI6 infiltrated IAEA
A British intelligence operative allegedly infiltrated the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to help coordinate Western sanctions against Iran, The Grayzone wrote on Tuesday. The outlet cited leaked documents describing MI6 agent Nicholas Langman and his role within the UN watchdog. Langman's resume was reportedly found in a trove of leaked papers detailing the activities of Torchlight, a UK intelligence cutout. He was allegedly linked to covering up British intelligence's role in Princess Diana's death and has been accused by Greek authorities of managing the abduction and torture of Pakistani immigrants in Athens. His resume reportedly states that Langman also 'led large, inter-agency teams to identify and defeat the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons technology,' including through 'support for the [IAEA] and Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).' Langman is said to have played a major role in organizing the sanctions imposed on Iran by '[building] highly effective and mutually supportive relations across government and with senior US, European, Middle and Far Eastern colleagues for strategy' between 2010 and 2012. He also claims credit for enabling 'the major diplomatic success of [the] Iranian nuclear and sanctions agreement.' Langman's tenure at the UK Foreign Office's Counter-Proliferation Centre coincided with a surge in Western sanctions and covert operations against Iranian scientists. During that period, Israeli assassinations and sabotage intensified, while the US and EU imposed sweeping economic penalties. Iran has long accused the IAEA of colluding with its adversaries. Officials in Tehran have claimed the agency provided Israel with the identities of nuclear scientists and intelligence about key facilities, which were bombed last month by Israeli and US forces. On June 12, the IAEA accused Iran of violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Despite no evidence being presented that Tehran was pursuing a nuclear weapon, the following day Israel launched strikes targeting Iranian nuclear scientists and uranium enrichment facilities. Iran denied the accusations and retaliated. The US joined the Israeli operation on June 22. The 12-day war ended last week in a US brokered ceasefire which has so far been upheld. Tehran has since suspended cooperation with the IAEA, barred Director General Rafael Grossi from entering the country, and voted to end the routine monitoring of its nuclear sites. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei has accused Grossi of issuing a 'biased report' that was used by Israel to justify its 'unlawful' attack. Russia has also condemned the agency's role. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said IAEA data was used to plan the strikes, calling it 'a colossal blow' to the watchdog's credibility.
Russia Today
5 hours ago
- Russia Today
‘Next war with Israel will be final': High-ranking Iranian official to RT
An anonymous high-ranking Iranian source told RT on Monday that Tehran is prepared to make any future war with Israel its 'last,' warning that Iran retains advanced missiles capable of overwhelming Israeli defenses. The source, described as 'informed,' said Tehran had identified vulnerabilities in Israel's security during the most recent 12-day conflict, which ended with a US-brokered ceasefire. 'Iran will make the next war with Israel its last war,' the source claimed, adding that the Islamic Republic could launch hundreds of missiles daily in the event of another conflict. The source added that Tehran had 'found the [Israeli] regime's weak point.' According to the source, Iranian authorities have 'unprecedented social support' from the population at home, as well as Iranians living abroad, to use a 'historic opportunity to permanently neutralize the Israeli regime's threat.' They insisted that while the Islamic Republic's leadership is well aware that the US would likely come to Israel's rescue should it once again engage Iran militarily, Tehran 'will overcome this challenge.'The comments come after the latest round of hostilities between Iran and Israel earlier this month, when the Israeli military targeted Iranian nuclear and military sites, citing concerns that Tehran was nearing a nuclear weapons capability. The Israeli strikes reportedly killed several senior commanders and scientists, as well as hundreds of civilians, according to Iranian accounts. In response, Iran launched barrages of drones and missiles at Israeli targets and at the US Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. The United States then carried out strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities, including enrichment sites at Natanz and Fordow. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei later claimed that Iran's retaliatory strikes had 'practically crushed' Israel's military capacity, but warned that US intervention prevented a complete Iranian victory. The ceasefire, negotiated by Washington, has so far held. However, tensions remain high, with US President Donald Trump warning of renewed strikes if Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also suggested that further attacks on Iranian facilities are possible. Independent confirmation of Iranian missile stockpiles or damage assessments from the recent fighting remains limited. Analysts have cautioned that Iranian statements about overwhelming Israel's defenses may be exaggerated, although Tehran's missile arsenal is widely regarded as one of the largest in the region.
Russia Today
8 hours ago
- Russia Today
One step forward, two steps back: The illusion of a Russian-American thaw
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has announced that US President Donald Trump has lifted financial sanctions against Russia that had blocked Rosatom from continuing construction of the Paks Nuclear Power Plant 2 in Hungary. Although the Biden administration's sanctions late last year were formally directed at Moscow, Budapest arguably suffered the most, since the two new reactor units at Paks were viewed as vital for Hungary's long-term energy independence. (The first four units were built during the Soviet period.) A year ago, Hungary managed to have the Paks-2 project removed from the European Union's sanctions list, but at significant political cost. Nevertheless, the Democratic administration in Washington remained unyielding – which Budapest saw as a political vendetta for its outspoken support of Trump. Against this backdrop, the current US decision to ease sanctions on Gazprombank looks far more like a favor to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban than to Russian President Vladimir Putin. It also indirectly benefits French firms participating in the Paks-2 project. The move has rekindled a faint hope that Russian-American relations might see a thaw. Yet overall, there has been precious little positive news from Washington. The State Department recently postponed a scheduled meeting on removing 'irritants' from bilateral ties. Trump has shown no enthusiasm for Moscow's offer to mediate between Iran and Israel. And American officials continue to criticize Russia's 'hard' stance on a Ukrainian settlement. Could the Gazprombank decision signal a new phase of improvement in Russian-American relations? Might it foreshadow similar easing for other Russian financial institutions? Could there even be a revival of bilateral high-tech cooperation? One would like to answer these questions with optimism – but the evidence simply is not there. Moscow and Washington continue to have fundamentally different approaches to restoring normal relations, and that affects the entire nature of their dialogue. Russia's position could be described as systemic. In Moscow's view, great-power relations must be treated holistically, with progress across political, military, economic, diplomatic, and humanitarian areas all developing in parallel. The Kremlin believes that unless movement happens on all these fronts together, genuine normalization will remain out of reach, even if such an approach takes time and patience. For the 47th president of the United States, foreign policy appears more transactional: a series of short-term 'deals' with everyone from NATO members to Mexico, Canada, Iran, or China. Each partner gets its own checklist – Iran is asked to abandon nuclear ambitions, China to accept trade tariffs, NATO Europeans to raise defense spending. Trump is not a man to wait. He does not want to tout a big deal years down the line, or even by the next midterm elections. He wants results today, or at the latest tomorrow. In Russia's case, Washington is eyeing a single, momentous deal: an agreement to end the armed confrontation with Ukraine. Trump seems to have little concept of what a lasting political settlement would involve, let alone how a future European security system might look. His overriding priority is to secure a temporary ceasefire at all costs, so he can declare victory where his predecessor, Joe Biden, fell short. In Trump's eyes, this historic Ukraine deal would overshadow any long-term, painstaking effort to rebuild a proper Russian-American dialogue. Meanwhile, in other areas, Moscow is simply not ready to engage in the one-sided give-and-take Washington expects. This was underscored by America's European NATO partners, who nearly unanimously agreed to boost their defense spending to an unprecedented 5% of GDP by 2035. Likewise, Kiev has shown its willingness to meet US expectations by offering up its natural resources wholesale to American corporations. At the same time, it must be remembered that Trump is almost alone in his desire to reestablish a functional dialogue with Moscow. Most of his own administration views Russia with indifference or hostility, keeping it well down the priority list. Moreover, the deeply entrenched anti-Russian consensus that has dominated Washington for decades remains solidly in place. There is no powerful political or business lobby in the United States today pushing for a fresh 'reset' with Russia. Trump will continue to face pressure from the right. Even as the Gazprombank sanctions decision emerged, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told ABC News that Trump had already given the green light on Capitol Hill to launch a new package of anti-Russian measures – something Graham has been pushing for months. Whether the senator is speaking from fact or wishful thinking, it is far too soon for Moscow to relax. In short, the Russian-American relationship remains a rollercoaster. Occasional encouraging signals – like the easing of sanctions on a single bank – should not be misread as a sea change. One can hope for a broader normalization, but for now the outlook is uncertain. Moscow's systemic, steady approach still clashes with Washington's transactional, headline-driven instincts. Unless both sides find a way to bridge these philosophies, the hope of a truly stable Russian-American partnership will remain fragile at best. This article was first published by Izvestia newspaper, and was translated and edited by the RT team.
