After more than a decade of estrangement, U.S. President Donald Trump and Syrian Interim President Ahmad a-Sharaa are meeting face-to-face today in the White House. The visit is described as historic, yet it raises a fundamental question that continues to echo in political and media circles: What does America want from the Syrian transitional government, and what does the latter want from Washington?
Between an American desire to reshape the regional landscape according to new power balances and a Syrian ambition to break international isolation and lift crippling sanctions, a delicate negotiation scene is taking shape. This encounter is expected to determine the contours of the coming relationship between Damascus and Washington, and perhaps the future of the entire region.
Conditional Normalization
The U.S. administration enters this meeting carrying a long list of demands that reflect an approach based on “conditional normalization.”
According to sources close to the negotiation team, Washington believes the Syrian interim government must demonstrate tangible steps on issues it considers essential to its security and the interests of its allies.
The American demands center on five main points: dismantling chemical weapons stockpiles and formally joining the international coalition against terrorism; concluding a security understanding with Israel to end mutual airstrikes and establish demilitarized zones in southern Syria monitored by the U.S., without this amounting to full political normalization; guaranteeing minority rights and their participation in governance as a pathway to lasting political stability; reducing Iranian and Russian influence within Syrian territory and securing borders with neighboring states; and cooperating on the issue of missing Americans and the exchange of intelligence on extremist organizations.
Observers in Washington see these demands as an attempt to turn Damascus from a “security problem” into a “monitored partner” committed to the broad outlines of U.S. regional policy, in exchange for a gradual lifting of sanctions and partial restoration of Syria’s regional role.
Read also: Syria in the Global Coalition: Partnership Against Terror or Political Containment?
Lifting Sanctions First and Restoring International Legitimacy
On the other hand, President al-Sharaa enters the White House with a single goal: to end the economic and political isolation that has burdened his country since the outbreak of war.
According to sources close to his delegation, al-Sharaa believes that the key to any genuine stability begins with lifting sanctions, particularly the “Caesar Act,” which froze the Syrian economy and halted reconstruction projects.
A debate is underway in Congress regarding the full removal of sanctions. Republican Congressman Brian Mast, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, expressed reservations about complete repeal, while Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of Trump, called for linking it to a set of conditions, including ensuring the safety and rights of religious and ethnic minorities, maintaining peaceful relations with regional states including Israel, and removing foreign fighters from state and security institutions.
Full sanctions relief, it is believed, could encourage states friendly to Syria to contribute to its reconstruction. The World Bank has estimated the cost of this process at more than 200 billion dollars. Yet Gulf states, particularly Qatar, remain hesitant due to ongoing sanctions.
Damascus’s main demands can be summarized as follows: full and immediate lifting of U.S. sanctions to open the path toward economic recovery and international investment; recognition of the interim leadership as the legitimate authority representing Syria in the new international order; financial support and aid for reconstruction estimated at more than 200 billion dollars; flexible security cooperation with Israel and the United States that guarantees Syrian sovereignty and halts airstrikes; and reaffirmation of national independence, rejecting any arrangements that undermine state sovereignty or place Syria under external guardianship.
From the perspective of the interim Syrian authorities, the American opening should not be a “political test” but rather an opportunity for an economic and sovereign partnership that restores the country to the international map and ends years of prolonged isolation.
Between Stability and Sovereignty
American and Syrian demands converge around a single slogan, “stability.” Yet the path to it is full of trade-offs.
The United States conditions the lifting of sanctions on political and security reforms, while Damascus insists that lifting sanctions is the first step enabling those reforms.
Washington views security cooperation with Israel as the gateway to gradual normalization, while Damascus maintains that any security understanding must be limited to ending airstrikes and safeguarding sovereignty, without full normalization.
Press reports indicate that “today’s meeting represents a dual test for both sides: a test of America’s ability to craft a non-military settlement in the Middle East, and a test of the Syrian transitional authorities’ ability to prove themselves a responsible and trustworthy partner.”
The encounter between Trump and al-Sharaa goes beyond protocol. It opens the door to deeper questions: Will Washington lift its sanctions on Damascus without clear political concessions? And can the Syrian transitional government meet U.S. conditions without losing its sovereignty or domestic legitimacy? What America wants is clear: to secure its own safety and that of its allies through monitored normalization with Damascus. What Damascus seeks is equally clear: lifting sanctions and regaining international recognition as the gateway back to the world.
