Exclusive-Syrian letter delivers response to US conditions for sanctions relief
By Timour Azhari and Maya Gebeily
BEIRUT (Reuters) - Syria has responded in writing to a list of U.S. conditions for possible partial sanctions relief, saying it had acted on most of them but others required "mutual understandings" with Washington, according to a copy of the letter seen by Reuters.
The United States last month handed Syria a list of eight conditions it wants Damascus to fulfill, including destroying any remaining chemical weapons stockpiles and ensuring foreigners are not given senior governing roles.
Syria is in desperate need of sanctions relief to kickstart an economy collapsed by 14 years of war, during which the United States, Britain and Europe imposed tough sanctions in a bid to put pressure on former president Bashar al-Assad.
In January, the U.S. issued a six-month exemption for some sanctions to encourage aid, but this has had limited effect.
In exchange for fulfilling all the U.S. demands, Washington would extend that suspension for two years and possibly issue another exemption, sources told Reuters in March.
Reuters was first to report that senior U.S. official Natasha Franceschi handed the list of conditions to Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shibani at an in-person meeting on the sidelines of a Syria donor conference in Brussels on March 18.
Shibani, in his first address to the United Nations Security Council on Friday, sought to show that Syria was already addressing the demands, including on chemical weapons and the search for missing Americans in Syria.
His public comments were consistent with the contents of Syria's private letter to the U.S., an undated copy of which was seen by Reuters. Its contents have not been previously reported.
Two Western officials and a Syrian official briefed on the letter said it was consistent with the copy seen by Reuters.
In the four-page document, Syria pledges to set up a liaison office at the foreign ministry to find missing U.S. journalist Austin Tice and details its work to tackle chemical weapons stockpiles, including closer ties with a global arms watchdog.
But it had less to say on other key demands, including removing foreign fighters and granting the U.S. permission for counterterrorism strikes, according to the letter.
A State Department spokesperson confirmed Washington had received a response from Syrian authorities to a U.S. request for them to take "specific, detailed confidence building measures'.
'We are now evaluating the response and do not have anything to share at this time,' the spokesperson said, adding that the U.S. 'does not recognize any entity as the government of Syria and that any future normalization of relations will be determined by the interim authorities' actions. "
Syria's foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
FOREIGN FIGHTERS
The letter said Syrian officials had discussed foreign fighters with former U.S. envoy Daniel Rubinstein but that the issue "requires a broader consultative session."
"What can be confirmed for now is that the issuance of military ranks has been suspended following the earlier announcement regarding the promotion of six individuals," the letter says, an apparent reference to the appointment in December of foreign fighters including Uyghurs, a Jordanian and a Turk to positions in the country's armed force.
It did not say whether those appointed ranks had been removed from the foreign fighters and did not list future steps to be taken.
A source briefed on the Syrian government's approach to the issue said Damascus would delay addressing it as much as possible given its view that non-Syrian rebels who helped oust Assad should be treated well.
On a U.S. request for coordination on counterterrorism matters and the ability to carry out strikes on terror targets, the letter said the "matter requires mutual understandings."
It pledged that Syria's new government would not tolerate any threats to U.S. or Western interests in Syria and vowed to put in place "appropriate legal measures," without elaborating.
Syria's interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa had said in an interview earlier this year that U.S. troops deployed in Syria were there without government approval, adding any such presence should be agreed with the state.
A Syrian official briefed on the letter said Syrian officials were brainstorming other ways to weaken extremists without explicitly giving the U.S. permission to carry out strikes, seeing that as a controversial move after years of foreign air forces bombing Syria during its war.
VOWS NOT TO THREATEN ISRAEL
A senior diplomat and another person briefed on the letter told Reuters that they deemed it addressed five demands in full, but that the remaining were left "outstanding".
They said the letter was sent on April 14 - just 10 days before Shibani arrived in New York to address the Security Council. It was unclear whether the United States had sent a reply to Syria's letter.
A Syrian official and a U.S. source briefed on the letter both said Shibani was set to discuss its contents with U.S. officials during his trip to New York.
Syria's letter said it hoped the actions taken, which it described as "guarantees," could lead to a meeting to discuss each point in detail, including reopening embassies and lifting sanctions.
On Palestinian militants in Syria, it said Sharaa had formed a committee "to monitor the activities of Palestinian factions," and that armed factions outside state control will not be permitted. It was sent just days before Syria detained two Palestinian officials from the Islamic Jihad militant group.
"While discussions on this matter can continue, the overarching position is that we will not allow Syria to become a source of threat to any party, including Israel," it said.
The letter also acknowledged "ongoing communication" between Syria's counterterrorism authorities and U.S. representatives in Amman over combating Islamic State, and said Syria was inclined to expand that collaboration. The direct talks between Syria and the U.S. in Amman have not previously been reported.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Greene: ‘Let's pray that we are not attacked by terrorists'
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) called for prayers after President Trump announced strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites late Saturday, adding that she hopes the U.S. is not 'attacked by terrorists.' 'Let us join together and pray for the safety of our U.S. troops and Americans in the Middle East,' she wrote on social media platform X after Trump's announcement. 'Let us pray that we are not attacked by terrorists on our homeland after our border was open for the past 4 years and over 2 Million gotaways came in,' she added. 'Let us pray for peace.' Her statement comes after the U.S. targeted three nuclear sites in Natanz, Esfahan and Fordow, located inside a mountain in Iran. Six 'bunker buster' bombs were reportedly dropped on Fordow, while more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles were launched at the other two sites. Greene has been a notable critic of U.S. involvement in the conflict between Iran and Israel, saying that she backed Trump because he would not involve the nation in foreign conflicts. 'Everyone is finding out who are real America First/MAGA and who were fake and just said it (because) it was popular,' Greene wrote in a 355-word post on the social platform X last week. 'Unfortunately the list of fakes are becoming quite long and exposed themselves quickly.' Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) quickly shot down Greene's criticism, instead saying that she 'doesn't understand' the nuclear threat that Iran poses. 'If you don't understand that Iran, a religious theocracy, religious Nazis would use a nuclear weapon to kill all the Jews, you don't listen to what they say,' Graham said. 'They're a threat to us. They're a threat to the State of Israel. It is not in the world's interest to give this religious fanatic a nuclear weapon.' Greene isn't alone in her stance, as the issue is generating a significant split in MAGA-world. Still, many Republicans praised the strikes on Iran, which had become a hot-button debate in Washington, especially among the GOP. They came after Israel struck Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this month in what it called a 'pre-emptive' attack.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Investors brace for oil price spike, rush to havens after US bombs Iran nuclear sites
The U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear sites is expected to cause market reactions, potentially increasing oil prices and strengthening the U.S. dollar. Increased oil prices could lead to higher inflation and reduced consumer confidence, potentially impacting interest rate cuts. Market uncertainty remains high due to limited information regarding the extent of damage and future developments in the conflict. NEW YORK - A U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday could lead to a knee-jerk reaction in global markets when they reopen, sending oil prices higher and triggering a rush to safety, investors said, as they assessed how the latest escalation of tensions would ripple through the global economy. The attack, which was announced by President Donald Trump on social media site Truth Social, deepens U.S. involvement in the Middle East conflict. That was the question going into the weekend, when investors were mulling a host of different market scenarios. In the immediate aftermath of the announcement, they expected the U.S. involvement was likely to cause a selloff in equities and a possible bid for the dollar and other safe-haven assets when trading begins, but also said much uncertainty about the course of the conflict remained. While Trump called the attack "successful", few details were known. He was expected to address the nation later on Saturday. "I think the markets are going to be initially alarmed, and I think oil will open higher," said Mark Spindel, chief investment officer at Potomac River Capital. "We don't have any damage assessment and that will take some time. Even though he has described this as 'done', we're engaged. What comes next?" Spindel said. "I think the uncertainty is going to blanket the markets, as now Americans everywhere are going to be exposed. It's going to raise uncertainty and volatility, particularly in oil," he added. Spindel, however, said there was time to digest the news before markets open and said he was making arrangements to talk to other market participants. How will oil prices and inflation be affected? A key concern for markets would center around the potential impact of the developments in the Middle East on oil prices and thus on inflation. A rise in inflation could dampen consumer confidence and lessen the chance of near-term interest rate cuts. "This adds a complicated new layer of risk that we'll have to consider and pay attention to," said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer of Cresset Capital. "This is definitely going to have an impact on energy prices and potentially on inflation as well." While global benchmark Brent crude futures have risen as much as 18% since June 10, hitting a near five-month high of $79.04 on Thursday, the S&P 500 has been little changed, following an initial drop when Israel launched its attacks on Iran on June 13. Before the U.S. attack on Saturday, analysts at Oxford Economics modeled three scenarios, including a de-escalation of the conflict, a complete shutdown in Iranian oil production and a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, "each with increasingly large impacts on global oil prices." In the most severe case, global oil prices jump to around $130 per barrel, driving U.S. inflation near 6% by the end of this year, Oxford said in the note. "Although the price shock inevitably dampens consumer spending because of the hit to real incomes, the scale of the rise in inflation and concerns about the potential for second-round inflation effects likely ruin any chance of rate cuts in the U.S. this year," Oxford said in the note, which was published before the U.S. strikes. In comments after the announcement on Saturday, Jamie Cox, managing partner at Harris Financial Group, agreed oil prices would likely spike on the initial news. But Cox said he expected prices to likely level in a few days as the attacks could lead Iran to seek a peace deal with Israel and the United States. "With this demonstration of force and total annihilation of its nuclear capabilities, they've lost all of their leverage and will likely hit the escape button to a peace deal," Cox said. Economists warn that a dramatic rise in oil prices could damage a global economy already strained by Trump's tariffs. Still, any pullback in equities might be fleeting, history suggests. During past prominent instances of Middle East tensions coming to a boil, including the 2003 Iraq invasion and the 2019 attacks on Saudi oil facilities, stocks initially languished but soon recovered to trade higher in the months ahead. On average, the S&P 500 slipped 0.3% in the three weeks following the start of conflict, but was 2.3% higher on average two months following the conflict, according to data from Wedbush Securities and CapIQ Pro. What will this mean for the US dollar? An escalation in the conflict could have mixed implications for the U.S. dollar, which has tumbled this year amid worries over diminished U.S. exceptionalism. In the event of U.S. direct engagement in the Iran-Israel war, the dollar could initially benefit from a safety bid, analysts said. "Do we see a flight to safety? That would signal yields going lower and the dollar getting stronger," said Steve Sosnick, chief market strategist at IBKR in Greenwich, Connecticut. "It's hard to imagine stocks not reacting negatively and the question is how much. It will depend on Iranian reaction and whether oil prices spike."
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
Right Move, Wrong Team
The rulers of Iran bet their regime on the 'Trump always chickens out' trade. They refused diplomacy. They got war. They chose their fate. They deserve everything that has happened to them. Only the world's most committed America-haters will muster sympathy for the self-destructive decision-making of a brutal regime. Striking Iran at this time and under these circumstances was the right decision by an administration and president that usually make the wrong one. An American president who does not believe in democracy at home has delivered an overwhelming blow in defense of a threatened democracy overseas. If a single night's action successfully terminates Trump's Iran war, and permanently ends the Iran nuclear bomb program, then Trump will have retroactively earned the birthday parade he gave himself on June 14. If not, this unilateral war under a president with dictatorial ambitions may lead the United States to some dark and repressive places. Trump did the right thing, but he did that right thing in the wrongest possible way: without Congress, without competent leadership in place to defend the United States against terrorism, and while waging a culture war at home against half the nation. Trump has not put U.S. boots on the ground to fight Iran, but he has put U.S. troops on the ground for an uninvited military occupation of California. Iran started this war. In August 2002, courageous Iranian dissidents revealed to the world an Iranian nuclear enrichment plant in Natanz. Suddenly, all those chanted slogans about destroying Israel moved from the realm of noise and slogans to the realm of intent and plan. Over the next 23 years, Iran invested an enormous amount of wealth and know-how in advancing its project to annihilate the state of Israel. Iran deterred Israel from attacking the nuclear project by deploying missiles and supporting terror groups. After the October 7 terror attacks on Israel, Iran gradually lost its deterrence. Israel defeated Hamas and Hezbollah militarily, and the Iranian-allied regime in Syria collapsed. But Iran did not change its strategy. It was Iran that initiated the direct nation-to-nation air war with Israel. After Israel struck an Iranian compound in Syria in April 2024, Iran fired 300 ballistic missiles into Israel, a warning of what to expect once Iran completed its nuclear program. If the war launched by the rulers of Iran has brought only defeat and humiliation to their country, that does not make those rulers victims of anybody else's aggression. A failed aggressor is still the aggressor. Now Americans face the consequences of Trump's intervention to thwart Iran's aggression. Some of those consequences may be welcome. The attack on Iran is the very first time that President Trump has ever done anything Vladimir Putin did not want him to do. That's one of the reasons I personally doubted he would act strongly against Iran. Maybe Trump can now make a habit of defying Putin—and at last provide the help and support that Ukraine's embattled democracy needs to win its war of self-defense against Russian aggression. The strike on Iran was opposed by the reactionary faction within the Trump administration—and in MAGA media—that backs America's enemies against America's allies. It's very wrong to call this faction 'anti-war.' They want a war against Mexico. They have pushed the United States on the first steps to that war by flying drones over Mexican territory without Mexican permission. This faction is defined not by what it rejects, but by what it admires (Putin's Russia above all) and by who it blames for America's troubles (those it euphemistically condemns as 'globalists'). That reactionary faction lost this round of decision-making. Perhaps now they will lose more rounds. But if some of the domestic consequences of this strike are welcome, others are very dangerous. Presidents have some unilateral war-making power. President Obama did not ask Congress to authorize his air campaign in Libya in 2011. The exact limits of that power are blurry, defined by politics, not law. But Trump's strike on Iran has pushed that line further than it has been pushed since the end of the Vietnam War—and the pushing will become even more radical if Iranian retaliation provokes more U.S. strikes after the first wave. Trump has abused the president's power to impose emergency tariffs, and created a permanent system of revenue-collection without Congress. He asserts that he can ignore rights of due process in immigration cases. He has defied judicial orders to repatriate persons wrongfully sent to a foreign prison paid for by U.S. taxpayer funds. He is ignoring ethics and conflicts of interest laws to enrich himself and his family on a post-Soviet scale—much of that money flowing from undisclosed foreign sources. He has intimidated and punished news organizations for coverage he did not like by abusing regulatory powers over their corporate parents. He has deployed military units to police California over the objections of the elected authorities in that state. This is a president who wants and wields arbitrary power the way no U.S. president has ever done in peacetime. And now it's wartime. Americans have a right and proper instinct to rally around their presidents in time of war. But in the past, that rallying has been met by the equal instincts of presidents to rise above party and faction when the whole nation must be defended. Trump's decision to brief Republican leaders of Congress before the Iran strike, but not their Democratic counterparts, was not merely a petty discourtesy—it confirmed his divisive and authoritarian methods of leadership and warned of worse to come. It is not confidence-inspiring that Pete Hegseth leads the Pentagon. Or that Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, and Kristi Noem are in charge of protecting Americans from Iranian retaliatory terrorism. Or that Tulsi Gabbard is coordinating national intelligence. Or that enemy-of-Ukraine J.D. Vance is poised to inherit all. Trump exercises national power, but he cannot and will not act as a national leader. He sees himself—and has always acted as—the leader of one part of a nation against the rest: the wartime leader of Red America in its culture war against Blue America, as my former Atlantic colleague Ron Brownstein has written. Now this president of half of America has commanded all of America into a global military conflict. With luck, that conflict will be decisive and brief. Let's hope so.
