The Sanctions Era Is Quietly Ending. The West Isn’t Ready | Opinion

On May 22, the Trump administration imposed decisive sanctions against Sudan’s military leaders, accusing them of using chemical weapons on the Sudanese Rapid Support Forces (RSF). It was certainly a morally and ethically justified action to take. However, the timing reveals a troubling paradox: while the U.S. swiftly punishes Sudan, Syria, another regime guilty of repeatedly using chemical weapons, is being quietly readmitted into the global community, effectively free from lasting consequences.

The message sent by this inconsistency isn’t subtle. Sanctions are no longer seen as permanent tools of diplomacy or meaningful deterrents. They’ve become temporary inconveniences, political bargaining chips that regimes can simply outlast. And this is something that can’t be allowed to take root.

Throughout the past decade, Bashar al-Assad’s regime has employed chemical weapons, sarin and chlorine gas, in civilian areas, including well-documented attacks in Aleppo. Global outrage led to intense sanctions and diplomatic isolation. Initially, these measures worked, crippling the Syrian economy and limiting Assad’s influence. But Assad held out, betting on geopolitical fatigue.

Just over two years ago, Syria quietly rejoined the Arab League. And now on May 13, after the change in leadership in Syria to Interim President Ahmed Al-Shara, President Donald Trump, appearing in Riyadh, explicitly announced the U.S. was done with sanctions. No qualifications, no explanations. Just over. And the immediate result? An $800 million investment by the UAE’s DP World to redevelop Syria’s Port of Tartous, announced on May 16.

Syria’s return isn’t an isolated diplomatic shift; it’s a precedent. If a regime can commit atrocities, wait patiently, and return unscathed, sanctions become meaningless. Authoritarian regimes, North Korea, Iran, and most notably in recent years, Russia, are watching this closely. And they’re drawing the obvious conclusion: wait long enough, and the West’s resolve fades.

Russia, currently under massive sanctions due to its war in Ukraine, is already testing this theory. After a disastrous initial economic shock in early 2022, the Kremlin adapted swiftly. Supported by a sophisticated network of partners and allies, Moscow gradually was able to sidestep sanctions.

On May 19, Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin held an hours-long phone call. Just hours after the call ended, Trump publicly suggested sanctions relief might be possible if Russia agreed to a ceasefire. The European Union, along with the United Kingdom, quickly scrambled to reaffirm its position, rapidly issuing new sanctions targeting Russia’s shadow oil fleets.

Yet markets reacted calmly. The ruble recovered slightly. Asset prices slowly moved upwards. Investors grasped what politicians wouldn’t say aloud: sanctions relief was becoming a realistic scenario, no longer unthinkable. This dynamic of this realization is dangerous. Sanctions only work when adversaries believe the punishment will remain in place. Once that belief evaporates, so does the level of deterrence that they carry.

This issue isn’t limited to Russia or Syria. It’s systemic. China, perhaps the most relevant player in a future context, has closely monitored Western responses to conflicts in Ukraine, Syria, and now Sudan’s chemical weapons sanctions. China understands how and why sanctions are curated, and how quickly they also can erode. If the U.S. is sanctioning Sudan for actions that are similar to what happened in Syria, and yet actively advocating for Syria’s resurgence, then new sanctions being imposed carry little credibility.

This is not abstract speculation, either. It’s unfolding in real-time. Sanctions, originally considered a serious diplomatic tool, are increasingly used like political bandages, quickly slapped on, soon ignored, and easily peeled off … but not truly addressing the pain point. Such inconsistency doesn’t just confuse and irritate allies, it actively emboldens adversarial nations.

If sanctions are ever to regain their credibility, they must come with genuine long-term intent. Temporary outrage followed by quiet acceptance sends precisely the wrong signal: that international norms are flexible, atrocities forgivable, and accountability negotiable.

The real danger goes far beyond reputation. Imagine China deciding to invade Taiwan, calculating that sanctions will only be symbolic, short-lived, or broadly ineffective. The West would then face a test of resolve it’s clearly unprepared for. If adversaries no longer fear economic isolation, one of the most critical diplomatic tools has been lost.

The sanctions announced against Sudan may have been justified, even morally necessary. But without consistent enforcement, they become meaningless. Syria’s return, Russia’s quiet negotiations, and market repositioning all point toward one conclusion: sanctions as we know them are losing their power.

The world’s most dangerous players have learned that the West can be outwaited. And unless something changes soon, sanctions will no longer deter, they’ll merely signal that atrocities carry a brief penalty, but no lasting consequences.

Brett Erickson is a governance strategist and certified global sanctions specialist (CGSS). He serves on the advisory board of the Loyola University Chicago School of Law’s Center for Compliance Studies.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.