This is the fifth in a series of city-level analyses by SIMA Partners examining Syria’s reconstruction through the lens of investment opportunity. Previous issues covered Aleppo (the industrial thesis), Damascus (the institutional thesis), Homs (the corridor thesis), and Hama (the sustainability thesis). Idlib is the decentralised governance thesis.

Each issue follows the same framework: what the city was, what happened to it, what has changed since December 2024, the arithmetic, where capital can go, and what can go wrong. The format is designed for investors, economic researchers, and policy professionals who need a single reference they can act on.

This analysis is written from Damascus, where SIMA Partners has been based since mid-2025. The author’s family is from Maarat al-Numan, in the heart of Idlib Governorate.

What Idlib Was

Idlib was given the mildest possible label, Idlib al-Khadra, Green Idlib, named for its olive trees, as if a governorate that contains 700 preserved ancient settlements, the birthplace of one of the Arab world’s greatest philosophers, and families who helped draft the Syrian constitution and shape the institutions of Syrian independence in the 1940s and 1950s were nothing more than a grove. The label served a specific purpose, since a governorate reduced to its olive trees does not require investment, institutions, universities, or political attention, and can therefore be neglected without explanation.

Before it became a byword for siege and displacement, Idlib Governorate was a sophisticated agricultural economy of uncommon depth. Its landscape was a limestone plateau broken by olive groves whose trees have the circumference of small rooms, terraced orchards running south from the Turkish border toward the plain of the Ghab, and durum wheat fields that produced the highest-grade grain in the country, feeding populations far beyond its own borders, and doing so without interruption for several thousand years.

The plateau between Aleppo and Idlib contains what UNESCO inscribed in 2011 as the Ancient Villages of Northern Syria, approximately 700 abandoned settlements from the first to seventh centuries AD, preserved in extraordinary condition because the stone does not decay and because the villages were abandoned gradually rather than destroyed. They are known as the Dead Cities, but the name misleads, since they are intact towns of stone houses with carved lintels, bathhouses, olive presses, and colonnaded streets, each element legible after fifteen centuries. Ebla, within Idlib Governorate, was one of the most powerful city-states of the third millennium BC, and its palace archives rewrote the known history of the ancient Near East. Measured by documented layers of human civilisation per square kilometre, Idlib has no equivalent in Syria.

The city of Idlib was a market town, smaller than Aleppo and less celebrated than Hama, functioning as the commercial node for the surrounding agricultural plain. Maarat al-Numan, sixty kilometres to the south, was the birthplace of Abu al-Ala al-Maari, born there in 973 AD and blind from the age of four. He was a rationalist philosopher who argued that reason was the only trustworthy guide to knowledge, a skeptic of all authority, political and clerical alike, and his Risalat al-Ghufran, written around 1033 AD, predates Dante’s Divine Comedy by nearly three centuries. His work was suppressed by the authorities of his era and again by the Ba’ath state, which preferred citizens who deferred to power rather than philosophers who questioned it.

Idlib Governorate, and Maarat al-Numan in particular, was home to one of Syria’s most sophisticated and cultivated classes: the landowners, merchants, lawyers, and physicians who had engaged with the Arab world’s intellectual and political currents for generations, and who formed the governing class of Syrian independence. The Hiraki family is the most documented example. Hikmat al-Hiraki, born in Maarat al-Numan in 1886, was elected to Syria’s first parliament in 1919, served in the constitutional drafting process of the short-lived Arab Kingdom of Syria in 1920, served continuously in parliament through the 1940s, became Syria’s first Minister of Supply in 1941, and financed the anti-French uprising in Hama and Maarat al-Numan from his own wealth in 1945. His house was a gathering place for the country’s politicians and poets. The Ba’ath coup of March 1963 dismantled the formal political power of that class almost immediately, but what it could not dissolve was the social capital, the civic habits, and the professional formation those families carried into diaspora, which Syria’s reconstruction now requires back.

Idlib was not punished for any single act but for its disposition, a governorate of independent farmers and market traders with no economic dependency on Ba’ath patronage. The Assad family’s abandonment of the place traces to a specific moment recounted across Idlib’s oral history: when Hafez Assad visited the city, a crowd pelted him with tomatoes and a shoe, after which he never returned. The gesture expressed something more fundamental than rudeness. The governorate had never accepted the transaction the Ba’ath offered, deference in exchange for patronage, because it had never needed the patronage. His response was strategic neglect across every dimension that mattered: no adequately funded public university, no major industrial investment, no infrastructure beyond the agricultural minimum, no institutional development that might give the governorate the capacity to challenge the centre. The educated class was forced to seek advancement elsewhere. What the regime could not extract or suppress was the disposition itself, a population of unusual self-reliance formed over decades of deliberate marginalisation, which became, when the moment came, the foundation of something the regime never anticipated.

What Was Lost and What Was Built

The 2011 uprising reached Idlib early and with unusual intensity. The Syrian Network for Human Rights documented Idlib as the most heavily bombed governorate in Syria across the conflict period, with the Russian air campaign from 2015 onward reducing entire towns in the southern countryside to rubble. The UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria documented attacks on hospitals, schools, and markets that it assessed as deliberate, constituting potential war crimes under international humanitarian law. On 4 April 2017, the Syrian Air Force dropped sarin over Khan Shaykhun, a farming town in the Maarat al-Numan district. The OPCW Fact-Finding Mission confirmed the use of sarin, the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism attributed responsibility to the Syrian Arab Republic, and the Idlib Health Directorate documented at least 89 civilians killed and more than 541 injured, the deadliest chemical attack since Ghouta in 2013.

Dr. Mohammed Feras al-Jundi, a physician from Maarat al-Numan, was among the first doctors on call, and his testimony from inside the hospital was reported by CNN, where he described hundreds of patients lying across every available surface, entire families killed together by asphyxiation, and a memory he said would stay with him for the rest of his life. In the years that followed, he kept his hospital open when every other physician had left, treating anyone who came through the door, and welcoming the displaced from Aleppo, Homs, and Ghouta alongside his own community. He maintained his practice through barrel bomb campaigns and airstrikes that destroyed two of the hospitals he worked in, each time moving to whatever structure remained standing and continuing, and he survived two assassination attempts, once by bullets and once by rockets. When the 2019 to 2020 offensive emptied Maarat al-Numan, he was among the last civilians still there, returning after December 2024 to reopen his hospital and being elected to parliament to represent Maarat al-Numan and Idlib. The arc runs from Khan Shaykhun through hospital always open through last physician in Maarat to elected representative, and that is the Idlib story compressed into one life.

Maarat al-Numan was subjected to a sustained campaign of barrel bombs, missiles, and airstrikes between 2019 and 2020 that Human Rights Watch documented as deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure. A single Russian strike on the city’s market on 22 July 2019 killed 43 civilians and wounded 109. After eleven days of constant bombardment, the city was emptied and then stripped. Furniture, appliances, doors, window frames, and copper wiring were pulled from every house, and rooftops were systematically bombed after residents fled, not to destroy combatants but to ensure no one could return. By the time the March 2020 ceasefire froze the frontlines, a city of nearly 100,000 had become a shell.

Every major offensive elsewhere in Syria, in Aleppo, Homs, Eastern Ghouta, and Deraa, produced displaced populations that moved northwest, and Idlib absorbed them all. By 2023 the governorate held an estimated four million people, the largest concentration of internally displaced persons anywhere in the world at that time, in a territory built for 1.5 million. It did so without the political backlash, the anti-refugee sentiment, or the institutional resistance that characterised the response of far wealthier countries to far smaller numbers, while European governments debated border controls in response to Syrian refugee arrivals numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Idlib absorbed four million without, as The Syria Campaign documented, a single public voice raised against their arrival, and a society that can triple its population under bombardment without social fracture has a kind of institutional resilience that no external aid programme produces.

The destruction was immense, but what matters more is what was constructed inside it, under sustained aerial bombardment by the Syrian and Russian air forces and ground pressure from Iranian-backed militias. The Syrian Salvation Government, established by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in November 2017 as a civilian administration to govern northwest Syria, ran courts, collected taxes, operated municipal services, administered schools and hospitals, and built governance institutions without a state behind it across seven years of active conflict. It delivered functioning municipalities in bombed cities, maintained social order across a displaced population of four million, built educational institutions from primary schools to universities, and achieved levels of gender participation in public life that compared favourably with several recognised Arab states. That record of institutional construction, produced under those conditions, has no parallel in the modern Arab world.

By 2023, over 70 percent of areas under the Salvation Government’s administration were connected to the electrical grid, supplied through a commercial partnership with the Turkish private company Green Energy, which delivered 636 GWh to northwest Syria that year. Damascus was delivering two hours of electricity daily, Baghdad was rotating diesel generators on neighbourhood subscriptions, and Beirut had long since normalised darkness as a structural feature of urban life. Idlib had continuous electricity, produced through a commercially negotiated arrangement that an institution without sovereign recognition built and operated for a population under active aerial attack.

The Syrian American Medical Society opened an oncology centre in Idlib in November 2018, the only one of its kind in the region. By 2020, SAMS operated 40 medical facilities including 12 hospitals, treating 500 to 600 cancer patients monthly, while the Syrian Board of Medical Specialisation built a credentialling system that no Syrian ministry had managed to establish in decades, and Dana and Sarmada developed commercial economies comparable to functioning Turkish provincial towns, built by private operators working within a governance framework that set the rules.

The liberation offensive launched from Idlib on 27 November 2024 reached Aleppo in three days, Hama in nine, and Damascus in eighteen. The Salvation Government’s prime minister became, briefly, the first prime minister of transitional Syria, and the governorate the regime had labelled Green Idlib, reduced to its olive trees, had produced the institutions, the personnel, and the offensive that ended Ba’ath rule.

What Has Changed

While Damascus recorded $14 billion in investment commitments at a single ceremony on 6 August 2025, and while Hassia Industrial City in Homs attracted investment applications, Idlib has attracted no equivalent headline commitment. No sovereign wealth fund has anchored a Syria strategy here. No Gulf developer has claimed the Bab al-Hawa logistics corridor. No major industrial group has announced a Maarat al-Numan rehabilitation programme. The terms for every sector that matters in Idlib are still being written, without competition, and in a post-conflict economy, the first actor to structure a credible investment shapes the terms for everyone who follows. That window is open in Idlib in a way it has already begun to close in Damascus and Aleppo, and the vacancy reflects not weak opportunity but a discovery process that has not yet started, since the institutional assumption in regional capital markets is still that Damascus is where Syria reconstruction begins and ends.

The Arithmetic

The World Bank estimates Syria’s reconstruction at $216 billion, against a national power generation that has declined by more than 80 percent from pre-war levels. That is the national anchor against which Idlib’s numbers, distinctive enough to merit separate accounting, must be measured.

The governorate sits at the heart of a national olive sector with more than 100 million trees across roughly 670,000 hectares, and Idlib alone is estimated to produce more than 100,000 tonnes of olives annually, the single largest concentration of the crop in the country. The International Olive Council recorded Syrian olive oil production at 80,000 tonnes for the 2024/25 crop year against a pre-war peak above 200,000 tonnes, and the 2023/24 season fell to 95,000 tonnes from 125,000 the prior year, a production gap reflecting processing capacity loss and drought stress rather than agricultural collapse. The trees survived; the cold-press lines, the certification infrastructure, and the bonded export logistics did not.

The energy picture inverts the national pattern. While Damascus delivered two hours of electricity daily through 2024, the Salvation Government’s territory was 70 percent grid-connected by 2023, supplied through a commercial partnership with Green Energy of Turkey, a working baseline no other Syrian governorate can claim, achieved without sovereign recognition or sovereign credit.

The third number is institutional capacity. Idlib retained, through more than a decade of conflict, a Health Directorate, a credentialled medical workforce, an established educational network from primary to university level, and a commercial economy operating under cross-border pressure with Turkey, all of which now sit available to private investment for the first time. That stock of institutional capacity is a constraint on urban services and a market in itself: trained physicians, engineers, technicians, and administrators concentrated in a single governorate at a density no other Syrian region can match.

The fourth number is logistics throughput. The Bab al-Hawa crossing was the highest-volume sustained land border in Syria across the conflict period, operating without sovereign customs infrastructure but at industrial scale, and processing the majority of commercial goods and humanitarian aid entering northwest Syria. Pre-war national figures across all five active borders combined sat at roughly 1,200 daily commercial crossings, and Bab al-Hawa alone, under conditions of active conflict, was approaching a substantial fraction of that pre-war national total.

Where Capital Goes

The six sectors below are sequenced by time horizon: what generates revenue in 12 to 18 months, what in 2 to 3 years, what in 3 to 5 years, and what in 5 or more. The sectors are partially interdependent, in the sense that logistics formalisation accelerates olive oil exports, water rehabilitation unlocks agro-processing, and healthcare infrastructure attracts the diaspora professionals whose presence accelerates everything else.

Olive oil, immediate: Idlib’s tree count is the largest concentration in Syria outside the northern Aleppo countryside, the trees are producing now, and the constraint is commercial rather than agricultural: cold-pressing capacity, traceable supply chain, EU organic and PDO-equivalent certification, and brand positioning into specialty channels. Italian and Spanish extra-virgin olive oil at IOC-certified provenance trades at €5–8 per litre wholesale into EU specialty retail, against €2.20–2.80 for North African commodity oil at Bari and Jaen reference prices. Tunisia, the closest direct comparator, captured roughly a third of EU specialty market growth between 2018 and 2024 by certifying volume rather than improving agronomy. A 5,000-tonne facility taking 4 percent of current Idlib production at a €3-per-litre premium over commodity benchmark generates €15 million in incremental revenue against $12–15 million of capital for cold-press lines, certification, traceability software, and bonded export logistics. At a 35 percent EBITDA margin on the premium spread, payback sits at 28 to 36 months in a market where no Syrian competitor currently holds EU organic certification at scale. The Bab al-Hawa crossing provides direct access to Gaziantep’s food processing infrastructure, and from there to European import channels actively looking for provenance-certified Mediterranean oils to fill volume that drought has cut from Spanish and Greek production. Entry structure: private direct investment, JV with established Syrian olive cooperatives, or BOT under Presidential Decree 114/2025 where land concessions are involved.

Logistics, near term: The Bab al-Hawa throughput is functional and commercially proven, supply chains connecting Idlib to Gaziantep, Hatay, and the broader Turkish market are operating now, and the investment case is formalisation: bonded warehouses, customs pre-clearance facilities, cold storage at 5,000 to 8,000 pallet positions, and digital freight management connecting the existing informal network to international buyers. A purpose-built logistics park at $20–30 million captures a fee structure on flows already moving through the corridor. At conservative throughput of 200,000 tonnes of mixed cargo annually, a quarter of current Bab al-Hawa volume, handling, storage, and value-added service revenues at $25–35 per tonne yield $5–7 million in annual gross revenue, with payback inside five years before adding bonded warehousing fees and the upstream olive oil and agricultural processing volumes that will move through any formalised corridor. No equivalent facility exists north of Aleppo. Entry structure: BOT concession under Presidential Decree 114/2025, with Syrian customs and the General Establishment for Free Zones as counterparties.

Healthcare, near term: Idlib has the most advanced sub-national health system in Syria, built by SAMS, the Health Directorate, and the Syrian Board of Medical Specialisation over seven years of conflict. That is a platform. A credentialled medical workforce, an established referral network, and a regional demand base that extends into the cross-border medical tourism market through Gaziantep and Hatay constitute the demand side of a private healthcare market that the new regulatory environment will, for the first time, allow to operate with proper licensing and repatriation rights. Private hospitals, diagnostic centres, and specialist clinics in Idlib city and Maarat al-Numan can serve both the local catchment and the Turkish patients already routing through Gaziantep and Hatay for procedures unavailable in northwest Syria. Capital requirement is $5–20 million per facility depending on specialisation, and the public infrastructure built by SAMS and the Health Directorate de-risks the private investment by providing the referral base, the trained workforce, and the regulatory precedent that a greenfield private healthcare market in any other Syrian governorate would have to build from scratch. Entry structure: PPP/BOT through the Ministry of Health and Syrian Investment Authority.

Agricultural processing, medium term: The southern Idlib countryside holds productive irrigated land whose constraint is water infrastructure repair rather than soil quality. FAO has launched a $286.7 million Emergency and Recovery Plan of Action for Syria covering 2025–2027, targeting 9.7 million people, with explicit components for irrigation rehabilitation, seed system restoration, and rural production recovery, public investment in water infrastructure that precedes and structurally de-risks private processing investment. A private agro-processing facility at Maarat or Saraqeb captures the output of both the Idlib plain and the northern Hama countryside at the intersection of the M5 highway, giving road access to Aleppo in the north and Damascus in the south. The facility is viable once the FAO water investment is complete, making it a 3–5 year horizon rather than an immediate one, but with the public de-risking mechanism already committed. Capital requirement is $15–35 million depending on product mix. Entry structure: BOT or JV, with the General Organisation for Land Development as the regulatory counterparty.

Education and training, medium term: Idlib built universities under siege, and the population that demanded education during bombardment will demand it during peace and will pay for quality. A private technical training institute linked to the logistics, agro-processing, and healthcare sectors fills a gap that no public institution in Idlib currently addresses at the vocational level, and a university partnership with a Turkish institution, building on the precedent set by the Health Directorate’s partnership with Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University, extends that model into engineering, business, and agricultural sciences. Capital requirement is $3–10 million depending on the model. An education investment in Idlib is also the mechanism through which the diaspora professionals who built the city’s institutions can transfer their expertise at scale into the next generation. Entry structure: private foundation model or PPP through the Ministry of Higher Education.

Heritage tourism, long term: The Dead Cities UNESCO World Heritage Site, 40 villages grouped in eight archaeological parks across a 12,290-hectare property, is the most significant unvisited archaeological landscape in the Middle East now accessible without regime-era restrictions. The Maarat al-Numan mosaic museum, the largest collection of Roman and Byzantine floor mosaics in the world, is being assessed for restoration, and Syria’s Ministry of Culture announced on 3 December 2025 the recovery of 1,234 archaeological tablets and 198 artifacts to the Idlib Museum, preserved by local residents through the conflict and including pieces from the ancient kingdoms of Ebla and Mari. A boutique lodge on the Jabal al-Zawiya, an interpretation centre at Serjilla, and a heritage hotel in Maarat constitute a heritage circuit at $10–25 million with no equivalent in Syria. The time horizon is long because heritage tourism depends on security normalisation, infrastructure, and international visibility that will take years to develop, but the asset is extraordinary, and the first mover sets the standard for a circuit that will eventually draw visitors from across Europe and the Arab world. Entry structure: private concession in coordination with UNESCO and the Syrian Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums.

What Can Go Wrong

The HTS designation: Hayat Tahrir al-Sham remains designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation by the United States and as a terrorist entity by the United Kingdom and the European Union as of the date of this analysis. A US person investing in a project where a designated entity holds any economic interest faces potential material support liability under US counterterrorism law regardless of commercial merits. Until the FTO designation is lifted or a formal OFAC carve-out established, Western capital entering Idlib carries legal risk that capital entering Damascus or Aleppo does not, while Gulf and Turkish capital faces no equivalent constraint, which means the first wave of Idlib investment is likely to be structured through those channels and the Western capital window opens later than it does for the rest of Syria.

Turkish dependency: Turkey’s economic presence in Idlib provides stability and introduces structural risk. The electricity supply, the cross-border trade, the cold chain, and a substantial portion of the consumer goods market all run through Turkish infrastructure under arrangements made when no Syrian sovereign was contesting them. As the new Syrian state asserts monetary and regulatory sovereignty, the terms of Idlib’s Turkish economic integration will require renegotiation, with tariff harmonisation, customs jurisdiction, and currency settlement all needing to be reset. An investor entering northern Idlib without a clear view of how those relationships evolve is entering without the full picture, and a Turkish counterparty whose terms have not been reconfirmed under the new sovereign framework is a counterparty whose contracts may not survive the transition intact.

The transition from wartime to peacetime governance: The Salvation Government’s competencies, managing displacement and delivering services under siege, differ from those peacetime economic governance requires: property rights registration, commercial courts, investment licensing, and budget allocation within a national treasury framework. The personnel who ran the wartime system are not automatically equipped to run the peacetime one, and the institutional architecture that worked under bombardment may not scale to a national framework. Integrating Idlib into a national system while preserving the fiscal autonomy that made local governance functional is the institutional challenge Idlib now faces.

Heritage preservation pressure: The Dead Cities have been on UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in Danger since 2013. Quarrying, agricultural encroachment, and informal construction are slower threats than bombardment but more certain in their cumulative effect, and the displaced population pressure on the Idlib plain has accelerated all three. Any heritage investment must be structured in explicit coordination with UNESCO and the Syrian Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums, with a management plan that addresses encroachment before it forecloses the asset’s tourism value. The sites are not at risk of single-event destruction but of gradual degradation, until the international visibility that justifies the investment thesis no longer applies.

The Parallel

Spain’s transition from Franco offers the most instructive precedent for what Idlib and Damascus now face together. After Franco’s death in November 1975, Adolfo Suárez’s government faced a question structurally identical to Syria’s: how to absorb the functioning elements of a regional and institutional inheritance into a new constitutional order without dismantling what worked. Catalonia’s industrial economy, the Basque Country’s financial sector, and the technical civil service that had operated under Francoism were all functioning systems that the new democracy could either dissolve into a uniform central administration, on the French Jacobin model that Spain’s reformers explicitly studied and rejected, or integrate into a national framework that preserved their distinctiveness while reasserting central sovereignty. The 1977 Moncloa Pacts and the 1978 Constitution chose the second path, creating an estado de las autonomías that gave regions genuine fiscal authority and legislative competence rather than the administrative autonomy that central capitals usually concede.

The economic outcome vindicated the sequencing. Spanish GDP per capita rose from roughly half the Western European average in 1975 to near parity by the mid-1990s, and the regions that retained the most autonomy, Catalonia, the Basque Country, Galicia, became Spain’s most economically dynamic rather than its most secessionist. The lesson is not that imperfect institutions should be preserved indefinitely; it is that absorbing a functioning regional economy into a national framework, on terms that preserve what made it functional, produces growth, while dissolving it into central uniformity produces neither growth nor loyalty.

The distinction is sequencing and pace. Idlib is not Catalonia, and the Salvation Government is not the Generalitat. But the new government’s stated commitment to absorbing rather than dismantling the institutions that ran northwest Syria, combined with the appointment of Salvation Government personnel into national ministries rather than their replacement by Damascus appointees, suggests Syria’s reconstruction may follow the Spanish path of preserved regional distinctiveness on terms that preserve what made northwest Syria functional during a decade of conflict. Capital entering Idlib in the next eighteen months bets on that trajectory holding.

The Thesis

Aleppo is the argument that Syria’s industrial economy can be rebuilt through its legacy manufacturing base. Damascus is the argument that reconstruction follows institutional formation. Homs is the argument that geography determines investment returns regardless of destruction levels. Hama is the argument that geographical constraint is the design specification for a circular economy.

Idlib is the argument that decentralised governance, private sector leadership, and diaspora-international cooperation are not emergency arrangements that a post-conflict state phases out as it normalises, but the architecture that produces results, and the people who built that architecture now run the state.

What was constructed in Idlib between 2013 and 2024, under sustained aerial bombardment by the Syrian and Russian air forces and ground pressure from Iranian-backed militias, was a governorate-level operating system: courts, taxation, electricity, education, healthcare, and municipal services delivered without sovereign recognition, without international banking access, and without the institutional inheritance that comes from controlling an existing state. Three specific factors produced these outcomes, each of which the Ba’ath state had deliberately suppressed and each of which Syria’s reconstruction now requires at national scale. When the state stepped back, the private sector solved problems commercially that no Syrian government institution had ever solved, including energy supply, logistics networks, and commercial services at a price and quality the market would sustain. International NGO-diaspora partnerships transferred knowledge and built permanent systems rather than delivering temporary relief, with SAMS establishing cancer treatment infrastructure where none had existed, the Syrian Board of Medical Specialisation building professional credentialling, and universities training the physicians, engineers, and civil servants a functioning society requires. Decentralised governance gave local institutions the authority to make decisions at the speed their situations demanded, what economists call subsidiarity, the principle that decisions should be made at the lowest level capable of making them well, which Idlib practised for a decade under active war, with the outcomes visible in the electricity coverage data, the health statistics, and the institutional record. What Idlib built between 2013 and 2024 is the most successful sub-national governance experiment in the Levant in the past two decades.

The people who designed and ran that experiment now lead the Syrian state, and they are sending the right signals. Ahmed al-Sharaa’s government has committed publicly to private sector-led reconstruction, to decentralisation of administrative authority, and to international partnerships for knowledge and capacity transfer, commitments that align precisely with what made Idlib work. Commitment and architecture are different things. The Salvation Government model was built to govern a governorate, while governing Syria requires fiscal policy, monetary sovereignty, and national infrastructure coordination at a scale the Salvation Government was never asked to develop. The question is whether the new state designs its national systems on the Idlib model, decentralised, private sector-led, diaspora-integrated, with real fiscal authority at the governorate level, or whether the weight of inheriting the centralised Ba’ath bureaucratic architecture pulls it toward the system it replaced. That architecture is still largely in place: the ministries, the regulatory frameworks, the budget allocation systems, the civil service. The people at the top have changed. The machinery has not.

Syria should institutionalise the pillars that made Idlib function. That means giving governorates genuine fiscal authority rather than administrative autonomy over budgets that Damascus controls. It means creating legal frameworks that allow diaspora professionals to serve formally in Syrian institutions without requiring permanent relocation. It means treating international NGO-diaspora partnerships as a permanent fixture of the state, the primary mechanism through which Syria integrates global clinical, technical, and governance standards into its own institutions. And it means building a regulatory environment that lets private actors lead in sectors where the state has historically failed: setting the rules, ensuring competition, and stepping back from decisions private operators are better placed to make.

What remains in Idlib is the institutional infrastructure that the new state inherited, the political muscle that produced the transition, and a population that has earned a fair share of reconstruction funding and project allocation, which is not charity but the minimum a country owes the governorate that made its reconstruction possible.

The people who ran Idlib built universities in a governorate the regime had kept without one, delivered electricity that three regional capitals could not, established cancer treatment where none had existed, and launched the offensive that ended fifty-four years of Ba’ath rule, all while absorbing Syrian and Russian aerial bombardment continuously for nearly a decade. Dr. Mohammed Feras al-Jundi, who treated the wounded at Khan Shaykhun in 2017, survived two assassination attempts, was the last physician serving Maarat al-Numan before the city was emptied, and is now its elected representative in parliament, has an arc that is not exceptional but the median arc of the people who built what Idlib became: physicians, engineers, teachers, judges, municipal administrators, and farmers who held a system together under conditions that would have collapsed most states, and who now hold formal authority in the one Syria is becoming. A regime that called this place Green Idlib and treated its olive trees as its only story produced instead the institutions and the people that ended it. Whether Syria’s reconstruction is built on what they made, or whether the old machinery they inherited bends them back toward what they replaced, is the question this country must now answer. The answer will not be found in Damascus, but in whether the institutional weight of the new state flows to Idlib and Maarat al-Numan with the seriousness those places earned.

This is the fourth in a series of city-level analyses by SIMA Partners examining Syria’s reconstruction through the lens of investable opportunity. Previous issues covered Aleppo (the industrial thesis), Damascus (the institutional thesis), and Homs (the corridor thesis). Hama is the sustainability and circular economy thesis.

Each issue follows the same framework: what the city was, what happened to it, what has changed since December 2024, where capital can go, and what can go wrong. The format is designed for investors, economic researchers, and policy professionals who need a single reference they can act on.

This analysis is written from Damascus, where SIMA Partners has been based since mid-2025.

What Hama Was

There is a specific sound associated with Hama, a groaning, rhythmic drone that comes from wooden axles the thickness of tree trunks turning under the weight of water. Seventeen norias, wooden water wheels that held the world height record for nearly five hundred years, have turned on the Orontes River at Hama for at least a thousand years, Roman and Byzantine in origin, refined by successive Islamic dynasties. The mechanism requires nothing beyond the river itself: the current catches the paddles, turns the wheel, and clay pots mounted on the rim scoop water from below and empty it into aqueducts above, all without fuel, capital, or government intervention of any kind. The al-Muhammadiyya noria, built in 1361, is twenty-one metres in diameter and fed a thirty-two-arch aqueduct that carried water a full kilometre to Hama's Great Mosque, it still turns today.

The carpenters who maintain the norias pass the skill from father to son. Every fifteen years, the wood wears through and is replaced in full. The wheel is never the same wheel twice, but it is always the same wheel. This is the operating logic of Hama: the knowledge stays, the supply persists, and every power that arrives eventually learns to use the infrastructure already there.

We do not think Hama planned to become Syria’s sustainability capital, we think it always was one, and nobody noticed. The city that engineered self-sufficient, renewable, distributed infrastructure eight hundred years before the concept existed is not an unlikely candidate for Syria’s circular economy model; it is the only logical one. The norias are not a metaphor for what Hama can become, they are the proof that it already knows how.

Hama Governorate was Syria’s cotton country; the Ghab Plain, the fertile valley fed by the Orontes between the coastal mountains and the interior, produced wheat, sugar beet, cotton, and pistachio at a scale that made the governorate one of Syria’s primary food basins. Cotton ginning, textile weaving, and sugar processing formed the city’s industrial identity. The governorate held 1.6 million people, roughly eight percent of Syria’s pre-war population, with agriculture accounting for 48 percent of employment. Before 2011, Syria produced an average of four million tonnes of wheat annually and was self-sufficient in cereals, Hama and the Ghab Plain were central to that figure.

Hama’s pre-war governing class left a specific mark, the Azem family produced Khaled al-Azm, five-time prime minister of Syria in the 1940s and 1950s, a man of whom contemporaries noted the Syrian lira would stabilise and foreign investment would flow whenever he took office. The Barazis produced Muhsin al-Barazi, who co-founded the League of National Action and served as premier. These were not landlords, they were the institutionally sophisticated, globally connected governing class of an independent Syria. The Ba’ath coup of March 1963 ended their role, but what it could not remove was the city’s habit of producing people of that quality, and eighty years later the diaspora that inherited that habit is in the process of doing something that has not been done for any city in the region: commissioning and funding, entirely from their own resources, a comprehensive masterplan for Hama’s reconstruction that is already in serious discussion with the Syrian government.

It was not a commercial capital in the way Aleppo was, nor a political one in the way Damascus was. Hama was something more functional and less celebrated: the agricultural engine of the western interior, the city that kept Syria fed while Aleppo kept it employed and Damascus kept it governed, its logic running in a clean unbroken sequence from fertile land to river irrigation to factory processing to highway distribution, all four operating in concert within its own governorate boundaries.

The countryside, al-reef, is a story as significant as the city itself and one that reconstruction capital has so far almost entirely overlooked. Hama Governorate is one of the most ethnically and religiously diverse in Syria: Sunni majority across the city and the Ghab Plain, Christian towns such as Mhardeh and Suqaylabiyah, Alawite and Murshidi villages in the western and northern countryside, and Circassian and Turkmen villages whose roots stretch back to Ottoman-era settlement. Salamiyeh, thirty kilometres to the southeast, is the historical seat of the Ismaili community in the Levant and a city whose international institutional connections through the Aga Khan Development Network give it a model of organised diaspora investment unlike anything the rest of the governorate has yet built. Hama Governorate is not a city with a hinterland, it is a mosaic of communities with different histories, different productive capacities, and different diaspora networks, each a distinct entry point for capital patient enough to work at that scale.

The Orontes, the Assi, “the Rebel River,” which flows north against the direction of every other river in the Levant, is the physical and symbolic backbone of Hama’s sustainability thesis. Under the Assad regime it was systematically poisoned: untreated industrial waste and sewage discharged directly into the water, factories on its banks operating without environmental regulation, turning the river from a living agricultural system into what observers described by the 2010s as little more than an open drain. The norias still turned, but the water they lifted was no longer fit for the fields it was meant to serve. The river’s degradation was not incidental, it was the physical expression of a regime that treated Hama’s resources, like its people, as things to be exploited rather than sustained. Since December 2024, early environmental monitoring has begun in the basin and communities along the Orontes are reporting the first signs of ecological recovery. Restoring the river is one of the most consequential and most tractable environmental investments in the country, because without a clean Orontes the agro-industrial processing, the irrigation rehabilitation, and the circular water loop that define the Hama thesis are all assumptions rather than foundations.

Then there is the fact that no analyst has yet treated as an advantage. Hama Governorate is the only governorate in Syria, excluding the Damascus metropolitan area, that shares no border with a foreign country, landlocked within Syria itself and surrounded on all sides by other governorates, with Idlib and Aleppo to the north, Raqqa to the east, Homs to the south, and Tartous and Latakia to the west. Where every other Syrian city can rely on cross-border supply chains, foreign labour arbitrage, or port access, Hama cannot, which means Hama must, by the sheer logic of its geography, develop the conditions for self-sufficiency. It has water from the Orontes and the Ghab aquifer, consistent solar irradiance in the central interior, wind channelled by the coastal mountain ranges, and fertile land that produced a fifth of Syria’s food before the war, the natural resource stack that a circular economy requires. The geography that looks like isolation is actually the blueprint: a governorate that can generate its own energy, process its own food, treat its own water, and construct its own infrastructure without dependence on a single corridor it does not control, and no other Syrian city can make that claim.

The geopolitical dimension of this underappreciated propostion will matter more as Syria’s reconstruction deepens. One of the structural vulnerabilities of post-conflict states is the ease with which external actors can leverage a nation’s dependency on specific corridors, inputs, imports, capital, or supply relationships as instruments of political pressure. If Hama executes the circular economy thesis, it does not merely become Syria’s most self-sufficient governorate, it becomes a proof of concept for the proposition that Syrian economic sovereignty is achievable at the sub-national level first, and scalable to the national level from there.

What Was Lost

The date every Syrian knows in connection with Hama is February 2, 1982. Hafez al-Assad sealed the city that day, cutting electricity, communications, and food supplies. Artillery opened on the old city centre. Syrian Air Force jets bombed residential neighbourhoods to clear lanes for tanks. When commanders suspected Muslim Brotherhood fighters were hiding in tunnels beneath the old city, they pumped diesel fuel into the tunnels and stationed tanks at the exits.

The siege lasted twenty-seven days. The death toll has never been formally established. The Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) documented approximately forty thousand civilians dead and seventeen thousand still missing, making the 1982 Hama massacre one of the largest mass killings of civilians by an Arab government against its own people in the modern era, and among the most underreported atrocities of the twentieth century. The victims were overwhelmingly unarmed residents. A hospital administrator who managed intake at the time recalled bodies arriving by truck around the clock, the registers she kept subsequently confiscated by authorities. One survivor recalled his brother shot outside the sports stadium in front of his wife and children; authorities called two hours later to collect the body and forbade a funeral. Entire neighbourhoods, Kilaniyeh, Sharqiyah, Shamalia, Baraziyeh, were not fully rebuilt forty years later, almost every family in Hama lost someone.

What the massacre accomplished economically was systematic. It drove out Hama’s educated professional class, the doctors, engineers, lawyers, academics, and business owners who had rebuilt the city’s civic and commercial life in the decades since 1963. They dispersed across Europe, the Gulf, and the Americas, carrying with them exactly the intellectual capital and professional expertise a city needs to modernise. Their departure was not incidental to the regime’s purpose. A city stripped of its educated class is a city that cannot organise, cannot lead, and cannot challenge, and the silence the regime wanted required the absence of the people who would have broken it.

“Hama” became a ceiling on Syrian political life, telling every subsequent protest movement what the state would do if challenged. It worked for three decades. When the Arab Spring reached Hama in 2011, hundreds of thousands filled the streets in the largest protests anywhere in Syria, and the regime responded with the same instrument it had used in 1982, killing hundreds of civilians and forcing the city into silence again, still carrying 1982, unable to accumulate the defiance a second time.

What followed between 2011 and 2024 was war, not the targeted political suppression of 1982 but thirteen years of siege, displacement, barrel bombs, and strangulation. The fighting concentrated in the rural north, Kafr Zita, Latamneh, and the Ghab Plain villages, which aerial strikes reduced to rubble. The city centre was largely spared the physical destruction of Aleppo or Homs, but the population haemorrhaged. The professionals who had survived 1982 in silence, a second generation who had rebuilt quietly across the intervening decades, finally left for Germany, Canada, the United States, the Gulf, Turkey, and Lebanon, carrying with them degrees from the best universities in the Arab world and Europe and skills that would earn them senior positions in multinationals, hospitals, and technology firms abroad. By 2024, Hama had absorbed three successive extractions of human capital across six decades. What the city lost was not wealth. It was the compounding intellectual dividend of three generations of talent.

What the city retained was the land, the geography, and the people who could not or would not leave: the farmers in the central and southern governorate who kept working through the years of conflict, the noria carpenters who kept repairing the wheels, and the families who stayed because Hama was their city regardless.

On December 5, 2024, rebel forces entered Hama without significant resistance. The Syrian Army withdrew. Residents came into the streets. Three months later, on February 27, 2025, Hama held a public commemoration of the 1982 massacre for the first time in its history. Photographs that families had kept hidden for decades were exhibited inside a church. Muslim and Christian religious figures sat in the same room. People who had not spoken publicly about what they witnessed in 1982 gave testimony. The city that had not been allowed to mourn for forty-three years began to mourn, the suppression has a start date, and now it has an end date.

What Has Changed

The national picture is established: sanctions lifted in 2025, $28 billion in investment commitments announced, Syria’s GDP beginning to recover from an 80 percent contraction (World Bank, October 2025). The relevant question for Hama is what that national turning point looks like from inside a city the regime never trusted and never built.

It looks like vacancy, the large real estate and infrastructure announcements that dominated Damascus reconstruction coverage in 2025 did not land in Hama. Saudi and Gulf investment forums oriented toward Aleppo’s industrial base and Damascus’s financial & institutional infrastructure.

That vacancy is the entry point, while Hassia Industrial City in Homs attracted ninety investment applications in five months after December 2024, and while Damascus saw $14 billion in MoUs signed at a single August ceremony, Hama received none of the headline announcements. No sovereign wealth fund has anchored its Syria strategy here, no Gulf developer has claimed the Orontes waterfront, no energy company has filed for a renewable BOT concession in the eastern steppe. The terms for every sector that matters in this governorate are still being written, and big capital follows institutional presence just as institutional presence follows private capital: the first actor to structure a credible investment in a post-conflict city shapes the terms for everyone who follows. In Hama, no one has gone first, and first-mover space in a post-conflict economy closes as certainty accumulates.

The Arithmetic

Syria’s wheat production fell from approximately four million tonnes annually before 2011 to between 900,000 and 1.1 million tonnes in 2025, a 60–75 percent decline compounded by the worst drought in sixty years (FAO, June 2025). The Ghab Plain, historically one of Syria’s most fertile zones, was specifically identified by FAO as among the hardest hit by the 2025 drought and the collapse of the Afamia dam through looting and sabotage. Syria now imports wheat from Ukraine, Romania, and Bulgaria to fill an estimated 2.73 million tonne annual deficit.

The gap between what the land can produce and what it currently produces is the investment. But the deeper arithmetic is in energy. Syria’s power generation has fallen by more than 80 percent from pre-war levels (UNDP, 2025). The national grid delivers electricity for only a few hours daily in most governorates. Hama Governorate, with its solar irradiance in the central interior, consistent wind patterns channelled by the coastal mountain ranges, and the Orontes River available for micro-hydro generation, has the natural resource base to generate its own power independently of the national grid. A governorate that can power itself can attract the manufacturing, processing, and data infrastructure that cannot function on intermittent electricity, and in Syria’s current energy environment that is not a marginal advantage but the difference between an economy that works and one that cannot.

The World Bank’s October 2025 Syria reconstruction estimate of $216 billion nationally allocates the largest share to infrastructure and housing, with energy rehabilitation as the second largest category. A governorate that can close its own energy gap through renewable generation is a governorate that does not need to wait for national grid rehabilitation. The circular economy thesis for Hama, solar and wind power feeding agro-industrial processing, organic waste generating biogas, treated wastewater returning to irrigation, food production closing the loop back to energy, is not aspirational. It is the only model that makes economic sense for a landlocked governorate with the natural resources Hama possesses.

Where Capital Goes

Renewable energy: Before any other sector can function at scale, Hama needs reliable power. The governorate’s solar irradiance and wind corridor make utility-scale renewable generation viable without the grid dependency that constrains every other Syrian city. A solar farm in the eastern steppe combined with wind installations along the mountain foothills and micro-hydro on the Orontes creates a diversified generation portfolio. A private developer operating under a BOT concession, with power sold to governorate institutions and industrial offtakers and infrastructure returned to state ownership at contract conclusion, is the viable entry structure under Presidential Decree 114/2025. Capital requirement for a 50MW solar installation is in the range of $35–50 million, and the payback case is anchored by captive industrial demand that no equivalent investment elsewhere in Syria currently has.

Circular agro-industrial complex: The Ghab Plain’s agricultural output, wheat, sugar beet, cotton, and pistachio, feeds into processing that generates organic waste, which feeds biogas generation, which powers the processing, which returns treated effluent to irrigation, in a closed-loop model that agro-industrial parks in Morocco, Jordan, and Egypt’s Delta have deployed at scale. The Hama version has a natural advantage none of those possess: the Orontes River as a water source that does not depend on desalination or long-distance piping. Capital requirements for an integrated agro-processing and biogas facility run from $20–40 million depending on throughput, and the circular model reduces energy input costs by 30–40 percent against a conventional facility, compressing payback timelines materially.

Irrigation rehabilitation: FAO’s Emergency and Recovery Plan of Action 2025–2027 calls for $286.7 million to address Syria’s agricultural crisis nationally. The Homs-Hama irrigation network was specifically identified for EU-funded rehabilitation and the Afamia dam requires reconstruction. A private irrigation concession, with water fees from farmer beneficiaries and infrastructure returned to state ownership, is the most defensible BOT structure in Syria’s current regulatory environment, with entry at single-basin scale achievable at $10–30 million. The output unlocks agro-processing demand that justifies the renewable energy investment; these sectors are not parallel opportunities but a stack, each enabling the next.

Smart city and digital infrastructure: A governorate rebuilding from near-zero has what no established city possesses: the ability to design its infrastructure as native digital from the start rather than retrofitting legacy systems. Fibre to every new building, smart water metering across the distribution network, digital health records integrated with new hospital facilities, and sensor networks on the Orontes monitoring water quality and flow in real time are not luxury additions to reconstruction but the cost-efficient path, since installing digital infrastructure during construction is a fraction of the cost of retrofitting it afterward. Hama can design a twenty-year city in 2026 rather than rebuilding a 1980s city and spending the next two decades upgrading it.

Heritage and eco-tourism: Apamea, fifty-five kilometres northwest of Hama, contains one of the longest colonnaded streets in the Roman world and a theatre with an estimated capacity of twenty thousand spectators. The Orontes waterfront in Hama city, anchored by the norias, the Ottoman-era Azem Palace, and the medieval mosques, is itself a tourism product. The Ghab Plain eco-landscape of farm stays, bird watching, and Orontes river trails completes a circuit that no Syrian governorate can currently offer. A heritage hotel at the city waterfront, an eco-lodge in the Ghab, and a site interpretation centre at Apamea constitute a tourism product at $5–15 million of capital with no comparable competitor.

What Can Go Wrong

Institutional thinness: Hama did not develop a strong private sector institutional base under the Ba’ath regime because the regime never trusted the city enough to allow it. The commercial networks, banking relationships, and informal connections that in Aleppo or Damascus allow an investor to find the right counterparty are thinner here, and an investor entering without a local partner who understands the city’s particular geography will find navigation difficult in ways not visible from outside. The diaspora masterplan is actively building this institutional base, but it is early.

Energy infrastructure lag: The circular economy thesis depends on renewable energy coming online before agro-industrial demand can scale. If the BOT regulatory window under Decree 114/2025 moves slowly or the land framework for energy installations in the eastern steppe is unresolved, the investment stack stalls at its foundation layer, since the sectors are interdependent and a delay in energy delays everything downstream.

The national framework gap: Hama’s opportunity depends on the national investment environment improving at a rate that makes capital contractable and returns repatriable. As of early 2026, no comprehensive national reconstruction plan exists (Carnegie Endowment, 2025). The Investment Banks Law and SWIFT reconnection are the right moves, and the pace of their implementation determines when the opportunity closes from risk to certainty.

Communal fracture if healing stalls: Hama Governorate sits at a fault line in Syria's post-conflict geography. Its western edge borders Tartous and Latakia, the coastal governorates most associated with the communities that formed the backbone of Assad's support base, and whose populations now face their own unresolved reckoning with a regime that implicated them without their universal consent. Suqaylabiyah, within Hama Governorate itself, is a reminder that the social complexity of the coast does not stop at the administrative border. The investment thesis that links Salamiyeh's agricultural land, Mhardeh's Orontes-side farms, and the Ghab Plain villages into a single circular economy depends on a level of inter-communal cooperation that a fractured or politicised reckoning would directly undermine. The February 2025 commemoration was a beginning, not a settlement, and if the process of public acknowledgement stalls or hardens into narratives of collective guilt rather than locating responsibility in the state structures that perpetrated the violence, the latent tensions along this fault line could surface as the kind of instability that makes contracts unenforceable and capital immobile. A governorate that cannot agree on what happened cannot easily agree on what to build.

The Parallel

Halabja was gassed on March 16, 1988. Saddam Hussein’s aircraft dropped mustard gas, sarin, and VX nerve agents on a Kurdish civilian population in five hours. Between three and five thousand people died immediately; tens of thousands more suffered cancers, birth defects, and chronic illness that persist today (Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, 2010). When Saddam fell in 2003, reconstruction was pledged. Tens of millions were allocated. A memorial was built. Halabja was elevated to provincial status. Two decades later the city remains poor, underpopulated, and economically marginal. The capital arrived but reconstruction underdelivered, because the prior conditions for durable recovery, legal accountability, compensation for survivors, and a civic framework for processing collective trauma, were never fully established. Halabja became a symbol, it did not become a city.

Dresden chose differently. Firebombed in February 1945, its Frauenkirche reduced to rubble by February 15, the city spent forty-five years under East German rule that left the ruins in place as a memorial, not rebuilding but not erasing either. When reunification came, Dresden processed before it rebuilt. The Frauenkirche was reconstructed stone by stone between 1994 and 2005, using the original stones catalogued from the rubble, partly funded by Britain, including a metalsmith whose father had flown in the bomber crews. The gold cross atop the rebuilt dome was gifted by Coventry, the British city the Luftwaffe had destroyed in 1940. The act of rebuilding was an act of public reckoning, and it produced a city whose post-war identity is more durable than its pre-war one ever was.

The distinction is economic, not aesthetic. Cities that process their foundational wounds before rebuilding produce institutional reliability, the kind that makes contracts enforceable, commitments credible, and capital deployable without the risk that unresolved grievance surfaces later as instability. Cities that skip processing in favour of speed produce the opposite: reconstruction that concentrates in the hands of those closest to power, social fractures that remain live, and a civic life that cannot fully function because the event at its centre cannot be discussed.

Hama is not Halabja and it is not Dresden. But the February 2025 commemoration, photographs in a church, clergy from different faiths in the same room, testimony given publicly for the first time in forty-three years, was a signal that Hama is choosing the Dresden path. The city is beginning to name what happened before it rebuilds, and that is not a political observation but an investment-grade signal: the foundation under whatever gets built here is more solid than it looks from the outside.

What is happening in Hama is also larger than Hama. The 1982 massacre was the template for how the Ba’ath state managed dissent across Syria for four decades, and Hama’s public reckoning is therefore not only a local act of healing but the beginning of a new social contract between a Syrian state and its citizens, built on acknowledgement rather than fear, on legitimate authority rather than coercive silence. A Syria in which that contract takes hold is a Syria in which capital can operate with fundamentally lower political risk than any pre-war or wartime model suggested was possible.

The Thesis

Aleppo is the argument that Syria’s industrial economy can be rebuilt through its legacy manufacturing base. Damascus is the argument that reconstruction follows institutional formation, and that the city where the rules are written captures the first dividend. Homs is the argument that geography determines return regardless of destruction levels.

Hama is the sustainability and circular economy thesis, the argument that the only Syrian governorate with no foreign border, landlocked within Syria itself and dependent on no crossing it does not control, is precisely the governorate best suited to build an economy that generates its own energy, processes its own food, manages its own water, and constructs its own infrastructure, and that what has always looked like a geographical constraint is in fact the design specification for the most self-sufficient, climate-resilient, and replicable reconstruction model in the country.

It is also the healing thesis, and the connection between healing and sustainability is not metaphorical. A regime that governed through fear governed through the destruction of its own city’s natural resources: poisoning the Orontes, neglecting the irrigation infrastructure, treating the land as something to extract from rather than invest in. The same logic that suppressed the people suppressed the river. The ceiling on political life was the ceiling on economic life, and on ecological life too. What changed in February 2025 was not just that Hama mourned; it was that a new relationship between a city and its own future became possible.

But the most significant development in Hama is not the mourning. It is what the diaspora did with the silence while the rest of the world was still deciding whether Syria was investable.

The three extractions of talent that the Ba’ath regime and the war inflicted on Hama produced, as an unintended consequence, one of the most concentrated pools of Hama-born expertise anywhere in the world: engineers who rebuilt infrastructure across the Gulf, architects who designed urban districts in Europe, doctors who ran departments in Canadian teaching hospitals, urban planners who worked on smart city programmes in China, and academics who published in the world’s leading research journals, all of them carrying Hama with them as an identity, a debt, and eventually a project that would bring them back.

What is now underway in Hama is the return of that accumulated expertise. A network of Hama-born professionals, returning to the city on a near-monthly basis to advance the work, has been quietly assembling what is by any honest measure the most sophisticated city-level reconstruction document produced for any Syrian city: a comprehensive masterplan commissioned from internationally recognised firms in urban design, smart city infrastructure, renewable energy systems, hospital planning, and educational architecture. The plan is not yet public but is already in serious discussion with Syrian government authorities. Those who have reviewed it describe a document comparable in standard to new-district masterplans in the GCC, South Korea, and China, not aspirational sketches but a fully costed, phased, technically specified vision covering hospitals, schools, working districts, renewable energy grids, digital infrastructure, circular waste systems, and green transit corridors, designed from the ground up around Hama’s specific geography rather than imported from a generic post-conflict template.

This matters beyond Hama, Syria’s reconstruction faces a structural risk that no international conference has resolved: the gap between the scale of what is needed and the pace at which geopolitical alignment, donor coordination, and central government bureaucracy can move. The Hama diaspora model suggests a different architecture, city-level reconstruction driven by communities with deep knowledge of their cities, funded by people with genuine skin in the game, coordinated with but not dependent on the central state. It is faster, more legitimate in the eyes of the people who will live in the result, and more resilient to the great-power hesitations that have already delayed Syria’s recovery.

The norias have been turning for a thousand years, powered by nothing but the river that runs through the city. For four decades, the regime poisoned that river and the wheels kept turning, a mechanism so simple and so resilient that even the Assad state could not stop it. The Orontes is recovering now, slowly, in the way that rivers recover when the source of the pollution is gone. The diaspora is returning now, in the same way, for the same reason. The model the norias have always demonstrated, self-sufficient, requiring no external input, no government directive, no permission from anyone, is exactly the model being applied to the reconstruction of the city itself.

First in a SIMA Insights series on the structural bottlenecks to Syria's reconstruction. Where the city series asks where capital should be deployed, this series asks what has to clear before capital can move at all.

The Problem in One Paragraph

A foreign company wanting to pay a Syrian supplier, a diaspora investor trying to deploy capital in Damascus, a Syrian exporter waiting on a wire from a European buyer, and a reconstruction contractor expecting settlement on completed work all run into the same wall, which is that the banking system does not work for any of them. Sanctions have been lifted and the legal barriers are largely gone, and yet the $216 billion reconstruction opportunity that the World Bank has sized remains, for most practical purposes, inaccessible to the capital that would fund it. Almost every transaction connecting Syria to the global economy runs instead through cash, hawala, or expensive multi-hop workarounds that add cost and legal risk to every deal, and this is not a residual friction on the way to normalisation but the primary obstacle to Syria's economic recovery.

What Changed in 2025 and What Did Not

The pace of sanctions relief in 2025 was, by any historical standard, remarkable. The United States issued General Licence 25 in May, followed by an Executive Order on June 30 that revoked the six foundational Executive Orders comprising the Syria Sanctions Programme effective July 1. The EU lifted sectoral sanctions on energy, transport, and banking in February and May of that year, and followed in November with a FAQ clarifying that EU banks are now permitted to open accounts in Syria, establish correspondent banking relationships with Syrian institutions, and open branches. The United Kingdom similarly relaxed sectoral sanctions on banking and finance, while the Caesar Act’s secondary sanctions provisions were repealed through the National Defense Authorization Act in December 2025, and FinCEN issued exceptive relief permitting US financial institutions to open and maintain correspondent accounts for the Commercial Bank of Syria.

On paper, the architecture of isolation has been dismantled, but the banking system has not followed, and the reason is not legal but institutional, reputational, and structural. Global banks with US dollar clearing operations and exposure to US regulatory enforcement spent fourteen years systematically building Syria out of their risk frameworks, and they did not merely cease Syria-related activity but removed Syria from correspondent banking networks, trade finance platforms, compliance databases, and relationship management systems entirely. When sanctions were lifted, what those banks found was not a dormant relationship they could reactivate but an absence, a country that had been erased from their institutional memory, and rebuilding that memory requires due diligence, relationship development, regulatory comfort letters, and time that legislation alone cannot compress.

The State of Syrian Banks

Syria’s banking sector entered the post-Assad period in a condition that one analyst described in The National as a “black box,” because after fourteen years of isolation, sanctions, civil war, and economic collapse the sector’s internal state is largely unknown even to regulators, a problem Central Bank Governor Abdulkader Husrieh has acknowledged publicly. The sector underwent near-total collapse after 2011 as sanctions severed international relationships, economic decline destroyed the customer base, and the Syrian pound lost roughly 99 percent of its value, driving economic activity into cash and hawala networks that persist today and complicate any compliance assessment a foreign bank might attempt. A March 2025 US State Department report found Syria remained subject to significant money-laundering risks, citing ongoing conflict, the influence of non-state actors, and the absence of a functioning official banking sector.

Roughly fourteen private Syrian banks operated before the war, and their governance structures have not been publicly audited, their board compositions may include individuals on remaining SDN designations, and their capital adequacy ratios are unknown to external counterparties. The Commercial Bank of Syria has been cleared from the SDN list and is the subject of FinCEN’s exceptive relief, but Governor Husrieh stated publicly at a Middle East Institute event in Washington that the bank’s Federal Reserve account cannot be used for commercial activity because Syria remains designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, which is what Finance Minister Barnieh in Washington last week called the “last milestone,” the single remaining barrier without which everything else the Syrian government has achieved in the past year has limited practical value.

Washington, April 2026: Momentum Without a Timeline

The Syrian delegation to the IMF and World Bank Spring Meetings in Washington this month, led by Finance Minister Mohammed Yisr Barnieh and Central Bank Governor Abdulkader Husrieh, produced a dense schedule of high-level engagement. On April 14 the delegation chaired a technical roundtable of the Friends of Syria Group alongside World Bank Vice President Ousmane Diagana, with participation from Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, Switzerland, and the European Union. Over the course of the week they met with World Bank Managing Director of Operations Anna Bjerde, who accepted an invitation to visit Damascus, held discussions with Citibank on developing a government securities sector, and engaged the US Chamber of Commerce and representatives of major American companies across finance, energy, aviation, and technology.

Most significantly, on April 17 Minister Barnieh signed an agreement with the Qatar Fund for Development and Oliver Wyman, funded jointly by the Qatar Fund, the US Treasury, and the World Bank, to conduct a comprehensive assessment of Syria’s banking sector and produce a reform roadmap. A credible external assessment of the sector’s current state is a prerequisite for any international bank to begin the due diligence that correspondent relationship restoration requires, and the Oliver Wyman mandate is the first instrument capable of producing one.

What is absent from Washington, however, is a timeline. On the state sponsor of terrorism delisting, which is the single most consequential remaining barrier, Minister Barnieh told The National: “I’m optimistic that things will move in the right direction. How long? When? I’m not sure, but I hope to be very soon.” Equally absent is a structured interagency mechanism inside the Syrian government to drive banking reconnection with the urgency and coordination the problem demands.

Why Banking is Upstream of Everything

The banking problem is not one problem among several, because it sits upstream of every other reconstruction priority. A foreign infrastructure company can absorb political risk, navigate complex licensing, and manage construction in a post-conflict environment, but it cannot operate if it has no mechanism to move money through its normal treasury systems. A Gulf family office willing to deploy capital into Syrian real estate or manufacturing cannot execute that investment if wiring funds to a Syrian entity exposes it to regulatory risk in its home jurisdiction. A Syrian exporter who has secured a European buyer faces payment failure or multi-hop workarounds through third-country banks when the correspondent channel does not exist, and each hop adds days, fees, and legal complexity that erode the commercial case for the transaction.

The investor deterred by political risk is the exception, while the investor deterred by the inability to move money is the rule, which is to say that banking is not a sector in the conventional sense but the infrastructure on which every other sector’s viability depends.

The Overcompliance Problem

Overcompliance is the practice of banks restricting activity beyond what the law actually requires, refusing transactions, terminating relationships, or declining to open correspondent accounts not because doing so is prohibited but because the compliance cost and reputational risk of engaging exceed any conceivable commercial benefit. It is distinct from legal compliance, which follows the law, whereas overcompliance follows fear, and in Syria’s case fourteen years of maximum-risk designation trained the global banking system to treat any Syria-related transaction as presumptively prohibited, an institutional reflex that does not disappear when the legal designation changes. Addressing it requires a different intervention than lifting sanctions, because what is needed is for compliance officers at target banks to receive explicit regulatory guidance from their own supervisory authorities confirming that engagement is not only permitted but expected.

EU banks are now legally permitted to establish correspondent relationships with Syrian institutions, but legal permission and institutional willingness are not the same thing, and a legal opinion from a foreign ministry does not change the calculus of a compliance officer in Frankfurt or London. What changes that calculus is explicit regulatory guidance from their own supervisory authority, whether the ECB, BaFin, or the FCA, encouraging engagement and specifying the parameters of permissible activity. The European Commission’s November 2025 FAQ was a step in this direction, and more direct engagement with the ECB’s supervisory arm, the UK’s FCA, and the financial regulators of the UAE, Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia would accelerate the practical effect of a legal framework that already exists. The Syrian government’s foreign policy apparatus needs to engage not just with finance ministries and central banks in partner countries, but specifically with their financial regulatory bodies, requesting the guidance that gives supervised institutions explicit cover to act.

The FATF Problem

Syria has been on the FATF grey list since February 2010, placed there for strategic AML/CFT deficiencies and never removed, and FATF has been unable to conduct the required on-site verification visit, first because of the civil war and subsequently because of “security” concerns, which has left Syria in the unusual position of being grey-listed for sixteen years with the action plan’s actual implementation unverified on the ground. Every international bank conducting due diligence on a Syrian correspondent relationship must apply enhanced due diligence precisely because FATF has flagged Syria as a jurisdiction under increased monitoring, and grey-list status is therefore one of the most automatic and hardest-to-override triggers for bank refusal in the entire reconnection challenge.

Removal from the grey list would not by itself solve the correspondent banking problem, since the SST designation, the governance opacity of Syrian banks, and overcompliance all remain, but unlike SST delisting, which depends on US political decisions outside Syria’s control, grey-list removal depends almost entirely on actions Syria can take itself, namely facilitating the FATF on-site visit, demonstrating that the reforms committed to in 2010 have been implemented and sustained, and engaging actively with MENAFATF on the current framework. The Oliver Wyman assessment will produce the baseline diagnostic that FATF needs to conduct a credible on-site visit, but the assessment needs a publication commitment and a formal invitation to FATF before the October 2026 plenary, which is the most realistic near-term window for an on-site visit given FATF’s schedule. Grey-list removal is the one milestone in the entire banking reconnection agenda that Syria can drive on its own timeline, and it should be treated accordingly.

The Recommendation Framework

The problem has three layers, and any solution that addresses only one will fail. The legal layer is largely resolved, the regulatory layer (meaning supervisory guidance from partner-country financial regulators) is partially addressed and requires acceleration, and the institutional layer (meaning the rebuilding of Syrian banks into counterparties that international banks will actually accept) has barely begun. All three must run in parallel, driven by a single task force with presidential-level authority to break logjams across ministries.

Workstream 1 SST Delisting and FATF Grey List Exit: Both barriers belong in the same workstream because they share the same logic, which is that they are legal-layer stigmas that trigger automatic refusal by foreign banks regardless of the underlying commercial or compliance merits. SST delisting requires a sustained diplomatic campaign, meaning a dedicated team within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs working with diaspora lobbying networks in Washington, preparing a formal written submission to the State Department that documents Syria’s compliance with each statutory criterion, engaging registered lobbyists with direct experience on sanctions designation rescissions, and commissioning a legal opinion from a Washington firm on the specific procedural steps required. FATF grey list exit requires a different but equally urgent effort, because Syria has been on the grey list since 2010, completed its technical action plan by June 2014, and has never received the required on-site verification visit because of the security situation, which is a barrier that is now gone. A formal written invitation to FATF and MENAFATF requesting the on-site visit before the October 2026 plenary is the single most actionable step available, because it depends on no external political decision but only on Syria’s own initiative, and the Oliver Wyman assessment provides the baseline diagnostic the visit requires. Both SST and FATF are owned jointly by the Central Bank of Syria and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and should be driven by a single integrated team with a single deadline.

Workstream 2 Regulatory Cover for Foreign Banks: Once published, the Oliver Wyman assessment gives foreign bank compliance officers something they currently lack, which is an externally validated, internationally credible document describing Syria’s banking sector and the reform programme underway. That document should be formally transmitted through central bank to central bank channels to the ECB, the UK’s Prudential Regulation Authority, the UAE Central Bank, the Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority, the Central Bank of Jordan, the Central Bank of Turkey, France’s ACPR, and Germany’s BaFin, with each transmission accompanied by a request for written regulatory guidance confirming that supervised institutions may establish correspondent relationships with compliant Syrian banks. The Central Bank of Syria should treat this as a bilateral regulatory diplomacy campaign, with a concrete target of receiving written guidance from at least three of these bodies within nine months of the Oliver Wyman assessment’s publication.

Workstream 3 Syrian Bank Governance Reform: No international bank will establish a correspondent relationship with a Syrian institution whose ownership structure, board composition, and capital adequacy are unknown, and while the Oliver Wyman assessment will establish the baseline, what follows must be a formal, public, time-bound governance review of every private Syrian bank seeking to participate in the reconnection programme, covering four questions: who owns the bank, whether any owners appear on remaining SDN designations, what the bank’s capital adequacy ratio is, and what its current AML/CFT framework looks like. Banks that pass receive a Central Bank of Syria certification, a public document a foreign correspondent can reference in its own due diligence file, banks that fail receive a defined remediation period, and banks that cannot remediate are consolidated or wound down.

The Task Force: A presidential banking reconnection team, co-chaired by the Central Bank Governor and the Finance Minister and with the Foreign Minister as the third member, reporting directly to the President monthly, is the institutional answer. The commission requires a full-time professional head with international banking experience, drawn from the diaspora if necessary, who is publicly accountable for delivery against milestones, and its mandate is fixed to a defined deadline, at the end of which it either declares success or presents an honest account of what was not achieved and why. Progress reports are published monthly in Arabic and English.

The Diaspora as an Operational Asset: Syrian diaspora professionals include compliance officers at tier-one banks, regulatory lawyers who advise central banks, lobbyists with State Department relationships, and bankers with direct correspondent banking experience at the institutions Syria needs to convince. The commission should establish a Diaspora Advisory Unit whose members are seconded to specific tasks within the three workstreams, because a compliance officer at a European bank who joins for six months to help draft the governance review criteria contributes more than a hundred diaspora members convened at a conference. The frame is operational participation, not symbolic representation.

The Urgency

The cost compounds monthly, because every month that correspondent banking remains absent is a month in which reconstruction capital allocates to other markets, foreign corporations defer Syria entry decisions pending resolution of the payment infrastructure question, Syrian exporters lose contracts to competitors with cleaner payment rails, and informal channels deepen their operational footprint. That last consequence is the most structurally damaging, because informal channels operating at scale do not merely substitute for the formal banking system but actively undermine the case for reconnection by demonstrating to international supervisory bodies that Syria’s economy is functional without it, and the longer informality persists as the operating norm, the lower the urgency to resolve the formal system and the harder it becomes to displace entrenched informal networks once formal channels do open.

The external environment Syria currently operates in is, by any reasonable assessment, the most permissive it has been in over a decade. The Friends of Syria Group has convened at the level of finance ministers and central bank governors, the Oliver Wyman assessment is now mandated and funded, the World Bank has committed a portfolio of $1 billion in grant-funded projects, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have made substantial diplomatic and financial investments in Syria’s re-engagement with multilateral institutions, and the US Treasury, the IMF, and the World Bank are actively engaged. This configuration of international support does not persist indefinitely, because it reflects a specific political moment that competing priorities, geopolitical shifts, and the natural attention cycle of international institutions will eventually erode.

The Syrian government has the remainder of 2026 and 2027 to convert this moment into durable institutional outcomes, meaning a formal SST submission on the table in Washington, a FATF on-site visit completed, written regulatory guidance issued by at least three major supervisory bodies, and the first correspondent banking relationships restored. Each of these is achievable within a short-term window, and none is achievable without a coordinated institutional mechanism that treats banking reconnection as the primary economic policy priority of the transitional period, which is what it is.

With contributions and review by Mansour Nehlawi, a former Citibank executive with banking and treasury experience across Asia, North America, and Europe, and a member of SIMA Partners’ Advisory Board.

Each issue follows the same analytical framework: what the city was, what happened to it, what has changed since December 2024, where capital can go, and what can go wrong. The format is designed for investors, economic researchers, and policy professionals who need a single reference they can act on.

This analysis is written from Damascus, where SIMA Partners has been based since July 2025.

There is a useful way to think about Homs, and it is different from the way you should think about either of the two cities that preceded it in this series. Aleppo presented as a machine: a factory floor being reassembled by the industrial families who built it, powered by geographic logic that had been generating returns for five thousand years. Damascus presented as an operating system: the administrative and financial architecture through which a country of twenty-two million people is governed, and whose reconstruction is the precondition for every other reconstruction in every other city. Homs is neither of these things. Homs is a node: the physical point at which Syria’s north-south spine intersects with the only year-round passage between the interior and the Mediterranean coast. If you remove Aleppo from Syria, you lose the industrial base. If you remove Damascus, you lose the institutional centre. If you remove Homs, the centre and the south cannot reach the sea, Iraq cannot reach the Mediterranean, and the Gulf cannot reach Turkey overland.

This is not a metaphor, it is a topographic fact. Two mountain ranges run parallel to Syria’s coast: the An-Nusayriyah range in the north and the Anti-Lebanon range in the south. Between them, the mountains terminate, leaving a flat corridor nicknamed the “gateway to Syria,” the only large crossing open year-round across the coastal ranges. Through it run the highway and railroad from Homs to the Lebanese port of Tripoli, and through it, for centuries, every trader and every army moving between the coast and the interior of central and southern Syria has passed. Homs sits at the eastern mouth of this corridor, 162 kilometres north of Damascus on the M5 highway, equidistant from the capital and Aleppo, anchoring the largest governorate in Syria by surface area: 42,226 square kilometres stretching from the Lebanese border to the Iraqi desert, from the Orontes Valley to the ruins of Palmyra.

Three corridors converge here, the first runs east to west: Iraqi crude oil historically moved through Syria to the Mediterranean, processed at the Homs refinery, which opened in 1959 and operated at a capacity of 110,000 barrels per day. Any restoration of the Iraq-to-Mediterranean energy corridor passes through this city. The second runs north to south along the M5: the emerging Saudi-Turkish trade axis, propelled by $6.4 billion in Saudi-Syrian investment deals signed in July 2025, connects Gulf capital to Turkish market access via the Damascus-Homs-Aleppo highway, and Homs is the interchange. The third runs through the gap itself to the ports of Tartous, Tripoli and Latakia, the passage through which goods from Damascus, from central Syria, from Iraq, Jordan, and the Gulf reach the sea.

The crossing has been generating value at this location since the earliest settlement on the citadel mound around 2300 BCE. The Battle of Kadesh in 1274 BCE, fought on the Orontes near the city between Egypt and the Hittites, was determined by the same logic: whoever controlled the river crossing controlled the passage between the interior and the coast. Twenty-five centuries later, Salah al-Din captured Homs in 1175 specifically to block Crusader incursions from Tripoli and the castle at Krak des Chevaliers, which still stands within the governorate as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The city has been sacked and rebuilt across every era of its history, the reason is always the same: the corridors do not move.

What It Was

By 2010, four thousand years of commercial logic had hardened into infrastructure. An oil refinery processing crude from the eastern fields at 110,000 barrels per day, a fertilizer complex drawing phosphate from Palmyra, within the same governorate, and shipping output to the coast through the gap. Sugar refineries, vegetable-oil plants, cement facilities quarrying local basalt and limestone. Textile mills tracing their origins to the Ottoman cotton boom. A dry port, a free zone, and rail connections running north to south along the M5. The Hassia Industrial City, established in 2004 on the Damascus-Homs highway, had by 2022 attracted 954 investors, employed over 25,000 workers, and generated revenues of nearly 7.2 billion Syrian pounds, its location a pure expression of the node thesis: every input arrived along one corridor and every output departed along another. Al-Baath University, founded in 1979, was the only institution in Syria offering degrees in both petroleum engineering and veterinary medicine, disciplines that mapped directly onto the governorate’s extractive and agricultural base.

The city held approximately 800,000 people and the governorate 1.76 million, contributing an estimated 7 to 9 per cent of Syria’s GDP. The commercial culture that sustained this output depended on something that does not appear in economic statistics: inter-communal trust. Homs was well known for the integration of its multi-cultural communities, and in Diana Darke’s account of the Homs souq, “Christian traders were as supported as Muslims” because commerce required trust and trust required proximity. The waqf tradition, surplus reinvested into the community rather than extracted from it, was the operating system of a merchant culture that had been extending credit across community lines for generations.

One life captures this pattern better than any data set. Mohammad Chaker Chamsi-Pasha, known as Abu Chaker, was born in Homs in 1921, took over his father’s fabric shop at the age of ten after his father’s death, barely literate, and built it into a textile business that served central Syria. Diana Darke’s The Merchant of Syria: A History of Survival, published by Oxford University Press, is one of the finest accounts ever written of the Syrian merchant tradition, and a story that reads as a playbook for every aspiring young Syrian today. Abu Chaker left Homs in 1959 to avoid Ba’athist nationalisations, rebuilt in Beirut, expanded to Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, fled the Lebanese civil war to England where he rescued a failing Yorkshire textile mill and transformed it into a global empire, returned to Homs in 1999 because the gap was still there and the souq was still open, and left for the last time in 2011, at the age of ninety. A cloth merchant from the Homs souq who connected the looms of northern England to retail markets in Kuwait, Riyadh, Osaka, and Chongqing, because he carried the node logic in his soul: find the intersection, position yourself there, move the goods.

The capital, the knowledge, and the networks that Abu Chaker represented were not destroyed by the war. They were rerouted, the way goods are rerouted when a transit point goes down, and they remain in the system, distributed across the diaspora, waiting for the crossing to reopen.

What Was Lost

The scale of destruction is the starting point, by the time the last opposition district of al-Waer fell in 2017, 54 per cent of the housing stock in Homs had been destroyed, more than 60 per cent of educational and health facilities were no longer functioning, and 26 of 36 neighbourhoods had been partially or completely levelled. Over 80 per cent of the Old City lay in ruins. Housing accounted for 83 per cent of all damage estimates, the highest proportion of any city in the World Bank’s assessment. Homs absorbed 21 per cent of total documented damage across all assessed cities, second only to Aleppo, placing the governorate’s physical losses in the range of $1.8 to $2.4 billion at pre-conflict replacement cost. The three most severely affected governorates, Aleppo, Rif Dimashq, and Homs, require the largest share of the $216 billion national reconstruction bill.

The regime inflicted this damage with more deliberate violence than it applied to any other Syrian city, because Homs was where the revolution began in earnest and where it refused to stop. In March 2011, thousands gathered for a Friday of Dignity protest. By May, the army had entered the city. By September, communal violence had transformed a protest movement into an armed conflict. Baba Amr, a district of 55,000, became the first bastion of the Free Syrian Army. The regime’s political security directorate issued orders to “focus on sniping.” When the opposition held its ground, the deputy minister of defence travelled to Homs and delivered an ultimatum: surrender, or the regime would destroy the resistance “over the heads of the residents.” The regime meant it literally.

The bombardment killed American journalist Marie Colvin and French photographer Rémi Ochlik in February 2012. A US court later found the government culpable, ordering a $302.5 million judgment for what it called an “unconscionable” attack targeting journalists. Three months later, on May 28, Bassel Shehadeh, a twenty-eight-year-old Syrian filmmaker from Damascus who had abandoned a Fulbright scholarship at Syracuse University to return and document what was happening, was killed by government shelling in the al-Safsafa neighbourhood. The regime prevented his family from holding a funeral mass. Shehadeh had trained dozens of citizen journalists to shoot and edit footage. His last unfinished film, I Will Cross Tomorrow, documented what ordinary residents were enduring. His story, a generation that chose to witness and was killed for witnessing, belongs to any honest account of what this city lost.

The siege lasted three years. Civilians trapped in the Old City ate dried foods and grass, some 2,200 people were killed. The Old City souq where Abu Chaker had once sold his fabric, the commercial crossroads where traders of every community had operated side by side for centuries, was among the 80 per cent that was levelled.

And then, for a decade, nothing. The regime that retook Homs had no interest in rebuilding a city that had risen against it. The Arab Reform Initiative noted that the city saw “virtually no private reconstruction” in the years that followed, a deliberate abandonment dressed as neglect. The node was offline, and the regime intended to keep it that way.

The $1.8 to $2.4 billion in physical damage is an engineering problem with a known cost structure. The more consequential loss has no price tag and no timeline. Homs had been a city whose commercial culture depended on inter-communal trust, the social infrastructure that allowed traders of different backgrounds to extend credit, share supply chains, and operate across community lines without friction. The war shattered that trust through targeted displacement along communal lines. Rebuilding the physical node is a question of capital. Rebuilding the trust that made the node function at full efficiency is a question of governance, reconciliation, and time, and it is the binding constraint on whether the rebuilt crossroads operates at its pre-war capacity or at a fraction of it.

What Has Changed

The liberation of Homs on December 8, 2024 was the strategic event that ended the Assad regime. The city sits on the M5 between Damascus and the coastal governorates where the regime’s remaining military assets were concentrated. Its capture severed the capital from its support base, making the regime’s position untenable within days. The same logic that sustained Homs as a commercial crossing for four thousand years decided the military outcome of the war in less than a week.

The sixteen months since then have altered the investment conditions more than the preceding decade, and the most instructive development is where the recovery is appearing. Not in the destroyed city centre, in the industrial periphery. The Hassia Industrial City received 90 new investment requests in the first five months of 2025, covering 1.13 million square metres, from local, diaspora, Arab, and foreign investors. China’s Fidi Contracting signed an MoU for exclusive rights to 850,000 square metres of the Hassia Free Zone. The largest raw sugar refinery in Syria, Madina Food City, 3,000 tonnes per day, roughly one million tonnes annually, built by a Tunisian company using German technology, began operations at Hassia in January 2026. Forty megawatts of solar were connected to the grid from the zone.

At the same time, families are returning to the destruction belt. AFP journalists observed dozens of families arriving by bus from northern Syria in early 2025, many tearful, stepping into neighbourhoods where every third building is a shell. “We removed the rubble, laid a carpet, and moved in,” said one returnee in Khalidiya. The periphery is attracting capital. The centre is attracting people. Both signals matter.

The anchor capital event is the refinery transition, the existing Homs refinery is slated for closure, with a new 150,000 bpd refinery to be constructed 51 kilometres east of the city. The old refinery site will be converted into an integrated service and residential zone. Syria’s energy sector requires an estimated $10 billion in oil and gas rehabilitation and officials estimate more than $30 billion for the broader energy system. A new gas well in the Homs countryside was inaugurated with a capacity of 130,000 cubic metres per day.

The digital corridor is being laid in parallel. The SilkLink Project, a 4,500-kilometre optical-fibre backbone won by Saudi Arabia’s STC Group for $800.2 million, includes switching centres near Palmyra, within Homs Governorate. If Homs was the transit point for crude oil and cotton in the twentieth century, its position may make it the transit point for data in the twenty-first.

Where Capital Goes

The Homs opportunity set is distinct from both Aleppo and Damascus. Aleppo is industrial, Damascus is institutional, Homs is logistical and extractive, and the sequencing of capital deployment follows a dependency chain that mirrors the node structure itself. Three tiers of investment activate in order, each enabling the next.

The first tier is corridor infrastructure: the sectors that serve the three corridors directly and that generate returns before the city centre is rebuilt. This is where capital moves first, because the corridors are already flowing.

Energy and refining: the existing refinery operates at 30 to 40 per cent of its 110,000 bpd capacity; the Baniyas refinery at 80 per cent of its 130,000 bpd. Combined pre-war capacity was 240,000 bpd. The planned replacement refinery, the new gas well, and the $10 billion rehabilitation programme create a capital absorption surface extending from upstream exploration through midstream transit to downstream processing. The brownfield conversion of the existing refinery site into a mixed-use urban district is a secondary opportunity within the primary one. Chevron’s deal with SPC to explore offshore reserves and $28 billion in Gulf energy investment received by Syria in 2025 confirm the scale of international interest.

Logistics, warehousing, and transport: Syria has no modern logistics infrastructure, and every corridor that carries reconstruction materials passes through or near this city. Cold-chain facilities, bonded warehousing, container handling, and intermodal transfer hubs are absent and needed. The Hassia dry port and rail connections provide a foundation, but the scale of what is required, warehousing and distribution capacity for a $216 billion national reconstruction, has not yet been built anywhere in the country. The capital that builds it at the crossroads captures the throughput of the entire reconstruction, not merely the local market.

Industrial manufacturing: Hassia operated through the war and is now the fastest-expanding industrial zone in Syria. The manufacturing base is positioned to supply construction materials, processed foods, and chemical inputs that every other city will need during its own rebuilding. The question is whether Hassia can scale from its current 2,500 hectares to absorb the demand that the national reconstruction will generate.

Second tier is population services: the sectors that follow corridor activity, because the workers and families drawn by Tier 1 employment need housing and medical care. Demand here is derivative of corridor throughput, not independent of it.

Housing and urban development: Fifty-four per cent of housing destroyed, twenty-six of thirty-six neighbourhoods levelled. This is a ground-up construction market, and it will accelerate as Hassia’s expansion and the refinery transition draw labour back to the governorate. Property-rights challenges that complicate Damascus’s destruction belt apply with equal force.

Healthcare: More than 60 per cent of health facilities in Homs are non-functional. The governorate’s 1.5 million people have virtually no access to advanced diagnostics or specialist care. Primary Care, nephrology, radiology, and laboratory services represent the most acute gaps. As with housing, healthcare demand will scale with the population that corridor activity attracts.

Third tier is maturity signals: sectors that require institutional stability, physical security, and baseline infrastructure that do not yet exist at scale. These are longer-horizon opportunities, contingent on Tier 1 and Tier 2 success, but they are structurally embedded in the geography.

Digital infrastructure: The SilkLink backbone and the Palmyra switching centres position the governorate on Syria’s emerging data corridor. The Middle East data centre colocation market is projected to attract $33.79 billion in investment between 2025 and 2030. Hassia’s combination of available land, solar capacity, and central geography makes it a candidate for precisely the kind of infrastructure the Gulf is deploying at scale.

Tourism and heritage: Krak des Chevaliers, the Khalid ibn al-Walid mosque, the Wadi al-Nassara, and the Palmyra ruins, all within the governorate, constitute a heritage portfolio with no equivalent elsewhere in Syria. Tourism requires security, connectivity, and hospitality infrastructure that do not yet exist, but the underlying assets are intact and the governorate’s geographic centrality means that any future tourism circuit connecting Damascus to Aleppo will pass through Homs.

What Can Go Wrong

The risk register for Homs is the most layered in the series, three risks are specific to this city.

The first is communal fragility: the war in Homs produced the most acute communal displacement of any Syrian city, and reconstruction that proceeds without addressing return and reconciliation risks reproducing the conditions that produced the conflict. The transitional government has not yet articulated a Homs-specific reconciliation strategy. The social architecture on which the node economy depended, the inter-communal trust that allowed traders of different backgrounds to extend credit, share supply chains, and operate across community lines, was the first thing the war destroyed and will be the last thing rebuilt. An investor can price physical damage, pricing the absence of social infrastructure is harder, and it is the variable that will determine whether the rebuilt node operates at its pre-war efficiency or at a fraction of it.

The second is security: in the absence of formal governance structures across much of the fractured communal belt, vigilante groups and informal security actors are filling the vacuum. The longer the institutional gap persists, the more entrenched these actors become and the harder they are to displace through formal channels. Separately, the eastern reaches of the governorate, stretching toward Palmyra and the Iraqi desert, face a different threat: ISIL cells persist in the desert, and the security environment there bears no resemblance to the secured western corridor around Hassia, the M5, and the city proper. Capital evaluating Homs must price these two environments separately.

The third is institutional absence: the Arab Reform Initiative’s observation that Homs saw “virtually no private reconstruction” for a decade was not a market failure. It was a policy choice by a regime that no longer exists. The question is what replaces that choice. As of April 2026, Homs has no publicly announced reconstruction authority, no master plan for the destruction belt, and no property-rights resolution mechanism equivalent to the Jobar Board of Trustees framework that emerged in Damascus. Hassia’s investment demand demonstrates that capital is willing to deploy in the governorate. Whether the transitional government can create the regulatory clarity, the property-rights framework, and the procurement transparency needed to channel that demand from the industrial periphery into the destroyed city centre is the binding constraint on every other opportunity in this briefing.

The standard risks, electricity, property rights, and the political trajectory of a transitional government that is sixteen months old, apply here with the same force as in Damascus and Aleppo.

The Parallel

Mostar is the closest precedent, the city sits on the Neretva River in southwestern Bosnia, controlling the only reliable passage between the Adriatic coast and the Bosnian interior, and it was destroyed for precisely that reason. The Old Bridge reopened in 2004, private investment followed, and the node recovered, the crossing today moves people and goods as it always did, and the city functions by every measurable economic indicator. But twenty years after the ceasefire, Mostar has separate schools, separate municipal administrations, and a commercial life that operates in parallel rather than in common. Reconciliation was not deferred, it was never seriously pursued. The result is a city that works as a crossing and fails as a city; its geographic recovery complete, its social recovery absent, and the gap between the two now structural rather than transitional. Homs is not Mostar, but the gap is available to study, and the lesson is that it does not close on its own.

The Thesis

Every post-conflict reconstruction in the modern era has followed the same sequence: international donors commit funds, central governments allocate contracts, and rebuilding proceeds from the institutional centre outward. What is emerging in Homs is the opposite; recovery is being led from the industrial periphery inward, driven not by government spending or donor aid but by private capital responding to geographic logic. Hassia is taking investment while Baba Amr is still rubble, the sugar refinery is running while the Old City souq remains a shell. This is not a failure of planning, this is the market recognising that the crossroads generates returns before the city centre does, and that the periphery’s industrial activity will eventually generate the demand, the employment, and the tax base that makes centre-city reconstruction economically rational rather than merely symbolic.

If this model holds, it will matter far beyond Homs. Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor, and every other Syrian city where the centre was destroyed but the periphery survived will face the same question: does reconstruction begin with the institutions or with the geography? Homs is producing the first answer, and the answer is that geography moves first.

Abu Chaker Chamsi-Pasha’s life was not, in the end, only a story about positioning at intersections. It was a story about survival through adaptation, he lost everything twice, in Homs and in Beirut, and each time he read the new environment, moved to wherever the corridors were flowing, rebuilt with whatever materials and markets were available, and kept his network alive from the other side of the world. He did not wait for conditions to improve, he operated within the conditions that existed. It is what the consortium did when it built a million-tonne sugar refinery in a governorate where half the housing stock is rubble. It is what the woman in Khalidiya did when she laid a carpet on the floor of a burned-out house and moved her children in. The pattern is the same at every scale: survive, adapt, rebuild where you are, and trust that the crossing will reward those who adapted.

The city that produced Abu Chaker does not need to return to what it was before the war. What it was before the war was already constrained by the regime that would eventually destroy it. What the geography, the corridors, and the pattern of survival suggest is something that has not existed before: a Homs rebuilt not by a state but by the accumulated commercial intelligence of a diaspora that learned to operate in Beirut, in Bradford, in Riyadh, and across three continents, returning now to the original crossing with capital, expertise, and networks that the pre-war city never had access to. This will only work if the reconciliation keeps pace with the capital, commerce can rebuild a crossroads, it cannot, by itself, rebuild the trust between communities that made the crossroads function.

The reconstruction dividend in Homs is not merely the recovery of what was lost. It is the possibility that what comes next will be larger than what came before, because the crossing is open, the corridors are flowing, and the people who know how to build at intersections are, for the first time in fourteen years, free to come home.

There is a useful way to think about Damascus, and it is different from the way you should think about Aleppo, which was the subject of the first briefing in this series and which presents as an industrial reconstruction, a factory floor being reassembled by the families who built it. Damascus is not a factory floor, Damascus is an operating system: the administrative, financial, and institutional architecture through which a country of approximately 22 million people is governed, taxed, educated, medicated, insured, and connected to the outside world. If the capital does not work, nothing else works, and the capital does not work yet.

The city that held this role before 2011 was the seat of a $67.5 billion economy, home to 2.5 million people in the city proper, anchoring a metropolitan area of over five million, housing every government ministry, the Central Bank, Syria’s only stock exchange, and the operational centre of the country’s financial system. Services generated over 43 percent of national GDP, the vast majority intermediated through Damascus: cross-border banking, trade finance, government procurement, import licensing, and the regulatory functions that determined who could do business and on what terms. Government was not an industry in Damascus the way textiles were an industry in Aleppo; government was the city itself, and the capital’s comparative advantage was always institutional rather than industrial.

But this economy was also the product of a specific political arrangement between the city and the state, and that arrangement is now gone. The city’s great trading families had operated the commercial life of the capital for centuries, outlasting the Ottomans and the French, maintaining a merchant culture whose civic pride was visible in the physical fabric of the city: the wide French-mandate boulevards, the Barada river, the jasmine climbing the walls of courtyard houses in Bab Touma and Shaghour, the Ghouta orchards that ringed the city in green.

The first blow to this class came during Syria’s union with Egypt under Nasser (1958-1961), when the United Arab Republic imposed land reform laws that struck at the bourgeoisie’s rural holdings. After the Ba’ath seized power in 1963, the nationalisations of 1963 and 1965 finished the job, liquidating or seriously diminishing the economic power of the merchant and industrial class that had run the city’s commercial life for generations. The exodus hollowed out Damascus’s commercial capacity for a generation, but the capital and talent that left did not disappear: it activated the economies of the countries that received it. The Azhari family founded what became Bloom Bank, now one of Lebanon’s most prominent financial institutions. Across Beirut, Amman, and the Gulf, Damascus’s displaced merchant class seeded business networks, trading houses, and financial institutions that still operate today, and Damascus’s loss was the region’s gain, and whether that capital returns or remains abroad is the question at the centre of the reconstruction thesis.

The merchant class that survived reached an accommodation with the Assad regime in the 1970s: they would not challenge the regime’s political monopoly and the regime would allow them to operate commercially. For a period it held. But the regime did not honour the arrangement, and what followed was a slow displacement in which rural families connected to the security apparatus moved into the city, the commercial networks were progressively captured by regime-connected operators, and the liberalisation of the 2000s, presented internationally as economic reform, in practice awarded the most valuable concessions to a narrow circle of insiders, above all Rami Makhlouf, whose Syriatel monopoly and sprawling business empire came to symbolise a model of crony capitalism in which the state actively structured the private sector to enrich regime insiders at the expense of the productive economy. The old trading families were not destroyed, but they were subordinated, and the civic compact that had maintained the city’s infrastructure and public spaces frayed visibly as the roads deteriorated, the greenery thinned, and the Barada, diverted upstream, ran dry through the city centre, and the most beautiful city in the Levant was degrading not from conflict but from the neglect of people who had no stake in its beauty, only in its control, and the war did not fall on a thriving city but on a city that was already losing itself.

This history is not colour. Damascus has experienced capital flight before, the consequences lasted decades, and the current moment represents the structural reverse: a potential return of comparable magnitude driven by sanctions relief, regime change, and international re-engagement. Whether it materialises depends on whether the new government establishes a new compact with the city. There are early signals: the Syrian Investment Authority, a sovereign wealth fund, a new arbitration body, an Investment Banks Law, SWIFT reconnection. The institutional plumbing is being assembled. But what investors need is not announcements but results: courts that adjudicate predictably, regulatory approvals that move at the speed of business, a demonstrated willingness to let the private sector lead. If the returning diaspora families thrive, foreign capital follows. If they encounter the same apparatus of extraction that operated under Assad, the window closes. Capital remembers.

What Was Lost

The damage to Damascus is geographically asymmetric in a way that has no parallel in the other cities in this series. Central Damascus, the city that most of the world pictures when it hears the name, survived the war almost entirely intact: the Old City with its Umayyad Mosque and Roman colonnades, the western residential districts of Mazzeh and Malki, the commercial centres of Kafr Souseh and Abu Rummaneh, the government buildings and universities. The institutional skeleton of the capital is still standing. Life in central Damascus during the war was degraded, strained, impoverished, but it continued.

A few kilometres away, in the outer ring, it did not. The devastation concentrated in a crescent of eastern and southern suburbs that formed the war’s frontlines from 2012 onward: Jobar, Qaboun, Barzeh, Daraya, Moadamiyeh, Yarmouk Camp, Hajar al-Aswad, and the Eastern Ghouta towns of Douma, Harasta, Irbin, Zamalka, and Ain Tarma. These neighbourhoods, home to over a million people before the war, absorbed years of aerial bombardment, barrel bombs, siege, and chemical weapons, and are now rubble, and the cruelty of the geography is that a few kilometres separated life from death, normality from annihilation, a functioning cafe from a neighbourhood in which the buildings & its inhabitants no longer exist.

In Jobar, the UN estimated 93 percent of structures devastated by 2018, and the neighbourhood is not damaged but gone, with kilometres of wartime tunnels honeycombing the subsoil whose locations cannot be determined without engineering studies. Mohammed Awata of the Jobar Municipal Board confirmed the tunnels pose a barrier to return, extending deep underground, some containing war remnants that require military cooperation to clear. Mamoun al-Sherawi, who returned from Jordan after the fall, spent an entire day walking through Jobar identifying the ruins of his home by memory; he found it, and it needed to be rebuilt, not repaired. UNITAR satellite assessments documented 34,136 affected buildings in Eastern Ghouta alone, and the World Bank’s October 2025 assessment placed Rif Dimashq as the second most damaged governorate after Aleppo, with $22 billion in estimated direct physical damage out of $108 billion nationally.

But the damage the World Bank does not count is the damage that matters most. The electricity grid has improved from two hours daily to roughly eight, with the government targeting fourteen hours by mid-2026. Only a third of the country has internet access. The Syrian pound has lost 99.5 percent of its value. 1.5 million people were displaced from greater Damascus, taking a generation of professional capacity with them. The government ministries that physically survived are inhabited by two governments at once: new leadership at the top, thousands of Assad-era civil servants at every operational level, and a foreign investor walking into a ministry today encounters not a reformed institution but a layered one, new appointees and old bureaucrats in mutual incomprehension, every approval slowed to a pace functionally indistinguishable from obstruction.

What remains is a city whose skeleton stands but whose connective tissue has been deeply eroded, and yet a 100-square-metre retail unit on a main commercial street commands approximately $250,000 per year, a figure remarkable for a capital where the banking system barely functions, and what it tells you is that the market is pricing in the reconstruction ahead of the infrastructure, concentrating demand in the narrow band that survived while the destruction belt remains locked.

What Changed

Three shifts redraw the map: sanctions broadly lifted, international flights resumed from Damascus International Airport on January 7, 2025, and the transitional government signaled that reconstruction would be financed through private capital. The capital is open for the first time in over a decade.

The transitional government under Ahmed al-Sharaa adopted an explicit strategy of reconstruction through private investment, not aid or sovereign borrowing, and in ten months signed $28 billion in investment agreements. The most significant is a $4 billion BOT to rebuild Damascus International Airport, signed with a consortium led by Qatar’s UCC Holding, with defined concession terms, an experienced operator group (Kalyon and Cengiz delivered Istanbul Airport in 42 months), implementation-phase contracts signed November 2025, Terminal 2 under construction, and a masterplan by Zaha Hadid Architects. Saudi Arabia pledged $6.4 billion in bilateral deals including rubble clearance, water rehabilitation, and reconstruction of 34 schools. Other announced commitments, a $2 billion UAE-backed metro and a $2 billion towers project with Italy’s UBAKO, remain opaque: counterparties unclear, concession structures unpublished, no implementation timeline disclosed, and the gap between the announcement and the execution is where investors must exercise the most discipline.

The new Investment Law (Decree 114) establishes a Syrian Investment Authority affiliated with the president, grants foreign investors 100 percent ownership and full profit repatriation, and offers permanent tax exemptions in priority sectors including pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and export-oriented manufacturing. SIMA Insights analysed the SIA framework in detail separately, noting both the ambition and the long-term fiscal risks of incentives without sunset clauses.

The third shift concerns land, and it is the one that will determine whether the first two matter. The destroyed suburbs included substantial areas of informal housing where ownership was established by occupancy rather than title deed, and the old regime weaponised this ambiguity through Decree 66 (2012) and Law 10 (2018), which created legal mechanisms to rezone destroyed areas and transfer development rights to regime-connected investors. Marota City, a luxury development on 2.14 million square metres of southwest Damascus built over the razed Basateen al-Razi neighbourhood, is the result: 7,500 families displaced, fewer than ten percent rehoused.

The Arithmetic

The numbers that reveal Damascus are not the national aggregates but the ones that describe the capital’s financial infrastructure before the war and its absence after it.

By 2010, Syria had 14 private banks with $45.5 billion in total sector assets, almost all headquartered in Damascus, but even then the country was radically underbanked: 41,600 people per bank branch against Lebanon’s 4,700, loans-to-GDP of 45 percent against Lebanon’s 101 percent, insurance penetration of 0.62 percent of GDP against a global average of 6.6 percent, a stock exchange trading $5 million per week against Amman’s $16 million per day. What was underdeveloped before the war has since been destroyed entirely, and the distance between where Damascus stood and where it needs to be is not a gap but a void, one that represents simultaneously the scale of the reconstruction challenge and the scale of the greenfield opportunity.

The metropolitan area is rebounding toward five million, growing at 4.35 percent annually on returning refugees. Of the $28 billion in investment agreements signed nationally, approximately $10 billion is Damascus-area specific, and of that, only the airport has moved to implementation. The government will not borrow, multilateral donors are not arriving at scale, and private capital is the only mechanism.

Where the Capital Goes

Damascus’s reconstruction is not a list of parallel sectors but a dependency chain: each link enables the next, and capital deployed out of sequence gets stranded. The chain runs from institutional infrastructure through connectivity, energy, and finance to the physical reconstruction that absorbs the largest sums but sits furthest downstream, and every investor must decide where in that chain to enter.

Institutional modernisation is the binding constraint on every other sector in this analysis, and it is itself an investable category. Damascus cannot absorb $216 billion in reconstruction capital through ministries that run on paper, process approvals manually, maintain no digital land registry, and require physical presence for every interaction. E-government platforms, digital permitting and licensing systems, regulatory process automation, land registry digitisation, and English-language capacity building for the civil service are not reforms that happen after the reconstruction succeeds; they are the preconditions without which the reconstruction does not begin. Countries that rebuilt at speed, from Rwanda to Georgia to the UAE, did so because they built the institutional machinery first. The opportunity is real and immediate: international development firms, govtech companies, and institutional advisory practices can deploy into Damascus now, working with ministries that are willing but lack the tools, the frameworks, and the trained personnel to operate at the speed the reconstruction demands. Estimated addressable market: $50-200 million over five years across e-government, digital registries, capacity building, and regulatory design. Minimum entry CAPEX: $200K-$5 million. Timeline: 3-12 months to first engagement. Binding risk: political will to implement, since institutional reform creates losers among those who benefit from the current opacity.

Aviation and connectivity is the second link, because Damascus International Airport is both a standalone revenue-generating infrastructure asset and the physical prerequisite for everything that follows: no functioning airport, no tourism recovery, no business travel, no diaspora reconnection, no cargo logistics at scale. The $4 billion BOT is the lowest-risk major project in Syria, with defined concession terms, operators who delivered Istanbul Airport, and construction underway. Estimated addressable market: 6 million passengers by end-2026 ramping to 31 million at full build-out. Binding risk: regional airspace disruption from the Iran-Israel conflict.

But planes landing at a functional airport deliver passengers into a city that cannot reliably keep the lights on, which is why energy is the third link and the constraint on every commercial sector. Grid supply has quadrupled since the transition, but the $7 billion national energy deal targets 12 GW by 2030 against current output that remains a fraction of that, with over 50 percent of transmission infrastructure damaged or decayed. The near-term opportunity is not generation at scale but decentralised solutions: solar, battery storage, grid-edge systems for commercial and residential consumers paying diesel-generator premiums that make distributed alternatives immediately competitive. Estimated addressable market in the Damascus metro: $200-400 million over five years. Minimum entry CAPEX: $500K-$2 million. Timeline: 6-12 months to first revenue. Binding risk: regulatory uncertainty on grid interconnection and tariff structure.

Financial services, without which a $216 billion reconstruction cannot be intermediated, you cannot rebuild a country through a cash economy. The Central Bank under Governor al-Husrieh is reconnecting to SWIFT, the Investment Banks Law has been enacted, the Damascus Securities Exchange barely transacts. Payments, credit, insurance, trade finance, mobile money: all greenfield, and the institutions licensed now will be the institutions through which every subsequent dollar of reconstruction capital flows. Estimated addressable market: the entirety of Syria’s formal financial intermediation, which currently approximates zero. Entry CAPEX: $2-10 million for a payments platform, $10-50 million for an investment bank. Timeline: 12-24 months to operational. Binding risk: regulatory framework still being written; Central Bank independence uncertain.

With power and payments functioning, construction and commercial real estate become the fifth link, and this is where the thesis becomes physical. Damascus cannot serve as the capital of a $216 billion reconstruction if there is nowhere for the people doing the reconstruction to work, meet, stay, and operate. The city needs hotels that can host the investor delegations, government delegations, and international organisations that are already arriving and finding a city without adequate accommodation. It needs Grade A office space where advisory firms, law firms, and corporate regional headquarters can establish permanent presence. It needs commercial developments in the surviving core, on land with clear title, serving demand that already exists and is growing with every flight that lands and every family that returns. Decree 114 provides the legal framework, and the demand is visible in the $250,000-per-year retail rents that the market is already commanding in the core. Estimated addressable market: $500 million to $2 billion over five years in the Damascus metro. Minimum entry CAPEX: $5-50 million. Timeline: 12-24 months. Binding risk: commercial rents deterring the investors the city needs, and construction costs inflated by energy and import dependence.

Healthcare requires every link above it in the chain, stable power and functioning payment systems, which is why it sits here rather than higher. But the demand is immediate and growing: the Ministry of Health has set targets for out-of-pocket spending reduction from 45 to 40 percent by 2030, insurance coverage of 1.6 million by 2028, and DHIS-II digital health deployment across the public system. Private diagnostic and specialty care serves a rebounding metropolitan population with limited alternatives. Estimated addressable market: $500-$700 million over five years. Minimum entry CAPEX: $600K-$5 million per facility. Timeline: 9-15 months. Binding risk: clinical workforce availability; brain drain has not reversed.

Education and vocational training may be the most underestimated link, because every other sector depends on a workforce that does not exist at scale, the gap widens with every deal signed, and the demand is already visible in the inability of returning businesses to find qualified staff. Syria before 2011 produced engineers, doctors, and administrators for the region. That capacity has been decimated, and without it the entire chain decelerates. Estimated addressable market: $300 million to $1 billion over five years. Minimum entry CAPEX: $200K-$5 million. Timeline: 3-12 months. Binding risk: circular, since without the workforce the other sectors cannot accelerate.

The destruction belt is a fundamentally different category from the construction opportunity above. The commercial real estate in the surviving core can proceed on clear title; the periphery cannot. Five million people need housing; demand is not the constraint. The constraint is legal: wartime displacement, regime-era expropriation laws, destroyed land registries, and decades of informal settlement have created overlapping claims that no court system is currently equipped to adjudicate.

But the scale of destruction also creates an opportunity that does not exist in the surviving core: the chance to build from zero. The eastern and southern suburbs were severely unplanned, and underserviced before the war. Rebuilding them to the same standard would be a failure of imagination. The destruction belt is where Damascus can deploy affordable housing at scale, planned communities with embedded solar, fibre, water recycling, and digital municipal systems that the surviving core will spend decades retrofitting. Countries that rebuilt after large-scale destruction did not replicate what existed; they leapfrogged it. Estimated addressable market: $10-15 billion over a decade. Minimum entry CAPEX: $10-100 million per development phase. Timeline: 24-60 months, contingent on property-rights resolution. Binding risk: property-rights gridlock, and no amount of master planning substitutes for legal clarity on who owns the land.

What Can Go Wrong

Geopolitical and political risk remain present but are evolving in directions that favour the thesis. The transitional government is sixteen months old, there is no ratified constitution, and the political settlement has not yet demonstrated the durability that long-horizon capital requires. The regional war involving Iran introduces instability that could spill into Syria at any point. But the trajectory of international re-engagement is unmistakable: as this briefing goes to publication, President al-Sharaa is completing his first official visits to Germany and the United Kingdom, meeting Chancellor Merz and Prime Minister Starmer, discussing reconstruction, economic cooperation, Syria’s reintegration into the international financial system, and the return of skilled diaspora professionals. France received al-Sharaa in May 2025. The SIA chairman visited London & Paris last week to meet construction firms and financial institutions. The signals from European capitals, coming amid regional volatility, suggest that the international community has decided that engaging with the Syrian project is preferable to waiting for perfect conditions, and investors would do well to read that signal carefully.

Commercial real estate pricing has become an obstacle in its own right: the concentration of demand in the surviving core has pushed rents to levels that deter the investors the reconstruction needs, and the risk over the next three to five years is that prices in the core spiral while the periphery remains stalled, leaving a city that is simultaneously unaffordable where it functions and uninvestable where it does not.

The bureaucracy is not a background risk; it is the risk.

Through our work on the ground in Damascus, we can confirm that the new government’s intentions are genuine and authentic, but intentions do not process investment licences, and the devil is in the execution. Tens of thousands of Assad-era civil servants remain embedded in every economic ministry, operating on paper-based systems, applying procedures designed not for speed but for control, and the danger is not that the old regime persists in ideology but that it persists in method: the same opaque, access-driven structures, the same ministerial gatekeeping, the same pace that functionally cannot distinguish between caution and obstruction, with different people sitting at the top. International investors see through this immediately, and so do the compliance teams at every bank considering SWIFT reconnection. Whether the transitional government extends the institutional reset it applied to Defence, Foreign Affairs, and Interior to the economic ministries, and does so with urgency, is the single most important leading indicator investors should watch, because the speed of reconstruction will move at exactly the speed of bureaucratic reform, and no faster.

Human capital and macro fragility compound each other: the skilled professionals who left have not returned in significant numbers and will not return without credible guarantees on security, property, and opportunity, while the economy grows at roughly one percent, Turkish imports surge 60 percent as Syrian exports halve, 41 percent US tariffs apply to Syrian goods, and the economy is being liberalised faster than institutions are being built to manage the consequences.

The Parallel

The parallel is Beirut after 1990, where the Solidere model consolidated property over destroyed central Beirut, attracted Gulf capital, rebuilt a commercial district, and delivered physical reconstruction that failed at everything else: the legal structure severed the connection between original owners and the rebuilt district, converting property rights into shares that most holders sold at a fraction of market value, which destroyed the organic demand base and left a downtown that was physically spectacular and economically empty. The people who would have lived and worked there had been priced out or bought out, and three decades later the rebuilt core exists alongside a collapsed economy and an insolvent banking system.

Marota City is Damascus’s Solidere: same legal structure, same displacement dynamic, same unanswered question. But the analogy has a structural limit: Solidere was one project in one district, whereas Damascus’s reconstruction spans an entire metropolitan periphery, thousands of hectares, dozens of neighbourhoods, millions of beneficiaries, and the Jobar Board of Trustees’ master plan represents something Beirut never produced, a community-driven property framework emerging from the displaced population itself, and if the government builds on it Damascus has a mechanism for distributed reconstruction that Beirut lacked, and if it overrides it Damascus gets Beirut’s outcome at ten times the scale.

The Thesis

There is no capital city in the MENA region simultaneously reopening after total isolation, receiving its first private capital in over a decade, operating with near-zero financial infrastructure, and sitting at the centre of a $216 billion reconstruction. This convergence is a window, not a permanent condition.

But if Aleppo is a factory that needs to be reassembled, Damascus is an institution that needs to reinvent itself, and the distinction matters because factories can be rebuilt with capital alone while institutions cannot. The aspiration for Damascus to become a Singapore or a Dubai is valid, and Syria’s leadership has invoked both models, but those transformations were 25-year commitments built on institutional fundamentals, not on announcements. E-government, anti-corruption enforcement that investors can verify, ease and speed of doing business measured in days, not months, ministries that operate digitally, not on paper. A regulatory environment where approvals move at the speed of capital, not at the speed of a bureaucracy that was designed under Assad to slow things down. These are not reforms that happen after the reconstruction succeeds; they are the preconditions without which the reconstruction does not begin, and the best delivery that President Ahmed Al-Sharaa and the transitional government can make to the world is not another billion-dollar MOU but a functioning ministry that processes an investment licence in thirty days, because that is the signal that changes everything.

Several of Syria’s most prominent commercial families have already returned and begun deploying capital, including the Saids, Challahs, Kashlans, Ghreiwatis, Daabouls, and others. None of them waited for the risk to resolve, they assessed the conditions with their own money at stake and decided that in a state-formation environment, the cost of being late exceeds the cost of being early. Their presence is the signal that matters more than any bilateral agreement announced at a conference, because conferences produce memoranda of understanding and returning families produce leases, payrolls, and commercial activity, which is the difference between an intention and a fact.

The banks being licensed now will be the banks through which reconstruction capital flows for the next twenty years. The regulatory relationships being formed now will determine who gets the permits and who does not. The legal frameworks being drafted now will govern property rights across the destruction belt for a generation. None of this will be done twice.

As this briefing goes to publication, the regional war involving Iran has slowed movement in Damascus. The airport is closed, the security environment has deteriorated in ways that affect daily operations and investor confidence. But the work has not stopped, the companies and families and institutions that are building the architecture of the new Syria are still at their desks, still signing leases, still hiring staff, still preparing for the moment the regional conflict subsides and the window reopens wider than before.

The question is not whether Damascus will be rebuilt but whether it will be reinvented, whether the operating system that governs this country will be rewritten for the century ahead or merely patched. The answer will determine not just whether the reconstruction succeeds but whether the capital becomes worthy of the country it is supposed to lead.

There is a useful way to think about Aleppo, and it has nothing to do with sentiment or history or the human tragedy of the war, though all of those things are real and none of them should be minimised. The useful way to think about Aleppo, if you are trying to understand where Syria’s reconstruction capital should go, is as a machine that was dismantled and is now being reassembled, piece by piece, by the people who built it in the first place.

At its peak, the machine was formidable in both scale and sophistication, though not without structural weaknesses, including a wage share that was low and falling and a business environment shaped by political connections as much as by market forces. Aleppo’s governorate generated roughly a quarter of Syria’s GDP, approximately $15 billion in a $60 billion economy, and its industrial zones produced half of all Syrian manufactured exports, giving a single city greater manufacturing weight than many sovereign economies in the region. The textile sector alone accounted for a third of national industrial output, built and controlled by multi-generational industrial families whose knowledge, relationships, and capital defined the sector. A pharmaceutical cluster of roughly 70 privately owned plants covered 80% of Syria’s domestic drug consumption. The Sheikh Najjar industrial city, occupying 4,412 hectares northeast of the urban centre and ranking among the largest industrial zones in the Middle East, hosted 1,923 companies with over $3.4 billion in total investment by 2010, of which 40% were Turkish-owned and operating under a 2004 free trade agreement that had begun to weave Gaziantep and Aleppo into a single cross-border production corridor.

This was not an economy that happened to be located in Aleppo but rather an economy that could only exist in Aleppo, positioned at the junction of the Mediterranean, Anatolia, and the Euphrates plain, 50 kilometres from the Turkish border, equidistant from the sea and the river, sitting on trade routes that had been in continuous use since the Amorite kingdom of Yamhad four thousand years ago. Geography is not a metaphor here but a competitive advantage that survived the Mongol sack of 1260, the Timurid destruction of 1400, the Ottoman incorporation of 1516, and the double amputation inflicted by the redrawing of borders after the First World War, when the Treaty of Lausanne severed Aleppo from its northern hinterland and then France ceded the port of Iskenderun to Turkey in 1939, stripping the city of both its Anatolian trading partners and its Mediterranean outlet in a single generation and forcing its commerce to reroute through Latakia, two hundred kilometres to the southwest. The city rebuilt every time because its location made not rebuilding irrational, and the redirection of the Syrian capital from Aleppo to Damascus only reinforced the pattern: political demotion did not diminish commercial gravity. Neither did decades of neglect by successive Damascus-based governments, which systematically directed state investment, military infrastructure, and political patronage toward the capital and the coastal heartland while leaving Aleppo to generate a quarter of national GDP on the strength of its private sector alone, receiving a fraction of the public spending that its economic contribution warranted.

The commercial record bears this out: Aleppo hosted the first European consulates in the Levant (Venice in 1548, France in 1562, England in 1583), served as the headquarters of the Levant Company of London from 1581 until the late eighteenth century and was so central to the flow of goods between East and West that when Dutch competition disrupted Aleppo’s spice trade in the 1590s, the resulting loss of revenue was one of the triggers that prompted English merchants to found the East India Company in 1600, which would become one of the largest and most powerful commercial enterprises in history, conceived in part as a way to bypass the Levantine trade routes that Aleppo had dominated for centuries. In 1841 the city became the birthplace of Safra Frères & Cie., the banking house founded by the Safra family that would grow into the J. Safra Group, a conglomerate managing over $345 billion in assets globally today, and established one of the first commercial tribunals in the Ottoman Empire around 1855. The Baron Hotel, built by the Mazloumian family in 1909 as one of the first modern hotels in the region, hosted heads of state, diplomats, and literary figures from across the world, and the street on which it stands was renamed after it by the Syrian government upon independence. These are not antiquarian details but evidence of a pattern: international capital has been drawn to Aleppo for five centuries, and the question that shapes every investment decision today is whether the conditions exist for that pattern to reassert itself after the worst destruction of all.

What Was Lost

The war reached Aleppo in mid-2012 and did not relent for four years, dividing the city along a line of control that ran through its historic centre, with the government holding the west and rebel forces holding the east, and both sides subjecting the other to sustained bombardment that produced what was arguably the most concentrated episode of urban destruction since the Second World War. The population fell from 3.1 million to approximately 600,000 between 2010 and 2014, an 80% collapse that is difficult to find a modern parallel for, and the Aleppo Chamber of Industry estimated the cost at $55 billion in total industrial losses across the city’s industrial zones, with 85% of factories at Leyramun completely destroyed and only 200 of 1,326 enterprises at al-Kalasseh managing to resume by 2017. UNESCO assessed that roughly 70% of the Ancient City’s core zone had been affected to a degree that invited comparison with post-war Warsaw, and the February 2023 earthquake then compounded these losses by inflicting further structural damage across the governorate.

But the figure that matters most for investors appears in no damage report, because it is the human capital that left the city and has not returned. Aleppo’s industrial dynasties relocated and rebuilt: the Sabbagh Sharabati family established a $200 million textile complex in Egypt’s Sadat City and a second production facility in Turkey’s Kadirli, now producing 80 million running metres of denim annually with over 3,000 employees, while other Aleppine manufacturers clustered in Gaziantep’s organised industrial zones, and the city’s pharmaceutical chemists and engineers scattered from Amman to the Gulf. One textile industrialist, speaking to The National, described his departure as “not a commercial choice but a decision of survival” before going on to establish several firms around Bursa, and whether he and the thousands of skilled professionals like him choose to return will determine Aleppo’s economic trajectory more decisively than any infrastructure programme. The two million people who stayed through the war, who kept the city’s markets and workshops functioning on generator power and improvised supply chains, are the foundation on which any reconstruction rests, and any investor who fails to account for their experience and expectations will misread the market.

What Changed

The sixteen months between November 2024 and March 2026 altered the structural conditions for investment in Aleppo more profoundly than the preceding thirteen years combined, even as the broader region remains volatile and the ongoing conflict involving Iran introduces uncertainty that no city-level analysis can fully account for. The velocity of change within Syria is nonetheless part of the investment case, because it suggests that the enabling environment is not slowly improving but rapidly transforming in ways that reward early positioning.

Energy is the variable that matters most for industrial investors: it determines whether Aleppo’s surviving factories can operate competitively or remain economically stranded despite being physically intact. Before the war, Aleppo had 24-hour grid electricity, but by 2021 the city received roughly one to two hours of power for every ten hours of rationing, a level so low that even basic refrigeration was impossible without private generators costing multiples of the average monthly wage. By early 2025, supply had crept to approximately four hours per day, but the activation of the Kilis-Aleppo natural gas pipeline in August 2025, delivering Azerbaijani gas at up to six million cubic metres per day, pushed supply to approximately six hours, with the government targeting fourteen hours by mid-2026 and a $7 billion energy deal covering 5,000 MW of new generation capacity nationally against a pre-war baseline of 8,500 MW and current output of roughly 2,200 MW.

Six hours of grid power is not enough to run a factory at competitive margins, but the trajectory is unmistakable, and every incremental hour of electricity unlocks a tranche of industrial capacity that was physically intact but economically stranded throughout the war years, and the energy investment being made at the national level is simultaneously creating the conditions for returns at the firm level across textiles, manufacturing, and logistics. What matters for investors is not where the grid stands today but where it is heading, and for the first time since 2011, it is heading decisively upward.

The Gaziantep-Aleppo corridor is Aleppo’s single most differentiated advantage over every other Syrian city. The Aleppo-Damascus-Nasib highway has reopened, restoring overland access from Turkey to the Gulf for the first time since 2012, with daily border crossings surging from approximately 3,000 to as many as 20,000 and Turkey-Syria bilateral trade reaching $1.9 billion in just seven months of 2025, with Turkish exports up 54% year-on-year and machinery imports up 244%. Turkey and Qatar have jointly committed $14 billion in infrastructure development across Syria with emphasis on energy and transportation, the Turkey-Syria Business Council has signed cooperation agreements with chambers of commerce in Aleppo, Damascus, Latakia, and Hama, and plans are underway for both an industrial free zone near the Turkish border dedicated to Turkish manufacturers and a Gaziantep-Aleppo railway extending through Damascus and Jordan to the Hejaz.

The competitive implications deserve attention: Turkish construction and manufacturing groups are already the most active foreign operators in Aleppo, with 40% of the industrial city’s pre-war tenants having been Turkish-owned, and their early re-entry gives them a structural advantage in relationships, supply chains, and local knowledge that later entrants from the Gulf or Europe will need to account for, while also raising questions about whether the corridor’s development will produce genuine partnership or a more asymmetric relationship in which Aleppo’s manufacturers become subcontractors to Turkish supply chains rather than competitors in their own right.

The sanctions wall collapsed in sequence. The US executive order in June 2025 suspended most Caesar Act sanctions, the EU suspended most sectoral restrictions in May, Congress repealed the Caesar Act entirely in December 2025, Syrian banks have begun reconnecting to SWIFT, and a new Investment Banks Law has been enacted, collectively bringing the compliance barrier that had deterred even risk-tolerant capital to its lowest level since 2011.

The Arithmetic

The World Bank’s October 2025 assessment puts Syria’s total reconstruction cost at $216 billion against a 2024 GDP of approximately $21 billion, yielding a reconstruction-to-GDP ratio of 10:1 that is the widest of any modern post-conflict economy and that means Syria cannot fund its own rebuilding and must attract external capital at unprecedented scale. At 7% annual growth Syria would need roughly thirty years to return to its pre-war trajectory, and even at 10% the process would stretch over two decades. The closest parallel, Mosul, suffered over 90% destruction in its western sectors with an estimated $50 billion in rebuilding costs and 138,000 buildings damaged. Eight years after liberation, despite the reopening of its international airport in July 2025, much of the city’s western sectors remain in ruins and its main hospital destroyed, even with Iraqi oil revenue behind it that Aleppo lacks. The lesson is specific and the failure modes are instructive: Mosul’s reconstruction was dominated by state-led contracting that crowded out private investment, plagued by corruption in the disbursement of allocated funds (the Iraqi government’s own auditors flagged billions in misallocated reconstruction budgets), and hampered by the absence of a regulatory framework that gave private investors legal certainty on ownership and repatriation.

Syria’s transitional government has, at least rhetorically, taken the opposite approach by seeking private capital over aid, enacting an Investment Banks Law, and publishing an investment opportunities list through the Syrian Investment Agency, but whether the institutional follow-through matches the rhetoric remains the central question. The corollary for investors is that early capital captures the gap between historical capacity and current output, a gap that in Aleppo’s case amounts to roughly $92 billion in cumulative lost output since 2010, but only if the enabling environment continues to develop at the pace of the past sixteen months.

This ratio is the thesis, but its realisation depends on which trajectory materialises. In the base case, electricity reaches 10 to 12 hours by late 2026, the Turkey-Gulf corridor becomes fully operational, and early entrants in textiles and logistics generate first revenues within 12 months, though property rights remain unresolved and real estate investment stays structurally constrained. In the upside case, the 14-hour electricity target is met, the Gaziantep-Aleppo railway converts from feasibility to construction, institutional capital follows the Turkish-Qatari commitment, and Aleppo begins to resemble a functioning regional manufacturing hub within three to four years. In the downside case, the political settlement fractures, electricity stalls at six hours, the property rights impasse hardens, and deployed capital is stranded in a market with no exit liquidity, which is broadly what happened in Mosul. The base case is the most probable, and the investors most likely to succeed will be those who prioritise sectors with short payback periods, textiles and logistics in particular, over those requiring long-horizon commitments such as real estate, at least until the political and regulatory environment demonstrates greater durability.

Where the Capital Goes

What follows is an assessment of nine sectors against four criteria applied consistently across every city in this series: capital efficiency, near-term feasibility (12 to 24 months), structural demand (permanent versus cyclical), and alignment with Aleppo’s specific comparative advantages. The sector investment map below provides the figures an investment committee needs: estimated addressable market in Aleppo specifically, minimum entry CAPEX, timeline to first revenue, and the binding risk for each sector.

The opportunity surface maps the same sectors along two analytical dimensions, with bubble size reflecting estimated capital absorption, to help investors identify where to concentrate diligence and where to wait.

Textiles are what Aleppo does better than any other city in Syria, and the sector where capital can move fastest because the knowledge never left, it just relocated. The families and workers who built Aleppo’s carpet, garment, and denim industries are still producing in Gaziantep, Bursa, and Egypt, and firms in Aleppo’s industrial zones are already exporting to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon from rehabilitated factory lines, which means the question is not whether Aleppo can produce textiles competitively but whether it can do so at energy costs that match Turkish manufacturers whose lower electricity prices currently give them a significant cost advantage.

Light manufacturing and construction inputs follow a simple logic: Aleppo cannot rebuild itself with imported cement and rebar from Turkey at prices inflated by transport and energy costs, and every housing unit, school, and factory being rehabilitated in the governorate creates demand for locally produced construction materials, plastics, glass, and packaging that the city’s existing industrial shells are well suited to supply, often at deployment timelines shorter than greenfield alternatives because the zoning, road access, and basic infrastructure already exist.

Logistics and transport benefit from a condition that is unique to Aleppo among Syrian cities: the reopening of the Turkey-Gulf overland corridor means that goods moving between 85 million Turkish consumers and the markets of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE now pass through or near Aleppo, and the warehouse, cold chain, and freight-forwarding infrastructure needed to service that corridor simply does not exist yet. Early logistics operators face no incumbents, no legacy leases, and a demand curve that rises with every truck that crosses the border.

Healthcare and pharmaceuticals are defined in Aleppo by a specific gap: the city that once housed the majority of Syria’s private pharmaceutical plants and supplied the vast majority of the country’s domestic drug needs now has a returning population of over two million people served by a health infrastructure that was devastated during the war, and the demand for diagnostic imaging, laboratory services, dialysis, and generic medications is not stabilising but growing as families return. That makes this one of the few sectors where the risk of deploying capital is genuinely lower than the risk of waiting.

Energy and utilities in Aleppo present an opportunity not at the generation level, where the $7 billion national consortium deal is already adding capacity, but at the distribution level, because the industrial city’s own administration describes its grid infrastructure as “dilapidated” and industrial consumers in Aleppo currently pay 27 cents per kilowatt-hour compared with 8 cents in Turkey and 5 cents in Egypt, which means any investor who can deliver cheaper, more reliable power to Aleppo’s factories through solar, battery storage, or grid rehabilitation has an immediate and quantifiable market.

Real estate and housing in Aleppo face an unusual combination of overwhelming demand and a structural barrier that prevents capital from entering: eastern Aleppo is largely uninhabitable, the returning population needs housing at a scale the city cannot currently provide, but wartime displacement, regime-era expropriation, and destroyed land registries have created overlapping property claims that make title verification nearly impossible in most neighbourhoods, which is why the Haydariyah pilot on municipally-owned land matters so much as a test case for whether reconstruction capital can flow into housing without being trapped by unresolved ownership disputes.

Agriculture and agro-processing in Aleppo benefit from a resource advantage that no other Syrian governorate can match: the only river basin in the country with excess water supply, which supports olive groves, pistachio orchards, cotton fields, and wheat production that historically accounted for roughly 13% of national agricultural output and that could be connected to export markets through processing facilities (olive pressing, pistachio packaging for Gulf buyers, cotton ginning to feed the reviving textile sector) and cold storage infrastructure linking Aleppo’s farms to Latakia’s Mediterranean port two hundred kilometres to the west.

Education and vocational training matter in Aleppo for a reason that connects to every other sector in this analysis depends on a workforce that does not yet fully exist in the city: returning workers in Aleppo’s industrial zones often lack the technical certifications that export markets require, and the schools and training centres that would produce welders, electricians, CNC machinists, and Turkish-speaking commercial staff were themselves damaged during the war, and demand for private education and vocational programmes is accordingly not a standalone opportunity but an enabling condition for industrial recovery.

Heritage tourism and hospitality are small in absolute terms but carry outsized symbolic and economic weight in a city whose identity is inseparable from its medieval souk and Citadel, and the early signs of revival are visible. The Citadel draws 5,000 weekend visitors since reopening in September 2025, the Aga Khan Trust for Culture has restored 277 shops across eight sections of the souk, and Hisham Jbeili, a sixth-generation Aleppo soap maker, has resumed production in his restored workshop at one-fiftieth of his pre-war capacity, a detail that captures both the resilience and the distance still to travel.

What Can Go Wrong

Political fragility remains the dominant risk, because Syria’s parliament has not been fully formed, there is no ratified constitution, periodic clashes in Aleppo’s northwest underscore that the monopoly on violence is incomplete, and the political settlement, only sixteen months old, has not yet demonstrated the durability long-horizon capital requires.

Property rights constitute the single most consequential risk for physical-asset investment, because wartime displacement, regime-era expropriation laws, destroyed land registries, and decades of informal settlement have created overlapping claims that no court system is currently equipped to adjudicate.

Infrastructure constrains competitiveness: current grid supply is not enough to match regional production costs, and factories face being undercut by Turkish imports priced 30 to 40% below local production because of energy cost differentials that will persist until capacity catches up.

Human capital is the sleeper risk that appears in no damage assessment: average salaries sit at roughly $120 per month, and the skilled diaspora will not return without credible guarantees on security, property, and opportunity that do not yet exist.

Regional conflict casts a shadow over every assumption in this analysis: the ongoing war involving Iran has closed or restricted airspace across the Middle East, disrupted shipping and logistics corridors, and introduced a level of regional instability that could spill into Syria at any point, affecting investor confidence, supply chains, and the physical security of assets on the ground regardless of how favourably domestic conditions develop

.

The Thesis

Aleppo is not a safe bet by any conventional measure, because grid electricity runs six hours a day, property rights are unresolved, the political order that emerged from the December 2024 transition has not yet demonstrated the institutional durability that long-horizon capital demands, and the nearest precedent, Mosul, remains largely unrecovered nearly a decade after its own liberation despite having oil revenue that Aleppo lacks.

It is also a city where 960 factories are running at Sheikh Najjar, where a gas pipeline delivers six million cubic metres a day, where the overland corridor to the Gulf is reopening after thirteen years, where a Turkish-Qatari consortium has committed $14 billion in infrastructure, where sanctions have been lifted, and where the government has told investors at FII Riyadh that it wants reconstruction financed through investment rather than aid.

The 960 factories are the most important number in this analysis, not because of their output, which remains a fraction of pre-war levels and in many cases serves domestic markets at margins that would not yet survive full regional competition, but because of what they represent: a revealed preference by people with their own capital at risk who assessed the damage, weighed the alternatives, and decided that the economics of operating in Aleppo, however constrained, made the bet worthwhile. In April 2025, a delegation of prominent Aleppo industrialists visited Syria for the first time in over a decade, met President Al-Sharaa and toured the industrial city, and sent what the Syria Report described as “a positive signal about potential economic revitalisation,” though they remained cautious and did not announce new investment.

They are not waiting for the risk to resolve; they are the risk resolving, and that distinction matters more than any number in this analysis.

The war destroyed the factories and scattered the families, but it did not move the city, and that is the fact that should anchor every investment thesis written about Aleppo in the years ahead. The economics of geography do not forget, and every century has produced a reason to write this city off, from the Mongol sack to the Ottoman restructuring to the loss of its port to the drawing of borders it never chose, and every century has been wrong, because the logic that made Aleppo a commercial capital for five thousand years was never about the buildings or the institutions or the particular families who happened to hold the leases at any given moment but about the coordinates themselves, about what happens when overland trade routes from the Mediterranean, Anatolia, and the Arabian Peninsula converge on a single point and someone is there to finance, manufacture, and ship what passes through. The reconstruction now underway is not a recovery in the conventional sense but rather the reassertion of that underlying geographic logic after its longest and most violent interruption, and the capital that recognises this earliest will be positioned not merely for the returns of a post-conflict rebound, which are significant but finite, but for participation in the re-emergence of one of the oldest and most durable commercial platforms in the world, a platform whose productive life predates every modern nation-state in the region and whose competitive advantages are embedded not in any policy or institution but in the physical geography of the eastern Mediterranean itself. That is the reconstruction dividend, and the window in which to capture it will not stay open forever.

When liberation came in late 2024 and Syria’s new government began staffing its ministries, Dr. Safadi moved. In April 2025 he joined the Ministry of Health as Head of Strategy, crossing back into the country he had spent years trying to serve from outside, now with a mandate to work on the system itself. The task he inherited was not simply one of reconstruction but one of reunification, because three parallel health architectures had emerged over fourteen years of war: the Damascus-centered government network, the NGO-sustained system in the northwest, and a third structure in the northeast, each with its own institutions, funding logic, and inherited habits. Bringing them under a single national framework, while simultaneously closing deep workforce gaps, rehabilitating damaged infrastructure, and reducing the out-of-pocket spending that crushes Syrian households, is the work Dr. Safadi is now leading.

We spoke with him in Damascus about what the past year has revealed, where the constraints bite hardest, and what it will take to reach the health system Syria deserves by 2031.

You spent years working on Syria’s health system from the outside. What did you find when you finally came inside, and what has been hardest to move?

The scale of the damage was not a surprise, I had been watching it from Gaziantep for years, trying to work around it. What I did not fully anticipate was how deeply the bureaucratic structure itself would become an obstacle to recovery, separate from the physical destruction, separate from the workforce gaps.

Syria’s public administration runs on paper, including forms, approvals, and physical signatures, and that system exists everywhere: inside the Ministry, across its affiliated bodies, at every level of implementation. When you are trying to move fast, and we must move fast, a paper-based bureaucracy is not merely inefficient but structurally incompatible with the pace of reform we need.

The workforce dimension compounds this considerably, because specialists emigrated during the war and did not return, which means you are working with reduced human capacity inside an apparatus that was already slow by design.

I contributed to a research note that framed Syria’s situation this way: the country entered the post-liberation period carrying three separate administrative health systems simultaneously, namely the Damascus-centered structure, the northwest, and the northeast, each of which had developed its own institutions, its own dependencies, and its own way of doing things. They did not dissolve when liberation came, and the task of unifying them is one of the defining challenges of this phase, one that cannot be done quickly or by decree alone.

How is that unification actually happening?

It is happening in three steps, each of which serves as a prerequisite for the next.

The first is mapping, because you cannot plan what you cannot count. We are documenting the human resources that exist across all regions, including where the cadres are, what specializations they hold, and what gaps exist, and that assessment is nearly complete.

The second is incorporation: the health infrastructure built in the northwest and northeast during the war, including the clinics, the referral networks, and the trained staff, needs to be formally brought inside the national service map. Much of it functions, but it has been operating outside the central system’s accounting, which means we have been planning with an incomplete picture of what Syria actually has.

The third is a rapid needs assessment for secondary and tertiary care, which is where the gap is most acute. The systems in the northwest and northeast were built almost entirely around primary care, which was the humanitarian priority and made sense at the time, but referral pathways for complex cases were improvised or nonexistent. As we draw the new national health map, we need to build proper corridors for populations in camps and remote areas who currently have no structured access to anything beyond basic care.

Private sector investment in post-conflict health systems is a fraught subject. Iraq is the cautionary example everyone cites: a two-tier system, high-quality private care in cities, degraded public care everywhere else. How does the Ministry manage that risk in Syria?

It is one of the things we are working on most seriously, because the governance framework that regulates the relationship between the state and the private sector was, before liberation, severely distorted and in many respects not functional at all. We are building it now, from close to nothing.

The core principle is uniform standards. Public and private facilities must operate under the same accreditation requirements, the same quality benchmarks. If that holds, the structural condition that produces a two-tier system, where private care operates under fundamentally different norms, is addressed at the root, not patched at the edges.

Syria is open to investment. The Ministry coordinates closely with the Investment Authority, the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Economy to create real pathways for private capital in health. But I want to be honest about a term that circulates in these conversations: “organic development.” The idea that the private sector will grow naturally, following its own logic, and that the result will serve the national interest. I am not fond of that framing. The private sector does not grow organically. It grows where capital flows. Our role is to regulate and channel that flow, to ensure it serves the national system rather than pulling away from it. That requires active governance, not passive confidence.

On the urban-rural gap: that disparity already exists within the public sector, and we are not pretending otherwise. Closing it requires making peripheral postings genuinely attractive to health workers, not only through salary but through training access, professional development, regional workshops, and participation in the broader medical community, because people do not only follow money; they follow opportunity and recognition, and that is what we are trying to create.

Out-of-pocket spending in Syria is among the highest in the region. What brings it down?

It currently stands at around 45% of total health spending, and the target for 2030 is 40%, which may sound like a modest five-percentage-point reduction but is anything but.

The strategy to bring it down runs on four parallel tracks.

The first is government spending: we have a commitment from the Ministry of Finance to increase public health expenditure by 0.5 percentage points annually, from approximately 7.8% of the budget today to 10.3% by 2030, and every point that government spending rises, household exposure falls correspondingly.

The second is primary care reform. A strong primary care system, accessible, prevention-focused, free or nearly free at the point of use, reduces the number of people who reach secondary and tertiary care in the first place. We are designing an essential services package that every Syrian can access at no or minimal cost: both an equity intervention and a direct mechanism for reducing household health expenditure.

The third is health insurance. We are currently targeting 1.6 million employees and their families by the end of 2028. That is a starting point. Over time, coverage needs to extend to private sector workers and broader segments of the population, with public and private insurers alike operating within the national framework. The logic is straightforward: the more people in a risk pool, the lower the catastrophic exposure for any individual household.

The fourth track is the Ministry’s own financial independence. We are working to reduce dependence on NGO financing. That dependence is not neutral. It shapes priorities, creates parallel structures, and introduces distortions in how resources get allocated. A Ministry with stable domestic revenue streams is a Ministry that can actually plan. Reducing NGO dependence is both a governance objective and a financial one.

Sixty percent of Syria’s health facilities have structural problems. How do you decide where to start?

We could not answer that question with instinct alone, so we needed to build a framework.

We built a prioritization matrix around a set of variables: population density and catchment size; availability of existing health cadres in the area; access time, meaning the actual time it takes a patient to reach a facility; urban or rural character of the community; poverty rates; and the state of basic infrastructure, including power and connectivity. Each factor is scored and weighted. The output is a ranked list, produced separately for primary and secondary care.

The matrix is imperfect, and the underlying data is uneven in quality, but it produces a defensible allocation logic, which matters more than precision at this stage, because it means we can explain to any observer, and to ourselves, why we are investing here rather than there.

One variable carries particular weight right now: displacement. Communities absorbing large numbers of internally displaced persons, such as southern rural Idlib, Deir ez-Zor, parts of Homs, and parts of eastern Aleppo, move up the priority list because they are receiving large displaced populations, and rehabilitating their health infrastructure is both a service delivery decision and a returns policy. Our goal as a country is to bring people home, and you cannot bring people home to places without functioning health systems.

Where are the workforce gaps most severe?

We are finalizing the first draft of a health labor market assessment, the most comprehensive picture we have been able to build of the sector’s human resource situation. It has taken time. The workforce has been highly dynamic: movement across the country, structural changes inside the Ministry, the difficulty of counting cadres in regions only recently reconnected to the central system. The data is imperfect. But the shape of the problem is clear.

Nursing is the most critical gap, and specifically specialized nursing, including intensive care nurses, dialysis nurses, and other technical roles that require targeted training and cannot be filled by general clinical staff, and these shortfalls are deep enough that they will not close quickly.

Among physicians, the gaps concentrate in specializations with long training pipelines, such as anesthesiologists, nephrologists, hematologists, and certain surgical subspecialties, which are precisely the categories where emigration hit hardest and where the distance between what we have and what we need is most difficult to close.

Geographically, the damage follows the conflict: the northern and eastern governorates, the areas that saw the most sustained destruction and displacement, carry the largest deficits, while some coastal and central governorates have relative sufficiency. The problem is heavily concentrated in the periphery, which is precisely where the capacity to attract staff through market mechanisms is weakest.

This last point is worth naming plainly: the public sector cannot currently compete with the private sector on salary, specialist physicians can earn more in private practice, and that gap will persist for the foreseeable future. Compensation alone will not close it, so the approach has to be broader, encompassing the professional environment, training, recognition, and the sense that working in the public system means being part of something that matters.

What is the digital infrastructure reality, and what is the path forward?

Syria’s digital infrastructure was degraded by war and neglect simultaneously: in many facilities, basic network connectivity does not exist, equipment is absent or non-functional, and the institutional reflex at every level of the system is still to reach for paper.

The ambition is clear: we are moving toward DHIS-II as the foundation for a national health information system, and from there, over time, toward electronic medical records across Ministry facilities. That is not aspirational language but the actual plan, though it requires simultaneous progress at multiple layers, including physical infrastructure, legal frameworks, equipment, and a genuine shift in how staff think about documentation, because progress on one layer without the others does not produce a functional system, and each constraint is real and has to be addressed.

We are not trying to recover to 2010; we are building for where Syria needs to be now.

What do you say to investors looking at the Syrian health sector?

Syria has 23 million people and a health system built for a fraction of what they need, and that gap is not a risk narrative; it is a market.

The sector took extraordinary damage. Secondary care, tertiary care, diagnostics: these are areas where demand is real, where the public sector cannot move fast enough on its own, and where private investment, properly regulated, can generate returns and deliver genuine impact for Syrian patients simultaneously. You will not find that combination easily in this region.

What the Ministry offers in return is a commitment to reduce bureaucratic friction, to work within a clear and consistently applied regulatory framework, and to facilitate the approvals and operational conditions that serious capital requires. We are not asking for a leap of faith; we are asking investors to look at Syria clearly, at the need, at the political direction, at the pace of reform, and to make a considered judgment, because those who come in good faith will find the Ministry a genuine partner.

Close your eyes and open them in 2031. What do you see?

I see a health coverage index of 70, up from 63 today, with out-of-pocket spending brought down to 40% from 45%, government health expenditure reaching 10.3% of the budget, and external funding dependence, currently between 25 and 28%, reduced to 20%.

I see every damaged facility rehabilitated and operational, with a second wave of renovation underway for facilities that function but are deteriorated, and hospital capacity, particularly in intensive care, grown by 5 to 10% above current levels.

I see a workforce strategy that has stabilized staffing across governorates, alongside a revitalized national board certification and training system, one that restores what Syria was genuinely good at, which is producing outstanding physicians and sending them into the world, except this time we send them into our own communities first. Every Ministry employee trained, current, and connected to global clinical standards.

I see health insurance reaching well beyond 1.6 million people, and an essential services package available to every Syrian, everywhere in the country.

Syria had a health sector it could be proud of, and we lost it, but we are going to build it back, not to what it was, but to what it should have become. That is the mission, and it is achievable.

Conclusion

What emerges from this conversation is not a portrait of a ministry improvising its way through crisis, but of one attempting something considerably more ambitious: the construction of a coherent national health architecture from the wreckage of three parallel systems, under conditions of severe fiscal constraint, workforce depletion, and infrastructural damage that touches the majority of the country’s facilities. The challenges Dr. Safadi describes are not sequential but simultaneous, and simultaneous, and the interdependencies between them are what make the work so demanding. A digital transformation cannot proceed without connectivity; a staffing strategy cannot hold without incentives that extend beyond salary; a regulatory framework for private investment cannot function without the institutional capacity to enforce it.

Yet the specificity of the Ministry’s targets, including a health coverage index of 70 by 2031, out-of-pocket spending at 40%, insurance coverage extending well beyond 1.6 million people, and government health expenditure rising to 10.3% of the national budget, suggests a leadership team that has moved past the diagnostic phase and into the harder business of planning against measurable outcomes. The prioritization matrix for facility rehabilitation, the phased approach to system unification, and the essential services package under design all point in the same direction: a deliberate attempt to replace the improvised structures of the war years with something durable and nationally accountable.

For investors, the signal is clear: Syria’s health sector represents one of the most significant unmet-demand environments in the region, and the Ministry is actively building the governance and regulatory infrastructure needed to channel private capital productively. The question is no longer whether the need exists, but whether the institutional conditions are forming fast enough to support serious deployment, and on the evidence of this conversation, the trajectory is credible.

.

When liberation came in late 2024, some of the Syrians who had spent the conflict years running health programs from Gaziantep, managing policy from San Diego, watching the system fragment from across a border they could not cross, chose to return. They are now in senior roles inside the Ministry of Health, navigating a bureaucracy that still runs on paper, betting that the institution can be changed from the inside. That choice is the human fact that underlies the document this essay examines, and it is visible in the document itself: in the candor of its baseline data, the rigor of its prioritization methodology, the refusal to write for donors rather than for implementers.

What the sector looks like on the ground is not what the aggregate data alone conveys. The destruction is real and visible, but it is the quieter degradation alongside it that defines the experience of health care in Syria today. Private hospitals operate well below the standard of their counterparts in Amman or Beirut, and the public system did not collapse entirely but contracted over fourteen years into something far smaller than the country requires and far weaker than its regional peers. Syria’s private health sector is frequently cited as the functional backstop when the public system fails; what that framing omits is that the private sector here is itself less developed, less capitalized, and less capable than the private sectors of Jordan, Lebanon, or Iraq, leaving a country of twenty-three million people with no tier of health care operating anywhere near its necessary capacity.

Governments emerging from prolonged conflict tend to produce one of two kinds of planning documents. The first is the vanity document: thick with vision statements, thin on baseline data, written for donors rather than implementers, and quietly shelved within eighteen months. The second is the emergency patch: a triage list dressed as a strategy, reactive by design, institutionally incapable of looking more than one budget cycle ahead. Both are, in their way, a form of institutional self-protection, the appearance of planning without the exposure that comes from committing to something specific enough to fail at.

The Syrian Ministry of Health’s Strategic Plan for 2026 to 2028, published in early 2026 and available in English on the Ministry’s own website, is neither of these things. It names the damage without softening it, publishes the numbers that make the government look bad alongside the numbers that might attract investment, and sets targets specific enough to be held to. It frames the period not as a plan for transformation but as what it actually is: an early recovery phase, a bridge, a foundation for something larger that has not yet been designed.

WHAT THE NUMBERS SAY

As of early 2025, only 54% of Syria’s hospitals were operating at full capacity, and for primary care centers the figure was 39%. More than 90% of medical devices had exceeded five years of operational life. Physician density stood at 2.2 per 10,000 population, against a WHO minimum threshold of 23 combined health workers per 10,000, and approximately half of Syria’s health cadres emigrated during the conflict. The plan cites this figure plainly, from its own sources, without qualification.

On financing, the picture is starker. Government health expenditure in 2022 was approximately 1.41% of GDP, lower than Jordan at 2.49%, lower than Lebanon at 1.96%, and lower than Iraq at 2.18%. Out-of-pocket spending represents 46% of total health expenditure, and in a country where more than 90% of the population lives below the poverty line, that is not a financing inefficiency. It is a mechanism for producing catastrophic health expenditure at scale, the kind that pushes families deeper into poverty at the moment they are most vulnerable.

The plan describes out-of-pocket spending as a humanitarian exposure, which is a political choice as much as a technical one. It signals that the Ministry intends to treat health financing as a social protection question, not merely a budget line, and that signal is there, in print, in a government strategy document. That distinguishes this plan from most of what preceded it.

THE ALLOCATION PROBLEM

The standard critique of post-conflict health strategies is that they are designed to be unfalsifiable. Targets are set vaguely enough that any outcome can be described as progress, baselines are absent or unreliable, and the institutions responsible for monitoring are the same ones responsible for delivery. The MoH plan is not immune to these pressures. Its monitoring framework acknowledges, with unusual candor, that routine data collection across Syrian health facilities is too fragmented to support reliable measurement. The eight strategic pillars, covering infrastructure rehabilitation, workforce development, health financing, service delivery, governance, medicines access, digital transformation, and health security, are ambitious in aggregate and appropriately modest in their 2028 commitments. The plan is not promising to fix the sector by 2028; it is promising to build the tools that would allow the sector to be fixed between 2029 and 2033.

What makes it serious is a specific design choice in the infrastructure rehabilitation pillar: the facility prioritization matrix. When 60% of Syria’s health facilities have structural damage and available capital is a fraction of what rehabilitation would require, the allocation question is politically explosive, and the forces that typically answer it are proximity to the capital, constituency pressure, donor preference, and visibility, producing the predictable distortions of urban bias and the rehabilitation of facilities that photograph well over those that serve populations most in need. The Ministry built a scoring matrix instead, weighting population catchment size, availability of existing health cadres, travel time to the nearest functional facility, poverty rates, and displacement absorption, meaning the degree to which a community is receiving internally displaced persons without corresponding infrastructure, to produce a ranked list that no single political consideration can easily override.

“We could not answer that question with instinct. We needed a framework.” Dr. Salaheddin Safadi, Head of Strategy, Ministry of Health, March 2026

The matrix is imperfect and the underlying data is uneven, but it produces what the plan calls “a defensible allocation logic,” meaning the Ministry can explain, to any external observer and to itself, why it is investing here rather than there. That accountability to method, rather than to political convenience, is what distinguishes planning from performance.

EVIDENCE ABOUT AN INSTITUTION

There is a reading of this document that treats it as evidence about a plan. There is a more important reading that treats it as evidence about an institution. Syria’s post-liberation government inherited a public administration built for a different era and three separate health architectures that had developed independently during fourteen years of war: the Damascus-centered government network, the NGO-sustained northwest, and a distinct system in the northeast, each with its own institutions, funding logic, and embedded habits that did not dissolve when liberation came.

The Ministry was not guaranteed to produce a planning document of this quality. It could have cited data selectively, or written for donors rather than implementers. The fact that it did neither is evidence, not proof but evidence, that the institution has the analytical capacity and political will to work honestly with the problem it has actually inherited. Early institutional output is predictive. A Ministry that in its first major planning exercise builds a weighted scoring matrix and publicly acknowledges that its monitoring data is unreliable is demonstrating the preference for honesty over comfort that is the prerequisite for every reform that follows.

WHAT THE PLAN CANNOT DO

The plan’s most significant constraint is one that candor about baselines cannot resolve and a weighted scoring matrix cannot fund: the gap between what the strategy commits to and what Syria’s fiscal environment can support. Government health expenditure at 1.41% of GDP cannot sustain the rehabilitation, workforce development, and digital transformation the eight pillars describe. The Ministry’s stated goal is to reduce dependence on NGO financing, not to eliminate external funding but to shift its character from project-based humanitarian assistance toward aligned development investment. That is the right objective, but it depends on a level of donor coordination that Syria’s international partners have not consistently delivered, and that the plan cannot compel.

The workforce problem is similarly structural. Emigration of half the health workforce over fourteen years produces gaps in anesthesiology, nephrology, intensive care nursing, and surgical subspecialties that cannot be closed by retention packages in a two-year window. A national workforce census and an HRH roadmap are the correct first steps; what the plan cannot do is compress training pipelines measured in years into the political urgency of the moment. These are not criticisms. They are descriptions of the environment in which the plan must be executed.

THE TEST IS NOT 2028

The most honest line in the document frames the period as “a focused effort to rebuild the foundations of the health system and create the conditions necessary for sustainable development.” By end of 2028, the Ministry commits to a national facility registry, a verified health workforce census, national health accounts, a costed and piloted Essential Health Services Package, and a functioning digital health governance unit. These are not transformation targets; they are the data infrastructure without which transformation cannot be planned.

The test of this strategy is therefore not what Syria’s health system looks like in 2028. It is whether the facility registry gets built in 2026, whether the national health accounts are published in 2027, and whether the Essential Health Services Package is piloted in enough facilities across enough governorates to generate real operational learning before it is scaled. If those things happen, Syria enters the 2029–2033 national health strategy with a genuine evidence base. If they do not, this plan joins the long shelf of post-conflict strategies that diagnosed the problem accurately and then failed at the first level of implementation.

The Ministry of Health has produced a document that deserves to be taken seriously.

We published the first publicly available English translation of the decree alongside our earlier analysis of its key provisions. This piece does the same for the executive instructions. The full bilingual translation is available [here]. Below, we walk through the framework article by article—licensing mechanics, fiscal incentives, zone structures, investor rights and obligations, and dispute resolution—and flag the provisions that matter most for anyone evaluating an entry into Syria.

The Licensing Process: 30 Days, Three Phases

The executive instructions formalize a three-phase licensing process managed through the Syrian Investment Authority’s Investor Services Centers—one-stop shops where representatives from all relevant ministries sit under a single roof with delegated authority to issue approvals.

The process starts with an application to the Center, accompanied by an economic feasibility study, an asset list, evidence of financial solvency, and property documentation. If the project falls outside existing industrial zones, a site-suitability committee—chaired by the local SIA branch director and including representatives from regional planning, geology, and the relevant sector ministry—must conduct a physical inspection within seven working days.

Once submitted, sector representatives conduct a technical review. After all approvals clear, the SIA issues the Investment License—which explicitly specifies the rights, incentives, and exemptions that attach to the project.

The law caps the entire process at 30 working days from complete application to license decision. If the license is denied, the refusal must be reasoned. The investor has 30 days to object to the Board of Directors, which must rule within 15 working days.

That timeline is ambitious. Whether the one-stop-shop model delivers in practice—particularly in governorates where institutional capacity is weakest—will be among the earliest tests of the framework’s credibility.

Fiscal Incentives: Permanent and Broad

The incentive structure carries over from Decree 114 and is now operationalized in detail. The headline remains the same: permanent tax exemptions with no sunset clause.

Agricultural and livestock projects receive a full, permanent exemption from income tax. Projects in designated development zones, export-oriented industrial projects (exporting more than 50% of capacity), pharmaceuticals, agro-processing, recycling, packaging, and handicraft facilities all receive a permanent 80% reduction.

On the customs side, machinery, industrial production lines, and new medical equipment imported for licensed projects are fully exempt from all customs duties and surcharges—provided they’re used exclusively for the project. Misuse triggers full repayment.

As we noted in our earlier analysis, the permanence of these exemptions is unusual even by post-conflict standards. Iraq’s 2006 investment law capped tax holidays at ten to fifteen years. Without sunset clauses, the risk is that first-movers lock in indefinite cost advantages, eroding the state’s long-term revenue base in the very sectors it’s trying to develop.

The executive instructions do not introduce any new time limits on these benefits. They do, however, add clarity on conditionality: exempted imports must be project-specific, and any breach of investor obligations can trigger cancellation of incentives and repayment of forgone duties.

Economic Zones: Three Forms, One Council

The executive instructions introduce a detailed framework for special economic zones, dividing them into three forms—each with distinct governance, initiation mechanisms, and use cases.

Development Zones target war-damaged areas, underdeveloped governorates, informal housing, and reconstruction. They carry the 80% income tax reduction and allow allocation of state land. Infrastructure to the zone boundary is provided by the state. These can be initiated by the Council, public entities, the SIA, or investors.

Specialized Zones are designed for sector-specific clusters—export processing, technology, medical cities, tourism. They can be initiated by public entities, investors, or on SIA recommendation. The Council defines which activities are permitted and what incentives apply. Infrastructure is state- or investor-funded depending on the agreement.

Privately Owned Zones are investor-initiated, established on the investor’s own property. The Council can approve rezoning to match the project’s needs. These allow mixed-use activities including real estate development. The investor retains land ownership throughout.

All zones are established by Council decision, supervised by the SIA, and subject to a 30-day decision window. Refusals must be reasoned and are subject to objection.

The privately owned zone is a notable feature. It effectively allows an investor with a large enough land holding to request the creation of a self-contained economic zone—with Council-approved zoning changes and dedicated incentives. The model is permissive, and the degree to which it will be used by domestic versus foreign investors will be worth tracking.

Rights and Obligations: The Full Ledger

The executive instructions flesh out the quid pro quo of the investment framework in granular detail. The investor gets broad protections and fiscal incentives; in return, the state imposes local-content requirements, transparency obligations, and a mandatory social-responsibility allocation.

On the rights side: 100% foreign ownership, the ability to transfer profits and wages abroad, one-year renewable residency, no precautionary seizure without a court order, no expropriation without a final judgment, and a prohibition on retroactive procedural or financial burdens. The dispute-resolution path runs from amicable settlement to arbitration (including foreign arbitration, whose awards are enforceable in Syria) to the courts—with investment lawsuits treated as urgent.

On the obligations side: at least 80% local labor (with a Board waiver for skill shortages), use of Syrian companies in project implementation, insurance through a Syrian-licensed company, international accounting standards, annual external audit, and annual license renewal. Projects must also allocate at least 3% of profits to community development—covering a defined list of social investments from environmental remediation to support for families of war casualties.

Two provisions stand out. First, the 3% social-responsibility allocation is not a suggestion—it’s a binding obligation with annual reporting requirements and SIA oversight. It effectively functions as an earmarked tax on profits, directed toward a range of social and environmental priorities.

Second, the 80% local labor requirement is among the highest in the region. Whether this is enforced rigidly or becomes a negotiation point for capital-intensive projects that require specialist foreign labor will shape the practical operating environment.

Institutional Architecture: Centralized by Design

The governance structure is vertically integrated and presidential.

The Supreme Council for Economic Development—chaired by the President—sets overall strategy, designates priority sectors, approves economic zones, allocates state land, and structures PPP frameworks. It meets quarterly and includes the ministers of economy, finance, agriculture, housing, tourism, and justice, among others.

Below the Council, the SIA Board of Directors manages licensing policy, procedures guides, and zone proposals. The Board is chaired by the Director General—who is appointed by presidential decree—and includes the Deputy Minister of Economy and Industry, representatives from the Central Agency for Financial Control, the Planning and Statistics Authority, the International Cooperation Authority, and two investor representatives.

The Investor Services Centers are the operational interface: one-stop shops in Damascus and governorate branches where sectoral representatives carry delegated authority to issue all permits and approvals.

The judiciary and an arbitration framework sit alongside this structure—at least on paper. The decree bars seizure, receivership, and expropriation without judicial orders, and provides for a dedicated investment arbitration center. But as we noted previously, whether these safeguards function as genuine constraints depends on the judiciary’s independence—which remains an open question.

The 3% Levy: Social Responsibility as a Profit Tax

One provision deserves closer attention. Article 27 requires all investors to allocate at least 3% of profits to community development. This is not a voluntary CSR program—it’s a binding obligation with annual reporting, SIA oversight, and a defined menu of eligible expenditures: environmental remediation, healthcare, vocational training, support for families of war casualties, afforestation, and renewable energy contributions, among others.

The funds flow into a dedicated account supervised by the Central Agency for Financial Control—not into the SIA’s own budget—and the expenditures are deductible from taxable profits. In effect, this functions as an earmarked tax on profits directed at social priorities chosen by the state.

No comparable mandatory allocation exists in Iraq, Jordan, or Egypt’s investment laws. Egypt allows voluntary CSR deductions of up to 10% of net income, but participation is optional. Syria’s version is compulsory. For investors modeling returns, the 3% should be treated as a line item, not a footnote.

Real Estate: The Sector That Will Absorb the Most Capital

The executive instructions devote significant space—Articles 47 through 52, plus the development zone provisions—to real estate development and investment. This is not incidental. With roughly 60% of Syria’s built environment damaged or destroyed and millions still displaced, housing and urban reconstruction will absorb more investment capital than any other sector in the near term.

The framework allows real estate developers to operate within development zones (with the 80% income tax reduction), on state land allocated by the Council, or on privately owned land rezoned with Council approval. Developers must be licensed by the SIA Board of Directors, and projects must allocate housing for low-income residents on facilitated terms. A 20% minimum completion threshold applies before any project can be transferred to a new developer.

For foreign investors, the path into Syrian real estate runs through the SIA. State-land allocation terms, zoning redesignation approvals, and the social-housing obligations embedded in the zone-establishment decisions will all shape project economics. The regulation governing state-land pricing—still unpublished—will be particularly consequential for this sector.

How Syria Compares: A Regional Benchmark

Syria’s investment law did not develop in a vacuum. Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt each offer their own frameworks for attracting foreign capital, with varying levels of generosity, conditionality, and institutional maturity. The comparison is instructive.

Syria’s fiscal terms are, on paper, the most generous in the region. No other neighboring country offers permanent income tax reductions of 80–100% without a sunset clause. Iraq caps its tax holidays at 10 years (extendable to 15 with majority Iraqi ownership). Jordan limits income tax reductions to five years and ties them to employment thresholds. Egypt’s incentives—recently expanded under Law 160 of 2023—take the form of investment-cost deductions (capped at seven to nine years) and cash refunds on taxes paid, not outright exemptions.

On foreign ownership, Syria is equally permissive. Decision No. 1 places no sector-specific ownership caps, allowing 100% foreign ownership across the board. Federal Iraq caps foreign ownership at 49% (though the Kurdistan Region allows 100%). Jordan maintains a negative list restricting foreign participation in certain sectors to 49–50%. Egypt generally permits full foreign ownership, with carve-outs for media, telecoms, and some real estate categories.

The tradeoff is on obligations. Syria’s 80% local labor requirement is the highest in the group—well above Iraq’s 50% and Egypt’s 90% (which is widely acknowledged as inconsistently enforced). Jordan ties employment thresholds to incentive eligibility rather than imposing a blanket ratio. And Syria’s mandatory 3% social-responsibility levy has no equivalent in any of the three comparators.

The net picture: Syria is making the most aggressive bid for capital in the region, with the deepest incentives and fewest ownership restrictions—but also the heaviest obligations and the least institutional track record. For early-stage investors, the question is whether the fiscal generosity compensates for the execution risk. The answer will depend less on the law itself than on how the SIA, the one-stop shops, and the courts actually perform.

What the Instructions Don’t Address

The executive instructions operationalize Decree 114 competently. They provide clear procedural steps, define institutional roles, and codify investor protections alongside obligations. But several areas remain unresolved:

Procedures Guides. The instructions repeatedly reference sector-specific “Procedures Guides” that will detail licensing requirements, financial costs, and time limits for each investment sector. These guides—prepared by the SIA in coordination with relevant ministries—are the next layer of operational detail. Until they’re published, investors in specific sectors are operating with an incomplete picture.

State Land Allocation Rules. The Council may allocate state land to investors, but the regulation setting out the bases for allocation—criteria, pricing, priority schedules—has not yet been issued. Article 30 requires the Council to publish a separate regulation. For sectors where state land is central to the investment (real estate development, industrial zones), this is a gap.

Minimum Asset Thresholds. The Council is empowered to set minimum fixed-asset thresholds for projects by sector and by zone, but the instructions do not publish these figures. Smaller investors have no way to assess whether their project scale qualifies.

Electronic Systems. The instructions reference electronic filing and inter-agency linkage systems that do not yet exist. The one-stop-shop model depends on functional coordination between sectoral representatives; the degree to which that coordination is digital versus paper-based will affect speed.

Investment Map. Article 64 requires all public entities to provide the SIA with detailed maps of state properties available for investment. This map—which would be a significant resource for investors scanning for opportunities—has not yet been published.

The Bottom Line

Syria’s executive instructions are a serious attempt to build a functioning investment regime from the ground up. The framework is detailed, the fiscal incentives are the most aggressive in the region, and the investor protections are real on paper. But the permanent tax exemptions come with the highest local-content obligations of any neighboring country, a mandatory profit levy with no regional equivalent, and an institutional architecture that has never been tested.

For investors evaluating early entry, the key documents to watch next are the sector-specific Procedures Guides, the state-land allocation regulation, and—most importantly—the first wave of actual license decisions. The law’s credibility will be established or undermined by whether the 30-day licensing timeline holds, whether the one-stop shops function outside Damascus, and whether the arbitration and judicial safeguards prove meaningful when tested.

The gap between law and practice will be determined by implementation. SIMA Insights will continue to track how the licensing process performs, how economic zones are designated, and which investors are first through the door.

The full bilingual translation of Decision No. 1 (Executive Instructions) is available [here].

President Ahmed al-Sharaa made the first major step in attracting that investment last June, issuing Syria’s first post-Assad investment law. We’ve published the first publicly available English translation of the decree, available here, alongside a detailed breakdown below of its key provisions and areas for improvement. In brief, the decree makes an ambitious bid for FDI by establishing a range of incentives for investors, even if the scale of its incentives may require reform to protect long-term competitiveness.

Subscribe now

Executive-Led Development

The decree establishes two new institutions for the management of public wealth.

The Supreme Council for Economic Development is tasked with designing and implementing Syria’s overall economic strategy, identifying priority sectors, establishing investment zones, and structuring public–private partnerships. Chaired by the President or his delegate, reportedly vice-chaired by Hazem al-Sharaa, and populated by a number of ministers (see figure 1), the Council meets quarterly and operates under rules set by its Chairman.

The Council may allocate land from the state’s private property portfolio to investors, subject to regulatory guidelines, placing one of Syria’s most valuable economic assets—state-owned land—under centralized direction and granting the Council a significant role in capital allocation.

The second institution, the Syrian Investment Authority (SIA), functions as the investment law’s operating hand. It grants investment licenses, oversees compliance, and decides on investment applications. In addition, it operates Investor Service Centers, one-stop shops that bring representatives of relevant public entities under a single window. While the SIA is defined as having financial and administrative independence, it is explicitly affiliated with the president. Its Board of Directors is chaired by the Director General and includes the Deputy Minister of Economy and Industry, representatives of the Central Agency for Financial Control, the Planning and Statistics Authority, the International Cooperation Authority, and two investor representatives — all appointed by presidential decree. The Director General himself is appointed by decree and represents the Authority before courts and third parties.

For all its extension of presidential authority, the decree also empowers the courts. Projects may not be “subject to precautionary seizure or receivership,” nor to arbitrary license revocation, procedural burdens, or financial obligations, unless by reasoned judicial order. It also allows for the establishment of a specialized arbitration center for investment disputes. These provisions attempt to construct a formal dispute-resolution framework outside the executive, one aligned with international investment practice.

This shifts the locus of intervention from executive discretion to courts and arbitration centers, distancing itself from executive rule. That said, whether that safeguard proves meaningful depends on the judiciary's independence. Syria’s judicial system remains closely tied to the executive, where the president retains broad authority over judicial appointments and removals. While the decree places legal limits on executive interference, enforcement ultimately rests with institutions that are not yet fully autonomous.

Lowering the Cost of Entry

Reflecting the need to attract investment, the new investment regime features striking fiscal generosity. Agricultural and livestock projects receive a permanent 100% income tax exemption, while industrial projects exporting more than 50% of their production capacity, projects in development zones, pharmaceuticals, agricultural processing, recycling, packaging, and handicrafts will all receive an 80% reduction on income taxes (see figure 3).

Customs exemptions are equally broad, with imports of machinery, industrial production lines, and medical equipment necessary for licensed projects all exempted from customs duties and related surcharges.

Beyond sector-specific carve-outs, foreign investors as a class are granted significant advantages. They may own 100% of project capital, receive renewable one-year residence permits during both establishment and operation, and transfer full wages and profits abroad through Syrian banks. While those benefits do come with requirements to use Syrian companies in project implementation, employ at least 60% local labor, and insure projects through Syrian-licensed insurers, the law is generally quite favorable to foreign investors when compared with regional equivalents.

These pro-investor policies do come with tradeoffs. In the short term, aggressive incentives and centralized coordination may succeed in attracting capital during a period of extreme fragility. Over the longer term, permanent tax exemptions and concentrated authority could constrain fiscal capacity and limit domestic participation in key sectors.

Let’s take one feature: the absence of sunset clauses. Permanent tax exemptions are unusual in investment laws, even post-conflict ones. Iraq’s 2006 Investment Law, for example, capped tax exemptions at ten to fifteen years and limited customs benefits to three years. Absent sunset clauses, many of these sectors may become dominated by first-movers—early entrants whose investment bids are approved by the SIA under the current framework—that continue to enjoy tax exemptions indefinitely. Over time, these permanent incentives create cost asymmetries, locking in the competitive position of these firms and limiting the state’s ability to collect revenue from the largest companies in its priority sectors.

The result is a more aggressive bid for capital, but one that may constrain the state’s future fiscal capacity. In the immediate reconstruction phase, that tradeoff may appear justified. Over time, as the economy grows and public spending demands increase, the long-term erosion of the revenue base may become harder to defend. Whether the initial influx of capital justifies the long-term fiscal sacrifice is a question of political judgement, and one that merits wider debate.

The answer will also largely depend on the law’s implementation. In the months ahead, SIMA Insights will be tracking how bids are allocated to see who benefits most from the new framework. The distribution of investment licenses, the terms on which state land is allocated, and the credibility of arbitration and judicial safeguards will all determine will determine how attractive Syria becomes as a destination for FDI.

Share

Vertically integrated industries like the olive oil sector, which link farmers to processors and exporters within a single domestic value chain, spur much of Syria’s productive economy. The ten figures that follow trace how war restructured the sector’s production and processing base, and identify the largest opportunities for recovery.

Figure #1: Conflict-Wrought Decline

Syria’s olive oil production trajectory reflects decades of deliberate state expansion followed by wartime collapse. Before 2011, production was rising by roughly 3,000–3,300 tons per year, driven by Ba’athist land reclamation policies that increased olive tree numbers from 38.6 million (1988) to 58.3 million (1997). Production peaked at 198,000 tons in 2011, placing Syria among the world’s 4th-6th largest producers.

The civil war reversed that trajectory: instead of continuing to grow, production began declining by about 3,000–3,600 tons annually after 2011. In effect, the war reduced the sector’s growth path by roughly 6,500–7,000 tons per year compared to the pre-war trend. In 2024, output totaled about 125 thousand tons, around 90 thousand tons less than the 210 thousand tons predicted by pre-war trajectories.

Figure #2: The Geography of Olive Production

Syrian olive cultivation concentrates in the country’s northwestern and coastal regions, where annual rainfall exceeds 350mm—the minimum threshold for rain-fed olive farming. Before the war, roughly 90% of production came from this climatically favorable area, which includes the governorates of Aleppo, Idlib, Latakia, and Tartous.

Within this zone, Afrin, in the northwestern Aleppo governorate, contained approximately 14 million olive trees before 2018—roughly 20% of Syria’s total. This single district produced an estimated 35,000–50,000 tons of olive oil annually, making it the country’s most productive olive-growing region.

In March 2018, Turkey and allied Syrian armed groups occupied Afrin following a military operation explicitly named “Olive Branch.” The occupation removed a significant portion of Syria’s olive-growing capacity from Damascus’ control, a geographic reality that shapes subsequent figures in this analysis.

Figure #3: The War’s Impact on Orchard Performance

Even before the war, Syrian olive yields were exceptionally low. In 2011, groves yielded just 1.6 tons of oil per hectare—far below traditional rain-fed systems elsewhere and a fraction of modern intensive operations. This poor performance likely reflects low tree density, limited fertilizer use, and a suboptimally dry climate, factors common to Syrian orchards.

The war devastated what production did exist. Yields collapsed from 1.6 tons per hectare (2011) to 0.56 tons (2014)—a 64% decline in three years—and have since remained unstable and depressed. Various mechanisms explain this drop. Syria’s rural population shrank by 50% between 2011 and 2016 as farmer displacement left groves untended and reduced incentives for efficient land use. International sanctions blocked fertilizer and pesticide imports, with only 40-50% of farmers having access to fertilizers by 2019. Agricultural extension services collapsed entirely. In Turkish-occupied Afrin after 2018, armed groups imposed fees of $4–15 per tree, plus crop taxation, encouraging the maximization of yield/tree rather than per hectare.

Reliable yield data has not been available since 2020, but drought continues to cause dramatic swings. The 2024–2025 season brought Syria’s worst drought in 60 years; in Daraa governorate alone, production fell 68%, with per-tree yields dropping by half.

Figure #4-5 A Rain-Dependent Sector

Syria’s olive sector relies almost entirely on rain-fed cultivation—95% of orchards depend on seasonal rainfall with no irrigation infrastructure. This contrasts with other producers: roughly a quarter of Spanish orchards use drip irrigation, while Tunisian and Moroccan farmers have also shifted toward irrigated intensive planting. Syria’s traditional extensive approach, with just 20-100 trees per hectare, produces lower volumes but higher-quality oil. Rain-fed olives yield a slightly higher oil content with flavor notes valued in premium markets.

That said, reliance on rain moreso reflects capital constraints than agronomic choice. Converting to drip irrigation can cost roughly $4,000 per hectare, capital most Syrian farmers, who operate small holdings under 5 hectares, do not have access to. In addition, using such infrastructure requires consistent access to electricity, which the Syrian grid cannot support.

Figure #6 The Loss of Processing Infrastructure

Another dimension of conflict-wrought decline, Syria’s olive pressing capacity has deteriorated sharply since 2009. The country lost 177 traditional presses—a 57% collapse. These traditional presses, while less efficient, remain accessible to smallholder farmers who cannot afford modern facilities’ processing fees. The loss of local pressing infrastructure has forced farmers to transport olives longer distances, increasing costs and reducing oil quality as fruit oxidizes during delays, while many surviving modern presses operate far below capacity due to intermittent power supply.

Figure #7: Routes Out

The sector’s uneven wartime trajectory can also be explained by the geographic concentration of presses in the northwest, where Aleppo (248), Idlib (120), Lattakia (143), and Tartus (236) form a dense processing corridor. This clustering is driven by two factors: processing follows olive cultivation, which is itself concentrated in the northwestern belt, and processors seek proximity to ports and border crossings to lower the cost of export. Yet that same concentration made the sector more vulnerable to shifts in territorial control in the northwest—particularly in and around Afrin and greater Aleppo—and left eastern regions dependent on long transport routes to access processing and export channels, vulnerabilities that intensified after 2018.

Figure #8: Syria Versus Regional Competitors

While Syria’s civil war destroyed its olive sector, its regional peers have largely increased capacity. Turkey invested heavily in processing capacity over two decades, with last year’s output reaching 475,000 tons, making it the world’s second-largest producer. Tunisia achieved similar gains: record harvests of 340,000 tons in 2024 have allowed the country to capture over 75% of EU olive oil imports from third countries, earning $923 million in export revenue over a 13-month period. In 2008, Syria, Turkey, and Tunisia produced comparable volumes, ranging from 125,000 to 160,000 tons. By 2024, each neighbor produced more than triple Syria’s diminished output.

Figure #9: Exports/Consumption/Production

For most of recent history, Syrian olive oil production has largely served high domestic demand, with a small export sector growing in the lead up to the 2011 Syrian revolution. Yet, even as production and domestic consumption remained depressed after 2011, export volumes have climbed steadily since 2014. The explanation largely lies with Turkey’s 2018 military operation seizing Afrin—home to 18 million olive trees producing 35,000-50,000 tons annually. Between 2018 and 2024, the region’s oil flowed through Turkish-controlled supply chains rather than Syrian government channels.

In 2023, Turkey imported $193 million worth of Syrian olive oil, representing 98% of Turkey’s total olive oil imports. Multiple investigations have documented how this oil would enter Turkey from Afrin, get repackaged or blended with Turkish oil, and enter international markets. As such, the pre-2025 relative export boom is unlikely to be durable. The reintegration of northern agricultural regions into the Southern-weighted domestic market and a general recovery in Syrian demand can be expected to reduce export rates.

Figure #10: Shifting destinations for Syrian Olive Oil

Syria’s olive oil export destinations reveal Turkey’s post 2018 control over the sector. In 2023, Turkey accounted for $356 million of Syria’s olive oil exports—62% of total export value—marking a dramatic shift from the pre-war period when European markets dominated. Between 2023 and 2024, exports, including Turkish ones, collapsed, likely reflecting both Syria’s September 2023 export ban, effective in regions under Damascus control, and Turkey’s own restrictions on bulk olive oil exports, which would have reduced demand for Afrin oil.

What Recovery Requires

If the above figures tell the story of an industry stunted by war, the past year of relative stability has brought hope of recovery. Territorial reunification promises to reconnect northern production zones with southern markets, while sanctions relief creates pathways for the foreign capital needed to rebuild processing capacity and irrigation systems. That said, the olive sector's structural challenges show that such political change alone does not guarantee economic revival.

Over 90% of Syrians remain below the poverty line, with public sector salaries averaging just $100-$120 monthly even after the transitional government’s wage increases. Prices of basic goods rose more than 50% in the first half of 2025 while purchasing power remains depressed: a 16-liter tin of olive oil costs workers two months’ wages in some regions. This broader economic fragility has kept domestic demand low, even amid a modest recovery in olive production.

Beyond weak consumer purchasing power, farmers largely lack access to capital to address chronic underinvestment. Replanting damaged orchards, rebuilding processing infrastructure, and integrating modern irrigation technology require financing that neither smallholders nor the transitional state can provide. While the government has attempted to facilitate investment via new, friendly financial codes, capital flows remain negligible in regions lacking territorial control and rule of law.

More fundamentally, effective property rights remain in question across much of Syria. A November 2025 report documented the most extreme manifestation of this governance vacuum: in Afrin, militias impose levies of $0.87-$8 per tree, seize entire harvests, and destroy orchards as punishment in a region that once produced one-third of Syria's olive oil.

Yet Syria retains inherent advantages: 69 million surviving olive trees, agro-climatic conditions that historically made it the world’s fourth-largest producer, and 377,000 farming families with generational expertise. The lifting of the Caesar act in December and new investment laws allowing 100% foreign ownership create pathways—if territorial stabilization follows, capital can flow to address irrigation deficits, processing gaps, and quality improvements that foreign markets demand. Recovery depends less on Syria's agronomic potential than on whether governance can finally deliver the security and attract the investment that the industry requires.

Share

Industry used to anchor Syria’s economy. Before 2011, the industrial sector accounted for 27% of GDP and employed almost 16% of the population. Textiles alone contributed 27% of non-oil industrial production and 45% of non-oil exports, employing 30% of the industrial workforce. Rebuilding that base, after more than a decade of war, will be a priority for Syria’s post-Assad economic recovery.

Earlier in January, our founder, Hani, was invited to attend a full-day industrial policy workshop organized by the Damascus Chamber of Industry. The workshop offered him an early sign of how the new authorities are approaching industrial policy.

Consultation with the private sector is becoming a core feature of Syria’s emerging industrial policy.

In early January, senior government officials spent a day with leading industrialists from major production centers, structuring discussions around five constraints on industrial recovery: logistics and supply chains, financing, legislation and regulation, workforce development, and institutional coordination. Mixed public- and private-sector working groups were tasked with producing three implementable recommendations each.

Senior officials—including the Ministers of Finance, Economy, and Telecommunications, the Central Bank Governor, and the Mayor of Damascus—joined the closing session to review the proposals. I was deeply impressed by how they participated. Officials spoke openly about reducing friction, improving regulatory clarity, aligning financial tools with industrial priorities, and investing in human capital alongside infrastructure. Each engaged directly with the recommendations, and the Minister of Economy outlined a strategic vision that closely aligned with many of the proposals developed by the working groups. Equally notable was the presence of a younger generation of professionals on both the public and private sides, bringing analytical discipline and a forward-looking mindset.

For investors assessing Syria primarily through risk metrics, events like this offer a counter-signal. They suggest a government that is becoming more methodical, moving away from ad hoc decisions toward something closer to feedback-based reform—a necessary shift if private investment is going to be sustainable.

Industry also provides a clearer entry point for foreign investors than is often assumed. While large infrastructure projects tend to dominate attention, they are capital-intensive, politically visible, and slow to mature. Industrial partnerships, by contrast, allow investors to engage incrementally, align with local firms, and test regulatory and operational conditions before scaling. They also benefit from Syria’s latent advantages: an experienced industrial workforce, established entrepreneurial families and networks, and proximity to regional markets.

This workshop reflects a broader shift toward structured consultation between the state and the private sector. In mid-January, the Ministry of Economy and Industry partnered with UNDP to launch the Syrian Private Sector Dialogue, a series of workshops across the country gathering feedback from businesses and industrialists. To support these efforts and enable readers’ attendance, SIMA Insights will be sharing details of public conferences on our page as they become available.

One workshop won’t change much, but it shows intent, direction, and capacity. Quietly and deliberately, Syrian officials are signaling that the country is open for business.

Share

Iyad Betinjaneh belongs to this small, influential category. He is part of a generation of Syrian businessmen whose careers stretch across radically different economic systems: late-Ba’athist state capitalism, partial liberalization in the 2000s, wartime fragmentation, and today’s uncertain reconstruction phase. Analysts of Syria’s economy often describe recovery as a story dominated by state agencies, politically connected elites, or foreign capital from the Gulf and beyond. Yet much of what still functions on the ground—food processing, agricultural supply chains, domestic distribution, and basic financial services—depends on firms like Betinjaneh’s, which combine local knowledge with the ability to operate across multiple regulatory and political environments.

Today, Betinjaneh occupies a set of positions that place him at the center of debates over reconstruction, foreign investment, and the limits of Syria’s economic reintegration. He is chairman of the Bank of Syria and Overseas, one of the country’s private banks established during the financial liberalization of the 2000s; a board member of the U.S.–Syrian Business Council, which has worked to reopen commercial channels between Syrian firms and American companies after years of isolation; and managing director of the Betinjaneh Group, a family-run conglomerate active in agribusiness, food processing, and consumer goods manufacturing. He also sits on the Damascus Chamber of Industry and the Federation of Syrian Chambers of Industry, and chairs companies dedicated to olive oil and edible-oil refining, a sector which remains one of Syria’s few viable export anchors and comprises more than 3% of national GDP.

We spoke with Betinjaneh in Damascus about what it means to operate across these overlapping sectors and why he believes Syria’s private sector, as battered as it may be, remains essential to any credible economic recovery.

You began your working life well before the war and have worked across agribusiness, manufacturing, and banking. How has your exposure evolved over that period?

I started working in the family business in the early 1990s—actually in 1990—while I was still in high school and university, studying economics. I began in manufacturing. One of our earliest factories produced detergents and plastic products, including shoe polish and floor polish, under license from a German company, producing the BUFALO brand. That’s how my career started.

My father spent much of his life traveling across the Middle East, representing French companies from Iraq to Yemen to Egypt. Through his efforts, these brands became well established in the region. In the 1990s, he focused on the Syrian market and started to rebuild, at a moment when the country was cautiously reopening after a long period of economic closure.

As markets began to open, we restarted operations. We moved into distribution, brought in international brands, and expanded manufacturing in consumer goods—mainly fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG). That became the core of our family business. By the late 1990s and early 2000s, imports resumed in earnest, and in 2004, with further opening, we expanded again.

Around that time, we invested heavily in food commodities and agribusiness, especially edible oils. I specialize in olive oil—I love the product and I’m passionate about it. We built oil refineries producing olive, sunflower, and palm oil, and later expanded into canned foods factories: table olives, grape leaves, pomegranate molasses, artichokes. Olive processing, in particular, became central to what we do.

We’re vertically integrated. We produce everything from packaging to the final product—tins, PET bottles, printing, filling, refining—all locally, in-house. We also remained active in detergents and plastics. And our history includes dairy: my father represented major French dairy brands in the Middle East for decades, and today we produce our own line—milk powder, cheese, and other dairy products—under the Halibuna brand. We’re also in pulses: lentils, beans, rice, with a lentil factory in Aleppo that we built recently.

In parallel, we entered services. When private banking began in Syria in 2004, we were among the founding families of the Bank of Syria and Overseas, alongside partners originally from Syria but based in Lebanon. We also helped found Arope Insurance Company around the same period. By 2010, we were distributing close to three hundred brands alongside our own manufacturing operations.

How did that change with the onset of the war?

In 2012 and 2013, we lost seven factories. Warehouses were destroyed, distribution trucks were stolen, and twenty years of work disappeared. It was a massive loss. We had no choice but to leave, and we moved to Paris and then to Lebanon.

Starting over was difficult. I decided to go back to school and completed an executive MBA, partly to stay active and partly to think more strategically. Between the end of 2014 and the beginning of 2015, as conditions in Syria became somewhat calmer, we began looking back.

Still, at the end of 2023, I had no visibility at all. I thought we might close everything. Costs were unbearable, imports blocked, and palm oil was restricted. Operating felt almost impossible. Then, unexpectedly, conditions shifted again in late 2024 and 2025.

How did those changes affect you?

What we encountered after Assad’s fall was a completely different market. There was a sudden, chaotic opening—a tsunami of goods coming from everywhere, with no standards, no quality control, no customs duties. Syrian consumers were curious about the open market and wanted to try new products. At the same time, raw materials were extremely expensive, driven up by 2024-era exchange-rate volatility and a fragmented financial and payments system that trapped capital in Syrian pounds. I often describe it as opening a bottle of champagne: everything fizzes out at once, and then the problems appear.

We knew it would be brutal, so we applied a survival strategy. Strengthen the pillars—keep factories running, absorb losses, protect what remained. I expected the entire year to be a loss, and it was, especially during Q1 and Q2 of 2025. But then we saw another side: millions of new consumers in areas that had previously been outside the market—northern Aleppo, the Jazira. We moved quickly, expanded distribution, adapted products, and tried to capture that opportunity.

At the same time, foreign actors began showing curiosity about Syria. I told my brother: if there’s wind, open the sail. We’ve reinvested carefully.

You now operate at the intersection of agriculture and industry. What do you think are the biggest constraints facing Syrian manufacturers and farmers today?

Historically, Syria is an agricultural country. Until the 1950s, agriculture represented perhaps seventy-five percent of national income. Key industries—sugar, cotton, textiles—were built on agriculture. Even today, agriculture represents around twenty to twenty-five percent of GDP, but it remains the country’s largest employer.

After the war, the challenges were severe. Land was destroyed or burned. People left their lands; many farmers went to Europe. We lost a great deal.

What’s the biggest constraint? First, water. Second, seeds and inputs – good quality seeds, fertilizers, all are expensive or not available due to sanctions. Third, energy – fuel and electricity to run pumps, machines – it’s very scarce and costly. And financing, of course – there’s no financing for farmers or manufacturers, no credit available to them. We’ve also lost easy access to export markets with the sanctions. All these are constraints.

With better technology, higher yields, and partnerships with foreign companies when conditions allow, agriculture and agro-industry can grow again.

But we have opportunities. Syria is historically one of the top olive oil producers. We still have 82 million olive trees. Syria was the number one exporter of apricots, pistachios, and many other fruits and vegetables. Opportunities remain in improving yields through better technology, partnering with foreign firms when conditions permit, and concentrating on high-value crops where Syria retains a clear advantage.

You also sit on the board of the Bank of Syria and Overseas. How is Syria’s financial sector adapting, and what would you say to foreign investors worried about moving capital in and out of the country?

For the past fifteen years, Syria was cut off from the world. Sanctions forced banks to operate in near isolation. We had to be creative, using alternative routes and the few correspondent banks in friendly countries who continued working with Syrian banks, but it was extremely difficult. There were no direct channels. Everything became cash or informal, which raised both cost and risk.

Our bank had to work in a very cautious, survival-mode approach. Banking activity became extremely conservative and limited largely to NGOs, international organizations, and humanitarian transactions for foreign currency transfers. We were very careful to comply with sanctions and economic measures, which meant shrinking our business significantly. At the same time, the local economy shifted away from formal banking toward forwarders, exchange dealers, and third-party intermediaries in order to cope with sanctions. This led to a major contraction of the official banking sector.

Still, the sector survived. The central bank took measures to maintain stability. Financial ratios weren’t ideal, but private banks—especially the conservative ones—held on. The sector did not collapse, which is crucial for any recovery.

For foreign investors, it remains challenging. If you invest now, your capital may be stuck in Syrian pounds; you can’t easily repatriate profits. That was the situation. But given the rapid pace of political change and the introduction of new investment and tax laws, I expect a gradual reconnection with the global banking system. We already see signals – maybe regional banks coming, the potential easing of restrictions, and foreign investors expressing interest in mega-projects. For now, though, foreign investors are starting to look carefully into the local market and for possible local partnerships.

As a board member of the U.S.–Syrian Business Council (USSYBC), what do international partners tell you about Syria’s investment appeal?

Syria has been on the news for fifteen years. Whether good or bad, everyone knows it. Every company knows Syria. That visibility creates curiosity.

Our role at the USSYBC is to turn that curiosity into something positive. Syria today presents enormous reconstruction needs—hundreds of billions of dollars worth. You won’t find that scale everywhere. Still, Syria remains a land of opportunity.

At the Business Council, we worked with many American companies, even during the war. Through the council, we encourage American and other international companies to come, to visit, to see the country directly. At Betinjaneh Group as well, we deal with many American companies and invite representatives to the country. Last month, security and travel restrictions made that impossible for most firms. Now we’re starting to see more positive feedback.

We’re planning symposiums and visits, connecting companies with the right local partners. We’ve also had discussions with major American banks operating outside the U.S., and things are developing in the right direction.

Reconstruction is often portrayed as a government-led effort. What role do private companies play?

There’s a saying: Ahl al-Makkah adra bi-shiʿabiha—the people of Mecca know their streets best. Syrians are on the ground. We understand the country, the history, where investment makes sense.

Our group operates across agriculture, agribusiness, production, hospitality, banking, insurance, and services. We understand the environment. Any foreign company coming to Syria will need local partners.

I often describe Syria as a beautiful jewel covered in dust. Whoever polishes it will benefit. The challenge is scale. Even the largest Syrian companies are limited compared to the size of today’s projects, which require billions. That’s why many major projects are led by Emirati, Saudi, or Qatari firms—and that’s normal and makes sense. But there is a significant portion that Syrians can handle. The know-how is here.

What conditions are most needed for investors to come with confidence?

First, stability—political stability. And frankly, conditions in 2025 have been better than expected. The government is working hard. I see young people working around the clock. The political vision is positive. There’s a sense of safety on the ground here.

Second, opportunity. Syria’s geographic position is extraordinary. It sits at the center of regional trade routes. On the Belt and Road, Syria could be the cherry on top of the cake. Tartous and Latakia ports are real treasures. Syria can be a logistics hub for both China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Western-led logistics projects linking India, East Asia, and Oceania to the West.

I studied this years ago—railways, ports, trade corridors. For a long time, under Assad, it was only theory. Now I see Syria beginning to emerge as a hub for trade, benefiting from its strategic location linking East with West and north with South.

Looking five or ten years ahead, what is your vision—for Syria and for the Betinjaneh Group?

If stability continues, improvement is inevitable. We see positive signals: a very hard-working young government, regional support, a vision of peace. Syria is returning to its place. It is only a matter of time.

Syria also has friends in the region. Prince Mohammed bin Salman uses an image I like: if you have a train moving forward, you add Syria as one of the wagons and take it with you. That’s how I see it. Syria is returning, gradually, to its place.

For Betinjaneh group, we are here. We stayed. Insh’allah, we will continue. Our core remains in fast-moving consumer goods, while we carefully explore new investment opportunities.

The next fifty years will be better than the last fifty. Hopefully, not just for us, but for Syria as a whole. Syria will rise again.

Share

Since inheriting that system, the new leadership has moved quickly to reshape it, issuing new investment laws, restructuring ministries, and courting capital. The pace of this reform has created both opportunity and uncertainty, leaving domestic and foreign actors alike searching for expertise on the new Syrian economy.

This publication was created to make sense of that terrain. Drawing on prior engagement with Syria’s economy and independent research, we at Sima Partners know that transitions are rarely linear and that economic pressures often drive outcomes more decisively than policy declarations. Our approach combines rigorous analysis with access to Syria’s leading business figures, policymakers, and technocrats, who can explain how legislation is meant to work, where it falls short, and how regulatory decisions are made.

Each issue follows a consistent structure, designed to be both readable and cumulative. We begin with an interview with a decision-maker shaping Syria’s economic future, whether in government or the private sector. From there, we examine one sector in depth, covering opportunities, regulatory frameworks, and informal constraints. We then ground that analysis geographically, profiling a city or region to show that Syria isn’t a single market but a set of differentiated local economies. Every issue includes a timeline of recent economic developments, a tracker of new legislation, and a final op-ed that advances an argument drawing on the reporting in that issue.

Syria’s political landscape remains contested. Questions of accountability, governance, and legitimacy are ongoing and unresolved. This publication doesn’t bracket those realities, for they shape economic decisions in concrete ways. Its focus, however, is on documenting the essential changes in Syria’s business environment. Syria is entering a formative economic moment, and those navigating it need analysis that clarifies risks and identifies opportunities where they exist.

This newsletter, made freely available, is for investors, business leaders, policymakers, diplomats, and analysts who need to understand Syria’s economy as it exists today and make informed judgments about where it goes next.