Pressures or a Standard Routine: Why Did the U.S. Announce Its Non-Recognition of New Syrian Government?

In a move indicating its refusal to recognize the new Damascus government, the United States has sent a note to Syria’s mission in New York through the United Nations, outlining a shift in its legal status.

Rather than being listed as a “permanent mission of a member state in the United Nations”, it has now been reclassified as a “mission of a government not recognised by the U.S.” 

This adjustment signifies a change in U.S. visa policy for new Syrian diplomats seeking entry to New York and the UN headquarters.

The note means the revocation of G1 visas, typically issued to diplomats accredited to the United Nations and recognized by the United States. 

The memorandum further stipulates that their visas will be downgraded to G3 status, reserved for those working at the UN without U.S. recognition of their governments — a surprising and significant shift in policy.

Questions have been raised regarding Washington’s stance on the new regime under Ahmed al-Sharaa, especially given its continued refusal to lift sanctions imposed on the ousted Bashar al-Assad government. 

The U.S. has presented Syria with a list of conditions for partial sanctions relief. 

Or is this procedure merely a standard diplomatic measure, which cannot be considered a  new position from Washington towards the new administration, and won’t have any ramifications?

What’s Behind the Headlines?

The United States has not made any official statement on the matter, and the Syrian news agency merely confirming a diplomatic source who described the move as a standard procedure with no significant implications.

However, Lebanon’s Al-Nahar newspaper, which first drew attention to the story, reported on April 6, 2025, that it had obtained the text of a telegram sent by the Syrian mission to the foreign ministry in Damascus regarding the new development.

The newspaper reported that the Syrian mission informed the foreign ministry of the contents of the U.S. memorandum, which included the cancellation of G1 visas granted to mission members — a category reserved for diplomats accredited to the United Nations and whose governments are recognized by the host country.

The visas were subsequently reclassified to G3, a category for foreigners who are eligible for UN visas but whose governments are not recognized by the United States.

"On April 3, the U.S. Permanent Mission to the United Nations sent us memorandum No. 41-2025, which, based on instructions from the U.S. Department of State, announces the decision to change the legal status of the Permanent Mission and its members," the cable stated.

The shift from "G1" to "G3" means that Washington no longer officially recognizes Syria's new government, deeming its mission to the United Nations unrecognized. 

The Syrian mission's cable noted that “the decision to issue new visas lies with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), following a series of steps and procedures aimed at altering the legal status of the mission and its members.”

According to the final paragraph of the cable, this means that "the U.S. memo constitutes a clear and direct declaration of Washington's refusal to recognize the current Syrian transitional government." 

More concerning, the Syrian memo added, is that “this U.S. move could be followed by similar steps from other countries that share some of the American administration’s policies.”

A source from the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs told the state news agency SANA on April 7, 2025, that the U.S. decision to alter the legal status of the Damascus mission in New York "is purely a technical and administrative procedure related to the envoys of the previous government," and therefore, "does not reflect any change in stance." 

The source also confirmed that a comprehensive review of Syrian missions abroad is currently underway, aimed at reorganizing and restructuring them.

The first decision in this regard was to reinstate Syria’s ambassadors to Russia and Saudi Arabia to work within the ministry’s headquarters in Damascus. 

However, Syrian analysts suggested that this move is part of broader international and regional efforts to reshape relations with Syria, including issues of diplomatic recognition and official representation in international bodies.

Implications of the Reclassification

The telegram presents a dual paradox: on one hand, the United States engages with the new Syrian government as though it acknowledges and approves of its steps, such as its endorsement of the integration of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) into Damascus’s government, and Syria's continued membership in the United Nations with tacit U.S. approval. 

Yet, on the other hand, Washington refuses to officially recognize the new Syrian government it is, in practice, dealing with.

Political analyst Mahmoud Alloush believes that the recent U.S. stance is not outright rejection of the new regime in Damascus, describing it as a "partially positive position, as long as it isn't overly negative." 

He points out that the administration of former President Donald Trump has shown openness to the new government under certain conditions, yet has not deemed it illegitimate, as he stated on X. 

Aloush added that, in practice, Washington is engaging with the regime, citing its role in facilitating the SDF integration deal, meetings with Syrian officials, and its lack of challenge to the legitimacy of the new government.

There is also no indication that the Trump administration is exerting any pressure on Washington's allies who have recognized the legitimacy of the new regime to alter their stance.

Alloush believes that the significance of U.S. recognition, or lack thereof, of the new regime goes beyond the standard acceptance it has thus far achieved internationally.

However, he clarified that the acceptance the new regime has achieved so far in Syria, considering its four-month tenure, its Islamic background, and the circumstances surrounding its formation — including the forcible ousting of the previous government and the legacy of the ousted regime (international isolation and sanctions) — is significant.

He anticipated that U.S. recognition of the legitimacy of the new government would take time, shaped by highly complex factors, and was not necessarily guaranteed. 

Yet, he emphasized that it was by no means out of the question, with the indicators leaning more positively than negatively in this regard.

Syrian researcher and international affairs expert Malik al-Hafez stated that this move falls within the realm of diplomatic pressure tools employed by Washington to urge key players to adjust their behavior or reshape their political discourse.

He further noted that the "deeper indicators point to a more substantive shift in U.S. policy toward Syria" in the post-recognition phase, as al-Hafez explained to Lebanon's An-Nahar newspaper.

The United States may lean towards freezing relations with any authority that does not align with its vision for Syria's future, even if viable alternatives are not yet in place.

This can be seen as an implicit declaration that Washington will not become entangled in the re-legitimization of regimes or new authorities that reinstate forms of autocracy, militarization, or exclusion under religious banners—particularly amidst the growing internal reassessment of its Middle East policy, as described by al-Hafez.

Al-Hafez stated that the U.S. move is a "clear and unmistakable signal" indicating Washington’s refusal to recognize the current authority as a legitimate government representing Syria, despite its control over state institutions and some diplomatic missions.

It also means that Washington rejects granting this authority the automatic international recognition that typically follows a transitional phase in post-conflict states, possibly due to U.S. reservations about a transitional entity with "jihadist Salafi" references.

Change in Visa type

Al-Hafez argued that Washington’s shift in the visa category for Syrian mission members from G1 to G3 "carries a sharp symbolic tone" and diplomatically translates into negative interpretations.

This includes restricting the mission’s powers in terms of mobility and legal and diplomatic privileges, going beyond symbolism to functional constraints.

It also effectively withdraws recognition of the government represented by the mission, without affecting Syria’s membership in the United Nations.

This creates a dual paradox: on one hand, Syria remains a member state, but with a government not recognized by the United States.

It places the Syrian mission in the same category as governments not recognized by the U.S., such as Venezuela under Nicolas Maduro or the Taliban before 2021.

The researcher at the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies in Washington, Radwan Ziadeh, also viewed the change in the U.S. visa status for the Syrian mission as a "political message" to the government in Damascus.

In a televised interview, he noted that this indicates the United States, through its internal communications, does not recognize the current government, referring to it instead as “de facto authorities.”

Syrian politician Mohammed Alaa Ghanem, residing in Washington, believes that the change in visa status is purely a legal measure, with no implication of expelling diplomats or imposing additional restrictions on their movements.

"The United States has not yet recognized the new Syrian government and continues to refer to it internally as the authorities affiliated with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham," he posted on Facebook.

He emphasized that this situation will persist until official recognition is granted, at which point the mission could revert to using G1 visas.

Ghanem denied reports suggesting functional restrictions or limitations on diplomatic privileges, stressing that the move "is not a political punishment, but rather an application of visa regulations."

"This decision does not mean that the United States is asking Syrian diplomats to leave, nor does it impose any new restrictions on their movement in New York."

"This change is a legal procedure in line with visa issuance regulations, not a punishment for anything, nor is it tied to any recent political event."

"Once U.S. recognition of the new Syrian administration is achieved, Syrian diplomats will be able to apply for G1 visas and receive them as they did in the past," Ghanem added.

U.S. Legal Action

Syrian researcher and analyst Mohammed Hawaidi says that the United States' decision to change the legal status of Syria's diplomatic mission in New York, declaring it no longer represents a recognized state but rather an unrecognized government, "is not merely a symbolic gesture."

He explained, via X, that this decision "carries deep political implications related to the future of international engagement with the Syrian dossier."

He pointed out that this shift clearly reflects a decisive U.S. stance on the nature of the ruling powers, particularly after Hayat Tahrir al-Sham took control of the transitional government's institutions, signaling Washington's rejection of accepting a de facto authority.

Hawaidi explained that the United States may "view with concern any scenario that replicates past experiences, such as what happened in Afghanistan with the Taliban, where the result was the consolidation of de facto authorities outside the legitimate and international framework."

"While the contexts differ, the concerns remain the same regarding the implicit recognition of entities with ideological projects that are still closed off, threatening stability and complicating regional and international calculations," Hawaidi noted.

The U.S. stance has been described as a "dual message," rejecting any engagement with a body that bears the hallmarks of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham within its structure, while simultaneously refusing to recognize the entity that has emerged from this reality.

Diplomatic accreditation to international organizations, such as the United Nations, is not solely dependent on the host country’s position (the United States), but rather on the fact that the mission represents a member state of the international body, in accordance with the 1961 Vienna Convention.

There remains a fundamental distinction in the bilateral relationship between the United States and foreign missions; the question of recognizing a government remains a matter of sovereignty for the host state.

According to Syria TV, former Syrian diplomat Jihad Makdissi stated the UN Credentials Committee raised doubts about the legitimacy of the ousted regime's delegation following its legal collapse.

This prompted U.S. authorities to take a consular step, modifying the diplomatic status of its accredited representatives and temporarily withdrawing their immunity until new representatives are appointed by the new Syrian government.

Makdissi clarified that the measure targets only the members of the previous delegation, not the new Syrian government, which enjoys international recognition and faces no diplomatic rebellion.

"While the move is technically procedural, it carries significant political implications, representing a de facto U.S. acknowledgment of the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime through the alteration of the consular status of its delegation," Makdissi noted.