Making concessions before negotiations have even started is not the usual way to get a good deal, whether in business or diplomacy. Yet before meeting at Riyadh with Syria’s new leader, Ahmad al-Sharaa,  President Trump had already announced that he would lift Washington’s comprehensive sanctions on Damascus. 

Mr. Sharaa remains on both the United States’ and United Nations’ blacklists for terrorism thanks to the years he spent as the top Al Qaeda commander in Syria. Yet now the Syrian leader presents himself as an advocate of tolerance and inclusivity, and many foreign leaders believe his commitment is genuine. 

In March, the Trump administration’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, told Tucker Carlson, “The indications are that [Sharaa] is a different person than he once was. And people do change.”

Yet Mr. Sharaa’s actions do not always match his words. He has appointed foreign jihadis as senior commanders in the new Syrian army. He has also appointed commanders on whom Washington has imposed sanctions because of their grave human rights abuses. 

Those commanders struck again in March, when their forces took part in a massacre of hundreds of civilians belonging to Syria’s Alawite minority.

The right course for the American government would have been to negotiate a gradual easing of sanctions that would move ahead if and when Sharaa made reciprocal concessions, such as firing extremist commanders. 

That conditions-based approach was, indeed, the one the State Department had begun to follow — in March, it shared with Damascus a list of requirements for the lifting of sanctions.

Yet the game is not over despite Mr. Trump’s pledge to lift all sanctions on Syria “to give them a chance at greatness.” The president could put an end to many of the sanctions with a stroke of his pen, but he did not commit to a specific timeline. 

It would be entirely fair for the American government to offer meaningful concessions right away — for example, allowing clean Syrian banks to access the international financial system — but still lay out a gradual process that would move forward if and when Mr. Sharaa demonstrates his concern for United States interests.

In a postscript to Mr. Trump’s meeting with Mr. Shaara, the White House press secretary, Karolina Leavitt, listed several of those interests. The first is that Syria negotiate peace with Israel and join the Abraham Accords. 

It would certainly be striking if a former Al Qaeda commander led his country into peace with Israel, but that is years down the road even in the most optimistic scenarios. 

What Mr. Sharaa can do now to preserve some hope of peace is to prevent Turkey — an open supporter of Hamas — from establishing military bases in central Syria that pose a threat to Israel.

Relatedly, Ms. Leavitt called on Mr. Sharaa to deport all Palestinian terrorists from Syria. The extent of their presence is difficult to gauge, yet during the half-century of Assad family dictatorship, Damascus was a major hub for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian terrorists.

Mr. Sharaa is unlikely to speak out openly against Palestinian terrorists — he and his principal allies praised the October 7 massacre — but if sanctions relief were at risk, he might tell Hamas and the others to find a different sanctuary.

Third, Mr. Trump urged Mr. Sharaa to “tell all foreign terrorists to leave Syria.” This request raises the question of why the United States would lift all sanctions if there are so many foreign terrorists in Syria — some of them commanding divisions of the Syrian army. If Mr. Sharaa appointed them to those positions, he may not force them out unless it were a precondition for sanctions relief. 

Lastly, Mr. Trump told Mr. Sharaa that the United States wants his help “to prevent the resurgence of ISIS,” which would include taking responsibility for ISIS prisoners now in jail. For nearly a decade, Washington has relied on its local Kurdish allies, the Syrian Democratic Forces, to keep ISIS down and out with help from U.S. advisers and air power. 

The Syrian Democratic Forces has done an impressive job, but it is on bad terms with Sharaa and his Turkish allies. A more patient approach to sanctions relief would have made it clear to Mr. Sharaa that progress depends on reaching a mutually acceptable arrangement with the SDF.

Despite a rally of bipartisan support behind Mr. Trump’s decision to lift sanctions, those who praise the move have offered notes of caution. Senator Risch, Republican of Idaho, said that he and Senator Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, felt that Mr. Trump had removed the sanctions “a little more robustly” than the two had in mind. Yet Mr. Risch added that the sanctions “can be put back on and we’re going to continue to watch this.” 

The president should take this bipartisan advice from well-wishers who clearly support his policy. By taking a patient approach and moving forward if and when Syria addresses American concerns, lifting sanctions can still be a win for the United States.