How 2025 Was a Sign of the Birth of the Syrian Startup Ecosystem

Introduction

In 2025, Syria’s startup ecosystem entered a moment best described not as recovery, but as re-emergence under constraint. After nearly fourteen years of the revolution and an estimated 85 percent economic contraction, the country continues to carry deep physical, institutional, and psychological scars. Infrastructure remains fragile, purchasing power is weak, and daily life is shaped by instability. At the same time, a visible shift occurred in Syria’s external environment. The lifting of European sanctions alongside Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom, altered long-standing conditions of isolation and reopened channels for international engagement. These changes did not transform economic reality overnight. Electricity remains unreliable, water systems are damaged, and digital connectivity is uneven, constraints that weigh heavily on any innovation-driven economy. Yet taken together, they redefined the conditions under which entrepreneurial activity could re-surface. What emerged in 2025 was not a sudden boom, but a convergence of new ventures, long-standing digital services, institutional initiatives, and renewed diaspora engagement, producing a level of visibility and coordination unseen in the previous decade.

This report examines that convergence through a structural lens. Rather than measuring success by the number of startups or programs launched, it asks a more fundamental question: what happens when entrepreneurial energy begins to rise inside a system whose underlying architecture has not yet adapted to support it? To answer this, the analysis situates startup activity within Syria’s broader macro-economic and political context, maps the ecosystem’s structure in 2025, examines founder experiences, and identifies the structural gaps that limit scale and prevent momentum from compounding.

The central argument is that 2025 was not a breakthrough year, but an inflection point.  It revealed both the presence of entrepreneurial capacity and the absence of the conditions required to sustain it, offering the clearest picture yet of where Syria’s startup ecosystem stands, and what must shift for it to move from visibility to durability.

Executive Summary

In 2025, Syria’s startup ecosystem reached a visible turning point. For the first time since the onset of the revolution, entrepreneurial activity, institutional initiatives, and renewed engagement from the Syrian diaspora began to align within the same year. New hubs and national platforms emerged, international exposure increased, and a discernible cohort of startups entered the public sphere. More than two hundred ventures are now active across the country, driven largely by digital services and a new generation of founders with higher ambition and greater willingness to engage with markets.

Yet this momentum has not translated into sustained scale, investment, or job creation. This article finds that Syria’s startup ecosystem in 2025 is best understood not as a system in recovery or decline, but as a system in transition, active, visible, and increasingly connected, yet operating beneath a structural ceiling that limits how far its energy can travel. Progress is real, but uneven and fragile, because the ecosystem’s foundational architecture has not yet adapted to the level of entrepreneurial activity it now contains.

What Happened in 2025

The year did not produce breakout companies, but it produced alignment. Founders began to recognize shared constraints and opportunities. Institutions became more visible to one another. A common, if still fragile, language around entrepreneurship and innovation started to emerge. This marked a shift from isolated survival strategies toward the early formation of an innovation system.

At the same time, the reopening of markets and increased international exposure introduced new pressures. Competition intensified, expectations rose, and structural weaknesses that had long been navigated through improvisation became harder to ignore. As a result, 2025 functioned less as a year of growth and more as a stress test, revealing both the ecosystem’s latent potential and its unresolved constraints.

Main Findings

The central finding of this analysis is that Syria’s startup ecosystem is constrained not by a lack of ideas, talent, or motivation, but by the absence of enabling conditions that allow early momentum to compound into durable growth. Entrepreneurial energy is circulating, but it is not yet converting into institutional strength, scalable ventures, or sustained economic impact.

This disconnect is produced by a set of interlocking structural gaps that shape how founders behave, how institutions operate, and how capital flows, or fails to flow, through the system.

The Six Structural Gaps

1. Legal and Regulatory Ambiguity
   Startups operate within legal frameworks designed for traditional businesses, with no clear recognition of equity-based ventures, modern investment instruments, or intellectual property protections. This limits formalization, investment, and long-term planning.
   
2. Financial Friction and Capital Immobility
   Capital exists but cannot move efficiently. Weak payment systems, the absence of enforceable venture instruments, currency instability, and cross-border restrictions prevent monetization and discourage investment, keeping many ventures stuck at early stages.
   
3. Knowledge, Mentorship, and Founder Maturity Gaps
   Founders are resourceful but lack access to cumulative learning environments. Knowledge does not compound across cohorts, mentorship remains episodic, and many ventures struggle to transition from prototypes to structured companies.
   
4. Data Absence and Market Opacity
   Reliable market data is scarce. Founders cannot accurately size demand, investors cannot assess risk, and institutions cannot coordinate around evidence, leading to duplicated efforts and intuition-driven decision-making.
   
5. Institutional Fragmentation and the Missing Center
   NGOs, accelerators, universities, donors, and diaspora initiatives operate in parallel rather than as a coordinated system. Roles are duplicated, pathways are unclear, and learning does not accumulate at the ecosystem level.
   
6. Digital and Physical Infrastructure Limitations
   Unreliable electricity, internet, and logistics shape product design, scaling decisions, and founder confidence. Innovation is constrained by operational instability, reinforcing cautious minimalism and limiting sectoral diversity.
   

These gaps do not operate independently. Together, they form a self-reinforcing structure that limits systemic acceleration. Progress in one area rarely unlocks progress elsewhere unless multiple constraints shift in parallel.

What Must Shift in 2026

The defining challenge of 2026 is not expansion, but coherence. The ecosystem no longer needs more activity; it needs stronger architecture. Success in the year ahead will depend on whether the system can begin to adapt to the energy it already contains.

This requires a shift in mindset, from accumulating startups and programs toward shaping the trajectory. Instead of measuring progress by visibility or volume, actors must focus on whether rules, pathways, and coordination mechanisms are becoming more predictable, aligned, and interconnected. Small, deliberate steps that strengthen legal clarity, financial rails, institutional coordination, data generation, and infrastructural reliability will matter more than large initiatives built on fragile foundations.

The outcome of 2026 should not be a larger ecosystem, but a more coherent one, capable of learning collectively, integrating effort, and converting entrepreneurial ambition into durable institutions.

1. Context & Macro Environment

After nearly fourteen years of civil war and an 85% economic collapse, Syria enters 2025 carrying deep physical and emotional scars tinted with hope. Major sectors of the economy have crumbled, infrastructure has been decimated, and hyperinflation has reshaped daily life.^[1] Yet 2025 brought a significant shift: on May 28, the EU lifted most sectoral sanctions on banking, energy, transport, and trade^[2]. Five financial entities, including the Industrial Bank, Popular Credit Bank, and Agricultural Cooperative Bank, were removed from asset-freeze lists, allowing funds to reach the central bank for the first time in years^[3]. Additionally, in a historic move, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2026 of the United States (passed in December 2025) included a permanent repeal of the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019, removing secondary sanctions that had previously deterred third-party investment in Syria.^[4] The UK also implemented significant amendments to the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. This revoked sanctions on the Syrian Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Defence and eased restrictions on the energy and financial sectors.^[5] The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) of Australia updated the Syria Sanctions Regime throughout 2025 to lift autonomous sanctions on key economic entities as well.^[6] Still, everyday realities remain harsh. Electricity is unpredictable, water systems are damaged, and connectivity remains fragile, which are serious obstacles for any digital-first business^[7]. These macro-level conditions define the external environment in which entrepreneurial activity began to re-emerge in 2025.

2. Ecosystem Snapshot 2025

What emerges from the available mappings is a young, digital-driven ecosystem. Startup Syria and the Berytech assessment estimate that more than 200 startups are now active inside the country, most of them no older than three years^[8] [9]. Survey data from May 2025 indicate that 39% of ventures are at the idea stage, 38% early-stage, 18% in growth, and only 4% mature. It is an ecosystem full of momentum, curiosity, and experimentation, but still struggling to produce scale-ups. Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and digital services dominate the landscape, followed closely by light manufacturing, agrifood processing, renewables, circular-economy ventures, and tourism-related projects^[10]. Startup Syria’s mapping brings these patterns to life: clusters of e-commerce platforms, delivery and logistics services, digital health tools, fintech and payments solutions, creative industries, and foodtech ventures built far more on ingenuity and digital skills than on heavy capital. Even the distribution data reflects this shift, showing that 32.6% of businesses captured in the mapping now qualify as startups^[11].

The social fabric of the ecosystem is also changing. Women today represent roughly 34.7–35% of founders, an extraordinary rise from 22.4% in 2015, leading innovations in education, healthcare, and the creative sector^[12]. Geography adds another layer to the story: about a third of all startups are concentrated in Damascus (33.6%), with notable clusters in Homs (14.7%), Aleppo (12.1%), and Latakia (9.3%), while other cities host smaller but emerging pockets of activity^[13].

3. Key Ecosystem Trends

In 2025, the startup landscape began to feel different, more coordinated, more visible, and more connected than in previous years. A key turning point was the opening of the Digital Innovation Center (DIGIT) in Damascus. This first-of-its-kind hub, launched by UNDP with Japanese funding, became a beacon for young Syrians, a place to learn, explore ideas, and build prototypes supported by digital labs, vocational programs, and business development services^[14]. Just weeks later, the Ministry of Communications and Technology launched the Syrian Alliance of Incubators and Accelerators (SAIA), a national platform designed to unify incubators, accelerators, and co-working spaces and lay the foundation for a cohesive “Startup National Agenda”^[15]. (At the time of writing, the alliance has not yet translated into formal coordination mechanisms or sustained joint activity among ecosystem actors).

International visibility also grew. Syria’s first-ever national pavilion at GITEX Expand North Star 2025, branded “Syria Is Online,” allowed founders to pitch to global investors and reconnect with regional tech networks^[16]. Around the same time, the SYNC 25 conference, organized by Syrian-Americans in Silicon Valley, brought two days of workshops on AI, data security, and emerging technologies in an effort to bridge global expertise with Syria’s emerging tech scene^[17].

4. Key Ecosystem Actors

Taken together, the ecosystem actors in Syria form a wide network of institutions, each filling critical gaps but rarely operating in a fully coordinated way. At the center are entrepreneurs supported by a constellation of incubators such as Fikra Ventures, Yasmeen AI, and Core Hub, which offer early-stage coaching and structured programming despite limited pathways for scale. Angel investors are represented by groups like EBLA Ventures, Ghaith Ventures, and the emerging Syria Angels Network. Development finance institutions such as the Syrian Recovery Trust Fund and the Syrian Development Fund (SYDF) bring regional financial architecture into the ecosystem.

NGOs remain the most expansive and influential category, forming the backbone of entrepreneurial support. This includes major actors such as Digital Syria, Sanad Youth, Aga Khan Foundation, Jusoor, Syrian Technocrats, Syrian Society for Startups and Research, Response Innovation Lab, and many more. Their programs shape everything from skills training to incubation, grants, innovation labs, and youth entrepreneurship.

Complementing these actors is a growing field of startup consulting firms such as BUDGET Consultancy and Development, Hermon Team, Bidayah Holding, and Syrian Investment Gate, which offer business planning, digital transformation, legal advisory, and investment readiness services.

Competitions such as MOVE and THIMAR serve as entry points for emerging founders, while banks, including the International Bank for Trade and Finance, Bank of Jordan, Syria, Bank Al-Sharq, QNB Syria, and others, remain structurally important but largely inaccessible to startups due to collateral requirements, regulatory constraints, and currency volatility.

5. Startups' Attempts, Progress, and Struggles

Startup activity in 2025 did not arrive as a sudden surge, but rather as a moment of alignment, a point at which new ventures, long-standing players, and a newly opened political environment intersected for the first time. The year produced an identifiable cohort of more than 25 new or freshly visible ventures, compared to fewer than a handful in 2023–2024. For an ecosystem that had long lacked both structure and psychological safety, this shift was meaningful.

What makes the 2025 cohort clear is its coexistence with a set of anchored ventures that survived the past decade. Companies such as BeeOrder, YallaGo, Etloob, DiGiShi, and Rocheta have been operational for years, collectively serving hundreds of thousands of users across delivery, mobility, e-commerce, and health services. Their presence created an unexpected advantage for new founders: Syrians had already internalized digital behavior. As one founder put it, “the market doesn’t need to be educated anymore, only enabled.”

The widespread acceptance of digital services created the environment in which a new cohort emerged. Startups such as Bitknz, Faseelh, Hoshblas, Green Rubble, StudyLoop, BETI BETAK, and Tabib+ represent the first generation of ventures launched under the new conditions created after the fall of the Assad regime in 8/12. Many entered the public sphere not through organic market pull but through structured programs like Hack for Syria, Launchpad, Launch Up, and diaspora-led competitions. Interviewees repeatedly emphasized this: most of the 2025 cohort surfaced through institutional scaffolding rather than market demand, a characteristic typical of early ecosystems.

Before the fall of the Assad regime in 8-12, founders operated under significant security pressure, particularly those handling data, payments, or social platforms. Several interviewees described the period as one of “improvisation” and “survival tactics,” not ecosystem building. The post-8/12 period opened space for experimentation and introduced new forms of uncertainty, especially once foreign competitors began entering with 15–20 years of accumulated experience.

Sectorally, more than 60% of new ventures are clustered in the fintech, ed-tech, health-tech, and e-commerce sectors, which have low physical infrastructure requirements and clear social needs. Fintech alone produced at least five new entrants, reflecting both rising digital demand and Syria’s persistent reliance on cash. Health-tech founders described legitimacy, compliance, and regulatory clarity as existential barriers, noting that “health digitalization in Syria is still undefined.”

Constraints:

Across interviews, program reports, and founder testimonies, four constraints consistently shaped startup behavior:

1. Payments and monetization

Digital payments remain the single largest bottleneck. Even high-demand products struggle to convert users into paying customers. One founder summarized the challenge:
 “Our product works. People want it. But until payments work, we live in a permanent prototype stage.”

2. Regulation and licensing

Startups face slow, unclear, or contradictory pathways, especially in fintech and health-tech. One founder noted:
 “We paused for months. We didn’t know which ministry owned our sector.”

3. Talent retention and affordability

Senior engineers continue to emigrate, and diaspora seniors remain unaffordable. One founder explained:
 “Talent exists; what we lack is the ability to pay for it.”
 Most teams rely on juniors or remote volunteers, shaping product quality and speed.

4. Low purchasing power

Demand exists, but the ability to pay is weak. Ed-tech and consumer apps struggle to translate interest into revenue, pushing founders toward grants, freemium models, or sponsorship survival.

These constraints reveal a central insight: ambition is not what limits Syrian startups' basic infrastructure. Founders are limited by the functional elements that enable scaling. This is why “traction” in Syria looks different from other markets. Instead of stable revenue or growth curves, early-stage signals that reflect directional momentum are observed, and take the form of admission into programs, recognition at diaspora or regional events, prototype completion, small pilots with universities or NGOs, early download numbers, and participation in hackathons or exhibitions. Viewed in this light, the significance of 2025 becomes clearer. This year did not produce breakout companies, but it laid something more foundational: a shared entrepreneurial logic. For the first time, founders behaved as members of a cohort. They articulated common constraints, recognized shared opportunities, and began shifting from improvisation to intentionality. As one founder noted, “For years, we all struggled alone. This is the first year we started speaking the same language.” One founder described 2025 as “the knockout year,” a moment when many apps shut down because the ecosystem opened before local infrastructure had matured. Others noted the shock of sudden competition, rising operational costs, OTP verification prices increasing by 2,700%, for example, and the psychological weight of comparing themselves to regional companies with decades of experience and teams in the hundreds. The traction may still be symbolic, but the alignment is real. The emergence of this cohort, shaped by constraints but driven by new expectations, marks the first coordinated step toward a formal Syrian startup ecosystem.

6. Patterns: The Good, the Bad, and the Repeated

These developments did not erase domestic barriers, but together they signal a slow transition: from isolation to cautious integration, from a survival mode to the early formation of an innovation system that is beginning to find its voice. The patterns that emerged from the 2025 startup cohort point to a system in transition. Founders are operating with a renewed sense of possibility, yet within an environment that has not fully adjusted to the scale of their ambitions. Interviews consistently describe an ecosystem that is simultaneously awakening and burdened, where momentum and constraint coexist, shaping a distinctly Syrian mode of entrepreneurship.

One of the most visible positive shifts lies in the founder's mindset. Fear surrounding digital services, particularly payments, identity, and data, has declined markedly. As one founder noted, “People are finally willing to try things.” University students increasingly speak the language of products rather than permissions, ideas rather than risks. The psychological weight that once constrained digital experimentation has begun to lift, distinguishing 2025 from the preceding decade. At the same time, ambition now outpaces foundation. As one interviewee reflected, “We are not building from zero; we are rebuilding on foundations that were wrong.” Years of fragmented governance, limited exposure, and institutional mistrust continue to shape how entrepreneurship is understood and practiced. An idea plus a single investor conversation becomes a “startup”; ten early users are labeled “traction.” Visibility is often rewarded more than execution. This gap between aspiration and capability is not a failure of individuals, but a reflection of how the ecosystem itself has been conditioned to think.

Trust, or its absence, emerges as another defining pattern. Interviewees repeatedly described concerns around idea theft, misuse of founder data, and opaque decision-making within incubators and NGO-led programs. These are not isolated grievances, but behavioral signals that shape how founders operate. Many teams avoid sharing prototypes or validation data, while others advance quietly rather than collaboratively. In an environment where openness feels risky, iteration slows, and markets cannot be tested collectively. Questions around the credibility of support structures further distort ecosystem signals.

Founders recounted experiences with programs that promised investment but delivered none, competitions that failed to disburse prizes, and accelerators that recycled identical curricula without measurable outcomes. As one founder put it, “Programs are photos and announcements, but where are the outcomes?” The result is a signal environment in which startups accumulate affiliations and visibility markers rather than customers, weakening the ecosystem’s capacity to learn from real market feedback. Data scarcity compounds these dynamics. Founders frequently misjudge market size and purchasing power because reliable information is largely unavailable. Many ventures are built on intuition rather than evidence, leading to duplicated efforts and parallel solutions unaware of one another. Knowledge does not travel easily across cohorts. Mentors report having to restart from first principles with each new group of founders, suggesting that lessons fail to accumulate into shared institutional memory. This absence of continuity slows maturation and creates the recurring sensation that the ecosystem is beginning each year anew.

Another recurring pattern appears in how founders navigate institutional support. Rather than progressing along a clear developmental pathway, many move laterally through a corridor of disconnected programs, repeating similar documentation and training without advancing in capability. This reinforces the perception that success is defined by affiliation rather than performance. Diaspora mentors encounter the same fragmentation from the opposite direction. Despite a strong willingness to contribute, they struggle to identify stable entry points, resulting in episodic rather than compounding engagement.

Infrastructure constraints further shape entrepreneurial behavior. Founders design products with defensive minimalism, anticipating electricity cuts, connectivity failures, and rising service costs. Feature-heavy services are postponed, scaling is delayed, and reliability is prioritized over innovation. Even highly ambitious teams plan around failure before planning for growth. Infrastructure instability thus cultivates caution not only operationally, but psychologically. Across all these patterns runs a deeper psychological dynamic.

Founders often internalize systemic failures as personal shortcomings. When payment systems collapse, they question their business models. When registration becomes opaque, they doubt their readiness. When foreign competitors enter the market, they assume inferiority. Yet the patterns observed suggest a different explanation: many of these obstacles are structural rather than individual.
This tension is evident when contrasting pre- and post-8/12 entrepreneurial behavior. Before market reopening, survival depended on improvisation, tactical deals, minimal capital exposure, and short-term fixes. The post-liberation context, however, demands a different logic, one oriented toward scale, discipline, and competitive readiness. Many founders remain uncertain about when to abandon the practices that sustained them for over a decade.

This uncertainty is especially pronounced in sectors such as health technology, where legitimacy, regulatory clarity, and long-term capital are non-negotiable. Market reopening has also introduced hesitation. The entry of foreign platforms with mature products, strong brands, and large teams produced a psychological shock. Local founders suddenly found themselves competing with companies employing hundreds, while their own teams fluctuated between five and ten. One founder described 2025 bluntly as “the knockout year,” noting that many applications shut down. Rather than catalyzing innovation, competition exposed structural unreadiness.

It is important to note that technical capacity within Syria is real and, in many cases, stronger than expected. The constraint lies not in skill, but in affordability. Senior developers command salaries beyond the reach of early-stage startups, while diaspora expertise remains financially inaccessible. Teams are forced to choose between junior talent they can afford and senior talent they require. This trade-off creates a quality gap that becomes immediately visible when competing with well-resourced foreign entrants. Talent exists; access does not.

Taken together, these patterns do not tell a story of failure, but of friction. And friction, in this context, is instructive. It signals where institutions must adapt, where systems must evolve, and where founders are already pushing against inherited limits. Progress remains uneven, but it is unmistakable. The ecosystem is no longer static; it is negotiating its future in real time.

7. Structural Gaps Limiting the Ecosystem in 2025

The preceding chapters reveal two coexisting realities. On the surface, 2025 marked the emergence of a visible startup cohort, supported by new initiatives, innovation hubs, and increased engagement from the Syrian diaspora. Beneath this momentum, however, lie persistent frictions that continue to shape how entrepreneurship unfolds in practice. Rising ambition and shifting mindsets coexist with recurring constraints around trust, monetization, institutional credibility, regulatory structure, and business norms.

Taken together, these dynamics point to a deeper issue: entrepreneurial activity in Syria is advancing within a system whose foundational architecture has not yet adapted to the level of energy it now contains. What often appears as “slow development” is not the result of limited effort or weak ideas, but the outcome of structural conditions that define how far any actor, founder, investor, institution, or policymaker can move. This is reflected in ecosystem-wide data. Startup Syria’s 2025 survey shows that 73% of founders describe economic pressures as “extremely challenging,” citing scarce investment, weak purchasing power, unclear regulations, restricted payment and banking systems, and failing infrastructure.

This chapter shifts the analysis from symptoms to structure. Drawing on interviews, survey data, and ecosystem mappings, it identifies six interlocking structural gaps that together form the real ceiling of the startup ecosystem in 2025. These gaps explain why progress feels uneven, why momentum rarely converts into systematic growth, and why many promising initiatives remain short-lived. By examining these gaps, Aram Lab seeks to clarify:

• Why does the system progress more slowly than the energy within it?
  
• Where the primary bottlenecks originate.
  
• How these constraints reinforce one another.
  
• What must change before genuine ecosystem scaling becomes possible?
  

Gap 1: Legal and Regulatory Ambiguity, A System That Cannot Yet Recognize a Startup

Entrepreneurial activity in Syria has expanded more rapidly than the legal frameworks designed to govern it. As a result, startups operate within regulatory structures that were built for traditional commercial enterprises rather than risk-bearing, equity-based ventures. While sanctions relief, emerging hubs, and rising digital adoption have opened new possibilities, regulatory reform has not kept pace.

Company registration processes remain manual and rigid, with no formal legal category for startups. Equity instruments lack enforceable grounding, investor protections remain weak, and intellectual property is difficult to operationalize. These shortcomings align with ecosystem data showing regulatory opacity as a primary challenge for founders.

In practice, this ambiguity forces entrepreneurs to adapt through workarounds. Many register companies abroad to access safer investment structures, increasing operational complexity and uncertainty around taxation, contracts, and governance. Others operate informally, limiting their ability to raise capital, hire formally, or enter long-term agreements.

Legal clarity is not a peripheral issue; it is foundational. Without it, accelerators can train founders but cannot graduate them into compliant companies. Investors may express interest but cannot deploy capital at scale.

Diaspora actors remain advisors rather than integrated stakeholders. Even government-led platforms operate without a framework that distinguishes technology ventures from traditional businesses. In the absence of regulatory modernization, growth remains dependent on temporary arrangements rather than institutionalized systems.

Gap 2: Financial Friction and Structural Barriers to Capital Mobility

If legal ambiguity constrains what a startup can become, financial friction constrains whether it can begin. Across interviews and program reports, a consistent pattern emerges: capital exists, but cannot move efficiently or predictably. The problem is not scarcity of money, but the absence of mechanisms.

Although banks regained partial functionality after 2025, they continue to operate through collateral-based lending models unsuitable for startups. Modern venture instruments, such as SAFEs, convertible notes, and early-stage equity, lack enforceable legal status. Payment systems remain fragile, currency instability persists, and cross-border transfers are tightly constrained.

As a result, startups struggle to convert demand into revenue. Even products with a clear market need remain stuck at the prototype stage because monetization channels are unreliable. Diaspora investors show interest but hesitate to proceed due to transfer risks and compliance uncertainty. Founders respond by creating offshore entities, relying on remittances, or pursuing grants, producing a dual financial reality that limits local learning and slows scale.

Financial infrastructure determines whether value can be captured and reinvested. Without capital mobility, the ecosystem remains dependent on one-off sponsorships and donor funding rather than sustainable economic behavior. This gap also carries a psychological cost: founders often interpret blocked monetization as personal failure rather than systemic constraint, reinforcing premature shutdowns and loss of confidence.

From an analytical standpoint, this gap represents a fundamental barrier to economic transformation. No ecosystem can scale on visibility alone. Payments, investment rails, and risk frameworks are what connect entrepreneurial ambition to economic reality. Until these are established, growth will remain symbolic rather than material.

Gap 3: Knowledge, Mentorship, and Founder Maturity

The third structural gap concerns founder capability formation. The ecosystem displays energy and ingenuity, but the conditions that support entrepreneurial maturation remain thin. This is not primarily a talent deficit, but a systemic absence of environments that transmit cumulative knowledge.

Years of uncertainty produced founders skilled in improvisation and survival, often relying on personal networks and short-term tactics. While adaptive under crisis, these habits offer limited preparation for building structured, scalable ventures. Core concepts, such as customer discovery, unit economics, governance, and long-term planning, often appear for the first time within accelerators.

Support organizations attempt to compensate, yet mentors consistently report that foundational gaps force each program to restart from zero. Learning does not compound across cohorts. Diaspora mentors contribute valuable insight through initiatives such as SYNC and Thimar, but the ecosystem lacks mechanisms to retain, institutionalize, and build upon this knowledge.

As a result, many founders can build prototypes or generate early interest, but struggle to develop robust business models, financial strategies, or governance structures. Ventures move, but do not anchor. This gap shapes investor hesitation, uneven mentorship outcomes, and limited competitive readiness, particularly when local teams encounter foreign platforms with mature processes and scale.

This does not indicate failure. It reflects an ecosystem at an early stage of reintegration after prolonged isolation. What exists today is a first layer of capability. The deeper structures that produce mature founders, universities, professional communities, peer networks, shared language, and institutional memory are still forming.

Gap 4: Data Absence and Market Opacity

Syria’s startup ecosystem operates with unusually high levels of opacity. Founders cannot clearly see their markets, investors cannot reliably size opportunities, and institutions lack the indicators needed to guide decisions. Public data infrastructure remains weak: company records are unreliable, sector statistics are incomplete, and economic indicators are fragmented across ministries.

In this environment, founders navigate by intuition rather than evidence. Market size, purchasing power, and competitive landscapes are often guessed rather than measured. This leads to duplicated efforts, misjudged demand, and parallel solutions unaware of one another. Failures do not accumulate into shared knowledge, and the ecosystem grows in isolated pockets rather than coherent patterns.

Investment is similarly constrained. Capital exists, but risk cannot be assessed. Both local and diaspora investors lack visibility into market fundamentals, reinforcing reliance on collateral-based lending or informal trust. Without benchmarks, accelerators cannot evaluate outcomes, and policymakers cannot see what already exists.

Data is a prerequisite for institutionalization. Without it, decisions remain personal, strategies reactive, and system learning is limited. This gap slows every layer of development, from investment and policy to program design.

Gap 5: Institutional Fragmentation and the Missing Center

The Syrian startup ecosystem has developed through parallel interventions by NGOs, incubators, universities, donors, and informal groups. Each actor fills important gaps, but coordination remains limited. By 2025, the result is an active yet fragmented landscape.

Institutions operate with distinct curricula, metrics, and priorities. Roles are duplicated, programs repeat similar content, and beneficiaries overlap. Founders move laterally across initiatives, accumulating certificates rather than capabilities. Activity increases, but progress does not compound.

This fragmentation also limits diaspora engagement. Despite deep expertise in venture building and investment, diaspora actors lack clear entry points and accountable interfaces. Mentorship and support remain one-to-one rather than systemic. Governmental structures similarly lack dedicated mechanisms for integrating global talent.

The issue is not institutional performance, but the absence of connective tissue. Mature ecosystems rely on coordinating centers that align standards, learning, and resource flows. In Syria, the building blocks exist, but the structure that links them has yet to be consolidated. Coordination is therefore a strategic hinge: modest improvements could unlock disproportionate gains across the system.

Gap 6: Digital and Physical Infrastructure Constraints

Finally, infrastructure limitations define the practical boundaries of innovation. Electricity shortages, unstable internet, rising service costs, and weak logistics networks shape entrepreneurial decisions more directly than policy. Founders design products around what systems can handle rather than what markets demand.

Digital instability undermines reliability and user trust. Physical damage increases operating costs across logistics, health-tech, and e-commerce. Scaling requires constant improvisation through backup systems and informal networks, strategies that once enabled survival but now divert energy from innovation.

Sector dominance reflects these constraints. Digital services, e-commerce, ed-tech, and light fintech prevail because they can operate within limited infrastructure. High-capital or infrastructure-intensive ventures rarely emerge, narrowing experimentation and reinforcing conservative scope.

Infrastructure thus shapes not only feasibility, but mindset. Founders hesitate to scale, simplify offerings, and plan defensively. Until stability improves, ambition will remain bounded by operational risk.

How the Gaps Interact to Form a Structural Ceiling

These six gaps do not operate independently. They form a self-reinforcing structure. Legal ambiguity weakens financial confidence; financial friction limits founder maturation; data opacity deepens institutional fragmentation; fragmentation prevents diaspora expertise from integrating at scale; and infrastructure instability cuts across all layers, forcing actors to design around failure rather than possibility.

As a result, energy circulates but does not compound. Progress in one area rarely unlocks progress elsewhere unless reforms move together. Skills without financial rails cannot produce scale. Capital without legal clarity remains fragile. Data without coordination cannot inform policy or investment. Even when individual actors advance, parallel progress is required for systemic impact.

This is why momentum is visible while acceleration remains out of reach. Constraints are structured to reinforce one another, protecting the system from change in isolation. Unless these gaps are addressed in parallel, progress will continue to appear as isolated signals rather than a shift in the ecosystem’s underlying trajectory.

8. Outlook for 2026

A System Under Pressure and Possibility

The year ahead arrives at a moment when Syria’s startup ecosystem is more active than at any point in the past decade, yet still operating beneath a structural ceiling that limits how far its momentum can travel. Pressures remain acute: founders continue to navigate legal uncertainty, capital constraints, institutional fragmentation, and infrastructural instability. At the same time, the possibility is increasingly visible. The volume of new ventures, growing diaspora engagement, and the gradual emergence of support structures suggest that the system is approaching a moment of recalibration.

What will distinguish 2026 is not the number of startups launched, but whether the ecosystem’s foundational architecture begins to adjust to the level of entrepreneurial energy it now contains. The system no longer suffers from a shortage of ideas or motivation. Its central challenge lies in the absence of enabling conditions that allow early momentum to harden into durable institutions. As a result, the relevant measure of progress in the year ahead shifts away from founder activity alone and toward the capacity of the surrounding system to adapt, coordinate, and respond.

Where Focus Should Be Placed in 2026

From Accumulating Activity to Shaping Trajectory

The most consequential shift in 2026 is not sectoral or programmatic. It is conceptual. It requires moving from a mode of accumulating activity toward one of shaping trajectory. Over the past decade, ecosystem actors operated under conditions that demanded immediacy, keeping entrepreneurial energy alive through short-term interventions and crisis-driven solutions. While these efforts were essential, they also reinforced a pattern of fragmentation, where initiatives addressed symptoms rather than building long-term architecture.

Entering 2026, the opportunity is to reorient ambition toward system-building. This involves viewing the ecosystem as an interconnected structure rather than a collection of isolated efforts. Success, under this lens, is no longer defined by visible speed or volume, but by whether underlying rules, pathways, and expectations are becoming more stable and legible.

The central question shifts from how many startups can be created to what conditions must exist for ventures to survive, mature, and eventually scale.

Such a shift requires resisting the temptation of fast wins. Progress in 2026 is likely to follow a slower, more deliberate rhythm, one that prioritizes coherence over expansion. It begins with allowing institutions the time and incentives to align more meaningfully. It continues with clearer frameworks that help founders understand the terrain they are operating within. And it develops as the ecosystem cultivates a shared sense of how it is meant to function, ensuring that new initiatives reinforce rather than further fragment the system.

Balancing Immediate Pressures with Long-Term Direction

The year ahead will bring pressures that demand response: new cohorts of founders, heightened regional competition, increased diaspora interest, and continued digital adoption. Addressing these dynamics is unavoidable. Yet the defining challenge of 2026 lies in responding without losing strategic direction. Systems under transition must learn to distinguish between what is urgent and what is foundational.

When every emerging need becomes a priority, effort disperses, and momentum weakens. Conversely, when long-term vision dominates without engagement with present constraints, strategy becomes abstract and disconnected from reality. The task ahead is to hold both simultaneously, meeting immediate needs while ensuring that each response contributes to a longer-term structure rather than a temporary workaround.

Setting Early Steps that Shape the System’s Path

In periods of transition, early decisions carry disproportionate weight. Small shifts in mindset, coordination, or process can redirect trajectories for years. This makes the initial steps taken in 2026 particularly consequential. Even modest actions, such as establishing shared standards across programs, improving communication between actors, clarifying language around founder maturity, or creating more predictable pathways for teams, can reshape how the ecosystem evolves as a whole.

The emphasis, therefore, is not on scale but on orientation. What matters is aligning around the kind of ecosystem Syria seeks to build and ensuring that decisions across governmental, private, diaspora, and community-based actors point in the same direction. The desired outcome of 2026 is not a larger ecosystem, but a more coherent one, capable of learning collectively, moving deliberately, and strengthening its architecture over time. Progress, in this context, is measured not by the accumulation of activity but by the system’s growing ability to function as a system.

9. Conclusion

The picture that emerges from 2025 is neither one of rapid transformation nor of stagnation. It is the portrait of a system beginning to awaken within the limits of its own constraints. Founder confidence has grown, institutional activity has increased, and Syria is more visibly reconnected to regional and global networks than at any point in recent decades. Yet these encouraging signals coexist with structural conditions that continue to define how far the ecosystem can evolve.

What distinguished 2025 was not the emergence of breakout companies but the emergence of alignment. For the first time, founders began to recognize themselves as part of a shared cohort rather than isolated actors. Institutions became more visible to one another. A common language, however tentative, started to form around entrepreneurship, innovation, and ecosystem-building. In this sense, 2025 marked the early drafting of a national startup and innovation system, still incomplete and uneven, but no longer fragmented by default.

At the same time, the year made clear that energy alone is insufficient. The legal, financial, institutional, and infrastructural foundations required to support durable growth remain underdeveloped. Without these foundations, momentum circulates without compounding, and promising efforts struggle to move beyond early stages. The challenge is not one of ambition or talent, but of architecture.

The task for 2026, therefore, is depth rather than expansion. The ecosystem must move from activity toward coherence, from isolated interventions toward shared structure, and from enthusiasm toward capability. Progress in the year ahead will depend less on launching new initiatives and more on strengthening the conditions that allow existing ones to connect, mature, and endure. Small, deliberate steps taken in the right direction, particularly those that reinforce predictability, coordination, and trust, will matter more than large-scale efforts built on fragile ground.

What 2025 demonstrated is that the raw materials for a vibrant startup ecosystem already exist. What 2026 will determine is whether Syria can begin to build the architecture capable of holding them.

Bibliography

Arab News. “Syria Is Online: Syrian Pavilion Debuts at GITEX Expand North Star 2025 in Dubai.” Arab News, 2025.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2618511/corporate-and-sponsored-content.

Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). “Syria Sanctions Framework.” Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://www.dfat.gov.au/international-relations/security/sanctions/sanctions-regimes/syria-sanctions-framework

Barker, Chloe, Katie Palms, Daniel Jones, Ignacio Escondrillas, Lydia Rogers, and Gabi Poskute. “EU and UK Roll Back Syria Sanctions.” Global Sanctions Alert. DLA Piper, May 8, 2025. https://www.dlapiper.com/en-de/insights/publications/global-sanctions-alert/2025/eu-and-uk-rollback-syria-sanctions

Berytech, and Sida. Building Resilience: Ecosystem Mapping for Economic Recovery, Entrepreneurship and MSME Empowerment in Syria. Beirut: Berytech, October 2025.
https://berytech.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Sida-Report-October-2025-Part-1.pdf.

European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA). Country of Origin Information: Syria – Country Focus. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, July 2025.
https://www.euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/2025-07/2025_07_EUAA_COI_Report_Syria_Country_Focus.pdf.

Global Policy Watch. “New Sanctions Authorities in the FY 2026 NDAA.” Global Policy Watch, December 22, 2025. https://www.globalpolicywatch.com/2025/12/new-sanctions-authorities-in-the-fy-2026-ndaa/

Reuters. “EU Suspends Sanctions against Syria, Including on Energy and Banking.” February 24, 2025.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/eu-suspends-sanctions-against-syria-including-those-energy-banking-2025-02-24.

Rest of World. “Syria Just Hosted Its First International Tech Conference in 50 Years (SYNC 25).” Rest of World, 2025.
https://restofworld.org/2025/syria-international-tech-conference-sync-25.

———. “Syria’s Quest to Build Its Own Silicon Valley.” Rest of World, 2025.
https://restofworld.org/2025/syria-tech-industry.

Startup 3lmashi. “Syria Launches National Alliance to Unify Startup Incubators and Accelerators.” Startup 3lmashi, 2025.
https://www.startup3lmashi.com/p/syria-launches-national-alliance.

Startup Syria. Rising from the Rubble: Entrepreneurship in Syria Post-Assad. Damascus: Startup Syria, 2025.
https://report.startupsyria.org/Startup_Syria_Rising_From_Rubble.pdf.

Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA). “Digital Innovation Center (DIGIT) Inaugurated in Damascus.” 2025.
https://archive.sana.sy/en/?p=357490.

UK Home Office. Country and Policy Information Note: Humanitarian Situation, Syria. London: UK Home Office, July 2025.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6874e035b1b4ebc2c2e46543/SYR+CPIN+Humanitarian+situation.pdf.