Saudi Arabia’s New Naval Alliance Masks an Old War and Risks Global Catastrophe

Saudi Arabia’s New Naval Alliance Masks an Old War and Risks Global Catastrophe

    Thursday, July 30, 2026   No comments

The announcement from Riyadh on July 30, 2026, of a 14-nation "multinational defensive naval alliance" is being sold to the international community as a necessary measure to protect global maritime trade. However, a closer look at the geopolitical realities on the ground reveals a familiar, dangerous playbook. This repeated scenario is clearly designed to provide political cover for Saudi Arabia to launch a wider military offensive against the Yemen government in Sanaa.

Far from securing the waterways, this initiative is highly unlikely to stop the Houthis or successfully open the strait. Instead, if this militarization drags on, it will be catastrophic for the global economy and will ultimately isolate the 14 countries that have signed on to support this Saudi initiative.

The Ghost of the 2015 Coalition

To understand the current maneuver, one must look at the recent past. More than ten years ago, in 2015, Saudi Arabia announced a coalition of 10 Muslim states with a stated mission to overthrow the Sanaa government and restore its own allied government, which was operating first out of Riyadh and later from Aden.

The reality of that war, however, was starkly different from the diplomatic optics. During that period, it was just Saudi Arabia and the UAE who actually conducted the war on the ground and in the air. The broader coalition largely stayed on the sidelines, and the military campaign went nowhere, resulting in a protracted stalemate and a devastating humanitarian crisis.

Today, Riyadh is attempting to recycle this strategy under a new facade. The new coalition boasts a different stated mission—protecting transit in the Red Sea—but the underlying objective remains the same: to build a multinational shield behind which Saudi Arabia can escalate its conflict with Sanaa.

A Chokepoint Turned Crisis Zone

According to the founding charter announced in Riyadh, the alliance will focus on the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, the Red Sea, and the Gulf of Aden. While the 14 founding members—including regional heavyweights like Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, and Jordan—claim the alliance is "purely defensive," the practical effect will be the exact opposite.

Rather than securing the region, this massive naval buildup is likely to increase the cost of transit in the Red Sea and turn that tight, vital waterway into a permanent crisis point. The presence of a large, Saudi-led multinational naval force will inevitably be viewed by the Sanaa government and its allies as a direct blockade and a prelude to invasion. This will spook global economic systems, driving up insurance premiums, forcing shipping reroutes, and injecting massive volatility into global energy and supply chain markets.

If this standoff takes longer than a few weeks, the resulting disruption will be catastrophic for the global economy, which is already struggling to absorb the shocks of ongoing US-Iran tensions and broader Middle Eastern instability.

Diplomatic Isolation for the 14

By joining this coalition, the 14 founding nations are inadvertently signing up for a diplomatic disaster. The international community is increasingly wary of endless Middle Eastern conflicts. By providing political and military cover for a Saudi initiative to start a wider war with the Sanaa government, these 14 countries risk severe diplomatic isolation.

They will be viewed not as defenders of global trade, but as complicit actors in a regional land grab and an aggressive expansion of the Yemen conflict. Nations like Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt, which have their own complex geopolitical balancing acts, will find their international standing severely damaged if this naval alliance is used as a Trojan horse for bombing campaigns against Sanaa.

The Internal Saudi Tinderbox

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this new military venture is how it intersects with Saudi Arabia’s fragile internal landscape. Given the current global and regional context, this round of Saudi violence can easily backfire and destabilize the Kingdom.

Saudi Arabia is currently undergoing radical internal changes. The kingdom, traditionally a very conservative society, is rapidly abandoning aspects of its historical culture in a aggressive push for economic gains and foreign investment under Vision 2030. This rapid social engineering has created underlying friction within Saudi society.

Furthermore, the political foundation of the current leadership remains susceptible to internal shocks. The current trajectory was set when the young prince, Mohammed bin Salman, sidelined the more traditional crown prince, Mohammed bin Nayef, in what was widely seen by regional observers as a bloodless coup within the halls of power in the Kingdom. This consolidation of power relied heavily on the promise of economic prosperity and regional stability.

Dragging the Kingdom into another unwinnable, expensive war in Yemen—disguised as a maritime defense pact—threatens to shatter those promises. The financial drain of a prolonged naval and aerial campaign, combined with the risk of retaliatory strikes on Saudi oil infrastructure (as seen in the recent attacks on the Eastern Province), could ignite domestic unrest.

The 14-nation naval alliance announced in Riyadh is a geopolitical mirage. It promises security but delivers a roadmap for escalation. It will not stop the Houthis, it will not secure the Red Sea, and it will not bring stability to the Arabian Peninsula. Instead, it threatens to crash the global economy, isolate its member states on the world stage, and push the Saudi Kingdom toward an internal and external crisis from which it may not easily recover. The world should not be fooled by the "defensive" label; this is the opening salvo of a much wider, and much more dangerous, war.

Who are the member-states of the Saudi Coalition against the Houthis?

1. Saudi Arabia Lead nation and host of headquarters
2. Qatar
3. Kuwait
4. Bahrain 
5. Pakistan 
6. Turkey 
7. Egypt
8. Jordan
9. Yemen  Note: This refers to the Saudi-backed government, not the Sanaa government
10. Bangladesh
11. Nigeria 
12. Sudan 
13. Djibouti 
14. Somalia 

Regional Breakdown:

• Gulf States: 4 (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain)
• Middle East/North Africa: 4 (Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Sudan)
• Horn of Africa: 2 (Djibouti, Somalia)
• South Asia: 2 (Pakistan, Bangladesh)
• Other: 1 (Turkey - transcontinental), 1 (Nigeria - West Africa)

Yemeni counternarrative:

Meanwhile, the Houthis are already actively weaponizing a potent propaganda narrative to galvanize religious and regional opposition to this new coalition. Capitalizing on recently surfaced allegations and documents suggesting that pieces of the sacred Kaaba cover (the Kiswa) were gifted or shipped to Jeffrey Epstein’s residence, Houthi media and allied outlets are accusing the Saudi ruling elite of defiling Islam’s holiest sites and beliefs for corrupt, secular ends.

This narrative is sharply amplified by the circulation of photographs showing Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman alongside Epstein, which Houthi supporters are using to frame the Saudi leadership not as defenders of the faith, but as participants in an "alliance of criminality" with Western predatory elites.

By framing the impending conflict as a moral and religious defense of Islamic sanctities against a corrupt monarchy, the Houthis aim to severely undermine the religious legitimacy of the Saudi state, transforming a geopolitical dispute into a profound ideological flashpoint that could resonate dangerously across the broader Muslim world.

Leader of Yemen's Ansar Allah, Sayyed Abdul-Malik al-Houthi: 

The Saudis gave Epstein the curtain of the Holy Kaaba, intending for him to use it as a mat to walk on with his shoes, and to incorporate it into his satanic rituals.

Unfortunately, Islamic governments and religious authorities in the Muslim world have remained silent regarding the gift of the Kaaba's curtain to the Jewish criminal Epstein.

I call for the formation of an Islamic committee to investigate this betrayal of giving the Kaaba's curtain to the Jewish criminal Epstein.

A Decade of Transformation: Al-Julani's Public Debut and the Geopolitical Chess Game in Syria

A Decade of Transformation: Al-Julani's Public Debut and the Geopolitical Chess Game in Syria

    Wednesday, July 29, 2026   No comments

Ten years ago today, a masked militant leader removed his veil before the world, signaling not just a rebranding but a revealing chapter in the complex theater of proxy warfare.

July 30, 2026 — On this day in 2016, Abu Mohammad al-Julani, then the emir of Jabhat al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, sat before an Aljazeera camera and publicly revealed his face for the first time. Flanked by two other figures, dressed in military fatigues with a white turban, he read from a statement that would reshape the Syrian conflict's trajectory: the severance of formal ties with Al-Qaeda and the birth of "Jabhat Fath al-Sham" (The Front for the Conquest of Syria).

In the carefully staged video, broadcast exclusively by Qatar's Aljazeera, al-Julani—now known as Ahmad al-Sharaa and the self-decalred leader of Syria's transitional government—thanked Al-Qaeda's leadership, including Ayman al-Zawahiri, for their "noble stance" in prioritizing "the interests of the people of Al-Sham, their Jihad, their revolution."

He quoted Osama bin Laden: "The interests of the Ummah take precedence over the interest of any state; the interests of the state take precedence over the interest of any Jama'ah (group); the interests of the Jama'ah take precedence over any individual."

Then came the announcement: "For the aforementioned reasons, we declare the complete cancellation of all operations under the name of Jabhat Al-Nusra, and the formation of a new group operating under the name 'Jabhat Fath Al-Sham,' noting that this new organisation has no affiliation to any external entity."

The statement outlined five goals:

Establishing Sharia law and justice

• Unifying mujahideen ranks to liberate Syria from Bashar al-Assad
• Protecting jihad in Syria
• Serving Muslims' daily needs
• Ensuring security and stability for the masses

The Afghan Template Revisited

This moment, a decade ago, reveals a pattern as old as the modern jihad movement itself. The theatrical severing of ties, the rebranding, the public unveiling—these were not signs of ideological moderation but of strategic adaptation within a framework that has served various geopolitical interests since the 1980s.

During the Soviet-Afghan War, the United States, through Pakistan's ISI and Saudi Arabia, funneled billions to mujahideen fighters, including those who would later form Al-Qaeda. The strategy was clear: use religiously motivated fighters as a proxy force against a geopolitical rival. When the Soviets withdrew in 1989, the infrastructure of jihad remained, as did the networks, the ideology, and the operatives.

What we witnessed in Syria, and particularly in al-Julani's 2016 announcement, was the refinement of this model. By 2016, the Syrian conflict had become the new Afghanistan—a proxy battlefield where regional and global powers could fight without direct confrontation. Russia had intervened in 2015 to prop up Assad. The United States was backing various opposition groups while simultaneously fighting ISIS. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Iran were all pursuing their own agendas.

The Convenience of "Moderate" Extremism

Al-Julani's statement emphasized that the new organization would have "no affiliation to any external entity"—a claim that strained credibility given the complex web of support flowing through Turkey and other channels. Yet this rebranding served multiple masters:

For al-Julani and his fighters, it provided operational flexibility, allowing them to receive support from actors who couldn't openly back an Al-Qaeda affiliate. It enabled participation in political processes and potential negotiations.

For regional powers, particularly Turkey and Gulf states, it created a deniable proxy—a group that could fight Assad and Kurdish forces while maintaining plausible distance from Al-Qaeda's global terrorism brand.

For the United States and its allies, it fit a familiar pattern: the "good jihadist" versus "bad jihadist" dichotomy that had proven so useful in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya. While officially designating Al-Nusra as a terrorist organization, the reality on the ground was more nuanced, with the group often fighting against ISIS and Assad—enemies shared with the West.

The Strategic Assimilation

The video's content reveals the ideological continuity beneath the organizational change. Al-Julani quoted bin Laden's hierarchical framework of interests, demonstrating that the strategic thinking remained intact even as the organizational chart changed. The goal of establishing Sharia law, unifying mujahideen, and liberating Syria remained constant.

What changed was the packaging—and that was the point. The transformation from Al-Nusra to Jabhat Fath al-Sham (and later to Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham) demonstrated how jihadist groups could evolve tactically while maintaining strategic objectives. This adaptability made them more useful to various geopolitical actors pursuing their own interests in Syria.

The fact that this announcement was broadcast on Al Jazeera, a Qatari state-funded network, was itself significant. Qatar, a U.S. ally hosting America's largest Middle East military base at Al Udeid, was providing a platform for a former Al-Qaeda leader to announce his group's rebranding—highlighting the complex, often contradictory nature of Middle East geopolitics.

A Decade Later: From Jihadist to Statesman

The ultimate irony of this anniversary is where al-Julani stands today. Now governing Syria as Ahmad al-Sharaa, wearing suits instead of fatigues, meeting with world leaders, and leading a transitional government, he has completed the transformation that began with that 2016 announcement.

This trajectory—from masked jihadist to public political leader—validates the strategic thinking outlined in that video. By severing the formal Al-Qaeda link, maintaining operational capability, and positioning himself as a defender of Syrian interests against both Assad and foreign powers, al-Julani navigated the conflict to emerge as Syria's de facto leader.

The Enduring Pattern

Ten years on, al-Julani's public debut reminds us that the use of jihadist groups as geopolitical tools didn't end with the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. It evolved. The Syrian conflict demonstrated that even groups with global terrorist ambitions could be assimilated into regional power struggles, serving interests that extended far beyond their ideological goals.

The United States, which once armed the mujahideen against the Soviets, found itself in Syria in the uncomfortable position of tacitly benefiting from the efforts of groups it officially designated as terrorists, when those groups fought against ISIS and Assad—enemies aligned against U.S. interests.

This is not to suggest a conspiracy, but rather to acknowledge a recurring pattern: in the chaos of proxy warfare, ideological enemies can become tactical allies, and today's terrorist can become tomorrow's negotiating partner. The 2016 announcement wasn't a break from Al-Qaeda's strategy—it was the fulfillment of it, demonstrating the movement's ability to adapt, survive, and ultimately thrive within the international system it claims to reject.

As Syria attempts to rebuild under al-Sharaa's leadership, this anniversary serves as a stark reminder of the unintended consequences of proxy warfare and the long shadows cast by geopolitical expediency. The man who once quoted bin Laden now sits in presidential palaces, and the world must decide whether to engage with him—a testament to the complex, morally ambiguous reality of modern geopolitics.

Trump’s Push for Syria to Confront Hezbollah: A Recipe for Regional Chaos

Trump’s Push for Syria to Confront Hezbollah: A Recipe for Regional Chaos

    Friday, July 17, 2026   No comments

In a move that has sent shockwaves through an already fragile Middle East, U.S. President Donald Trump has reportedly been pressing the new Syrian leadership to take military action against Hezbollah in Lebanon. According to recent reports, Trump has suggested that the Islamist-led insurgents, led by a former al-qaeda leader, who overthrew Bashar al-Assad a year and a half ago are better positioned to root out the Iran-backed militant group than the Israeli army. While the White House may view this as a convenient offloading of regional burdens, the reality is starkly different: greenlighting Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa (formerly known as Julani) to “take care of” Hezbollah will create a vastly larger and more intractable problem for the region than it could ever solve.

The Iraqi Warning: A Line in the Sand

The profound dangers of this proposal have not gone unnoticed in Baghdad. The Iraqi government has recently issued a stark “advice” to Sharaa, explicitly warning Damascus against any involvement in the Lebanese file. According to regional sources, the Iraqi message carried a clear caveat: any Syrian encroachment into Lebanon will have direct, severe repercussions on Syria itself. Baghdad made it unequivocally clear that if Lebanese Shias or Hezbollah face any danger originating from Syrian territory, Iraqi resistance factions will not stand idly by. “Every Syrian step toward Lebanon may be followed by an Iraqi step toward Syria,” the warning read.

This is not an empty threat. It is rooted in recent, painful history. Syria is currently ruled by unelected rebel factions that have a documented track record of threatening and killing Iraqis. It was not so long ago that it took the massive, desperate mobilization of Iraqi volunteer forces—the Hashd al-Shaabi (Popular Mobilization Forces)—to counter the very same Islamist ideologies that now hold power in Damascus. Crucially, this mobilization was authorized by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and other prominent religious leaders to defend Iraq and protect Shia communities from existential threats. The memory of that defense remains vivid and potent.

The Disarmament Paradox

If the United States and Israel genuinely desire the disarmament of Hezbollah and the Iraqi Hashd forces, suggesting that a Syrian regime composed of former rebels will intervene in Lebanon to crush Shias is profoundly counterproductive. Rather than coercing these groups into laying down their arms, such a scenario validates their core narrative: that they are under imminent threat of annihilation.

For Hezbollah, a Syrian-led offensive would be framed as an existential war, guaranteeing fierce resistance. For the Hashd al-Shaabi in Iraq, the logic is equally clear. Faced with the prospect of Syrian rebels attacking Shias in Lebanon, Iraqi paramilitary forces will now insist, with heightened public and religious backing, that they must remain fully armed, mobilized, and ready to defend their brethren across the border. Any Western or Israeli hope of demobilizing these forces will instantly evaporate, replaced by a hardened resolve for self-defense.

Unleashing Internal Fragility in Iraq

The ripple effects of this destabilizing rhetoric extend far beyond the Hashd. Trump’s proposal inadvertently sheds harsh light on the fragile monopoly on force held by the central Iraqi government. If the state cannot guarantee the security of Shia communities regionally, it emboldens other armed groups operating outside Baghdad’s command.

This includes the Peshmerga and various other Kurdish armed factions. Whether these groups are anti-Turkey or anti-Iran, their entrenched bases in Iraq represent a complex web of localized power. A regional escalation triggered by Syrian intervention in Lebanon would provide these groups with both the pretext and the opportunity to expand their own military postures, further fracturing Iraq’s internal security and complicating any efforts at national cohesion.

A Pattern of Impulsive Diplomacy

Trump’s claim that he will greenlight Sharaa to handle Hezbollah fits a troubling trend in his on-the-spot, ill-conceived decision-making. Historically, such impulsive geopolitical gambits have generated cascading problems that their architects are utterly unequipped to solve. Treating the Middle East as a chessboard where rebel factions can be casually redirected to fight proxy wars ignores the deep-seated sectarian, historical, and political realities of the region.

Even Syrian interim president Sharaa has reportedly pushed back against this idea, telling Iraqi officials that he refused the U.S. request and that Damascus is not interested in reopening old fronts or returning to past policies of regional intervention. His priority, he stressed, is internal stability. Still, the mere amplification of this idea by the U.S. president is enough to destabilize the delicate balance of power.

A Region Governed by Weakness and Trauma

The Iraqi government’s stern warning to Syrian rulers serves as a microcosm of how extraordinarily complex the Middle East has become. It is a region now characterized by weak central regimes and territories ruled by former rebels, all navigating a post-Gaza war landscape that has displayed a total disregard for human dignity and international law. The trauma of recent conflicts has left communities hyper-vigilant and deeply distrustful of external meddling.

True regional stability cannot be achieved by pitting one fragile, rebel-led state against another, nor by encouraging sectarian proxy wars. If the international community wishes to see the disarmament of militias and the stabilization of the Levant, it must pursue inclusive diplomacy, strengthen legitimate state institutions, and cease floating dangerous, half-baked military alternatives. Otherwise, Trump’s latest suggestion will not be a solution, but the spark that ignites the next, even more devastating, regional conflagration.

The Powder Keg of the Levant--How Sectarian Power Structures Guarantee Perpetual Instability

The Powder Keg of the Levant--How Sectarian Power Structures Guarantee Perpetual Instability

    Tuesday, September 02, 2025   No comments

In the ancient lands of the Levant, where history is measured in millennia, a modern curse condemns nations to a purgatory of weakness. This is not a curse of geography or resources, but one of design—a political architecture built not on the bedrock of principled compromise and shared national vision, but on the shifting sands of sectarian appeasement. The fates of Lebanon and Syria stand as stark, bloody testaments to a brutal truth: a government forged in the fire of sectarian civil war is destined to be weak, illegitimate, and a prelude to the next conflict.

One would think that healing and reconciliation should follow three decades of peace. Yet Lebanon, whose 15-year civil war ended 35 years ago, is a nation frozen in time, a ghost haunting its own corpse. It is not a healed nation but a palimpsest of its former conflicts, its power structures meticulously drawn along the very sectarian lines that once tore it apart.

This is a country still ruled, in effect, by unelected leaders. The current president was appointed after years of vacuum, his ascent only possible by twisting the constitution to bypass a rule prohibiting active military officers from political office. The prime minister, a respected former international judge, was less elected than selected, installed through backroom compromise and heavy-handed pressure from foreign capitals like Washington, Paris, and Riyadh. Even the speakership, held by an elected MP, is shackled to a sectarian quota, its legitimacy perpetually questioned.

This patched-together entity now dares to act as a legitimate government, attempting to change the very practices its own flawed existence perpetuates. But a house divided against itself cannot stand, and a government built on sectarian compromise cannot govern. It will either fracture under the weight of its own contradictions or push ahead with its agenda, inevitably alienating one faction or another and risking a return to the civil war days it was designed to prevent. In Lebanon, the peace is the war, continued by other means.

This tragic model is not unique. Libya, shattered since 2011, is a mosaic of rival fiefdoms. A weak, internationally recognized government controls the capital, while the rest of the country answers to another regime in Benghazi or to autonomous tribal forces. There is no central authority, only a precarious and violent stalemate.

But it is Syria that presents the most chilling and recent case study. After a decade of brutal war exacerbated by a proxy conflict involving regional and global powers, the Baathist regime finally collapsed nearly a year ago. The rebels, aided by Turkey and Qatar and spearheaded by factions with extremist ideologies, seized their moment amidst the regional instability sparked by the war in Gaza.

Their victory, however, was merely the prelude to the next chapter of failure. The new Damascus regime, finding its authority challenged, has already resorted to the same tactics of its predecessor: massacres in Alawite and Druze regions, sowing fear among all ethnic and religious minorities. This has not consolidated power; it has shattered it further. The powerful Kurds, along with other groups, are now arming themselves for survival, refusing to hand their weapons to a central government they see as just another sectarian predator.

The outcome is inevitable. Syria is rapidly descending into the Lebanese and Libyan model—a central government that lacks both the legitimacy to command respect and the power to enforce its will. It rules not by consent but by fear, and fear is a fuel that quickly burns out, leaving only the ash of resentment.

When you add Iran to the mix, a country that was destabilized by US invasion and governed through a power-sharing arrangement still, the entire Levant thus becomes a powder keg, its nations condemned to cycles of violence by a refusal to transcend sectarian and tribal identities. The power of the gun, mistaken for political power, creates only a brutal illusion of control. True legitimacy is not seized through the barrel of a rifle or assigned by religious quota; it is earned through the principled compromise of a social contract that serves all citizens equally.

Without this fundamental transformation—without building states for all citizens rather than fiefdoms for sects—the next ten years will not bring peace. They will bring more transformative, and likely armed, events. The civilians of this ancient region will be lucky to witness change that is not delivered by a bullet. For now, their destiny remains held hostage by the very structures claiming to save them, guaranteeing that instability is not a phase, but a permanent condition.

The Escalation of Violence in Syria: A Path to Deepen Syria's fragmentation

The Escalation of Violence in Syria: A Path to Deepen Syria's fragmentation

    Monday, March 10, 2025   No comments

Syria has witnessed its most violent outbreak of conflict since the ousting of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, with over 1,300 deaths reported in just three days. The clashes between forces aligned with Syria’s new government and remnants of Assad’s loyalists have resulted in widespread civilian casualties, particularly affecting the Alawite community, which previously supported the former regime. The intensity of the violence has drawn international concern, as reports of field executions, communal massacres, and forced displacement emerge.

The conflict ignited when HTS-led government forces attempted to arrest what it calls members of the former regime. The attempt was met by armed resistance, which escalated when government brought it more of its armed militias from nearby Idlib, most of whom are not Syrian fighters. While the government aimed to restore order, retaliatory attacks by armed groups have further escalated tensions, leading to mass executions and acts of revenge against Alawite civilians. Human rights organizations, including the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the Syrian Network for Human Rights, have documented atrocities, including systematic killings and the destruction of homes.

Eyewitnesses and video evidence reveal harrowing acts of violence, with reports of militants conducting executions and vowing to "purify" Syria of perceived enemies. Civilians, including elderly residents and families, have been caught in the crossfire, facing persecution irrespective of their allegiance to Assad’s regime. Many Alawites, who have distanced themselves from the former government, continue to suffer the consequences of sectarian retaliation.

Despite Syria’s Ministry of Defense announcing the end of security operations, reports from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights indicate that armed groups continue to commit atrocities against civilians in the coastal regions. Armed factions, some of whom entered towns alongside government forces, have been accused of looting, arson, and indiscriminate violence in areas such as Harisun in Baniyas. Residents from multiple villages in Latakia have pleaded for protection as killings, kidnappings, and destruction persist, highlighting the deteriorating security situation.

Survivors and local witnesses describe an ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing, with entire villages being targeted. Calls for international intervention and independent investigations have grown louder as displaced civilians report being too afraid to return home. Some refugees have sought shelter in the Russian-operated Hmeimim Airbase, refusing to leave due to ongoing threats from armed groups. The humanitarian crisis is worsening, with severe shortages of food, electricity, and water reported across affected regions, exacerbating the suffering of civilians trapped in the conflict.

Syria’s interim leadership has vowed to hold accountable those responsible for the civilian massacres and has called for national unity. However, the government faces significant challenges in maintaining security, especially as extremist factions continue to exploit the instability. Al-Sharaa’s administration, which emerged from an Islamist insurgency, faces scrutiny over its ability to protect minorities and establish a functioning security apparatus.

The United States has condemned the extremist violence, particularly the involvement of foreign jihadists, and has expressed solidarity with Syria’s diverse religious and ethnic minorities, including Christians, Druze, Alawites, and Kurds. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has urged Syria’s interim authorities to ensure accountability for those responsible for the massacres.

The ongoing bloodshed underscores the fragile nature of Syria’s post-Assad transition and highlights the deep-seated sectarian divisions that continue to fuel violence. Without immediate and effective intervention, Syria risks descending further into chaos, jeopardizing any hopes for stability and peace in the war-torn nation.

Qatari Emir, in Tehran, met Iranian officials: Importance of dialogue to resolve regional conflicts maintain regional stability

Qatari Emir, in Tehran, met Iranian officials: Importance of dialogue to resolve regional conflicts maintain regional stability

    Wednesday, February 19, 2025   No comments

Although the public statements seemed to emphasize the importance of the ceasefire in Gaza and need to rebuild Gaza and prevent its people from forced displacement, one must read between the lines to understand the role of Qatar in bridging the gap between Iranian leaders and the new leaders in Syria as being their top priority. The reason being Qatari deep connections to the armed group, HTS, which now control most of Syria. It is likely that Qatar will play a role in "normalizing the relationship to the extent that the Shia minority in Syria and the religious site revered by Shia Muslims are respected and protect. In return, Syrian leaders can expect Iran's help in helping speed up the rebuilding of state institutions that would be able to preserve Syria's territorial integrity. The coming days will determine how successful the Qataris in achieving this balancing act.

 

The Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, confirmed - in a press conference with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian - that he is visiting Tehran at a time when the region is witnessing challenges that require consultation and coordination, stressing that the best way to resolve conflicts is through constructive dialogue.

The Emir of Qatar said that he held talks with the Iranian President that included many areas of cooperation, stressing the importance of exploring potential opportunities for cooperation.

He explained that the recent visit of the Iranian President to the State of Qatar contributed to developing relations between the two countries, adding that dialogues and understandings support stability in the region and enhance the prosperity of its countries and peoples.

The Emir of Qatar stressed - in the joint press conference - the need to adhere to the ceasefire in Gaza and continue the flow of aid, and he also spoke with President Pezeshkian about the importance of the success of the comprehensive political process in Syria.

Maintaining Stability

In turn, the Iranian president said that he held consultations with the Emir of Qatar on the current developments in the region.

Pezeshkian thanked Doha for its efforts in the ceasefire negotiations in Gaza and the release of Palestinian prisoners, stressing that during this meeting he emphasized the unity of Syrian territory and the right of the Syrian people to self-determination.

The Iranian president said that he believes that the countries of the region can work to achieve stability and security in the region, adding that strengthening and expanding relations in all fields with the countries of the region is one of Tehran's basic policies.

Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad arrived in the capital Tehran on Wednesday on a visit accompanied by Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani and an official delegation.

The Emir of Qatar met with President Pezeshkian and senior Iranian officials to discuss bilateral relations, regional developments, and ways to maintain the security and stability of the region, according to the Qatar News Agency (QNA).

The Qatari agency stated that this visit "is of great interest in light of the current circumstances and developments in the region, and what they require in terms of intensifying consultations at the highest levels, and coordinating visions and positions towards various challenges."

Iran's President Pezeshkian in a press conference with the Emir of Qatar in Tehran: We respect Syria's sovereignty and territorial integrity

There is a convergence of views between Iran and our friend Qatar on regional issues.. The Islamic Republic believes that the countries of the region are capable of achieving security and stability in the region.. We respect the sovereignty of Syria and stressed the necessity of the participation of all segments of the Syrian people in determining its fate.. We appreciate Qatar's efforts in mediating to reach a ceasefire agreement in Gaza.. We believe that all governments and peoples must do their utmost to defend the rights of the Palestinian people

Israeli government committee: Turkey-backed Syria may pose greater threat than Iran

Israeli government committee: Turkey-backed Syria may pose greater threat than Iran

    Tuesday, January 07, 2025   No comments

An Israeli government committee said Monday that Turkey could pose a greater threat to Israel than Iran in Syria if it backs a hostile “Sunni Islamist” force in Damascus.

Ankara has emerged as a major beneficiary of the collapse of Bashar Assad’s government in Syria last month, following an offensive by rebels led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and other Turkish-backed Syrian groups.

Since then, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has pledged all forms of support, including military and security assistance, to help the new Syrian caretaker government establish public order in the country under the leadership of Ahmed al-Sharaa, also known by his nom de guerre Abu Mohammed al-Julani.

The “Committee to Evaluate the Defense Establishment Budget and Balance of Power,” headed by former National Security Council head Yaakov Nagel, is commonly referred to in Hebrew media as the Nagel Committee or the Nagel Committee.

The committee was established in 2023, before the outbreak of the Israeli war on Gaza, with the aim of making recommendations to the Defense Ministry on potential areas of conflict that Israel could face in the coming years.

The committee said that “the origins of the rebels and their leaders,” some of whom were previously associated with groups such as Al-Qaeda, should not be ignored.

For this reason, we must take into account that Israel may face a new threat emerging in Syria, which in some respects may be no less dangerous than the previous threat. This threat may take the form of a radical Sunni force that also refuses to recognize the existence of Israel,” the committee said.

Moreover, since the Sunni rebels will exercise political power by virtue of their central control in Syria, they may pose a greater threat than the Iranian threat, which has been limited by Israel’s continued actions, as well as the restrictions imposed on Iran by the sovereign Syrian state.

The committee warned that the problem could intensify if the Syrian force effectively becomes a proxy for Turkey, “as part of Turkey’s ambition to restore the Ottoman Empire to its former glory.”

We must prepare for war with Türkiye

Israeli media reported that a government committee recommended in its report to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, yesterday, Monday, to prepare for a possible war with Turkey, in light of growing concerns in Tel Aviv about Ankara’s alliance with the new administration in Damascus after the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime.

The Jerusalem Post quoted the committee’s report as proposing to increase the defense budget by up to NIS 15 billion ($4.1 billion) annually over the next five years, to ensure that Israeli forces are equipped to deal with the challenges posed by Turkey, as well as other regional threats.

The committee also recommended several measures to prepare for a possible confrontation with Turkey:

Advanced weapons: Acquiring additional F-15 fighter jets, refueling aircraft, drones and satellites to enhance Israel’s ability to carry out long-range strikes.

Air defense systems: Enhancing multi-layered air defense capabilities, including the Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow and the newly operational laser defense system.

Border security: Building a fortified security barrier along the Jordan Valley, which would represent a major shift in Israel’s defense strategy despite the potential diplomatic fallout with Jordan.

The Israeli Prime Minister's Office said in a statement on Monday that Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yisrael Katz, and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich had received the Nagel Committee's recommendations.

According to the statement, Netanyahu said, "We are in the midst of a fundamental change in the situation in the Middle East. We have known for years that Iran poses the greatest threat to us, both directly and through its proxies."

He continued, "Of course, we were keen to hit this axis hard. But we have seen the reality that: First, Iran is still there, and second, additional forces have entered the field, and we always need to be prepared for what may come."

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had warned - a few weeks before the Syrian armed opposition overthrew the regime of Bashar al-Assad - that Israeli military moves in Syria could pose a direct threat to Turkey's security on its southern border.

Türkiye cashing in early its investment in Syria's rebels; other regional leaders are following US footsteps and visiting Damascus

Türkiye cashing in early its investment in Syria's rebels; other regional leaders are following US footsteps and visiting Damascus

    Monday, December 23, 2024   No comments

Media review: How some media outlets, commentators, and politicians from the Middle East are reacting to the fast moving developments in Syria.

In a visit that could be considered a celebration of the success of the efforts to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, who was the head of intelligence and is considered one of the most prominent figures who contributed to supporting the “Hayat Tahrir al-Sham” organization that overthrew Assad, arrived in the Syrian capital, Damascus, to hold consultations with the new authorities in the country, represented by Ahmed al-Sharaa (Abu Muhammad al-Julani), the leader of the organization and commander of military operations, whom Turkey helped transform from a “jihadist leader” to a “statesman.” However, the visit, which coincides with the continuation of international political deliberations, in which Ankara plays a prominent role, took on a clear protocol form, as part of Ankara’s efforts to establish the legitimacy of the ruling authorities at the present time, especially after Washington announced its involvement in relations with the “Hayat.” Fidan’s keenness to demonstrate his strong relationship with al-Sharaa and demonstrate Turkey’s victory in the Syrian battle was also evident through a visit to Mount Qasioun, where the two men drank tea from the highest peak in Damascus. Turkish statements similar to those of the "High Commissioner" during the French mandate, by talking about the future of Syria and identifying the names that will rule the country, are accepted by the new American administration headed by Donald Trump, who will enter the White House in less than a month, which will provide Turkey with a large space for political and security work in Syria, by establishing a government loyal to Ankara on the one hand, and reducing the Kurdish role that the latter is still fighting, on the other hand.

The Turkish Foreign Minister, in statements he made after a meeting with "al-Julani" during which he discussed the political developments in Syria and the issue of Syrian refugees in Turkey and ways to open the door for their return, indicated that he conveyed the greetings of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, continuing, in his victory speech, that "the Baath regime that lasted 61 years left behind great suffering, and we are here today to stand with you in achieving your aspirations." He added: "Your joy is our joy and your sadness is our sadness, and we are proud to support the truth and stand by you," stressing the need to "draft a new constitution that respects all components of Syrian society and guarantees the rights of minorities," in a way that opens the door to "building a new Syria, with full Turkish support." He pointed out that "President Erdogan issued his instructions to support you in everything you need to achieve progress. We are here to begin a new phase of construction." 

For its part, and in the context of what Ankara considers a "victory" for it, the Turkish "Anadolu" agency broadcast two photos; the first of which shows Fidan with "al-Julani", and the other of Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi with al-Assad, on the first of this month, noting that the time difference between the two photos is 3 weeks. 

Turkish relations with new Syrian leaders will be determined by how the Kurdish matter will be handled. Here is what the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs Hakan Fidan, said in that regard:

"We must take action immediately. The territorial integrity of Syria is non-negotiable. I would like to clarify once again that there is absolutely no place for Kurdish armed groups in Syria."

Advanced steps, therefore, cannot be taken until some of the outstanding problems with the factions in the north and south are resolved, in addition to reaching an agreement under which the Kurds in the "SDF" are integrated into the new administration. However, the last mission seems somewhat difficult in light of the ongoing battles between the factions of the "National Army" affiliated with Turkey and the "SDF" in many areas, most notably the "Tishreen Dam" area, which field sources reported that the battles taking place in its vicinity caused severe damage to it. 

Media Review: Syrian opposition received Ukrainian support to undermine Russia and its allies

Media Review: Syrian opposition received Ukrainian support to undermine Russia and its allies

    Wednesday, December 11, 2024   No comments

The Washington Post reported that “the Syrian opposition that seized power in Damascus last weekend received drones and other support from Ukrainian intelligence agents who sought to undermine Russia and its Syrian allies,” according to sources familiar with Ukrainian military activities abroad.

The sources told the newspaper that “Ukrainian intelligence sent about 20 experienced drone operators and about 150 drones to the rebel headquarters in Idlib, Syria, four to five weeks ago to assist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.”

Western intelligence sources believe, according to the newspaper, that Kiev’s assistance played only a modest role in the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but it was notable as part of a broader Ukrainian effort to covertly strike Russian operations in the Middle East, Africa and inside Russia itself.

“Ukraine’s covert aid program in Syria was an open secret, though senior Biden administration officials have repeatedly said they were unaware of it,” she added. “The motivation behind it is clear: Facing a Russian onslaught inside their country, Ukrainian intelligence looked for other fronts where it could bloody Russia’s nose and undermine its clients.”

  

After the one-family rule collapses in Syria, Is Egypt's one man rule next?

After the one-family rule collapses in Syria, Is Egypt's one man rule next?

    Sunday, December 08, 2024   No comments

"Syria, Assad, wa-bass (and that is it), was no winning slogan. Future of country's cannot be built long-term on the basis of a single figure or a single family. What happened in Syria in the last 14 years is a good example of this political truith.

The fall of the single party single family rule in Syria has collapsed. Egypt's one man rule through the exclusion of any significant political force could put that regime on a path to weakness and possible collapse, too. These small steps by the government in Egypt may suggest their awareness of the dangers of exclusion.

Egypt's government releases political prisoners, Azhar welcomes the move

Al-Azhar welcomes Sisi’s directives to remove hundreds of people from terrorist lists and calls for investing in them and building on them.. A debate between those who welcome and those who are cautious and Amr Adeeb: Either us or the Brotherhood.

The repercussions of the decision to remove hundreds of Egyptians from terrorist lists are still ongoing, and no voice is louder than them.

The new thing was in the statement of the Grand Imam, Prof. Dr. Ahmed El-Tayeb, Sheikh of Al-Azhar Al-Sharif, and his deep welcome of the directives of President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, President of the Republic, which paved the way for removing hundreds of people from the terrorist lists, and giving them the opportunity to start a new page to live normally in their homeland and reunite their families, stressing that it represents a good step, and everyone must invest in it and build on it; for the benefit of our beloved country, calling on God Almighty to preserve our Egypt, and protect it from all harm and evil.

Al-Azhar's statement was met with varying opinions, between those who welcomed it and those who expressed reservations about it.

These developments cannot be understood in isolation from what has been happening in Syria. Arab rulers and governments of neighboring countries are fact-spinning the development to limit their wider effects.

Of note, Egyptian media reported that security forces arrested a group of Syrians in Egypt after they participated in celebrations of the fall of President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

Turkey's Fidan: The Syrian opposition must unite and form a new, non-exclusionary administration

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan stressed that "the new Syria should not pose a threat to its neighbors, but should eliminate threats."

Fidan called from Doha for "establishing a new Syrian administration that is non-exclusionary and without a desire for revenge", and for preserving Syrian institutions, and also called for "the opposition forces to unite."

He pointed out that "the Syrian opposition forces consist of different groups, but the coordination mechanism will improve in the coming days."

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan announced that “a 14-year era of instability in Syria has ended,” noting that “Ankara does not know anything about the fate of President Bashar al-Assad.” Fidan revealed in a press conference held today that “the Syrian regime could have taken advantage of the opportunity of the Astana talks to reach national reconciliation, but it did not want to,” noting that “President Recep Tayyip Erdogan extended his hand to achieve unity in Syria, but the Syrian regime refused.” At the same time, Fidan expressed his country’s concern about “organizations such as ISIS that may exploit these developments in Syria, and Turkey is closely monitoring them to ensure that they do not control any parts of Syria in any way, and we are coordinating with friends such as the United States in this regard.” Regarding the Kurdistan Workers' Party, Fidan said, "Any extension or expansion of the Kurdistan Workers' Party militia cannot be considered a legitimate entity in Syria, and America is aware of the sensitivity of our position towards it." He continued, "The PKK cannot be part of the Syrian opposition and factions, because they are not Syrian factions, but terrorist factions, and everyone knows that, so there will be no cooperation with them at all." He stressed that "Turkey will take appropriate measures towards any threats."

Iran calls for Syria's fate to be determined and a government formed "without foreign interference"

Iran called for "determining the fate" of Syria's future, and forming an inclusive government that represents all segments of the Syrian people, "without destructive foreign interference or external imposition," stressing that it is "the exclusive right of the Syrians."

The Iranian Foreign Ministry indicated that it will closely monitor developments in Syria and the region, and will take appropriate positions based on the ongoing analysis of the performance of influential players in the Syrian political and security arena.

It also stressed respect for Syria's unity, governance, and territorial integrity, pointing to supporting Syria's stability and security through cooperation with all active parties in the region.

It explained that achieving stability "requires ending military conflicts quickly, preventing terrorist acts, and starting national dialogues with the participation of all components of society, with the aim of forming an inclusive government that represents all segments of the Syrian people."

The Iranian statement also stressed the importance of ensuring the security of Syrian citizens and nationals of other countries, and protecting holy and diplomatic sites in accordance with international laws.

Iran affirmed its continued support for the United Nations mechanisms, under Resolution 2254, to support the political process in Syria.

It also expressed its keenness to continue historical relations and friendship with Syria on the basis of common interests and commitment to international conventions.

Iranian Ambassador to Syria, Hossein Akbari, said that "the Israeli Prime Minister is now expressing his happiness at the removal of one of his enemies," but he pointed out Benjamin Netanyahu's concern that the new forces "may pose an additional threat to him."

Akbari said in a live televised call with state television that "the Syrian Council of Ministers decided in its session last night to avoid any confrontations in Damascus and to hand over power and government peacefully, which was confirmed by the Syrian Prime Minister in a statement addressed to the people and the armed forces."

He added: "Bashar al-Assad's crime was his support for the axis of resistance, and today there are multiple currents inside Syria, some of which are extremist, even if they differ from (ISIS) in some beliefs."

Akbari pointed out that "the current situation in Syria has produced complex alignments between the northern and southern forces, which may turn the country into an arena for conflict between some Arab and Islamic countries and Turkey."

Akbari continued that "Netanyahu considers this a personal gain for him, but at the same time he is concerned that the stability and strength of the new forces in Syria may pose an additional threat to him."

Akbari explained that “these concerns stem from the lack of guarantees for the establishment of a strong and disciplined government in Syria, and from ethnic and ideological divisions, in addition to the possibility of Syria turning into an arena for conflict between regional countries.” He added: “These conditions may destabilize the central government and create cross-border threats.”

Pentagon official: Our presence in eastern Syria is to prevent the return of ISIS

A Pentagon official said that "the presence of US forces in eastern Syria is not related to other aspects of the conflict in the country," stressing "continuing to take the necessary measures to defend our forces and our partners" and to maintain this presence "which aims only to ensure the sustainability of the defeat of ISIS and prevent its resurgence." In an interview with Reuters today, he called on all parties in Syria to "protect civilians, especially minorities, respect international standards and work to reach a comprehensive political settlement," stressing the continuation of "close consultations with partners in the region affected by this crisis to support their security needs."

Statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry: 

'We are following the dramatic events in Syria with extreme concern. As a result of negotiations between Bashar al-Assad and a number of participants in the armed conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic, he decided to leave the presidential post and left the country, giving instructions to transfer power peacefully

Russia did not participate in these negotiations. At the same time, we appeal to all parties involved with a strong call to renounce the use of violence and resolve all governance issues by political means.

In this regard, the Russian Federation is in contact with all groups of the Syrian opposition. We call for respect for the opinions of all ethno-confessional forces of Syrian society, and support efforts to establish an inclusive political process based on the unanimously adopted UN Security Council Resolution 2254. 

We expect that these approaches will be taken into account by the UN and all interested players, including in the context of the implementation of the initiative of the UN Secretary General's Special Representative for Syria, Georg Pedersen, to urgently organize inter-Syrian inclusive negotiations in Geneva.

At the same time, all necessary measures are being taken to ensure the safety of our citizens in Syria. Russian military bases in Syria are on high alert. There is currently no serious threat to their security.'

Statement by some Arab leaders meeting in Doha

Future of Syria based on post-Assad Syria: Kurds, Islamist, and everyone else

The bigger picture: how (in)stability in Syria could impact a region with uneasy borders

Syria and the "Arab Spring" 2.0

Syria and the "Arab Spring" 2.0

    Friday, December 06, 2024   No comments

The popular uprising that broke in the Southwest Asian and North African, SWANA, in 2011, that transformed the region was frozen ten years later, especially in Syria and Yemen. Syria, after ten years of war, saw some calm since 2021, with the country still divided into three areas of control: one under "Sunni" rebels supported by Turkey and Qatar controlling the northwest, a second under Kurdish control in the northeast supported by the US, and the rest of Syria controlled by the Syrian government supported by Russia and Iran. On November 27 of this year, the calm was shattered when the Turkish backed armed groups regained major cities they lost in 2017-19. The crisis is unlikely to be resolved short of outside strong intervention, which is also unlikely, given that the outside actors are now busy dealing with new crises centers. So, for the foreseeable future, there are two possible paths forward. The various faction will continue to fight, but unlikely that one will prevail over the other two. Alternatively, a reshuffle of the alliances internally will consolidate some power leading to a stalemate, which will force all three sides to negotiate a deal that preserve the gains and interests of all ethnic, religious, sectarian, and ideological groups. That seem to be the realization of some world and regional powers, though not all think they have to give anything to dial down violence.

Erdogan: We hope that the Syrian "opposition" factions will continue their progress.. and the goal is Damascus

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he hopes that the progress of what he called the "opposition" in Syria will continue "without problems," considering that the next "target" after the armed factions took control of Idlib, Hama and Homs, "is Damascus."

Erdogan's words came in press statements, and he added: "We had invited Assad (Syrian President Bashar al-Assad)... and we told him: Let us determine the future of Syria together. Unfortunately, we did not receive a positive response on this issue."

Recently, Syria's permanent representative to the United Nations, Qusay al-Dahhak, confirmed that the terrorist attack on northern Syria could not have been carried out without a green light and a joint Turkish-Israeli operational order paved by repeated Israeli attacks on Syrian territory.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad also confirmed his country's insistence on eradicating terrorism, stressing that terrorists do not represent a people or institutions, but rather the apparatuses that support them.

Foreign Ministers of Iraq, Syria and Iran: Protecting Syria's Security is Necessary to Protect the Security of the Region

The foreign ministers of Iraq, Syria and Iran stressed on Friday that "threatening Syria's security poses a general danger to the stability of the entire region," stressing that "there is no choice but to coordinate, cooperate and consult diplomatically continuously, in order to eliminate all risks of escalation in the region."

In a joint statement following the meeting at the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, the ministers stressed "the seriousness of the events in Syria and their sensitivity to all parties in the region," warning of "the possibility of their expanding dimensions, which will pose a grave danger to the three countries and threaten the security of their peoples and the entire region."

The ministers also urged "the need to mobilize all Arab, regional and international efforts to reach peaceful solutions to the challenges facing the region in general, and Syria in particular."

In addition, the statement stressed "the agreement on the need to continue consultation and coordination between the three countries, follow up on these developments and prepare for any developments in the coming days," and respect for Syria's sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity.

They also condemned "terrorism in all its forms and manifestations classified by the Security Council," stressing "collective action to confront it." They also condemned the ongoing Israeli attacks on Syria, Gaza and Lebanon.

Syria's Assad: Ready to meet Erdogan if it serves Syria's interest

Syria's Assad: Ready to meet Erdogan if it serves Syria's interest

    Monday, July 15, 2024   No comments

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad confirmed on Monday that he is ready to meet his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, "if the meeting serves the country's interest."

Speaking about the return of relations with Turkey, following his vote today in the legislative elections, President al-Assad said: "If meeting President Erdogan leads to results, or if hugging or reprimanding serves the country's interest, then I will do it."

He explained that "the problem does not lie in the meeting, but in its content," noting that proposing the meeting "may be important, as it is a means to achieve a goal, but we have not heard what the goal is, and what the solution to the problem is."

President al-Assad added that "the first question we ask is why have relations deviated from their natural course for 13 years?", noting that "he has not heard any Turkish official speak about this point, in an explicit manner."

In this context, President Assad stressed that the meeting is "a means, and the means need rules and references for work," adding that "the failure of this means at some point may make us go in a worse direction, and pay a higher price."

At the same time, he stressed the positive spirit towards any initiative to improve the relationship, saying that this is "the natural thing, no one thinks of creating problems with his neighbors," but that "does not mean going without rules."

He added: "In any potential meeting, we will ask what its reference is. Will this reference be the cancellation or termination of the causes of the problem, which are represented by supporting terrorism, and withdrawing from Syrian territory?", stressing that this "is the essence of the problem, and there is no other reason."

President Assad said that "if there is no discussion about this essence, then what does the meeting mean?", noting that Syria "seeks to work that achieves results, as it is not against any procedure or meeting, but what is important is that it leads to positive results that achieve the interests of Syria and Turkey, at the same time."

He stressed that "any meeting that will take place with the Turkish side will be announced, there is nothing secret," adding that "Syria insisted that the meeting is necessary, regardless of the level, and the talk here is not about a meeting between two presidents."

President Assad pointed out that "the meetings have not stopped, but are ongoing," revealing that "there is a meeting being arranged at the security level by some mediators, and we were positive in this regard."

Assad explained that "the term normalization of relations with Turkey is a mistake. Normalization of relations with a country is a coercive process that aims to impose normal relations that do not exist," while "we are talking about a neighboring country, and we have relations that date back centuries, which means that relations must be normal."

He added: "If we want to reach normal relations, and this is what we seek in Syria, can the occupation and support for terrorism be part of normal relations between countries?" Assad replied that this is "of course impossible."

Accordingly, President Assad stressed the necessity of "withdrawing all that is abnormal in this scene" in order to talk about "normal relations between Syria and Turkey."

He stressed that "relations will be normal when the abnormal matters are withdrawn without normalization or coercive measures, and without the opinion of governments," so that "these relations will proceed in their natural form in the direction of returning to what they were before the war," especially since normal relations "have proven that they lead to protecting the borders that Turkish officials are talking about, as was the case previously."

In this context, President Assad explained that "friends are fully aware of these facts, and they have known this position since the first initiative that took place 5 years ago."

He explained that "talking about initiatives is new, but the beginning of the initiatives was 5 years ago, and during that time we repeated the same position: remove the reasons for the results to appear," adding that the matter "does not need political and media tactics and acrobatics."

He said that "Syria's friends sometimes demand some measures that are open to dialogue and discussion, but measures are one thing, and bypassing the principle is another," stressing that "we cannot bypass the principles on which we build our national interests."

President Assad added that "no guarantees have been provided to Syria so far," and "we are proceeding in a positive manner, but based on clear principles, based on the principles of international law and sovereignty."

The Syrian president stressed that "if positive results are not achieved, the results will be negative, in this case, either we win or we lose, we, Turkey and the allies", meaning that "everyone wins or everyone loses, there is no middle ground".

President Assad's statements come at a time when official Turkish statements regarding developments in relations with Syria are continuing.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan confirmed earlier that he had issued directives to Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan to meet with President Assad and "begin restoring relations between the two countries".

In a press conference on the sidelines of the NATO summit in the US capital, Washington, the Turkish president revealed that Fidan is authorized to organize a meeting with President Assad in a third country.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein announced on Friday evening that an initial agreement had been reached with Syria and Turkey regarding holding a meeting that would bring together officials from the two countries in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.

Hussein said, in statements from Washington, that "there is communication at the level of the Iraqi leadership with the Syrian and Turkish sides, and the date will be determined after returning to Baghdad."

Turkish President announces readiness to extend an invitation to President Assad

Turkish President announces readiness to extend an invitation to President Assad

    Sunday, July 07, 2024   No comments

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan confirmed on Sunday that "once Bashar al-Assad takes a step towards improving relations with Turkey, we will respond appropriately."

He continued in press statements: "We will extend our invitation to Assad, and with this invitation we want to return Turkish-Syrian relations to the same point they were in the past."

He added: "Our invitation can happen at any time."

The Turkish president added in his press statements: "Russian President Vladimir Putin has an approach regarding our meeting (with Assad) in Turkey, and Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani has an approach. We are talking here about mediation, so what is wrong with it with our neighbor?"

On Friday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan confirmed that he could, in cooperation with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, "extend an invitation" to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to start a new process of normalizing relations with Syria.

"I already said on Friday (last), after the Friday prayers, that we can start a new process (of normalizing relations) with Syria. We can invite Mr. Assad with Mr. Putin," Erdogan told reporters upon his arrival from Astana.

Erdogan added that Russian President Vladimir Putin's upcoming visit to Turkey could be the beginning of a new process of normalizing relations between Ankara and Damascus.

He commented: "If our honorable Mr. Putin can visit Turkey, this could be the beginning of a new process (of normalizing relations between Turkey and Syria). All the years that have passed in the Syrian arena have clearly shown everyone that it is necessary to create a mechanism for a permanent settlement. Syria, whose infrastructure has been destroyed and whose people have been scattered, must stand on its own feet and end the instability. The recent calm in this area can open the door to peace if wise policies and an approach to solving problems are adopted without bias."

Commenting on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's statements about normalizing relations between Syria and Turkey last week, Erdogan said that "there are no reasons not to establish diplomatic relations between the two countries," and according to him, "Ankara does not aim to interfere in Damascus' internal affairs." Assad had stated on June 26, during a meeting with the Russian President's special representative, Alexander Lavrentiev, that "Syria is open to all initiatives related to its relations with Turkey, which are based on respect for the country's sovereignty."

Previously, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad confirmed Syria's openness to all initiatives related to the relationship between Syria and Turkey, based on "the sovereignty of the Syrian state over all its territories on the one hand, and the fight against all forms of terrorism and its organizations on the other hand."

The Syrian presidency stated in a statement on its Telegram channel that "President al-Assad confirmed during his meeting with the special envoy of the Russian President, Alexander Lavrentiev, Syria's openness to all initiatives related to the relationship between Syria and Turkey, based on the sovereignty of the Syrian state over all its territories on the one hand, and the fight against all forms of terrorism and its organizations on the other hand, stressing that these initiatives reflect the will of the countries concerned to establish stability in Syria and the region in general."

Earlier, a Turkish newspaper reported, citing sources, that military delegations from Turkey and Syria, with Russian mediation, held talks at the Hmeimim air base, and another meeting is expected to be held in Baghdad.

The newspaper said: "In this regard, a meeting of military officials from the Turkish Armed Forces and the Syrian army was held at the Russian Hmeimim Air Base southeast of Latakia on June 11," and stated that "the meeting discussed the latest developments in and around Idlib province."

The first meeting of the foreign ministers of the four countries (Russia, Turkey, Iran, Syria) was held in Moscow on May 10, 2023. Based on its results, the ministers ordered the preparation of a draft roadmap for normalizing relations between Turkey and Syria.

Earlier, the Russian President's Special Representative for Syria, Alexander Lavrentiev, stated in an interview with Sputnik that Moscow had handed Ankara and Damascus a draft roadmap for normalizing relations between the two sides, indicating that they could make amendments to it.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has previously identified priority topics in the roadmap, which include restoring Syrian government control over all parts of the country, ensuring the security of the Syrian-Turkish border, and eliminating the possibility of cross-border attacks and terrorist infiltration.