Media Review: Türkiye Urges Measured U.S. Approach to Iran

Media Review: Türkiye Urges Measured U.S. Approach to Iran

    Wednesday, January 28, 2026   No comments

Türkiye's Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has urged the United States to pursue a gradual, issue-by-issue strategy in resolving disputes with Iran, warning that sweeping demands could provoke Tehran's rejection by appearing deliberately humiliating to its leadership.

In an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera published Thursday, Fidan advocated for what he described as a pragmatic diplomatic pathway: closing negotiations on discrete issues—beginning with Iran's nuclear program—rather than insisting on a comprehensive settlement covering all points of contention simultaneously.

"My advice always to the American friends: close the files one by one with Iranians. Start with nuclear, close it, then the other, then the other," Fidan said. "If you put them as a package all of them, it will be very difficult for our Iranian friends to digest. It sometimes might seem humiliating for them. It will be very difficult to explain to not only themselves, but also to the leadership."

The remarks come amid renewed diplomatic maneuvering between Washington and Tehran following months of heightened tensions over Iran's advancing nuclear activities and regional proxy conflicts. Fidan noted that Iranian officials have signaled willingness to re-engage on nuclear talks—a development he characterized as an opportunity for de-escalation if approached carefully.

Fidan also reiterated Türkiye's firm opposition to military intervention against Iran, stating it would be "wrong to start the war again"—an apparent reference to the destabilizing consequences of past conflicts in the Middle East. As a NATO member sharing a 500-kilometer border with Iran, Türkiye has long positioned itself as a regional mediator, leveraging its complex relationships with both Western powers and Tehran to advocate for dialogue over confrontation.

Analysts suggest Fidan's comments reflect Ankara's broader foreign policy recalibration under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, which emphasizes Türkiye's role as an independent diplomatic actor in a multipolar world. By cautioning against approaches that could corner Iran's leadership, Türkiye appears to be positioning itself as a potential facilitator in any future U.S.-Iran negotiations—a role it played during the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action talks.

The U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Fidan's recommendations. However, sources familiar with ongoing interagency discussions indicate that Washington remains divided on whether to pursue incremental agreements with Tehran or hold out for a broader framework addressing nuclear restrictions, ballistic missile development, and regional security concerns.

Fidan's intervention underscores the delicate balance regional powers must strike as great-power competition intensifies in the Middle East. With Türkiye maintaining trade ties with Iran despite U.S. sanctions—and simultaneously deepening defense cooperation with Washington—the foreign minister's appeal for step-by-step diplomacy may reflect both principle and pragmatic statecraft.

As nuclear talks remain stalled and regional flashpoints multiply, Fidan's warning carries weight: in diplomacy, as in politics, the manner of engagement may prove as consequential as the substance of demands.

Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister, Kazem Gharibabadi

'Negotiations with the U.S. are not our priority at the moment. Iran's priority is ensuring 200% readiness to defend our country.'

Media Review: U.S. Multitrack Foreign Interventions Push Superpower to the Brink

Media Review: U.S. Multitrack Foreign Interventions Push Superpower to the Brink

    Sunday, January 18, 2026   No comments

In a world already teetering on the edge of geopolitical realignment, the United States—under President Donald J. Trump’s second administration—has launched an unprecedented wave of coercive foreign interventions that may be testing the very limits of superpower endurance. From Arctic ambitions to Middle Eastern brinkmanship and African strategic contests, Washington’s simultaneous pressure campaigns across multiple continents are triggering a global counter-reaction with historic implications.

The Greenland Gambit: Tariffs as Geopolitical Leverage

At the heart of this escalation lies a surreal yet strategically serious episode: the U.S. demand for the “complete and total purchase of Greenland.” In a January 2026 Truth Social post, President Trump declared that national security—and even “World Peace”—depends on American control of the Danish autonomous territory. Citing the need to integrate Greenland into the so-called “Golden Dome” missile defense system, Trump announced sweeping tariffs on eight European nations—Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, and Finland—starting at 10% in February and rising to 25% by June unless a deal is struck.

The move stunned allies and adversaries alike. French President Emmanuel Macron responded swiftly, declaring on X (formerly Twitter): “No intimidation or threat will influence us—neither in Ukraine, nor in Greenland, nor anywhere else.” He emphasized that European participation in Danish-led Arctic exercises was a matter of continental security, not provocation. The EU has signaled a unified response, warning that tariff coercion over sovereign territory sets a dangerous precedent.

Greenland, though small in population, sits at the nexus of Arctic resource competition and emerging military corridors. But Trump’s framing—equating tariff policy with planetary survival—reveals a broader strategy: using economic instruments not just as leverage, but as weapons of submission.

A Global List of Targets: From Caracas to Pretoria

This approach extends far beyond the Arctic. In a brazen operation reminiscent of Cold War-era coups, the U.S. executed a “made-for-TV” abduction of Venezuela’s president and his wife from their bedroom—an act designed less for regime change alone than for psychological deterrence. The message was clear: defiance invites humiliation.

The list of targeted nations now reads like a who’s who of global resistance: Cuba, Mexico, Colombia, Iran, Nigeria, South Africa—even close partners like Denmark. Each faces a tailored mix of sanctions, tariffs, military posturing, or covert pressure. Yet unlike past eras of unipolar dominance, today’s targets are not isolated. Many are turning to Beijing and Moscow for support, accelerating a multipolar realignment.

Nowhere is this more evident than in South Africa. Following BRICS+ naval exercises involving Russia, China, and Iran off its coast, Washington issued sharp condemnations, calling Pretoria’s actions a threat to U.S. national security. But rather than cowing South Africa, the rebuke galvanized deeper strategic cooperation among non-Western powers.

The Iranian Flashpoint: When Deterrence Worked

Perhaps the most dramatic test came in early January 2026. After the U.S. ordered all citizens to evacuate Iran—a classic prelude to military action—and positioned the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf, war seemed imminent. Trump declared “all options are open” and slapped 25% tariffs on any nation trading with Tehran, aiming for total economic isolation.

But Iran did not buckle. Millions of its citizens took to the streets in a show of nationalist resolve. More critically, Russia and China intervened—not with rhetoric, but with credible threats. According to intelligence sources, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a stark ultimatum: if the U.S. launched a full-scale war, Moscow would supply Iran with advanced anti-ship missiles capable of sinking an American aircraft carrier. Simultaneously, China drew its own red line, opposing any use of force.

The result? A stunning reversal. Within 48 hours, internal dissent within the U.S. national security apparatus—led by Vice President JD Vance and senior generals—forced a retreat. The Abraham Lincoln carrier, originally en route to the South China Sea, was diverted to the Gulf, exposing critical gaps in U.S. global force projection. Trump’s “72-hour countdown” evaporated into a two-week diplomatic window.

This episode marked a turning point: the first time in decades that coordinated great-power deterrence successfully checked American military adventurism.

The Starlink Shadow War: Electronic Frontiers

Even in the realm of information warfare, the U.S. finds itself outmaneuvered. Unconfirmed reports suggest Iran is now deploying Russia’s “Tobol” electronic warfare system—a satellite-jamming platform proven in Ukraine—to neutralize Starlink terminals used by rioters. If verified, this would represent a major leap in asymmetric capabilities, turning Elon Musk’s commercial satellite network into a vulnerability rather than an asset.

Should mobile variants of Tobol reach battlefields like Ukraine or the South China Sea, the U.S. and its allies could face sudden communication blackouts during critical operations. The irony is palpable: a technology hailed as a tool of democratic resistance may become a vector for detection and destruction.

Regime Change Redux—and Its Limits

Despite these setbacks, the Trump administration continues to openly advocate for regime change in Iran. “It’s time to look for new leadership,” Trump declared, calling Iran “the worst place to live” and blaming Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei for internal unrest. Yet such rhetoric rings hollow when the U.S. lacks the capacity to enforce it—militarily, economically, or diplomatically.

The core problem is overextension. Attempting to simultaneously coerce Europe over Greenland, destabilize Latin America, contain China in the Pacific, confront Russia in Eurasia, and overthrow regimes in the Middle East is a strategy no single power—even a superpower—can sustain indefinitely. The world is no longer unipolar; it is contested, interconnected, and increasingly resistant to unilateral diktats.

A New Era of Multipolar Deterrence

What we are witnessing is not merely a series of crises, but the birth pangs of a new international order. The U.S. remains powerful, but its ability to dictate outcomes is waning. Russia and China, once reactive, are now proactive—coordinating military drills, sharing advanced technologies, and offering alternative security architectures to nations weary of American pressure.

As French President Macron implied, sovereignty is no longer a privilege granted by Washington—it is a right asserted by nations, often in concert. The lesson of January 2026 is clear: in a multipolar world, even the strongest empire can overreach. And when it does, the world pushes back—not with declarations, but with fleets, tariffs, and the quiet calculus of mutual deterrence. The 20th century ended with American triumphalism. The 21st may be defined by its limits.

Turkey Moves to Join Saudi-Pakistan Defense Pact, Fueling an Islamic Military Alliance Speculation

Turkey Moves to Join Saudi-Pakistan Defense Pact, Fueling an Islamic Military Alliance Speculation

    Friday, January 09, 2026   No comments

In a rapidly shifting global order marked by the United States’ perceived retreat from long-standing alliances, an unprecedented Israeli military strike on Qatar, and escalating regional security threats Middle Eastern and South Asian powers are redefining their defense strategies. The Saudi-Pakistani Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement, signed in September 2025, was merely the opening chapter. Now, with Turkey actively seeking to join the pact, the potential expansion of this alliance is becoming a geopolitical reality—one that could reshape security architectures across the Muslim world and beyond.

A potential trilateral military alliance among Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan is gaining momentum, following reports that Ankara is seeking formal membership in the bilateral defense pact signed by Riyadh and Islamabad in September 2025. According to sources familiar with the matter cited by Bloomberg, Turkey’s accession talks are at an advanced stage, with a deal appearing increasingly likely.

The development follows claims by prominent Turkish commentator Eyüp Sağcan, who asserted on January 6 that a comprehensive Turkish-Saudi-Pakistani military coalition was “ready and will be signed soon,” describing it as a world-shaking arrangement aimed at securing Muslim nations. While no official confirmation has emerged from any of the three capitals, the speculation aligns with deepening defense cooperation across the trio.

The original Saudi-Pakistan Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement includes a mutual defense clause—mirroring NATO’s Article 5—that treats aggression against one party as an attack on both. Pakistan, the only nuclear-armed Muslim-majority state, brings significant strategic heft to the partnership. Turkey, already NATO’s second-largest military, has long-standing defense ties with Pakistan, including joint fighter jet and drone programs, and has recently expanded defense industrial collaboration with Saudi Arabia, including local production of Akıncı combat drones.

Diplomatic engagement among the three countries has intensified since 2022, with high-level talks focusing on regional security—from Yemen to Gulf stability—and enhanced defense technology sharing. Analysts suggest that while bilateral ties have flourished, a formal trilateral alliance would mark a geopolitical watershed, potentially countering Iranian influence, Israeli military reach, and Western-led security frameworks in the region.

If realized, the alliance would unite Turkey’s advanced defense industry and NATO access, Saudi Arabia’s financial power, and Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent—a combination that could significantly reshape security dynamics across the Middle East and South Asia.

In the News: France and Germany Condemn U.S. Foreign Policy as “New Colonialism” and “Robber’s Den”

In the News: France and Germany Condemn U.S. Foreign Policy as “New Colonialism” and “Robber’s Den”

    Thursday, January 08, 2026   No comments

January 9, 2026 — Paris and Berlin

In a rare and forceful rebuke of U.S. foreign policy, the presidents of France and Germany have issued sharp criticisms of Washington’s recent actions under President Donald Trump, warning that America’s shift away from multilateralism and international norms threatens to unravel the postwar global order.

Speaking before France’s diplomatic corps at the Élysée Palace on Thursday, President Emmanuel Macron lamented what he described as a “gradual turning away” by the United States from its traditional allies and the very international rules it once championed. Macron characterized the current trajectory of U.S. diplomacy as exhibiting “a new colonial aggressiveness,” asserting that the world is increasingly dominated by great powers tempted to carve it up among themselves.

“The U.S. is an established power, but one that is gradually turning away from some of its allies and breaking free from the very international rules that it was until recently promoting,” Macron said. He added that multilateral institutions are “functioning less and less effectively,” and urged reform of the United Nations—calling on the G7 and major emerging powers to help reshape a faltering international system.

Macron’s remarks come amid growing European unease over a series of unilateral U.S. moves, including last weekend’s dramatic raid in Caracas that led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and President Trump’s long-stated ambition to acquire Greenland—an autonomous territory of Denmark. Though Macron did not explicitly name these incidents, diplomats and analysts widely interpreted his comments as a direct response.

Across the Rhine, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, himself a former foreign minister, delivered an equally stark warning Wednesday evening during a public forum. Steinmeier said the international order is suffering a “second historic rupture”—the first being Russia’s annexation of Crimea and full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The second, he argued, stems from the erosion of democratic values by none other than America, “our most important partner,” which helped construct the very system now under threat.

“The world must not be allowed to descend into a robber’s den,” Steinmeier declared, “where the most unscrupulous take whatever they want, and entire regions or nations are treated as the private property of a few great powers.”

Both leaders emphasized the urgency of defending a rules-based international order while navigating the delicate balance of maintaining the transatlantic alliance. Europe, caught between upholding international law and preserving its strategic and economic ties with the U.S.—especially in the context of the ongoing war in Ukraine—has struggled to formulate a unified response to Washington’s increasingly assertive and unilateral foreign policy.

Macron underscored France’s push for “greater strategic autonomy” and reduced dependence on both the U.S. and China—a vision increasingly shared across European capitals. “We reject new colonialism and new imperialism,” he said, “but also vassalage and defeatism.”

The simultaneous but apparently uncoordinated condemnations from Europe’s two most influential powers mark a significant escalation in transatlantic tensions. As the Biden-era emphasis on alliances and multilateralism appears to give way to a more transactional and expansionist approach under Trump’s regime, European leaders are signaling they may no longer accept U.S. leadership uncritically—and may act independently to safeguard global norms.

China’s “Justice Mission 2025” Drills Signal Strategic Shift Around Taiwan

China’s “Justice Mission 2025” Drills Signal Strategic Shift Around Taiwan

    Tuesday, December 30, 2025   No comments

In a powerful display of military coordination and strategic messaging, China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has concluded the second day of its expansive “Justice Mission 2025” joint military drills encircling Taiwan. The maneuvers, which began on December 29, represent far more than routine training—they constitute a calibrated assertion of Beijing’s resolve to deter “Taiwan independence” and block foreign interference, particularly from the United States and Japan.

The exercises, orchestrated by the PLA Eastern Theater Command, brought together integrated forces from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Rocket Force. Live-fire drills on Tuesday morning targeted waters north of Taiwan, followed by simulated joint strikes to the south in the afternoon. According to official reports, every rocket launched from long-range modularized rocket systems struck its intended target—a demonstration not only of precision but of psychological pressure.

“This series of exercises demonstrates our strong capability to seize comprehensive control of the Taiwan Strait,” said Zhang Chi, a professor at China’s National Defense University. He emphasized that the drills combined “blockade and strike” operations across multiple domains—sea, air, land, and cyber—to enforce what Beijing describes as “multidimensional isolation” of the island.

A Three-Tiered Operational Framework

Zhang outlined the spatial architecture of the drills in three concentric arcs:

1. Nearshore enforcement: China Coast Guard (CCG) vessels patrolled contested waters near Matsu and Wuqiu, enforcing maritime law and signaling administrative control.
2. Encirclement of Taiwan: Naval and air assets pressed closer to the island, overseeing critical sea lanes and chokepoints, effectively disrupting civilian air traffic—941 flights were reportedly affected on Monday alone.
3. Eastern theater projection: In the Pacific-facing waters east of Taiwan, the PLA conducted anti-submarine operations, air superiority drills, and amphibious raids using elite forces and unmanned systems, underscoring its readiness to interdict external reinforcements.

A provocative “Throat-Choking” poster released by the CCG depicted the interception of a Taiwanese cargo ship allegedly carrying U.S.-made HIMARS rocket launchers—highlighting Beijing’s focus on cutting off military supply lines as part of its coercive strategy.

Political Messaging and Domestic Repercussions

The timing of the drills is no coincidence. They follow a major U.S. arms sale to Taiwan worth $11.1 billion and escalating rhetoric from Taipei under President Lai Ching-te, whose approval ratings have slumped—52.2% of Taiwanese now express dissatisfaction with his leadership, according to a December poll.

Meanwhile, China is coupling military pressure with diplomatic outreach. Song Tao, head of the Communist Party’s Taiwan Affairs Office, met with nearly 200 Taiwanese business leaders during the drills, urging them to oppose “Taiwan independence” and support peaceful reunification. This dual-track approach—“tough on the tough, soft on the soft”—reflects Beijing’s evolving Taiwan policy, aimed at dividing pro-independence elites from the broader public and business community.

Despite the scale of the exercises, Washington’s response has been conspicuously muted. When asked by CBS News, the Pentagon offered “nothing to say,” while former U.S. President Donald Trump downplayed the drills as routine, saying, “They’ve been doing this for 20 years.”

But analysts suggest this restraint may mask strategic realism. “The mainland not only has vast numerical superiority, it now has qualitative superiority across the board—in weaponry and probably in training as well,” noted Lyle Goldstein of the U.S.-based think tank Defense Priorities.

Japanese media, including Nikkei and Jiji Press, interpreted the drills as a direct warning to Tokyo not to intervene in any future cross-strait contingency. A senior Japanese defense official acknowledged the exercises as a serious escalation, pledging to “stay vigilant.”

The Shadow of Taipei 101

Adding symbolic weight to the maneuvers, the PLA released drone footage on Monday showing Taipei 101—the island’s iconic skyscraper—under the shadow of Chinese military aircraft. The image resurrected a haunting prediction made a year ago by former Taiwanese security chief Su Chi: that if PLA jets ever photographed Taipei 101 at night, Taiwan would be powerless to stop them.

Now, that scenario appears less like prophecy and more like practice.

While Beijing insists the drills are defensive and aimed solely at separatists, their scope and synchronization suggest a rehearsal for real-world contingencies—including blockade, amphibious assault, and rapid decapitation strikes. As Professor Li Haidong of China Foreign Affairs University noted, “The U.S. and Japan know full well that achieving a military victory against China in the Taiwan Strait today is unrealistic.”

The “Justice Mission 2025” may not herald imminent invasion, but it undeniably marks a new threshold in China’s campaign to normalize military dominance over the Taiwan Strait—reshaping regional power dynamics while testing the limits of American and allied resolve. 

US precendent

This escalation around Taiwan must also be viewed in the broader context of U.S. foreign policy, which has repeatedly employed military pressure and coercive tactics against sovereign nations—most recently in Venezuela, where the U.S. government has intensified sanctions, conducted naval drills off the Caribbean coast, and openly supported opposition figures in efforts to undermine the Maduro administration. Washington justifies such actions under the guise of promoting democracy or countering authoritarianism, yet it rarely faces meaningful international consequences for violating principles of non-intervention. From China’s perspective, this double standard is glaring: if the United States can openly threaten, isolate, and destabilize a recognized sovereign state like Venezuela—without renouncing its own adherence to the “One China” policy—then Beijing contends it is well within its rights to treat Taiwan not as an independent actor, but as an internal matter. After all, every U.S. administration since 1979 has formally acknowledged that Taiwan is part of China, even while deepening unofficial ties. China thus frames its military posturing not as aggression, but as a proportionate and legitimate response to what it sees as American hypocrisy—using force to uphold sovereignty in one context while undermining it in another.

Media Review: Analysis of U.S. Intervention in Venezuela, Russian Actions in Ukraine, and China’s Stance on Taiwan

Media Review: Analysis of U.S. Intervention in Venezuela, Russian Actions in Ukraine, and China’s Stance on Taiwan

    Wednesday, December 17, 2025   No comments

As geopolitical tensions rise across the globe, the situations in Venezuela, Ukraine, and Taiwan serve as focal points for the strategic maneuvers of the United States, Russia, and China. Each of these regions reflects unique historical alliances and challenges, revealing profound implications on the global stage.

In Venezuela, the U.S. has embarked on a path that raises alarm bells not just for Latin America, but for the international community at large. Under the Trump administration, military deployments to the Caribbean have intensified, signaling a potential intervention in a country already strained by political and economic turmoil. The announcement that Venezuelan airspace would be “closed” evokes memories of earlier U.S. military operations, such as in Iraq. This time, however, the rhetoric suggests a dual purpose: while the U.S. claims it is targeting drug trafficking, many experts and observers sense a deeper agenda aimed at regime change, particularly focused on toppling President Nicolás Maduro.

Historically, Maduro has relied heavily on the support of his allies, notably Russia and China. Yet, in recent months, that support has waned considerably. Both Moscow and Beijing, once stalwart backers of Venezuela’s socialist government, appear to have shifted to a more symbolic stance. Their public statements of support lack the concrete military or financial assistance that Maduro might need during this hour of crisis. As the U.S. steps up its military activities, including naval forces and airstrikes, Russia finds itself navigating its own daunting challenges in Ukraine. The demands of that conflict have stretched Russian resources thin, diverting attention and funding away from its commitments in Latin America. Consequently, there is little incentive for Russia to risk further sanctions that would come from overtly supporting Maduro’s increasingly isolated regime.

Conversely, China's approach to the situation diverges sharply. While it continues to publicly oppose U.S. interference in Venezuela, Beijing has refrained from taking significant steps to defend Maduro. Instead, China seems focused on stabilizing its own economic interests rather than embroiling itself in a conflict that could jeopardize its fragile relationship with the United States. The reality is that China’s influence in Venezuela hinges less on unwavering ideological commitment and more on strategic economic calculations. By reducing new lending and prioritizing the recovery of past debts, China signals a pragmatic shift away from outright support for Maduro’s fragile government.

Meanwhile, the situation in Taiwan adds another dimension to this geopolitical puzzle. China, under Xi Jinping, remains adamant about its claims over Taiwan, treating it as a breakaway province rather than a separate entity. Beijing’s approach is defined by a readiness to utilize military posturing to assert its sovereignty, contrasting sharply with its reluctance to take a militaristic stance in Latin America. The dynamics in Taiwan reflect a calculated strategy aimed at consolidating its territorial claims, even as it navigates relationships with other nations, including the United States.

The contrasts among these events underscore the complexities of international relations where military commitments, regional stability, and economic interests collide. The U.S. appears intent on reinvigorating its influence in Latin America through potentially aggressive actions, while Russia's focus on Ukraine hinders its ability to support its allies elsewhere. China, too, must balance its ambitions, choosing when to assert its power and when to practice restraint.

As the world watches these developments unfold, the implications extend far beyond the borders of Venezuela, Ukraine, or Taiwan. The actions taken—or not taken—by these major powers may redefine the landscape of global alliances and power dynamics for years to come. In this moment of uncertainty, it becomes increasingly clear that the interconnectedness of global affairs demands a nuanced understanding of the motivations and limitations of each nation involved. The stakes are high, and the potential for conflict looms large as the balance of power continues to shift in unexpected ways.

Academics warn about lCNS chemicals that could be weaponized by state actors

Academics warn about lCNS chemicals that could be weaponized by state actors

    Saturday, November 22, 2025   No comments

Two British academics are warning that rapidly advancing “brain weapons” capable of manipulating consciousness, memory, perception, or behavior are moving from speculation to reality. 

Michael Crowley and Malcolm Dando of Bradford University argue that breakthroughs in neuroscience, AI, and pharmacology are converging to create tools that can coerce, incapacitate, or subtly reshape human cognition.

They note that multiple states are already pursuing this frontier, drawing on a long and troubling record of research into central nervous system (CNS)-acting chemical agents by the United States during and after the Cold War. The academics say the technology has evolved into something far more precise and potentially far more dangerous, while global treaties remain unprepared to contain it.

They argue that the world is approaching a point where the human mind itself could become a battleground, and that protecting scientific integrity now is essential to protecting human autonomy.

Witkoff's Peace Proposal Aimed at Ending the War in Ukraine

Witkoff's Peace Proposal Aimed at Ending the War in Ukraine

    Friday, November 21, 2025   No comments

In a dramatic and highly controversial initiative that has reignited global debate over the future of Ukraine and European security, real estate magnate and Trump adviser Steven Witkoff has unveiled a comprehensive peace proposal aimed at ending the war in Ukraine. First reported by The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and The New York Times in late November 2025, the 28-point plan — dubbed “Witkoff’s Peace Proposal” — presents a sweeping, U.S.-mediated framework that would require profound concessions from both Ukraine and the West, while offering Russia significant strategic and economic rewards.

At its heart, Witkoff’s proposal seeks to freeze the conflict on terms that would effectively legitimize Russia’s territorial gains while embedding Ukraine into a new, constrained security architecture.

The plan begins with a rhetorical affirmation of Ukraine’s sovereignty — a necessary fig leaf for Western audiences — but quickly pivots to concrete measures that would permanently alter Ukraine’s geopolitical trajectory. Most notably, Ukraine would be constitutionally barred from joining NATO, and NATO would formally pledge never to extend membership to Kyiv. In return, NATO would agree not to station troops or military infrastructure on Ukrainian soil — a direct reversal of current Western policy.

To ensure compliance, the proposal calls for a U.S.-mediated Russia–NATO security dialogue, a U.S.–Russia working group to monitor adherence, and the legal codification of Russian non-aggression pledges toward Ukraine and Europe. Simultaneously, Ukraine’s armed forces would be capped at 600,000 troops — a significant reduction from its current mobilized strength — and it would remain a non-nuclear state, reinforcing its dependence on Western security guarantees rather than self-reliance.

Territorial Concessions: The De Facto Recognition of Annexation

The most contentious element of the proposal lies in its territorial provisions. Ukrainian forces would withdraw from remaining Kyiv-held areas of Donetsk, creating a demilitarized buffer zone that would be “recognized as Russian territory.” While the proposal claims both sides will “not change territorial arrangements by force,” critics argue this is a de facto international recognition of Russia’s illegal annexations of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson — territories seized since 2014 and fully occupied since 2022.

This concession, if implemented, would mark the largest territorial realignment in Europe since the end of World War II — and would fundamentally undermine the post-Cold War order built on the principle that borders cannot be changed by force.

Economic Engine: Frozen Assets as Reconstruction Fuel

Witkoff’s economic plan is equally ambitious. It proposes using $100 billion of frozen Russian assets — held primarily in Western banks — to fund Ukraine’s reconstruction, with the U.S. receiving 50% of the profits generated from those assets. Europe would contribute an additional $100 billion. The remainder of frozen Russian funds would be redirected to joint U.S.–Russia investment projects, signaling a dramatic thaw in economic relations.

The proposal further calls for Russia’s phased reintegration into the global economy, including an invitation to rejoin the G8 — a move that would reverse the Western diplomatic isolation imposed after the 2014 annexation of Crimea. Russia would also guarantee Ukraine’s free commercial use of the Dnieper River and establish agreements on Black Sea grain exports — critical for global food security.

Humanitarian and Political Measures: Elections and Amnesty

On the humanitarian front, the proposal includes a humanitarian committee to oversee prisoner exchanges, repatriation of civilians, and family reunifications — widely welcomed by international NGOs. It also mandates that Ukraine hold elections within 100 days of signing the agreement and grants full wartime amnesty to all parties, including Russian soldiers and Ukrainian collaborators — a provision that has drawn sharp criticism from human rights advocates.

Enforcement: Trump at the Helm

Perhaps the most politically explosive feature is the proposal’s enforcement mechanism: a “Peace Council” chaired by former President Donald Trump, empowered to impose sanctions or penalties for violations. This unprecedented role for a private citizen — and a former U.S. president with known pro-Russia leanings — has drawn bipartisan alarm in Washington. Critics warn it would undermine international law and institutional legitimacy, turning diplomacy into a personal project.

Reactions: Polarization Across the Globe

Reactions have been sharply divided. In Kyiv: Ukrainian officials have called the plan “a surrender disguised as peace,” warning it would cement Russian occupation and betray Ukraine’s sacrifices. President Zelenskyy’s office stated, “No peace that requires Ukraine to abandon its sovereignty or future in Europe can be legitimate.”

In Moscow: Russian state media hailed the proposal as “a realistic and dignified path forward,” with Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova calling it “the first serious Western acknowledgment of Russia’s security needs.”

In Brussels and Washington: NATO allies expressed deep skepticism. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said the plan “violates the spirit of the UN Charter,” while U.S. Senator Bob Menendez called it “a dangerous appeasement that would embolden authoritarianism.” However, some conservative voices in the U.S., including former Trump officials, have praised it as “pragmatic statecraft.”

In Global South: Many non-aligned nations welcomed the economic reintegration of Russia, seeing it as a step toward multipolarity — but questioned why Ukraine bore the full cost of peace.

Witkoff’s proposal is not a negotiation — it is a blueprint for a new European order, one in which military conquest is rewarded with economic rehabilitation and strategic legitimacy. It offers Ukraine security guarantees but at the cost of its sovereignty, neutrality, and future aspirations.

While it may offer a path to an immediate ceasefire — and relief for millions of war-weary civilians — it does so by codifying the results of aggression. As one European diplomat told Reuters: “This isn’t peace. It’s the institutionalization of defeat.”

Whether the proposal gains traction — particularly with Trump’s potential return to the White House in 2025 — remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: Witkoff has forced the world to confront an uncomfortable question: At what price do we end a war — and what kind of world do we create when we do?

Source: The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, The New York Times, Reuters, and BBC as of November 20–21, 2025.

   

Russia’s Nuclear-Powered Missile Rewrites Global Security

Russia’s Nuclear-Powered Missile Rewrites Global Security

    Wednesday, October 29, 2025   No comments

When President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia’s Burevestnik had completed a 15-hour, 14,000-kilometer flight, the message was unmistakable: Moscow had achieved what others abandoned decades ago—a nuclear-powered cruise missile capable of circling the globe. By marrying compact nuclear propulsion with stealthy, low-altitude flight, Burevestnik promises endurance beyond any conventional weapon and an ability to bypass existing missile defenses.

The implications are stark. Strategically, Burevestnik upends the logic of mutual deterrence. Its unpredictable trajectories compress warning times and could destabilize crisis decision-making. Legally, the missile sits in a treaty gray zone, likely outside New START’s limits, potentially igniting a new arms race in exotic propulsion and sensor-evading systems. Environmentally, it revives long-dormant fears of nuclear contamination should a test or mission fail.

For Moscow, Burevestnik symbolizes technological defiance and ensures that no adversary can strike Russia without risking annihilation in return. For the rest of the world, it is a reminder that the nuclear age is far from over—and that deterrence is entering a more volatile, less predictable phase, where the line between deterrence and disaster grows dangerously thin.

Putin's recent statements on this matter:

Putin stated that the "Burevestnik" has unconditional advantages, Russia can be proud of the achievements of scientists

The nuclear power part of the "Burevestnik" is 1000 times smaller than the nuclear reactor of a nuclear submarine with comparable power, Putin said.

He added that the nuclear reactor installed in the missile starts within minutes and seconds.

The nuclear technologies used in the "Burevestnik" will be used in the lunar program, Putin stated.

In addition, according to him, Russia will be able to apply these technologies in the national economy.

...

Given the fact that this is a new development and no information is in the public domain, here is an analysis that might shed some light and insight.

Grassroots Resistance and Diplomatic Shifts Challenge Israel’s War on Gaza

Grassroots Resistance and Diplomatic Shifts Challenge Israel’s War on Gaza

    Monday, September 29, 2025   No comments

As Israel’s war on Gaza enters its most devastating phase yet, a powerful wave of international opposition is surging—not just in diplomatic corridors, but in the streets, ports, and parliaments of nations once considered unwavering allies. From dockworkers in Genoa to government ministers in Madrid, and even within the shifting sands of U.S. politics, the world is increasingly refusing to be complicit in what many now describe as a humanitarian catastrophe.

Dockworkers as Defenders of Conscience

In a striking display of moral solidarity, port workers in Genoa, Italy, have thrown their weight behind the Global Solidarity Flotilla—a civilian maritime initiative aiming to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza. These workers, part of a broader European network of port laborers, are no longer content to stand by as their infrastructure facilitates what they see as war crimes.

“We want to be on the right side of history,” declared Riccardo Rodino, a veteran dockworker and leader of the Genoa Port Laborers’ Assembly (CALP), in an interview with Politico. “We don’t have tanks or missiles. Our bodies—and our ability to halt shipments—are our only weapons.”

Their stance is not symbolic. Following drone attacks on flotilla vessels last week, Italian dockworkers issued a stark warning: any further aggression against humanitarian ships will trigger a general strike. Italy’s largest trade union, CGIL, has pledged full support, vowing to shut down commerce tied to Israel if the flotilla is harmed. “If Israel doesn’t change course in Gaza,” Rodino warned, “a full commercial blockade will be imposed. There is no other way.”

This grassroots mobilization reflects a broader awakening across Europe, where ordinary citizens are leveraging their economic power to demand accountability—proving that resistance to injustice isn’t confined to politicians or diplomats, but lives in the hands of those who keep global trade moving.

Spain Draws a Red Line on U.S. Arms Transfers

Meanwhile, Spain has taken a bold sovereign stand that challenges even its closest military ally: the United States. According to El País, the Spanish government has blocked American military aircraft and vessels carrying weapons destined for Israel from using two key U.S.-operated bases on Spanish soil—Rota in Cádiz and Morón de la Frontera in Seville.

Crucially, this ban applies not only to shipments directly bound for Israel but also to those using third countries as transit points. Spanish authorities emphasized that these bases remain under full Spanish sovereignty and are “not an open corridor without oversight.” The move forced the U.S. to reroute F-35 fighter jets through the Azores—a logistical detour that underscores Madrid’s newfound willingness to assert ethical boundaries over military convenience.

This decision is more than procedural; it’s political. It signals that even NATO allies are no longer willing to serve as silent conduits for arms fueling destruction in Gaza. In doing so, Spain joins a growing list of European nations reevaluating their complicity in Israel’s military campaign.

Diplomatic Earthquake: Allies Recognize Palestine

The diplomatic landscape is shifting just as dramatically. In a historic break from decades of Western alignment with Israel, countries including the UK, France, Canada, and Australia have officially recognized Palestinian statehood—a move Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced as a “disgraceful decision” that rewards Hamas.

Yet this recognition is less about Hamas and more about acknowledging the untenable status quo. With over 40,000 Palestinians killed and much of Gaza reduced to rubble, the moral calculus has changed. Public outrage, amplified by relentless documentation of civilian suffering, has pressured governments to act.

Even in Washington, the ground is trembling. Former President Donald Trump—no stranger to hardline pro-Israel positions—is now hosting Netanyahu at the White House to pitch a “Gaza peace plan,” reportedly backed by key Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt. While Trump frames it as a grand “Middle East peace” initiative, the urgency is unmistakable: Israel is facing unprecedented isolation, and its most vital ally is scrambling to broker an exit before global patience runs out.

The People’s Leverage

What unites these disparate actions—from Genoa’s docks to Madrid’s defense ministry—is a shared conviction: silence equals complicity. Workers, governments, and citizens are realizing that economic and political leverage can be wielded not just by states, but by collectives who refuse to normalize atrocity.

As Rodino poignantly put it, “Obstructing shipments is the people’s weapon.” And it’s proving effective. Every blocked arms shipment, every threatened strike, every diplomatic recognition chips away at the architecture of impunity that has long shielded Israel’s military campaign.

The war on Gaza may continue, but it no longer enjoys the blanket global acquiescence it once did. A new coalition—forged in ports, parliaments, and public squares—is rising. And it is saying, with growing force: Enough.

Israeli Airstrike in Doha Sparks Global Condemnation and Regional Upheaval

Israeli Airstrike in Doha Sparks Global Condemnation and Regional Upheaval

    Wednesday, September 10, 2025   No comments

DOHA, QATAR – In a dramatic and unprecedented escalation that has sent shockwaves across the Middle East and the world, Israel launched a military strike on the capital of Qatar yesterday, targeting and killing senior leaders of the Palestinian militant group Hamas. The attack, which violated the airspace of multiple sovereign nations, has been universally condemned as a severe breach of international law and has critically damaged diplomatic efforts to end the war in Gaza, potentially signaling a major realignment of global power in the region.

The operation, codenamed "Summit of Fire" by the Israeli military, saw warplanes travel approximately 1,800 kilometers to reach Doha. According to reports from Arab media outlets, the Israeli Air Force breached the airspace of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Syria to reach its target. Once over the Qatari capital, the jets fired missiles at a residential compound housing members of Hamas's political bureau, who were in the country for talks. A Qatari security official was also reported killed in the attack.

The timing of the strike is seen by many observers as highly significant. It came just one day after the US President publicly issued a new proposal for a Gaza ceasefire deal, urging Hamas to accept it or "face consequences." With top Hamas leadership gathered in Doha—a key mediator throughout the conflict—to discuss the very proposal, the Israeli attack has led to widespread accusations that the diplomatic effort was a trap designed to eliminate the group's leadership in one fell swoop.

"This, as many observers noted, suggested that it might have been a trap to kill all Hamas top leadership, and that destroys US credibility as an honest broker of deals for peace," a point echoed by numerous diplomatic sources. The incident has placed the United States in a deeply awkward position, raising serious questions about its foreknowledge and role in the event.

Further intensifying the crisis is the glaring question of the massive US military presence in Qatar. Al-Udeid Air Base, the largest US military installation in the Middle East, houses advanced defense systems. The failure of these systems to intercept the Israeli aircraft or to provide Qatar with an early warning has sparked a crisis of confidence in Doha.

"The US not to use those defense resources to defend Qatar or at least warn it, suggests that US presence in Qatar is useless and does not provide any protection to Qatar," a consensus view emerging in the region. This perception was seemingly acknowledged by the US administration itself, with the President announcing he had ordered the State Department to finalize a new strategic defense deal with Qatar, an move interpreted as damage control for a severely weakened alliance.

The strategic ramifications are immediate. Global powers Russia and China were swift and forceful in their condemnation. They warned of a dangerous escalation and accused Israel of deliberately sabotaging peace negotiations. Analysts suggest that Qatar, now questioning the value of its US security umbrella, may rapidly pivot towards Moscow and Beijing for advanced defense systems, a move that would fundamentally alter the security architecture of the Gulf and could spell the end of the US military footprint in Qatar.

The attack also strains relations within the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which promises collective security to its members. By violating the airspace of fellow GCC member Saudi Arabia to attack another member state, Israel has placed these US-allied nations in a difficult position, forcing them to confront a blatant violation of their sovereignty.

Global Outcry and Condemnation

The international response was swift and severe:

• United Nations: Secretary-General António Guterres condemned the attack "without ambiguity," calling it a "flagrant violation of the sovereignty of Qatar" and a blow to mediation efforts.

• Russia: Its foreign ministry stated the attack aimed to "undermine international efforts to reach a peaceful settlement in the Middle East."

• China: Expressed "strong dissatisfaction with the deliberate sabotage of the Gaza ceasefire negotiations" and urged major countries to play a "constructive role in easing regional tensions."

• European Union: Denounced the strike as a "violation of international law" and a "serious threat that could further escalate violence in the region."

• Turkey: President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan decried the "reckless Netanyahu government" for its actions.

• Organization of Islamic Cooperation: Denounced the aggression "in the strongest terms."

Qatar issued a furious statement, vowing it "would not tolerate this reckless Israeli behavior" and emphasizing that the "criminal assault is a violation of all international laws and a serious threat to the security and safety of Qataris and residents."

The strike marks a dangerous new chapter in the Gaza conflict, moving the battlefield into the heart of a mediator's capital and risking a much broader regional war. It has not only targeted Hamas leadership but has also severely damaged America's standing as a security partner and honest broker, potentially creating a vacuum that rivals Russia and China are poised to fill.

  

Iran–Pakistan Relations before and after the 12-Day Israel-Iran War

Iran–Pakistan Relations before and after the 12-Day Israel-Iran War

    Sunday, June 29, 2025   No comments

The recent 12-day war between Israel, US, and Iran has not only reshaped Middle Eastern dynamics but also sent ripples across South Asia—particularly impacting Iran's complex but evolving relationship with Pakistan. Although the two neighbors have shared a history of cautious cooperation punctuated by periods of distrust, the latest conflict appears to be accelerating a strategic convergence between Tehran and Islamabad. Just over a year ago, in January 2024, relations between Iran and Pakistan nearly derailed after a rare exchange of cross-border missile strikes. Iran targeted what it claimed were hideouts of the Sunni militant group "Jaish al-Adl" in Pakistan’s Balochistan province. Islamabad responded with airstrikes on Iranian territory, claiming to hit Baloch separatists threatening Pakistani sovereignty.

Despite this alarming escalation, diplomacy prevailed. A pivotal visit by then-Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in April 2024 helped cool tensions. The two countries agreed to treat their border as a “marketplace, not a battlefield,” leading to unprecedented cooperation—including intelligence sharing and a joint security operation in Balochistan. This pragmatic rapprochement was further reinforced in July and November 2024, when both nations coordinated the arrest and extradition of militants operating on either side of the border.

The 12-day war launched by Israel on Iran has reignited fears of regional destabilization. For Pakistan, the risk is not just ideological alignment with a fellow Muslim-majority state under siege; it's deeply strategic. Iran’s internal security vulnerabilities—exposed by Israeli strikes—create a vacuum that could empower militant groups like Jaish al-Adl, which have already carried out dozens of deadly attacks in Iran’s Sistan-Balochistan province. Pakistan fears that a weakened Iranian state would allow these groups to spill over into Pakistani territory, intensifying separatist violence in its own Balochistan province.

Moreover, the war has created space for greater alignment against perceived Israeli and Western aggression. Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif publicly condemned Israel, warning that Islamic nations could face similar fates if they remain divided. At the United Nations, Pakistan’s envoy described Israel's actions as a threat to the entire region and expressed full solidarity with the Iranian people.

General Asim Munir, Pakistan’s powerful Army Chief, visited Washington mid-June—his first official trip since 2001. There, he cautioned U.S. officials, including former President Donald Trump, against supporting the Israeli offensive. Munir argued that toppling Iran’s regime would lead to chaos across Balochistan and empower groups like Jaish al-Adl, which Washington itself classifies as a terrorist organization.

In private discussions, Munir also warned of the precedent that bombing Iran’s nuclear infrastructure might set. Although Israel has historically remained silent on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, Islamabad remains sensitive to parallels drawn with its own facilities.

Despite its public support for Iran, Pakistan remains interested in preserving its long-standing but strained relationship with the U.S.—particularly in light of renewed American interest sparked by the Iran conflict. Pakistan’s hope is to use this geopolitical moment to negotiate economic and strategic concessions from both Washington and Beijing.

Over the past decade, Pakistan has leaned heavily into its strategic partnership with China, especially through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Yet Islamabad understands that overdependence on China is risky, particularly amid growing U.S.-China rivalry. Diversifying economic partners while aligning diplomatically with both superpowers offers Islamabad a path to stability and leverage.

The 12-day war has likely accelerated the slow-burning strategic realignment between Iran and Pakistan. Historically divided by sectarian suspicions and divergent foreign policy priorities, the two nations now find themselves driven together by shared security concerns, declining Western engagement, and expanding Chinese influence.

This doesn’t mean a full-fledged alliance is inevitable. Deep mistrust lingers—especially over past proxy support and sectarian competition. However, as both nations face a common threat from Israeli aggression, cross-border militancy, and marginalization by Western powers, their overlapping interests may now outweigh historical grievances.

The war has made one thing clear: Iran and Pakistan can no longer afford ambiguity in their relationship. Whether driven by fear, necessity, or opportunity, they appear to be moving—cautiously but decisively—toward a more robust partnership.

Saudi-Iran -- A New Chapter of Regional Cooperation Amid Global Turbulence

Saudi-Iran -- A New Chapter of Regional Cooperation Amid Global Turbulence

    Wednesday, April 23, 2025   No comments

In a symbolic and significant diplomatic exchange, Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Defense, Prince Khalid bin Salman, visited Tehran and delivered a personal letter from King Salman to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The high-level meeting underscores the deepening normalization of relations between the two regional powerhouses, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and signals a new phase of cooperation with potential implications far beyond the Middle East.

During the meeting, Ayatollah Khamenei emphasized that Tehran and Riyadh can have a “complementary and mutually beneficial” relationship. He expressed Iran’s readiness to assist Saudi Arabia in sectors where Iran has achieved notable progress, highlighting the potential for constructive collaboration rather than rivalry. Khamenei warned, however, of external forces seeking to sabotage this rapprochement and called for regional unity, stressing that cooperation among neighboring nations is preferable to reliance on foreign powers.

Prince Khalid echoed the sentiment, stating that he arrived in Tehran with a clear agenda to expand bilateral relations and strengthen cooperation across various fields. He voiced optimism that this new chapter in Saudi-Iran ties could lead to stronger relations than ever before.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also welcomed the Saudi minister, reaffirming Iran’s commitment to deepening ties with Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations. He emphasized the shared capacity of the two nations to solve regional problems independently, without foreign interference, and expressed hope that the emerging friendship would reinforce Islamic solidarity and thwart attempts to sow discord in the region.

President Pezeshkian also touched on the broader symbolic importance of this rapprochement, suggesting that a unified voice among Islamic nations could serve as a powerful example of peaceful coexistence and progress. He linked regional unity to the prevention of humanitarian catastrophes, pointing to ongoing tragedies like the situation in Gaza.

In a separate meeting, the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Ali Akbar Ahmadian, reiterated that the normalization agreement signed in March 2023 has led to a rise in bilateral ties. He highlighted prospects for joint investments and economic cooperation, noting that strengthened economic ties could further stabilize and secure the region. The agreement he was referring to was brokered by China in 2023 as part of a security re-arragement to stabalize the region.

Prince Khalid, for his part, described engagement with Iran as the cornerstone of regional security collaboration, underlining the Saudi leadership’s determination to cultivate friendly ties at all levels. He also called for collective Islamic action against Israeli occupation and expansionist policies, reinforcing the sense of shared geopolitical interests.

Significance Amid Global Uncertainty

This warming of Saudi-Iranian relations comes at a time when the global order is increasingly unstable. Conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, shifting alliances, and economic uncertainty have all heightened the importance of regional diplomacy. The Saudi-Iran rapprochement not only represents a strategic recalibration but also signals a broader desire for regional autonomy and resilience.

For decades, Riyadh and Tehran stood on opposing sides of regional conflicts, often backing rival factions in places like Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon. The resumption of ties, brokered in part by China, marks a turning point that could ease sectarian tensions and reduce proxy warfare.

The broader implications are significant. A united Saudi-Iranian front could stabilize energy markets, mitigate regional conflicts, and challenge the narrative that the Middle East is inherently divided. As global power structures shift, cooperation between these two influential players could form the bedrock of a new, more self-reliant regional order.

In a world where traditional alliances are in flux, the normalization of Saudi-Iran relations might be one of the most consequential diplomatic developments in recent memory.

Revealed Contents of King Salman’s Letter: A Strategic Overture

Days after this historic visit by a member of the ruling family in Saudi Arabia to Iran, more details are coming out about the content of the letter sent to iran's top official, Ayatollah Khamenei—information that sheds light on the depth and intent behind this diplomatic gesture.

According to news reports, the letter was received very positively by the Iranian leadership. Among the key points raised:

• Support for US-Iran Talks: King Salman voiced Saudi Arabia’s support for the ongoing US-Iran negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program—an unexpected shift from the Kingdom’s prior opposition to the 2015 nuclear deal. He encouraged Iran to pursue a settlement that would enhance regional stability.
• Willingness to Facilitate Dialogue: The letter offered Saudi Arabia’s assistance in hosting informal meetings between Iranian and U.S. officials during former U.S. President Donald Trump’s upcoming visit to Riyadh. Iran declined the proposal, yet the gesture itself signals a new Saudi approach to facilitating regional diplomacy.
• Yemen and Regional De-escalation: The King urged Iran to use its influence over Yemen’s Ansarallah movement (the Houthis) to prevent attacks on Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and to lower tensions in the Red Sea—an area of growing strategic concern.
• Palestinian Statehood Commitment: King Salman reaffirmed Saudi Arabia’s longstanding position that it will not recognize Israel without the establishment of a fully independent and widely accepted Palestinian state—adding a clear note of continuity amid shifting geopolitical narratives, a shift perhaps resulting from the brutal war in Gaza.
• Proposal for a Security Pact: Perhaps most notably, the King expressed openness to a bilateral security pact with Iran, stating that concrete steps toward such an agreement would be pursued in the near future.
• This development comes against the backdrop of renewed U.S.-Iran indirect talks and a major regional tour by President Trump, who is scheduled to visit Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE from May 13 to 16. According to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, the purpose of the trip is to "strengthen ties" with regional allies. Trump’s visit will be his second international trip since returning to office, and it now intersects with rapidly evolving regional dynamics.

Media review: Is Syria on the verge of a being a failed state?

Media review: Is Syria on the verge of a being a failed state?

    Tuesday, December 10, 2024   No comments

From the developments of the last few days alone, Syria seems to be on a path of being a failed state in a region that is very volatile. Here are the recent events and how the world is reacting to them according to media reports.

Israel announced on Tuesday the destruction of about 70%-80% of the capabilities of the Syrian army

According to Israel's military forces, about 350 fighter jets from the Israeli Air Force participated in the campaign, attacking about 320 targets throughout Syria.

It added that "a number of warplanes and helicopters, radars, surface-to-air missile batteries, ships, surface-to-surface missiles, rocket shells, weapons production sites, weapons depots, Scud missiles, cruise missiles, sea-to-sea missiles, drones, and others were destroyed."

The Israeli Army Radio reported on Tuesday that the air force "attacked 250 targets in Syria in recent days," in an attack it described as "one of the largest in our history."

The radio reported, citing a military source, that "the air force destroyed dozens of Syrian warplanes in its attacks."

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that the Israeli "army" "destroyed the most important military sites in Syria."

The observatory added that it "documented about 310 Israeli raids on Syrian territory since the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime on Sunday," while journalists from Agence France-Presse in the capital reported that they heard explosions early Tuesday.

Agence France-Presse reported that the Scientific Research Center in Damascus, affiliated with the Syrian Ministry of Defense, which was targeted by Israeli raids on Monday evening, was completely destroyed.

In parallel with the air aggression, the Israeli armed forces occupied 9 villages in the southern countryside of Damascus, according to Israeli media.

The Israeli media said that "the army reached the vicinity of the town of Qatna in the Damascus countryside, 10 km (about 6 miles) from the neighborhoods of Damascus and 15 km (about 9 miles) from the city center, adding that "the army is present in the interior regions of Syria."

In the same context, the Syrian newspaper "Al-Watan" indicated today, Tuesday, that "Israeli army forces penetrated into the south of Damascus Governorate."

The reports stated that Israeli forces "took control of the town of Hina, which is about 31 miles from Damascus, reaching the outskirts of Khan al-Shih in the Qatna area, located opposite the Lebanese Rashaya area."

In the same context, Reuters quoted 3 security sources as saying that "the Israeli military incursion into Syria reached about 25 kilometers southwest of Damascus."

Reuters added that Israeli forces "reached Qatana, which is located 10 kilometers inside Syrian territory to the east of the buffer zone."

Arab rejection of Israel's seizure of buffer zone with Syria

Arab countries expressed their rejection, on Monday, of Israel's seizure of the buffer zone with Syria after announcing the collapse of the separation of forces agreement with Damascus following the fall of the regime of ousted President Bashar al-Assad.

This came in official statements issued by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Iraq and the Arab League, while the Israeli Army Radio said on Monday that army forces had penetrated the buffer zone with Syria by land, while continuing to carry out extensive air strikes with heavy bombs on sites in the area.

On Sunday, Israel announced the collapse of the 1974 separation of forces agreement with Syria, and the deployment of the Israeli army in the demilitarized buffer zone in the Syrian Golan Heights, most of which it has occupied since 1967.

The Israeli move came after Syrian opposition factions entered the capital Damascus and took control of it, with the withdrawal of regime forces from public institutions and streets, thus ending a 61-year era of Baath Party rule and 53 years of Assad family rule.

In a statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Qatar strongly condemned the Israeli occupation's seizure of the buffer zone with Syria and the adjacent leadership sites, and considered it a dangerous development and a blatant attack on Syria's sovereignty and unity and a flagrant violation of international law.

It warned that the policy of imposing a fait accompli pursued by the Israeli occupation, including its attempts to occupy Syrian lands, will lead the region to more violence and tension.

The Saudi Foreign Ministry said in a statement that the attacks carried out by the Israeli occupation government by seizing the buffer zone in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and targeting Syrian lands confirm Israel's continued violation of the rules of international law and its determination to sabotage Syria's chances of restoring its security, stability and territorial integrity.

Kuwait also expressed in a statement by the Foreign Ministry its strong condemnation and denunciation of the Israeli occupation forces' occupation of the buffer zone on the Syrian border, and considered it a blatant violation of international laws and Security Council resolutions.

It stressed the importance of the international community assuming its responsibilities to put an end to the series of Israeli attacks on the countries of the region, and to hold accountable the perpetrators of these violations in order to preserve regional and international security and peace.

Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said in a speech before his country's parliament that Amman condemns Israel's entry into Syrian territory and its control over the buffer zone, and categorically rejects this aggression, and stresses the unity of Syria and the unity of its territories and cohesion.

The Iraqi Foreign Ministry also expressed in a statement its "condemnation of the Zionist entity's seizure of the buffer zone with Syria in the Golan and the lands adjacent to it," indicating that this measure represents a flagrant violation of international law and relevant international legitimacy resolutions.

The Arab League had expressed, in a statement on Sunday, its full condemnation of what the Israeli occupation seeks to achieve illegally, taking advantage of the developments in the internal situation in Syria, whether in terms of occupying additional lands in the Golan or considering the 1974 disengagement agreement expired.

UN keeps troops in Golan, criticizes Israel's entry into buffer zone

The United Nations confirmed on Monday that it will keep its forces in the buffer zone in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, and said that Israel's entry into the area constitutes a violation of the 1974 disengagement agreement with Syria.

UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said that the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) informed the Israelis that these actions constitute a violation of the 1974 disengagement agreement.

He explained that the Israeli forces that entered the buffer zone are still deployed in 3 locations.

He stressed that "there should be no military forces or activities in the separation zone. Israel and Syria must continue to implement the provisions of the 1974 agreement and maintain stability in the Golan."

For his part, the spokesman for the international peacekeeping forces in the Golan, Nick Bernbach, said that these forces are still in their positions despite the Israeli army's control of the buffer zone.

He added that the peacekeeping forces will remain in their positions in the Golan as long as the Security Council does not adopt any change in their mandate.

For its part, the United States said that "Israel's incursion into the buffer zone in the Golan should be temporary."

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham leader: Syria will not engage in another war

Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which along with allied factions launched an offensive that toppled President Bashar al-Assad, said the Syrian people were "exhausted" by years of conflict and that the country would not see "another war".

"People are exhausted from war. So the country is not ready for another war, and it will not engage in another (war)," al-Jolani, who has begun using his real name Ahmed al-Sharaa, said in an interview with Britain's Sky News broadcast on Tuesday.

Two sources close to the Syrian opposition fighters told Reuters on Tuesday that the opposition leadership had ordered its fighters to withdraw from cities and to deploy units affiliated with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham from the police and internal security forces.

Hezbollah condemns occupation of lands in Syria: We hope it will stabilize and be in a position of rejecting its enemy "Israel"

Hezbollah stressed that the Israeli entity's occupation of more Syrian territories and its attack on military capabilities are "a dangerous aggression that must be strongly condemned," holding the Security Council, the international community, and Arab and Islamic countries "responsible for rejecting and ending it, and protecting the Syrian people at a sensitive and pivotal stage in its history."

In a statement issued on Tuesday evening, Hezbollah expressed hope that "Syria will settle on the choices of its people, achieve its renaissance, and be in a position of rejecting the Israeli occupation, preventing foreign interference in its affairs."

In the same context, Hezbollah stressed that what is happening in Syria, on the popular and political levels, and the internal and external political choices that will result from it, are "the exclusive right of the Syrian people, independent of any external influences and pressures."

While he stressed that he would remain "a supporter of Syria and its people in their right to build their future and confront their enemy, the Israeli entity," he urged taking all steps that would prevent the occupying entity from achieving its goals, and not remaining silent or watching the Israeli aggression against Syria and its people.

In this context, Hezbollah pointed out that the complete silence, Arab, Islamic and international, towards the aggression on Syria, with unlimited American support, and the failure to take practical measures to confront this aggression and support the Palestinian people and their legitimate rights, led to "Zionist excesses and encroachment on the countries of the region."

He also pointed out that "it has always warned of Israeli ambitions in the entire region, and resisted them to prevent the occupation from achieving its goals, and reiterated that the aggression on Gaza is a war of extermination and a starting point to change the face of the region and end the Palestinian cause."

It is noteworthy that Hezbollah previously confirmed that the continuing crimes committed by the Israeli occupation on Syrian territory, whether through occupying more lands in the Golan Heights, or striking and destroying the defensive capabilities of the Syrian state, "represent blatant aggression and a blatant violation of the sovereignty of the state and people in Syria."

Syria's UN envoy: Our mission continues its work... and "Israel" exploits the change of power

Syria's permanent representative to the United Nations, Qusay al-Dahhak, said that Damascus calls on the UN Security Council and the UN Secretary-General to prevent "Israel" from exploiting the change of power in the country.

This came during a press conference at the United Nations on Monday, commenting on the Israeli aggression against Syria, saying: "On instructions from the current government, Syria has appealed to the Security Council and the Secretary-General of the United Nations, demanding that they stop the Israeli aggression."

He continued: "The Syrian Permanent Mission to the United Nations continues its work as part of the state institutions in the country, and we represent the interests of the Syrian people, and we will continue to do so."

He added: "We are working with the current Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, and we are waiting for a new government."

Washington: We have interests in Syria... and our forces will remain

The United States announced today that its forces will remain in Syria, while it and European countries are still studying how to deal with the armed factions that overthrew the Assad regime, and will discuss this at the upcoming G7 meeting.

US Deputy National Security Advisor John Fine confirmed during an interview at the Reuters Next conference in New York that "Washington has major interests in Syria and will express them to the relevant parties as required." Noting that US forces in Syria "are there for an important reason and are not a bargaining chip," he announced in response to a question that they will remain in Syria.

He pointed out that "the countries on the borders with Syria have justified concerns about developments," considering that "there are major risks associated with what happened in Syria as well as opportunities." Regarding communication with "Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham," Fine announced that Washington "is still working on how to deal with the groups that overthrew Assad," explaining that "the classification of these groups will be based on what they do, not what they say they will do."

Earlier today, the European Union's foreign policy chief, Kaya Kallas, commented on the latest developments in Syria, saying that although "the initial signals are good," "new people are judged by their actions," noting "legitimate concerns about the risks of sectarian violence in Syria and the resurgence of extremism in the country." She also considered that "the fall of Assad represents a blow to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iran."

In this context, the Group of Seven will discuss the latest developments in Syria next Friday, in a virtual meeting.

According to Agence France-Presse, the meeting, which was called before the fall of the Assad regime, was scheduled to be an official handover to Canada, which will assume the presidency of the group, but the meeting will address "other international crises, from Ukraine to the Middle East," including "the unrest in Syria."