Morocco's "Gen Z 212" Movement: A Youth-Led Uprising Against Corruption and Failed Services

Morocco's "Gen Z 212" Movement: A Youth-Led Uprising Against Corruption and Failed Services

    Saturday, October 04, 2025   No comments

A new, decentralized youth movement is shaking the political landscape of Morocco. Dubbed "Generation Z 212" — a nod to the country's international dialing code and its digitally-native leaders — the group has sustained protests for over a week in several cities, channeling widespread public anger over corruption, deteriorating public services, and a deep-seated political disillusionment.

The movement's core demands are starkly local: improved healthcare and education, a serious fight against corruption, and the resignation of Prime Minister Aziz Akhannouch. However, its emergence reflects a global pattern of youth-led activism fueled by economic stagnation and a loss of faith in traditional institutions.

A Spark in Agadir, A Fire Across Cities

The immediate catalyst for the protests was a tragic incident in the southern city of Agadir. The deaths of eight pregnant women in less than a month at a public hospital ignited public outrage, serving as a grim symbol of a healthcare system in crisis. The protests that began there quickly spread to other urban centers.

The situation on the ground has been volatile. While "Gen Z 212" activists have called for and committed to peaceful demonstrations, their gatherings have been met with bans, violence, and mass arrests by the authorities. Some protests have devolved into riots, resulting in the deaths of three people and injuries to dozens. The movement's activists have been quick to disavow the violence, blaming it on opportunistic elements and reaffirming their commitment to peaceful dissent.

A Generation Filling a Political Vacuum

Analysts point to a profound vacuum in political and social representation as the bedrock of this unrest. The majority of Moroccan youth have lost confidence in established political parties, which they view as having lost their credibility. The traditional power of labor unions has also waned.

This void has been filled by young people organizing through social media and digital networks, bypassing traditional gatekeepers. The movement is leaderless and organic, making it both resilient and difficult for the government to engage with through conventional channels.

The economic backdrop is bleak. According to the High Commission for Planning, Morocco's overall unemployment rate stands at 12.8%, a figure that skyrockets to 35.8% among young people and 19% among university graduates. This lack of opportunity for a highly educated generation is a primary source of frustration.

A "Ticking Time Bomb" No Longer Silent

Experts had long warned that this combination of factors was a recipe for social explosion.

Professor Mohamed Al-Merrani Boukhabza, a political scientist at Abdelmalek Essaâdi University, highlighted the demographic reality: "There is a demographic shift whereby a third of the population pyramid in Morocco is made up of young people between the ages of 15 and 35." He noted that the socioeconomic reality, coupled with declining public services and weak trust in traditional institutions, formed a "ticking time bomb" that has now detonated.

Echoing this sentiment, Ahmed Al-Bouz, a professor of Political Science and Constitutional Law, stressed the need for "urgent and tangible reforms, especially in education, health, and employment, while guaranteeing freedom of expression and the right to protest." He warned that in the absence of such reforms, any government dialogue with the youth would be seen as merely a tactic to buy time.

A Government in Response Mode

Faced with the growing momentum, the government has stated that it "understands the demands of the movement" and has expressed its readiness to open a dialogue with the protesting youth. However, for a generation that feels it has been repeatedly promised change without seeing results, mere words are no longer enough.

The "Gen Z 212" movement represents a critical juncture for Morocco. It is the voice of a disenfranchised, connected, and impatient generation demanding not just dialogue, but demonstrable action to address the deep-rooted economic and social crises that define their daily lives. The government's next steps will determine whether this energy can be channeled into meaningful reform or if it will further fuel the flames of discontent.

Saudi-Pakistan Defense Pact Reshapes Middle Eastern Geopolitics

Saudi-Pakistan Defense Pact Reshapes Middle Eastern Geopolitics

    Wednesday, September 17, 2025   No comments

In a move that has sent seismic waves across the international community, Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan have formally signed a mutual defense pact. The announcement, coming in the immediate aftermath of a devastating Israeli attack on Qatar, signals a dramatic and potentially dangerous realignment of power in a region already on a knife's edge.

This agreement, far more than a simple reaffirmation of longstanding ties, represents a fundamental shift in the strategic calculus of the Middle East and South Asia, with implications for global security, energy markets, and the future of conflict in the region.

From Strategic Partnership to Ironclad Guarantee

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan share a deep, decades-long relationship built on a foundation of economic support, religious solidarity, and security cooperation. Riyadh has long been a financial benefactor to Islamabad, while Pakistan has provided the Kingdom with military trainers and troops for its defense. However, this new pact elevates that relationship to an entirely new level.

The core tenet of the agreement, as stated by the Pakistani prime minister’s office, is that "any aggression against either country will be treated as aggression against both." This transforms a friendly understanding into a legally binding, ironclad security guarantee. For Saudi Arabia, a nation rich in wealth and oil but with a relatively small population, this pact effectively places it under the umbrella of Pakistan's formidable military—the world’s sixth-largest—and, most significantly, its nuclear arsenal.

The Qatar Catalyst: A Region on the Brink

The timing of the announcement is impossible to ignore. The pact was finalized during emergency talks in Riyadh between Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, held just days after Israel's unprecedented attack on Qatar.

This context is crucial. The strike on Qatar, a nation that also hosts a major U.S. military base, demonstrated a terrifying escalation in the ongoing regional proxy wars. For Saudi Arabia, a longstanding rival of Qatar, the attack was likely seen not just as an strike against a neighbor, but as a harbinger of unchecked aggression that could one day be directed at Riyadh itself. The message from the Saudi leadership is clear: the traditional security architecture, heavily reliant on the United States, is no longer seen as dependable. They are seeking new, more immediate guarantees for their survival.

By aligning directly with a nuclear-armed power, Saudi Arabia is sending a powerful deterrent message to all regional adversaries, primarily Israel and Iran: an attack on the Kingdom will now carry an incalculable and existential risk.

Iran's Calculated Response: Diplomatic Outreach in a Shifting Landscape

This development comes as Iran's security leadership has initiated a regional outreach, seeking to capitalize on the chaos to advance its own vision for a new security architecture. In a highly significant move, Ali Larijani, a senior advisor to Iran’s Supreme Leader and former Parliament Speaker, was dispatched to Saudi Arabia.

Larijani’s mission is multifaceted:

• Testing the Waters: Iran is likely probing Saudi Arabia's commitment to its new partnership with Pakistan and gauging its level of anxiety post-Qatar.

• Offering an Alternative: Tehran is positioning itself as a necessary partner for regional stability, arguing that a collective security agreement that includes Iran is preferable to a polarized arms race.

• Exploiting Divisions: Iran may see an opportunity to drive a wedge between Saudi Arabia and its traditional allies by presenting itself as a more reliable, or at least inevitable, neighbor in a post-American era.

The Larijani mission underscores that while the Saudi-Pakistan pact is a Sunni-centric bloc, Iran is not remaining idle. It is responding with its own diplomatic offensive, recognizing that the regional order is up for grabs.

The Nuclear Question: A Delicate Balance

The most profound element of the pact is Pakistan’s status as a nuclear power. This agreement implicitly, though not explicitly, introduces a nuclear dimension into the heart of Middle Eastern security.

• Deterrence or Provocation? From Saudi Arabia's perspective, this is the ultimate deterrent. It hopes the mere existence of this pact will prevent any future aggression. However, from the perspective of Israel and Iran, it represents a massive escalation, potentially forcing them to recalibrate their own military and strategic doctrines.

• The "Sunni Shield" Narrative: The pact solidifies a powerful bloc of Sunni Muslim nations, with Pakistan’s bomb acting as a counterweight to Shiite Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Israel’s presumed nuclear capabilities. This risks hardening the sectarian and geopolitical fault lines in the region, moving from a cold war to a much more volatile standoff.

Global Repercussions and Shifting Alliances

The ramifications of this defense pact extend far beyond the Middle East:

1. A Challenge to U.S. Influence: This is a stark indication of Riyadh’s desire to diversify its security partnerships away from Washington. While not a full break, it shows Saudi Arabia is willing to build an independent security infrastructure, reducing its reliance on the U.S. military umbrella.

2. A Dilemma for Washington: The United States now faces a complex challenge. Pakistan is a major non-NATO ally, while Saudi Arabia remains a critical energy partner. However, a mutual defense pact that could potentially draw a nuclear-armed Pakistan into a Middle Eastern conflict is a nightmare scenario for U.S. strategists.
   

3. 
   India's Strategic Anxiety: For India, Pakistan’s arch-rival, this is deeply troubling news. It formalizes the military alliance between its two adversaries—Pakistan and Saudi Arabia’s close ally, China. India must now consider the possibility that a future crisis with Pakistan could, in the worst case, involve a much broader coalition or divert Pakistani resources and attention westward.

4. Iran's Isolation and Response: For Iran, the pact is the consolidation of a hostile, US-backed, and now nuclear-linked alliance on its flanks. The Larijani mission shows its strategy is two-fold: resist this consolidation through diplomacy while likely accelerating its own military and nuclear programs as an ultimate guarantee.  Being aware of what Iran represents for Shia Muslims, and recognizing that Pakistan has a large Shia Muslim community, steps are being taken to signal that this pact is not intended to threaten Iran or exclude Shia Muslims. To this end, on September 18, the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia called his Iranian counterpart, not details of the call was made available. And on September 19, the Saudi Minister of Defense called his Iranian counterpart to inform "Iran of the details of the Saudi-Pakistani mutual defense treaty, and provided a document with information." Iran's DM thanked the Saudi Defense Ministry for its briefing, and offered its good wishes for the success of this alliance and Islamic nations in general, stating that "we will always support initiatives that seek to strengthen the mutual cooperation between Islamic nations." said Iran's Minister of Defense Aziz Nasirzadeh.
   

A New, More Dangerous Era

The Saudi-Pakistan mutual defense pact is not merely a signed document; it is a symptom of a world order fracturing and reorganizing itself. It is born from a moment of extreme crisis and has triggered a swift and calculated response from Iran, as seen in the Larijani mission.

While intended to create stability through deterrence, the pact risks creating a more brittle and dangerous landscape. By explicitly tying the fate of the Arabian Peninsula to the nuclear calculus of South Asia, it has created a tripwire that, if ever crossed, could escalate a regional conflict into a global catastrophe overnight. The world is now witnessing a high-stakes diplomatic chess game where the moves are bold, the players are nervous, and the consequences are unimaginable. The world will be watching this new axis of power with bated breath and profound concern.

Arab-Islamic Summit in Qatar Condemns Israeli Aggression, Warns Normalization is "Undermined"

Arab-Islamic Summit in Qatar Condemns Israeli Aggression, Warns Normalization is "Undermined"

    Sunday, September 14, 2025   No comments

Doha, Qatar – A pivotal joint summit of Arab and Islamic nations convened in Doha on Monday under a cloud of heightened urgency, with a draft declaration explicitly condemning recent Israeli aggression against Qatar and warning that Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza has effectively "undermined" all efforts to normalize relations in the region.

The emergency meeting, bringing together leaders and top diplomats, was called in response to what participants describe as an escalating crisis. The discussions are heavily influenced by a recently updated draft communique, seen by Reuters, which delivers a stark assessment of the current situation.

A Direct Threat to Regional Peace

The draft document leaves little room for ambiguity. It states that the recent "Israeli aggression against Qatar," coupled with a continuous series of violations, "constitutes a direct threat to all efforts aimed at normalizing relations with the entity."

It further elaborates that this aggression, along with Israel’s persistent hostile acts—including "genocide, ethnic cleansing, starvation, siege, settlement, and expansionist policies—threatens the prospects for peace and coexistence in the region."

This language represents a significant hardening of stance from many nations, some of whom had been cautiously pursuing closer ties with Israel through the U.S.-brokered Abraham Accords. The draft declaration asserts that these Israeli policies "undo all that has been achieved in terms of normalizing relations, whether what has already been accomplished or what is in preparation."

Hamas Calls for Boycott and Isolation

The summit’s agenda was further shaped by a memorandum from Hamas, addressed directly to the foreign ministers gathered in Doha and to international organizations. The Palestinian group highlighted two critical events: the recent attempted assassination of its negotiating delegation in the Qatari capital and the failure of efforts to stop the "genocide" in the Gaza Strip.

In light of these events, Hamas called upon the assembled Arab and Islamic states to take decisive action by imposing a comprehensive political and economic boycott on Israel and working to isolate it on both the regional and international stages.

Context: A Region Under Fire

The summit occurs amidst what the draft describes as an Israeli assault not only on Qatar but on the entire region. The primary focus, however, remains the relentless war on Gaza, which has continued for months, resulting in a devastating toll of hundreds of thousands of martyrs, wounded, detainees, and missing persons.

The meeting in Doha thus transcends a mere diplomatic gathering; it is a response to a profound crisis. The strong language in the draft communique signals a potential strategic shift, moving away from the path of normalization and toward a unified front of condemnation and a demand for accountability, placing the future of regional relations firmly in jeopardy.

Opening remarks by Qatari PM Mohammad bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani at the ministerial meeting in Doha

Ahead of the regional emergency summit on Monday, the Qatari Prime Minister who also met with President Trump earlier said the following (summary of his opening remarks):

“We express our appreciation to the Arab states who condemned this Israeli barbaric attack and their support to the lawful measures we will take to safeguard our sovereignty.”

“Attacking Qatar’s sovereignty is a violation of the UN Charter, namely Article 4, which prohibits the use of force against countries and sovereignty. It is also a flagrant violation of international norms and humanitarian principles. It cannot be an isolated incident that goes unpunished. It must be met with fierce and firm measures.”

 “The inhumane Israeli government has crossed all the red lines. It continues to undermine and destabilize any state in the world and sabotage political efforts that conflict with its agenda or expose its propaganda. That is why we cannot remain silent in the face of this barbaric attack.”

“If we remain silent, we will be faced with an unlimited and countless series of aggressions that will end in total destruction, and no country will be spared.”

“It is time for the international community to abandon double standards and hold Israel accountable for all the crimes it has perpetrated. Israel must know that the continued genocidal war against the Palestinian people, aiming at forcibly transferring them from their homeland, cannot succeed no matter what false justification is provided.”

“The Israeli government continues to reject proposal after proposal, intentionally widening the circle of war and placing the region’s peoples, including their own, at grave risk. This region cannot enjoy peace, stability, or security, nor its peoples justice, without the Palestinians restoring their rights and establishing their independent state on the 1967 borders.”

 “We in the State of Qatar reiterate that moderation as a means for amicable settlement is not merely an obligation but an ethical responsibility deeply rooted in our philosophy. Just and lasting peace is our strategic choice.”

“Israeli barbaric practices and arrogance will not prevent us from continuing to cooperate with our partners in Egypt to bring this unjust, unlawful war to an end.”

 “It is no secret that last Thursday we stood before the Security Council to condemn the Israeli attack on Qatar, and we appreciate the solidarity expressed by states worldwide, as well as the statement issued by the Council.”

“Today, we must take harsh measures to put an end to Israel’s arrogance and its continued violations of international law and countless crimes carried out under the cover of the international community.”

“It is with pleasure that I welcome you to your second homeland, the State of Qatar, and express our full appreciation for your participation in this emergency Arab and Islamic summit convened following the treacherous Israeli aggression of September 9.”

Amidst Summit, U.S. Diplomatic Visit to Israel Sends Mixed Signals

As Arab and Islamic leaders gathered in Doha, a parallel diplomatic mission unfolded in Israel, highlighting the complex international dimensions of the crisis. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio embarked on a visit to Israel, a move intensely analyzed for its timing and message amidst the fallout from the attack on Qatar and the ongoing war in Gaza.

Israeli analyses, as reported, described the visit as a critical test for U.S.-Israel relations, questioning the level of security coordination and the limits of public American support for Israeli operations. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu portrayed the visit as "proof of the strength of the relationship with the United States," commentators suggested a more nuanced reality.

According to Israeli political analysts, Secretary Rubio’s mission conveyed a "mix of reassurance and pressure":

On Gaza: The visit aimed to discuss post-war arrangements, revealing a continuing gap between Israel’s vision of complete security control and the U.S. preference for solutions that open the door to broader regional deals.

On the Qatar Attack: The visit underscored Washington's embarrassment. While reaffirming strong ties, reports indicated dissatisfaction within the Trump administration with the operation, exposing the limits of U.S. support when Israeli actions directly conflict with American interests, such as the stability of a key Gulf mediator like Qatar.

On Palestinian Statehood: The visit confirmed the U.S. commitment to thwarting international efforts to recognize a Palestinian state at the upcoming UN General Assembly. However, analysts warned that American support alone may not be enough to stem the growing European momentum. 

Media Review: Nationalism, Distrust, and the Specter of Regime Change

Media Review: Nationalism, Distrust, and the Specter of Regime Change

    Wednesday, August 13, 2025   No comments

 

1. Netanyahu’s Overt Call: “Iran for Iranians”

On August 12, 2025, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a striking video address aimed directly at the Iranian people. He urged them to “take to the streets”, “demand justice”, and resist “ruling fanatics” in Tehran. Leveraging Iran’s current water crisis—one described as the worst drought in a century—he promised that “Israel’s top water experts will flood into every Iranian city,” offering cutting-edge recycling and desalination technologies once “your country is free.” Netanyahu framed this not merely as political pressure but as a humanitarian overture, rhetorically intertwining water scarcity with political liberation.
His language tugged at historical symbols—the “descendants of Cyrus the Great”—and invoked Zionist forebears: “as our founding father, Theodor Herzl, said... ‘if you will it, a free Iran is not a dream.’” Critics across the region condemned the message as a blatant interference in Iran’s sovereignty and a call for regime change.

2. Expansionist Imagery and the “Greater Israel” Vision

Simultaneously, in an i24 News interview, Netanyahu responded affirmatively when asked if he felt a connection to the concept of “Greater Israel”—a historical extremist vision stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, enveloping Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. He stated flatly: "Very much." (Note: the Arabic-language Al Jazeera coverage confirmed condemnation by Jordan’s foreign ministry of these remarks, calling them “dangerous provocative escalation” and a violation of sovereignty and international law).  Jordan officially denounced these statements as “absurd illusions” that undermine Arab states and Palestinian rights, and called for international accountability.

3. Mutually Reinforcing Nationalist Narratives

These developments crystallize a deeper pattern of mutual antagonism: just as many in the Arab and Muslim worlds chant “Death to Israel” (often interpreted as opposition to the Zionist regime, not genocide), Israeli leaders—including Netanyahu—express parallel desires for overthrowing nationalist or Islamist regimes, from Iraq and Syria to Iran and potentially Turkey. Israel’s historical role in the fall of Arab nationalist regimes—the Ba’athists in Iraq and Syria, Nasserism in Egypt, Gaddafi in Libya—sets precedent for its current posture toward Iran, adding layers of distrust and ideological competition.

4. Media Narratives vs. Unspoken Realities

Mainstream coverage often frames Israel’s messaging as defensive—justified by existential threats or humanitarian concern. Yet the explicit linkage between Israel’s offer of technology and regime change reveals a more assertive posture: Israel positioning itself not only as a regional power but as a potential kingmaker.

This dynamic echoes past episodes: British and U.S. support for regime change in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, often under the banner of liberation, but frequently yielding destabilization. Indeed, analysts warn that regime elimination without a constructive transition plan can exacerbate chaos and strengthen hardliners—concerns now surging around Iran.

5. Broader Implications: Ethno-Religious Nationalism and Regional Instability

The mutual calls for regime change are not isolated acts of political posturing — they are rooted in competing nationalist visions that draw their legitimacy from deeply embedded historical, ethnic, and religious narratives. This clash produces a dangerous self-reinforcing cycle that shapes nearly every major crisis in the Middle East.

Israel’s vision:

Israeli statecraft, particularly under Netanyahu, increasingly draws on biblical and historicist narratives to justify a posture of permanent expansion and dominance. This is not merely about securing existing borders; it’s about positioning Israel as the central civilizational power in the region. The appeal to “Greater Israel” ties modern foreign policy directly to ancient territorial claims, allowing nationalist leaders to frame strategic moves as fulfilling a sacred mission rather than a negotiable political agenda. In this worldview, offering water technology to Iranians is not only a humanitarian gesture but also a demonstration of how Israel imagines itself — as a benevolent hegemon to “liberated” peoples, once they accept the dismantling of regimes seen as hostile.

Resistance’s response:

Arab nationalist and Islamist movements see this Israeli narrative as an existential threat — not only to Palestinian sovereignty but to the very idea of Arab or Islamic self-determination. From their perspective, the vision of “Greater Israel” confirms suspicions that Israel’s security discourse masks territorial ambitions stretching across multiple states. This perception reinforces a siege mentality, where even minor concessions to Israel are framed as steps toward regional capitulation. Consequently, slogans like “Death to Israel” — while often clarified by their authors as a rejection of the Zionist regime rather than the Jewish people — are received by Israelis as genocidal, deepening the emotional and political chasm.

Mutual demonization:

Each side interprets the other’s rhetoric in its most maximalist and threatening form. Israeli leaders often portray their regional adversaries as irredeemable aggressors whose regimes must be toppled for peace to be possible. Conversely, Arab and Islamist nationalists cast Israeli policy as inherently expansionist, immune to compromise, and bent on cultural erasure. This mutual framing leaves no space for recognizing reformist or moderate currents on either side. Internal dissent within Iran, for example, is subsumed under the binary of “pro-regime” or “agent of foreign powers,” while dissent within Israel against expansionism is marginalized as naïve or disloyal.

Media as a force multiplier:

Regional and global media ecosystems amplify these narratives by privileging official statements and the most provocative soundbites. Nuanced or dissenting voices rarely receive the same coverage. This selective amplification means that both publics primarily hear confirmation of their worst fears. Israeli audiences see chants and missile parades without context; Arab audiences see maps of an expanded Israel without the debates inside Israel over their feasibility or morality. In effect, media serves as a mirror that reflects back the most polarizing version of reality, hardening nationalist sentiment and making diplomatic de-escalation politically costly for any leader.

The result is a feedback loop: nationalist rhetoric begets reciprocal hostility, which then justifies the next round of escalation. Over time, this pattern entrenches zero-sum thinking, where any gain for one side is assumed to be an irreversible loss for the other.

6. What Comes Next?

With Israel openly signaling support for regime change, and invoking ideological justifications, the region edges closer to escalatory brinkmanship. If Iran responds—either through intensified repression or reprisals—the potential for conflict could spiral. Global actors—especially the U.S., Europe, Russia, and regional powers—must urgently clarify whether they support such overt regime-change diplomacy or seek de-escalation through dialogue and multilateral engagement.

The events of August 12, 2025—Netanyahu’s video appeal and the embrace of “Greater Israel”—are not isolated flashes of rhetoric but crystallize long-standing ideological and geopolitical fault lines. The language of liberation and water aid interwoven with conquest and regime overthrow exemplifies the complex, dangerous entanglement of ethno-religious nationalism, realpolitik, and regional power plays. As each side frames itself as the rightful architect of the region’s future, the real victims may be stability, human rights, and any hope for equitable governance.

Israel’s prime minister’s call for Iranians to overthrow their government mirrors Iran’s rejection of the “Zionist regime,” underscoring two points: first, the deep incompatibility between race-based or religion-based nationalism and genuinely pluralistic societies; second, the role of supremacist ideologies as a driving force behind such nationalist regimes. Zionism—with both its religious dimension (membership in the Jewish faith) and its ethnic dimension (Jewish identity as race or ethnicity)—and Arab or Persian ethnic nationalism, alongside Islamism as a religious form, are locked in a clash that cannot be resolved by one prevailing over the others, but perhaps only by the eventual failure of them all.

  

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.

China, Pakistan agree with Kabul to expand CPEC to Afghanistan

China, Pakistan agree with Kabul to expand CPEC to Afghanistan

    Wednesday, May 21, 2025   No comments

Pakistan, China, and Afghanistan agreed in a trilateral meeting in Beijing to formally extend the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) to Afghanistan, strengthening regional connectivity under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The foreign ministers emphasized deeper cooperation in trade, infrastructure, and security, reaffirming their commitment to counterterrorism and regional stability. 

The next trilateral meeting will be held in Kabul. The talks took place during Deputy PM Ishaq Dar’s visit to China, which also addressed the recent Pakistan-India tensions and reaffirmed the strong China-Pakistan partnership.

Israeli soldiers fired at foreign diplomats visiting west bank, Palestine

Israeli soldiers fired at foreign diplomats visiting west bank, Palestine

    Wednesday, May 21, 2025   No comments

Approximately one hour ago, Israeli soldiers fired at foreign diplomats from European and Arab states who were touring Jenin in the West Bank, Palestine.

The IDF has released an official statement on the incident, claiming that the delegation 'deviated from the approved route,' leading soldiers to fire 'warning shots.' 

The delegation reportedly included 35 ambassadors, consuls, and diplomats from the European Union, the United Kingdom, Egypt, Jordan, China, Russia, Japan, and others.

Italy has summoned the Israeli ambassador due to the event, and soon after, France has also summoned the Israeli ambassador for an explanation.

EU foreign policy chief states, 'Any threats to the lives of diplomats are unacceptable,' in response to the attack on diplomats by Israel in Jenin.

EU foreign policy chief states, 'Any threats to the lives of diplomats are unacceptable,' in response to the attack on diplomats by Israel in Jenin.

 

 

Trump’s “America First” and the Shifting Middle East

Trump’s “America First” and the Shifting Middle East

    Tuesday, May 13, 2025   No comments

Under the banner of “America First,” President Donald Trump’s second term is leaving an unmistakable imprint on the Middle East. The traditional American posture—strongly aligned with Israel and antagonistic toward Iran—is giving way to a new configuration driven more by economic pragmatism and regional stability than ideology. At the heart of this shift is a surprising warming of ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia, a recalibration in U.S.-Israel relations amid the Gaza war, and a relentless push for commercial deals that serve both American and regional interests.

Trump's Strategic Bet: Trade Over Troops

Trump’s latest Middle East tour, which began with a high-profile stop in Riyadh, highlights a clear message: economic engagement is now Washington’s primary tool of influence. In Saudi Arabia, he and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman signed a “Strategic Economic Partnership” encompassing energy, mining, and defense. The visit was touted by Trump as “historic,” with the New York Times reporting the president’s desire to announce deals worth over $1 trillion, which he believes will bolster American jobs and global influence.

Instead of pursuing a comprehensive foreign policy doctrine, Trump’s second term appears guided by transactional diplomacy—striking business deals and forging bilateral agreements without broader regional conditions. This is a marked departure from previous administrations that often tied economic or military cooperation to political reform or diplomatic alignment, especially concerning Israel.

Practical decisions:Saudi Arabia and the United States have signed a historic $142 Billion dollar arms deal, the largest in history. Saudi Crown Prince Bin Salman also pledged that Saudi Arabia would invest a staggering $600 Billion USD into the U.S. economy.

Gaza War Reveals Strains in U.S.-Israel Ties

Meanwhile, the ongoing war in Gaza is exposing growing daylight between Washington and Tel Aviv. Trump, once hailed by Israeli leaders as one of their strongest allies, is now signaling fatigue with the conflict. According to The Guardian, Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff criticized Israel’s prolongation of the war, stating plainly that “Israel is not ready to end it,” while the U.S. wants it resolved—especially with American hostages involved.

Trump’s reluctance to visit Israel during this regional tour, and his administration’s quiet disengagement from Israeli military priorities—like launching strikes on Iran or continuing the Gaza war indefinitely—signals a pivot. One former Israeli diplomat noted bluntly: “Trump is not anti-Israel, but he doesn’t care that much.”

This pragmatism is echoed in Trump’s decision to finalize a ceasefire with the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen—without consulting Israel—and even referring to the Houthis as “brave.” These actions underscore a major shift: the U.S. is prioritizing regional calm and economic deals over ideological battles or military entanglements.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "There will be no scenario in which we stop the war...even if Hamas releases additional Israeli prisoners, IDF operations in Gaza will continue."

Iran-Saudi Talks: A New Regional Axis?

Perhaps the most striking development of all is the quiet but determined rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia—two rivals long seen as polar opposites in the region. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi recently visited Jeddah to meet his Saudi counterpart, Faisal bin Farhan. The two discussed bilateral cooperation and regional challenges, signaling a thaw in relations that were icy during Trump’s first term.

The visit came on the heels of indirect U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, which Araghchi described as entering a “detailed” and “constructive” phase. Oman, playing mediator, confirmed a shared desire to reach a “dignified agreement.” Trump’s administration appears to be backing this diplomatic track quietly, a sign that America no longer seeks to isolate Iran at any cost.

More significantly, Saudi Arabia is engaging with Iran not because of American pressure, but despite it. The economic rationale is compelling: both nations are navigating uncertain oil markets, diversifying their economies, and facing youth-driven demand for growth and jobs. Regional stability is no longer optional—it’s essential for survival.

Normalization with Israel? Not at Any Price

While Trump continues to advocate for Saudi-Israeli normalization, the path is increasingly steep. As long as the war in Gaza rages, Riyadh has made clear it will not move forward. The Jerusalem Post warned that normalization “is no longer given for free,” and Israel may no longer be a necessary partner for American-Arab relations.

This mirrors Trump’s broader approach: if a deal serves economic interests, it’s pursued; if not, it's sidelined—regardless of who the traditional allies are.

The Middle East Reorders Around Stability and Commerce

Trump’s “America First” no longer means a blanket commitment to old alliances or ideological battles. It means pushing American interests through trade and stability. This pivot has encouraged unlikely conversations—between Iran and Saudi Arabia, between economic development and military restraint. It has also cooled previously unquestionable loyalties, as seen in Washington’s growing impatience with Israel’s war strategy.

The new Middle East is one where economic realism outweighs ideological loyalty, and where Trump’s transactional instincts are reshaping the region—not through force, but through a cold calculation of mutual benefit.

Building Bridges Amid Turbulence: The Fourth Arab-Iranian Dialogue Conference in Doha

Building Bridges Amid Turbulence: The Fourth Arab-Iranian Dialogue Conference in Doha

    Saturday, May 10, 2025   No comments

The Fourth Arab-Iranian Dialogue Conference commenced on May 10 in Doha, Qatar, under the theme “Strong Relations and Shared Interests.” Organized jointly by the Al Jazeera Center for Studies and Iran’s Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, this event brings together senior officials, diplomats, and experts from both Arab countries and Iran. The primary goal is to promote mutual understanding, regional cooperation, and a strategic framework for enduring peace and economic collaboration in an increasingly fragile geopolitical landscape.

This year's conference, held from May 10 to 12, reflects a consistent effort to sustain dialogue between Arab states and Iran. Previous sessions addressed regional crises, security and economic solutions, and collaborative frameworks. Now, the focus has shifted to deepening cooperation and building trust. As emphasized in the opening remarks by Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer Al Thani, Chairman of Al Jazeera Media Network, the event is taking place amid complex regional dynamics. It calls for intellectual rigor and strategic thinking to find innovative approaches for resolving conflicts and fostering stability.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reinforced this sentiment by underscoring Iran’s commitment to peaceful nuclear energy and regional harmony. He highlighted that Iran sees the acquisition of nuclear weapons as forbidden and remains engaged in good-faith negotiations with global powers. Araghchi stressed the principle of good neighborliness and reiterated Iran’s dedication to regional reconciliation through dialogue, not confrontation. He proposed institutionalizing the dialogue platform to sustain intellectual and diplomatic communication.

Former Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, now head of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, added that regional prosperity depends on a shared commitment to peace. He outlined a vision of joint development, particularly in the energy sector, spanning both traditional and renewable sources. Kharrazi also addressed urgent humanitarian concerns, especially the crisis in Gaza, describing Israel’s actions as expansionist and destabilizing. He called for unified diplomatic efforts among regional powers, legal accountability for war crimes, and collaborative humanitarian initiatives, including support for displaced populations and post-war reconstruction.

The conference does not occur in a vacuum. It unfolds against a backdrop of profound regional instability—from enduring conflicts in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen to the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza. These ongoing challenges have made clear the limitations of unilateral approaches and underscored the necessity for structured, inclusive dialogue. The Doha conference emerges as a critical step toward a cooperative regional architecture rooted in shared interests and historical interconnectedness.

In essence, the Fourth Arab-Iranian Dialogue Conference is more than a diplomatic gathering—it is a response to escalating crises and a testament to the power of dialogue during times of division. While significant obstacles remain, this initiative signals a collective willingness to prioritize cooperation over conflict and to seek sustainable paths toward peace and prosperity in the Middle East.

A Turning Point in the Yemen Conflict: U.S. Airstrikes Halt, Regional Repercussions, and Yemen’s Continued Alignment with Gaza

A Turning Point in the Yemen Conflict: U.S. Airstrikes Halt, Regional Repercussions, and Yemen’s Continued Alignment with Gaza

    Tuesday, May 06, 2025   No comments

Media Review of Current Events:

In a surprising and consequential move, U.S. President Donald Trump announced the cessation of American airstrikes on Yemen. This development marks a significant shift in U.S. policy in the region and has prompted strong reactions from multiple stakeholders—particularly Israel, whose leadership was caught off guard. The halt comes amid Omani-brokered negotiations and is framed within a broader narrative of de-escalation, albeit with complex undercurrents of continued resistance from Yemen’s Ansar Allah (Houthi) movement against Israeli aggression in Gaza.

The U.S. Halt of Airstrikes and Omani Mediation

Trump’s announcement came during a joint press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, where he claimed that Yemeni forces had made a verbal commitment to cease attacks on ships in the Red Sea. Despite the absence of a formal agreement, the Trump administration interpreted this as a positive development and ordered the U.S. military to stand down. Defense officials confirmed that the military had received instructions to halt operations the previous evening.

This breakthrough was facilitated by Oman, a regional actor known for its neutral diplomatic posture and history of mediating between the U.S. and Yemen. The Omani Foreign Ministry confirmed its successful efforts in brokering a ceasefire agreement that ensures the safety of maritime routes, particularly in the strategic Bab al-Mandeb and Red Sea corridors. Oman praised both sides for their constructive approach and expressed hope that the de-escalation would pave the way for further regional stability.

 "Trump announces the end of the U.S. bombing campaign on Yemen, likely due to disappointing results and high costs" – Politico

The Yemeni Perspective: A Tactical Pause, Not a Strategic Retreat

Yemeni officials, including top political leaders such as Mohammed Ali al-Houthi and Mahdi al-Mashat, responded to Trump’s announcement with guarded optimism but clarified that their resistance remains rooted in principle. Al-Houthi underscored that Yemeni military operations were primarily acts of solidarity with Gaza, undertaken in response to American and Israeli aggression. He described the U.S. halt as a potential tactical victory that "disconnects American support from Israel" and called it a setback for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

A senior member of Ansarullah movement Mohammed Abdul Salam: We did not submit any requests to the Americans, but rather we received messages via our brothers in the Sultanate of Oman.

Echoing this, al-Mashat issued a stern warning to Israel, asserting that Yemen’s support for Gaza would not waver and that retaliation for Israeli attacks on Yemeni infrastructure—including airports and power stations—would be “earth-shaking.” His remarks came after an Israeli airstrike on Sana’a and amid heightened tensions between Yemen and the Israeli military.

Member of the Supreme Political Council in Yemen, Mohammad al-Bukhaiti: "We tell the Americans, the British, and the Zionists that our military operations in support of Gaza will continue, no matter the sacrifices. The Zionists have crossed red lines and must await Yemen's response."

Israeli Shock and Strategic Isolation

The Israeli reaction to the U.S. decision was one of astonishment and concern. According to reports from Israeli media outlets such as Channel 14 and Channel 12, the political establishment in Tel Aviv was blindsided by Trump’s announcement. Analysts suggested that this shift could signify a broader American intention to disengage from direct involvement in regional conflicts, particularly those perceived as primarily serving Israeli strategic interests.

Israeli commentators interpreted the decision as a symbolic abandonment. Channel 12’s Amichai Segal remarked that the move sent a clear message to the region: "Target Israel if you must, but leave us [the U.S.] out of it." This sentiment highlighted fears of growing Israeli isolation in the face of coordinated regional hostility, particularly as Yemen declared it would not relent in targeting Israeli assets.

Moreover, uncertainty lingers in Israel regarding whether the ceasefire includes an implicit U.S. endorsement—or at least tolerance—of Yemeni attacks on Israel, even if American assets are no longer directly involved. Analysts warned that such ambiguity could embolden Iran and its allies, including the Houthis, to escalate attacks against Israeli interests.

Israeli Media:  The United States started bombing Yemen in March, in order to force the Houthis to stop their attacks on Israel. Instead, they started attacking American ships too. Now, suddenly Trump has made peace with them, without involving Israel, throwing away the original intention of the campaign. 

A Conditional Truce and the Resilient Yemeni Stance

While the agreement is framed by the U.S. and Oman as a de-escalatory measure, Yemeni officials have insisted it does not alter their fundamental position. Yemeni Information Minister Dhaifallah al-Shami emphasized in a televised interview that the conflict with the U.S. was merely a consequence of American intervention on behalf of Israel. If the U.S. withdraws, he explained, Yemen would logically stop targeting American ships—but their conflict with Israel remains unchanged.

Al-Shami’s statements clarified that Yemeni attacks on maritime targets began as a response to U.S. airstrikes, not as an independent escalation. With the U.S. potentially stepping away, Yemeni focus may shift entirely back to Israeli targets. He characterized the U.S. decision as a retreat and reaffirmed that Yemeni resistance is fundamentally aimed at countering Israeli aggression and supporting Palestinians in Gaza.

A Shifting Regional Equation

These developments reflect a shifting balance in the Middle East. The U.S. decision to pause airstrikes in Yemen, facilitated by Omani diplomacy, is a notable step toward de-escalation in one arena of conflict. However, the underlying tensions remain, particularly due to Yemen’s unwavering support for Gaza and its framing of the conflict as a broader resistance against what they see as Zionist aggression.

For Israel, the move signifies a strategic recalibration by its closest ally—one that may force Tel Aviv to confront its adversaries with less external military backing than before. For Yemen, the truce with the U.S. is tactical, not strategic; the commitment to Gaza and opposition to what they see as Israeli aggression remain resolute. As the region braces for possible new escalations, the ramifications of this agreement could reverberate far beyond the Red Sea.

Media Review: Why does Trump Think Erdogan is a "Winner"? -- Analyzing Current Events in the Middle East

Media Review: Why does Trump Think Erdogan is a "Winner"? -- Analyzing Current Events in the Middle East

    Wednesday, April 09, 2025   No comments

Recent developments in the Middle East have raised significant concerns about Israel's national security, particularly in light of the shifting dynamics following the weakening of the Assad regime in Syria. This article explores how Israel's previous strategies may backfire, especially with Turkey's increasing involvement representing a new challenge for Israeli policy.

For years, Israel has maintained a complex relationship with Syria, often justifying its military actions by citing the Iranian presence in the region. The narrative framed Iran as a significant threat, allowing Israel to conduct operations with a degree of international acquiescence. However, the fall of the Assad regime, which Israel purportedly supported and even took credit for, may turn out to be a strategic miscalculation.

The vacuum left by the fall of Assad regime has not led to a straightforward advantage for Israel. Instead, it has opened the door for a more assertive Turkey, a NATO member, to expand its influence in Syria. This shift complicates Israel's security calculus, as Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan recently stated that while Turkey does not seek confrontations with Israel in Syria, Israel's actions could pave the way for future instability in the region.

Then, sitting next to Israel's prime minister, US president Trump said that Erdogan is a "winner". President Trump's comments about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan reveal a startling acknowledgment of Turkey's growing role in Syria. Trump congratulated Erdoğan for effectively asserting control over Syrian territories through proxies.

Turkey's potential establishment of military bases in Syria poses a direct challenge to Israel's strategic interests. While Fidan noted that any agreements the new Syrian administration might pursue with Israel are its own business, the tension remains palpable. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has expressed concerns about Turkish military presence, indicating that Israel does not want Turkey using Syrian territory as a base against it.

Iran's Enhanced Position: A Trojan Horse

Contrary to Israel's previous assertions, Iran's capacity to operate in Syria is potentially more secure due to Turkey's involvement. The collaboration between Turkey and Iran could facilitate logistics and support in ways that were previously less feasible. This partnership undermines Israel's long-standing narrative of Iranian isolation, presenting a more unified front against Israeli interests.

Moreover, Turkey's criticisms of Israeli military actions—labeling them as genocidal and a violation of regional stability—highlight the precariousness of Israel's position. Turkish officials have condemned Israeli airstrikes on Syria, which they perceive as an infringement on Syrian sovereignty. This rhetoric 

Israel's national security strategy has relied heavily on maintaining a powerless Syria. A fragmented state is easier to control and less likely to pose a direct threat. However, with Turkey's burgeoning role in the region, Israel finds itself in a precarious position. Erdoğan's ambitions could lead to the establishment of Turkish military bases in Syria, effectively transforming the landscape into a more complex battleground for Israel.

The current events in the Middle East illustrate the intricacies of regional politics and the potential repercussions of Israel’s earlier strategic choices. The fall of the Assad regime, rather than serving as a victory for Israeli security, might lead to a more complicated and threatening environment.

Trump’s Perspective on Erdogan as a "Winner"

Trump's admiration for Erdogan can be traced to Turkey's significant role in the ongoing conflict in Syria. By supporting the Islamist-led coalition that ousted Bashar al-Assad, Erdogan has effectively increased Turkey's influence in a region historically dominated by various power struggles. Trump’s comments, such as congratulating Erdogan for "taking over Syria," highlight a recognition of Turkey's strategic gains. This acknowledgment reflects Trump's broader narrative of strength and success, often favoring leaders who exhibit assertive control over their territories and dominating weaker nations.

Moreover, Trump’s personal rapport with Erdogan is notable. By describing Erdogan as "very smart" and emphasizing their strong relationship, Trump positions himself as a potential mediator in the fraught dynamics between Turkey and Israel. This personal connection may enhance Trump's ability to navigate the delicate political waters of the Middle East, where alliances shift rapidly.

Erdogan’s achievements in Syria are significant. By backing opposition forces and securing a foothold in the region, Turkey has not only expanded its influence but also positioned itself as a key player in any future resolution of the Syrian crisis. However, the devastation wrought by over 11 years of war has left Syria in ruins, requiring an estimated $300 billion for reconstruction. This staggering cost presents a challenge for Turkey, as Erdogan does not have the financial resources to undertake such an extensive rebuilding effort.

Moreover, Turkey’s relationship with Iran and Russia complicates the situation. Erdogan has cultivated strong ties with both nations, enabling Turkey to leverage its relationships with the new Syrian leadership to gain economic benefits from Iran. This alignment stabilizes Iran’s influence in Syria, creating opportunities for Turkey to extract advantages from its connections with both Iran and its adversaries. Given Syria's geographical significance but economic liabilities, Erdogan's strategy may involve encouraging Gulf states and energy-rich nations, including Iran, to participate in rebuilding efforts.

Trump's offer to mediate between Erdogan and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is critical for several reasons. First, it illustrates the U.S. role as a central player in Middle Eastern diplomacy. By positioning himself as a mediator, Trump aims to stabilize relations between two countries that have historically been at odds, particularly regarding their respective approaches to the Syrian conflict.

Moreover, Trump's influence could potentially steer Erdogan towards a more conciliatory stance regarding Israel. 

While Trump’s relationship with Erdogan provides a unique opportunity for diplomatic engagement, the extent of his influence is debatable. Erdogan's actions are driven by Turkey's national interests, which may not always align with U.S. or Israeli objectives. For instance, Erdogan’s strong support for Hamas and his anti-Israel rhetoric complicate any straightforward mediation effort.

Furthermore, Erdogan's recent statements indicating a desire to avoid confrontation with Israel suggest a potential openness to dialogue, albeit cautious. 

Trump's perception of Erdogan as a "winner" reflects a broader acknowledgment of Turkey's strategic gains in Syria, especially through its relationships with Iran and Russia. Erdogan's successes, while beneficial for Turkey, also pose challenges to Israeli interests, making Trump’s proposed mediation a critical juncture in Middle Eastern diplomacy. As Syria emerges from devastation, the need for reconstruction creates a complex dynamic; Erdogan will likely seek Gulf states' participation, recognizing that any rebuilding effort will come with significant geopolitical strings attached. This transformative potential could reshape regional dynamics, with the outcomes of Erdogan's actions significantly impacting the future stability of Syria and the broader SWANA region.