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

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

    Wednesday, July 29, 2026   No comments

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

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

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

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

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

The statement outlined five goals:

Establishing Sharia law and justice

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

The Afghan Template Revisited

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

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

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

The Convenience of "Moderate" Extremism

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

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

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

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

The Strategic Assimilation

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

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

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

A Decade Later: From Jihadist to Statesman

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

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

The Enduring Pattern

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

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

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

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

From the Shadows of Al-Qaeda to the Halls of Washington--The Geopolitics of Forgetting

From the Shadows of Al-Qaeda to the Halls of Washington--The Geopolitics of Forgetting

    Tuesday, July 28, 2026   No comments

 For Lindsey Snell, the past is not a foreign country; it is a high-definition video file playing on a screen. The American freelance journalist and filmmaker recently published archival footage from July 2016, capturing the chilling moments just before she was abducted in the Aleppo countryside of Syria. In the video, a masked militant stands before a black flag, articulating a vision for a strict Sharia state. Snell asserts that beneath the mask, the voice and physical mannerisms belong to Mohammad Qanatri, the man who would eventually become Syria’s current chargé d'affaires in Washington, D.C.

Snell’s harrowing two-week captivity and subsequent escape into Turkey, followed by her 67-day detention by Turkish authorities, is a matter of public record. But her recent revelation strikes at the heart of a much larger, deeply uncomfortable geopolitical paradox. Qanatri is not an anomaly; he is a single node in a vast network that has successfully rebranded itself, transitioning from the shadows of global terrorism to the polished corridors of Western diplomacy.

The trajectory of Jabhat al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda’s former Syrian affiliate, provides the context for this stunning rehabilitation. Over the past decade, the group evolved, rebranded, and eventually coalesced into Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). At the helm of this transformation is Ahmed al-Sharaa, known to the world for years by his nom de guerre, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani. Once the emir of Al-Qaeda in Syria, Sharaa has systematically remolded his image from a ruthless insurgent commander to a pragmatic statesman.

This rebranding has culminated in an unprecedented diplomatic normalization. The de facto leader of a Syria once dominated by Bashar al-Assad is now being courted by Western capitals. The most striking symbol of this shift is the reported invitation extended to Sharaa to the White House by President Trump. For a man who once commanded the very network that the United States swore to dismantle, a seat at the table in Washington represents the ultimate political vindication.

This rapid ascent of former Al-Qaeda operatives into the realm of accepted diplomacy places Western governments in a profoundly precarious and ironic position. For twenty years, the West waged a grueling, trillion-dollar Global War on Terror. Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost, and entire military doctrines were built around the singular premise that Al-Qaeda and its ideological offshoots were an existential threat that must be eradicated. Western intelligence agencies, military special operations forces, and diplomats spent two decades hunting, fighting, and killing the very individuals who now sit across the negotiating table.

Today, however, the geopolitical calculus has shifted, and the enemies of yesterday have become the indispensable partners of today. The West’s embrace of HTS and its leadership is driven by a stark strategic reality: the defeat of the Assad regime, the containment of Iranian influence in the Levant, and the marginalization of Russian and Chinese power in the region. In the eyes of Western strategists, Sharaa and his commanders are no longer terrorists to be hunted; they are the only viable mechanism to ensure a stable, post-Assad Syria that aligns with Western regional interests.

This pivot raises profound questions about the consistency of Western foreign policy. The rehabilitation of figures like Mohammad Qanatri and Ahmed al-Sharaa suggests that the ideological red lines drawn after the September 11 attacks have been quietly erased. The rhetoric of counter-terrorism, democracy promotion, and human rights—once the stated pillars of Western intervention in the Middle East—has been subordinated to cold realpolitik.

For victims like Lindsey Snell, and for the millions of Syrians who suffered under the brutal rule of various militant factions, this diplomatic pivot is a bitter pill. It highlights a cynical reality of international relations: when strategic imperatives change, principles and human rights norms are frequently the first casualties. The architects of the Global War on Terror are now shaking hands with its former foot soldiers, proving that in the grand chessboard of global power, alliances are rarely built on shared values. Ultimately, the transition from the battlefields of Aleppo to the diplomatic halls of Washington underscores a simple, enduring fact of global politics. It is rarely about principle; it is almost entirely about self interests. 

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

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

    Friday, July 17, 2026   No comments

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

The Iraqi Warning: A Line in the Sand

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

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

The Disarmament Paradox

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

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

Unleashing Internal Fragility in Iraq

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

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

A Pattern of Impulsive Diplomacy

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

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

A Region Governed by Weakness and Trauma

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

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

Netanyahu and Erdogan Exchange Sharp Accusations Amid Rising Regional Tensions

Netanyahu and Erdogan Exchange Sharp Accusations Amid Rising Regional Tensions

    Wednesday, June 10, 2026   No comments

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan traded sharp accusations on Wednesday, highlighting deepening tensions between Israel and Türkiye as regional conflicts continue to expand beyond Gaza.

The latest war of words erupted after Erdogan accused Israel of pursuing policies that threaten not only Palestinians but also the broader Middle East, including neighboring Syria and Lebanon. The Turkish leader also renewed his criticism of what he described as Israel's "Greater Israel" ambitions, warning that Israeli military actions could eventually undermine Türkiye's own security.

In response, Netanyahu launched a personal attack on Erdogan, describing him as an "antisemitic dictator" who "supports Hamas" and "oppresses his own people." The Israeli prime minister added that Erdogan was "the last person who can lecture the State of Israel on morality."

The exchange marks another escalation in the increasingly hostile relationship between the two regional powers, whose ties have deteriorated significantly since the outbreak of the Gaza war.

Erdogan compared the international community's response to Israel's actions to the world's failure to stop Adolf Hitler during the Second World War. Referring to Netanyahu as the "Butcher of Gaza," the Turkish president argued that global powers were responding with the same silence and inaction that had enabled historical atrocities.

He further warned that the consequences of the conflict could extend well beyond the immediate region.

"If Israel's recklessness does not come to an end, all of humanity will bear the consequences," Erdogan said.

Speaking at a public event, Erdogan argued that Israeli military operations in Syria and Lebanon had reached a level that directly affected Turkish national security.

"The attacks by Netanyahu and his criminal network against Syria and Lebanon have reached a point that threatens not only these two sister countries, but now also Türkiye," Erdogan said.

"Türkiye's security begins not only in Hatay, but also in Aleppo, Damascus, and Beirut."

The Turkish president emphasized that Ankara would not accept what it sees as attempts to reshape the political and territorial realities of neighboring states through military force.

"We will not tolerate any attempt to impose a new reality on the ground in countries that are our sisters, nor will we turn a blind eye to aggression directed against them," he said.

Erdogan also reiterated concerns frequently voiced by Turkish officials and commentators regarding what they describe as the "Greater Israel" project, a term used by critics to suggest Israeli territorial ambitions extending beyond its internationally recognized borders.

"We are fully aware of the ultimate goal behind the 'Greater Israel' illusion," Erdogan said. "With God's help, we will never allow this to happen."

Netanyahu rejected Erdogan's criticism and defended Israel's military strategy, stating that Israel would continue taking "forceful action against Iran and its proxies" throughout the region. Israeli officials have repeatedly argued that military operations in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere are necessary to counter threats posed by Iranian-backed groups. But recently, Israel made statements that go beyond Iran, arguing that after defeating Iran and its allies, Israel must deal with an emerging "Sunni Axis". 

The latest confrontation underscores the widening geopolitical divide between Ankara and Jerusalem. While Türkiye has become one of Israel's most vocal critics during the Gaza conflict, Israel has increasingly accused Erdogan's government of supporting Hamas and fueling regional instability through its rhetoric.

As fighting and political tensions continue across multiple fronts in the Middle East, the public dispute between Netanyahu and Erdogan reflects a broader struggle over the region's future security order and the competing visions advanced by its most influential powers.

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

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

    Tuesday, September 02, 2025   No comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The U.S. Problem in Lebanon and Syria

The U.S. Problem in Lebanon and Syria

    Monday, August 25, 2025   No comments

The United States’ position in Lebanon suffers from a fundamental contradiction. On the one hand, Washington insists that all weapons in Lebanon must be under the control of a strong central government. On the other hand, in neighboring Syria, the U.S. promotes a weak federal system that allows minorities—such as the Druze in the south and the Kurds in the north—to maintain their own weapons and autonomous security structures.

Logically, if the principle is that all arms should be monopolized by the state, then that principle must apply everywhere. By carving out exceptions in Syria under the pretext of “protecting minorities” and “preserving diversity,” the U.S. sets a precedent that can just as easily apply to Lebanon—a country already deeply divided along ethnic, religious, and sectarian fault lines. Lebanon fought a devastating 15-year civil war and still struggles to forge a national identity that transcends its sectarian divisions.

The deeper problem is that neither Syria nor Lebanon currently has a government that can claim full legitimacy. In Syria, today’s de facto rulers are not the product of popular mandate; they are rulers by force of war, caretakers until a fair election and an inclusive system produce a legitimate government. Lebanon, likewise, is governed not by leaders with genuine popular legitimacy but by a fragile power-sharing arrangement codified in the Ta’if Agreement. This deal distributed power along sectarian lines—giving the presidency to Christians, the prime minister’s office to Sunnis, and the speakership of parliament to Shia. It is, in effect, a three-headed system where no faction can claim full authority. Lebanon has even gone years without a president at all, underscoring the fragility of the arrangement.

A government that lacks legitimacy cannot be strong unless it imposes its will by force—and that is precisely why no group in Lebanon will truly give up its weapons. The same logic applies in Syria: until a representative system is built, demands for disarmament will be met with suspicion and resistance.

The bottom line is this: a country where power is historically acquired through war and violence cannot be remade into a cohesive state simply by granting a central government exclusive control over weapons. The evidence from recent history is overwhelming:

• Libya remains fragmented into three regions, each governed separately.

• Yemen, despite years of Saudi bombardment designed to enforce central authority, is divided into multiple competing power centers.

• Iraq, even after more than $3 trillion in U.S. investment and years of institution-building, still has a weak central government overshadowed by regional and sectarian power brokers. When ISIS surged in 2014, it was not the Iraqi state that rallied, but a new paramilitary force created by a fatwa from Shia religious authorities.

Countries torn apart by war rarely reunify quickly under strong central governments. More often, they remain weak or fragmented for decades. Even Germany—with its long history of national unity—took decades to reunify after division.

Against this backdrop, the U.S. attempt to engineer a powerful central government in Lebanon, while simultaneously promoting decentralization in Syria, is incoherent. No Lebanese Shia faction will willingly surrender its weapons to a government it views as illegitimate and incapable of protecting them—especially when extremist groups across the border in Syria have massacred minorities for not being Sunni.

If Washington continues to push for a centralized Lebanese government without real sovereignty or inclusive legitimacy, it risks destabilizing one of the most volatile regions in the world. The result may not be stability at all, but rather the ignition of another civil war in Lebanon—unless, of course, that is the unspoken objective of U.S. policy.

The Political Instrumentalization of “Terrorism” and Sanctions in Contemporary Foreign Policy

The Political Instrumentalization of “Terrorism” and Sanctions in Contemporary Foreign Policy

    Thursday, May 15, 2025   No comments

 The recent developments surrounding former jihadist Ahmed al-Sharaa—formerly known as Abu Mohammed al-Jolani—and his transformation from a wanted terrorist leader into a sitting president welcomed by the President of the United States illustrate a deeply troubling fact in international relations: the arbitrary use of the “terrorism” label and economic sanctions as tools of political convenience rather than principled governance.

In 2013, al-Sharaa was designated by the United States as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” due to his leadership of the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, and his alleged role in orchestrating suicide bombings. At one point, the U.S. placed a $10 million bounty on his capture. Today, however, he shares tea and diplomatic smiles with President Donald Trump, without any transparent legal or procedural process to formally clear his name of terrorism charges. This dramatic pivot—absent any public renunciation of past actions, judicial review, or commitment to democratic norms like elections—exposes the malleability of the terrorism designation when it becomes inconvenient for geopolitical strategy... read more >>

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.

Syria Reaches Agreement to Integrate SDF into State Institutions

Syria Reaches Agreement to Integrate SDF into State Institutions

    Monday, March 10, 2025   No comments

It seems that the massacres in the coastal region of Syria compelled the governing regime and other factions to work out their differences faster.

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), established in October 2015, is a coalition primarily composed of Kurdish fighters, with some Arab and other minority groups, operating in northeastern Syria. The SDF has been a key ally of the United States in the fight against ISIS, receiving significant military and logistical support. The group has also been involved in the establishment of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES), which has governed large parts of the region since the Syrian government lost control during the civil war.

The SDF's relationship with the Syrian government has been complex, marked by both conflict and occasional cooperation. The Syrian government, led by President Bashar al-Assad, has long viewed the SDF with suspicion, considering it a separatist movement that threatens Syria's territorial integrity. However, with the decline of ISIS and the shifting geopolitical landscape, including the partial withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria, there has been increasing pressure on both sides to find a political solution.

Summary of the Agreement:

On Monday evening, the Syrian Presidency announced that an agreement had been reached to integrate the SDF into state institutions. The agreement aims to address key issues to ensure the rights of all Syrian citizens and maintain the country's unity. The executive committees are expected to implement the agreement by the end of the current year.

Key Points of the Agreement:

• Ceasefire: A nationwide ceasefire across all Syrian territories.
• Equal Rights: Guaranteeing the rights of all Syrians in state institutions based on merit, regardless of religious or ethnic background.
• Kurdish Rights: Recognizing the Kurdish community as an integral part of Syria, ensuring their constitutional rights and citizenship.
• Political Participation: Ensuring the representation and participation of all Syrians in the political process.
• Institutional Integration: Merging all civil and military institutions in northeastern Syria, including border crossings, airports, and oil and gas fields, under state administration.
• Return of Displaced Persons: Ensuring the safe return of all displaced Syrians and their protection by the state.
• Security Cooperation: Supporting the Syrian government in combating remnants of the previous regime and other threats to national security.
• Rejection of Division: Opposing calls for partition, hate speech, and attempts to sow discord among Syrian communities.
• Diplomatic Efforts:
• Earlier reports from informed sources indicated that Western diplomatic efforts and visits were underway to push for an agreement between Damascus and the SDF. These efforts aimed to prevent ISIS from exploiting the power vacuum following the fall of the previous regime or the anticipated U.S. withdrawal.

Previous reported

Last month, media outlets leaked information about a preliminary agreement between the SDF and the new Syrian administration. The leaked agreement outlined the integration of the SDF and security institutions of the Autonomous Administration into the structure of the Syrian army, as well as the reactivation of state civil and service institutions in northern and eastern Syria.

The agreement marks a significant step towards resolving the longstanding conflict between the Syrian government and the SDF. By integrating the SDF into state institutions, the Syrian government aims to strengthen its control over the northeastern region while addressing the rights and representation of the Kurdish community and other minorities. The success of this agreement will depend on the effective implementation of its terms and the continued cooperation of all parties involved.

More background

The recent agreement between the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Syrian government, facilitated by US mediation, marks a potentially significant turning point in the Syrian conflict. This preliminary agreement, as outlined in the provided article, aims to cease military operations and foster national reconciliation. However, its implementation faces numerous complexities and uncertainties.

Central to this agreement is the integration of the SDF into Syrian state institutions. This move, as stated by the Syrian presidency, signifies a crucial step towards unifying the country. The agreement addresses several critical issues, including the deployment of Syrian government forces along the border, the resolution of prison issues through joint councils, and the management of educational matters, particularly for students who have studied the Kurdish language. Crucially, the SDF will maintain its responsibility for dealing with the ISIS threat, indicating a continued role in regional security.  

The primary objective of this agreement, according to Kurdish sources, is to halt the ongoing war and facilitate the safe return of displaced persons. The Kurdish sources emphasized the need to stop demographic changes in areas like Afrin, Serekaniye, and Tel Abyad, reflecting a commitment to restoring the pre-conflict demographic balance. Furthermore, the agreement seeks to ensure the inclusion of Kurds and all Syrian components in the political process, promoting a more inclusive and representative governance structure. 

Statements from key figures highlight the significance of this agreement. The SDF spokesperson stressed its preliminary nature and the US's essential role in its formation. The co-chair of the Syrian Democratic Council emphasized that the agreement is a step towards national reconciliation and transitional justice. The Syrian presidency’s announcement of the integration of the SDF into state institutions underscores the government’s commitment to this process.  

However, the situation in northern Syria adds a layer of complexity. Turkey's military buildup in the regions of Tishrin and Qaraqozaq signals a potential escalation, threatening the stability of the region and the implementation of the agreement. This external factor highlights the delicate balance that must be maintained to achieve lasting peace.

The agreement between the SDF and the Syrian government represents a crucial step towards ending the conflict and fostering national reconciliation. However, the agreement's success hinges on overcoming significant challenges, including the implementation of its provisions, managing external pressures, and ensuring the participation of all stakeholders. While the agreement offers a glimmer of hope for a more stable and unified Syria, its long-term impact remains to be seen.

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

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

    Monday, March 10, 2025   No comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daraa the epicenter of 2011 protest movement against Asad government just started an uprising against the HTS-led regime in Syria

Daraa the epicenter of 2011 protest movement against Asad government just started an uprising against the HTS-led regime in Syria

    Friday, March 07, 2025   No comments

 Massacres against civilians in the countryside of Latakia

Meida correspondents in Syria confirmed today, Friday, that a series of massacres took place in areas on the Syrian coast, quoting local sources that "a group wearing military uniforms and public security entered the village of Al-Mukhtariyya and separated the men from the women and children, and killed the males."

The correspondents stressed that the scene of the massacres was repeated in the town of Al-Haffa and in the village of Al-Qabu, describing the day as "bloody" in the countryside of Latakia.

Earlier in the week, in the south of Syria, protesters took to the street in opposition to the new regime in Syria, which is led by the HTS, a former al-Qaeda group.

The killing of civilians was also confirmed by an NGO, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), which reported that security forces “executed” 134 civilians from the Alawite sect to which ousted President Bashar al-Assad belongs, during a large-scale sweep in western Syria.

The director of the observatory, Rami Abdel Rahman, told Agence France-Presse that “134 Alawite civilians, including at least 13 women and five children… were executed by security forces in the areas of Baniyas, Latakia and Jableh.” He pointed out that members of the security forces, including foreigners, stormed homes and summarily executed civilians, especially in the city of Baniyas. This raised the death toll to 229 people since the outbreak of bloody clashes on Thursday. The SOHR has been reporting about Syrian since 2011, and it was seen as anti-Asad regime and pro-rebel by some observers.

Reacting to the massacres, the head of an Alawite representative body issued the following statement:

The Supreme Alawite Islamic Council in Syria and the Diaspora

In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

In light of the recent developments, and our follow-up of the ongoing escalations

And the number of convoys entering the Syrian coast under the pretext of the remnants of the regime and with the intent to terrorize and kill the Syrian people in general and the Alawite sect in particular, and with evidence, we demand from the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the State of Russia and the international community.

The President and members of the permanent UN Security Council.

Place the Syrian coast and the areas of the Alawite sect under the protection of the United Nations and implement the provisions of Chapter VII of the UN Charter to protect the Alawite sect and the rest of the minorities.

We also address the Sheikh of the Mind of the Druze Monotheists, His Eminence Sheikh Hikmat al-Hijri

And we say that with the intensification of the ordeal, we put our hand in your hand, His Eminence Sheikh Hikmat al-Hijri, and we ask you to support us and lift the injustice from us. We do not support an oppressor, nor do we stand with hands stained with blood. Rather, we stand with truth and justice, and we are ready to hold accountable any criminal who committed a crime against our people, even if he is one of our own.

We appeal to you to stand with us, for you are the people of chivalry and rescue, and the national reference that we trust in this ordeal. Let your position be a support for us, and let your voices be raised with us so that our call reaches every person with a living conscience.

Clashes in Daraa and a sit-in in Sweida

BBC reported that clashes in Daraa ended while the city of Sweida witnessed a massive sit-in against the new administration in Syria, as citizens flocked to the city in response to calls spread on social media.

Protesters in Sweida raised banners of monotheism and banners denouncing the policies of the new government, considering that "the interim government only seeks to cling to positions and does not see it as building a state," according to them.

The protesters gathered in Al-Karama Square to express their rejection of the current situation, demanding a real change in the ruling policies and justice in representing the people, according to calls on social media.

In a parallel development, the "Men of Dignity" movement announced coordination with the Ministry of Interior to activate the role of internal security in the province. The movement explained that special internal security mechanisms have been sent to Sweida, where the province's factions will work with the Interior Ministry to better organize the security situation.

In Daraa, the security operation launched by the Internal Security Forces affiliated with the Military Operations Room against an armed group led by "Mohsen al-Haimed", who was previously supported by the Military Intelligence, ended in the city of al-Sanamayn in the Daraa countryside, after violent clashes that lasted 24 hours.

With the end of the operation, the Internal Security Forces announced control over the city, while the area remains in a state of continuous tension amid tight security measures.

The final death toll from the clashes reached 15 dead, including 8 members of the Internal Security Forces, 6 local gunmen, in addition to the killing of a civilian and the injury of a number of civilians, including women and children.

Forces affiliated with the transitional authority said that they surrounded the house in which al-Haimed was holed up, amid information that he fled to an unknown location with a number of his members.

The clashes erupted after negotiations failed and al-Hamid and his group refused to surrender, leading to fighting that killed eight members of the Internal Security Forces and six local gunmen, in addition to the killing of a civilian and the injury of a number of civilians, including women and children, according to the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

The clashes began on Wednesday in the city of al-Sanamayn in the northern countryside of the governorate between security forces and an armed group linked to the former Military Security, and continued until Thursday, amid a state of panic among civilians living in the areas of the clashes.

According to estimates, the number of al-Hamid's group is 200 armed men, and it was previously affiliated with the Military Security Service and the security forces of the Bashar al-Assad regime, according to media reports.

The Internal Security Forces are carrying out a large-scale campaign in the city with the aim of "searching for wanted persons and weapons," and the Observatory says that the campaign came the day after clashes between the security forces and the same group, which led to the killing of three gunmen and the injury of three civilians, including a child, according to the Observatory.

The official page of Daraa Governorate on Telegram quoted a source in the Internal Security as saying that the security forces are continuing military operations "to cleanse the area of ​​armed elements."

Military reinforcements arrived in the city in the morning to raid gatherings of armed groups outside the law, according to what the governorate's page quoted from the official in the Internal Security, Abdul Razzaq Al-Khatib.

He added that the clashes are still at their peak in some buildings in the southwestern neighborhood of the city. Daraa Governorate was the cradle of popular protests against the authorities in Damascus in 2011. Regime forces regained control of it in July 2018, but it has witnessed cases of security tension in recent years.

Since the new authorities took control of power in Damascus, clashes and shooting incidents have been recorded in a number of areas, and security officials accuse some militants loyal to the former regime of being behind them.

Imposing and controlling security throughout Syria is one of the most prominent challenges facing the head of the transitional phase, Ahmed Al-Sharaa, after a devastating conflict that began 13 years ago and its parties have branched out.

Assassinations and liquidations on the rise

Assassinations and physical liquidations have continued in Syria since the beginning of 2025, bringing the number of victims in various Syrian governorates to 343, including 334 men, 7 women, and 2 children, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

On Thursday, a new assassination incident occurred in the city of Aleppo, where three unknown gunmen riding a motorcycle shot a person directly inside his office in the Salah al-Din neighborhood, killing him instantly, before fleeing.

According to information obtained by the Observatory, the victim was accused of dealing with the former regime.

In the Homs countryside, a similar incident occurred in the village of Aqrabiyah, where an armed group stormed a citizen's house, wearing uniforms similar to those of the Internal Security Forces, and took the owner of the house to an unknown destination. His body was found hours later on the Samaqiyat road, with five gunshot wounds.

These operations come amid escalating security tensions in several areas, raising fears among residents of a new wave of assassinations targeting specific figures in mysterious circumstances.

At the same time, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights announced on Wednesday the killing of at least four civilians during a security campaign launched by security forces in the city of Latakia in western Syria, and the killing of seven others in the south of the country during two days of clashes between gunmen and security forces.

The official media quoted security sources as saying that security forces launched a campaign on Tuesday in the Daatour neighborhood in the city of Latakia, after its members were subjected to an armed ambush "set up by groups of remnants of Assad's militias", which resulted in the death of two of them.

The Observatory counted the killing of at least four civilians in the neighborhood, including two construction workers in a building under construction and two school guards, noting that cautious calm has returned to the area after the arrest of a number of residents and wanted persons.

The General Security announced, for its part, the arrest of a number of people involved in the attack, and the neutralization of others without mentioning their number.

The Ministry of Interior quoted the Director of the General Security Department in Latakia Governorate, Lieutenant Colonel Mustafa Knefati, as saying, "After receiving a report about what happened, a special security force was prepared and gathered related information, and reached one of the members of the criminal cell and raided his hideout immediately."

He added that "the criminal cell threw bombs at security patrols, which resulted in the injury of a number of members." He said, "Our forces responded immediately to the sources of fire, and were able to arrest several people involved in these criminal acts, in addition to neutralizing a number of others."

The city of Latakia, which is inhabited by a large percentage of the Alawite sect, witnessed security tensions in the first days after the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad's rule, which have recently subsided.

Attacks are still being recorded at security forces' checkpoints from time to time, sometimes carried out by gunmen loyal to Assad, or former members of the Syrian army, according to the observatory.

The New Regime's Narrative

The HTS government in Syria claims that its military operation in in eastern Syria is targeting members of the former regime (fulul al-nizam al-ba'id), as reported by Aljazeera, Qatar's TV network that supported HTS since the start of the violence in 2011.

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

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

    Wednesday, February 19, 2025   No comments

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

 

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

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

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

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

Maintaining Stability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are the fighting in the north and the resisting in the south signs of disintegration of Syria?

Are the fighting in the north and the resisting in the south signs of disintegration of Syria?

    Wednesday, January 08, 2025   No comments

Weeks since the fall of the Baath regime in Syria, one main armed faction, the most organized and powerful group—HTS, took control of the country. The group’s leader has been acting as the country’s leader and governments that supported the armed rebellion are accepting his role as the de facto leader. However, instead of starting a process of reconciliation, the new rulers are placing themselves in a positions that would allow them to control the future of the country. This approach appears to be pushing other groups to do the same: hold tight to whatever power they secured in the past 14 years and leverage such power to secure a significant role in the future. This trend may result in the breakdown of Syrian into at least three regions, similar to what happened in Libya. These are some of the signs that point to that possibility.

Violent clashes between Turkey-supported "National Army" and US-supported "SDF"

Newsmedia correspondents in Syria reported on Wednesday that a Turkish drone targeted a SDF vehicle in the countryside of Ayn al-Arab "Kobani" in the eastern countryside of Aleppo.

The report detailed that the vicinity of the Qarqozak Bridge, located south of the city of Ayn al-Arab "Kobani", was subjected to Turkish artillery shelling, while the factions of the "National Army", affiliated with Turkey, bombed the SDF sites at the bridge with missiles. A Turkish drone targeted a SDF rocket launcher in the village of Sakul in the countryside of Manbij, east of Aleppo.

In the same context, the media center of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) confirmed that "Turkish warplanes bombed Tishrin Dam and its surroundings with a number of raids, coinciding with attacks carried out by the mercenary factions affiliated with Turkey on villages north of Tishrin Dam and southeast of Manbij, where violent clashes are taking place between the forces of the Manbij Military Council and the mercenaries."

In Kobani, Turkish drones bombed a civilian car in the village of "Kirk-Girik", in addition to artillery shelling on the village of "Aslanki" south of the city.

According to the center, the danger of the Tishrin Dam collapsing is increasing, as the Turkish state bears any disaster that may befall the dam and other Syrian regions as a result of the Turkish air and artillery attacks that reached their peak during the morning hours today, and which continue until now.

The center confirmed that "the forces of the Manbij Military Council destroyed two vehicles loaded with Dushka weapons belonging to the mercenaries of the Turkish occupation north of Tishrin Dam during the ongoing clashes there."

The Turkish drone targeted a "Qasd" car in an airstrike in the vicinity of the city of Al-Malikiyah, northeast of Al-Hasakah, in the far northeast of Syria.

In Southern Syria, armed groups' leaders say they are not convinced to hand over weapons

The spokesman for the Southern Operations Room, which controls Daraa province, Nassim Abu Ara, said that the room’s fighters are not convinced by the idea of dissolving the armed groups announced by the new Syrian administration on December 25 of last year, when the new rulers confirmed that they had reached an agreement with the armed groups regarding their dissolution and integration under the Ministry of Defense.

In an interview with Agence France-Presse, Abu Ara confirmed that the fighters are hesitant to disarm and disband their ranks as ordered by the new rulers, noting that he and those with him are "an organized force in the south, possessing heavy weapons and equipment, and led by officers who defected from the army of the former regime," suggesting that they be merged as a military body with the Ministry of Defense. Abu Ara added that the "Southern Operations Room" led by local leader Ahmed al-Awda includes thousands of men who have no Islamic affiliation, and sources close to the group indicated that al-Awda enjoys good relations with Russia, as well as Jordan and the Emirates.

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

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

    Tuesday, January 07, 2025   No comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We must prepare for war with Türkiye

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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