Syria's Sharaa makes moves towards Abraham Accords to reduce Turkish influence
By getting closer to Israel, Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa is essentially trying to reduce Turkish influence in Damascus, Tel Aviv University's Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies's Dr. Hay Eytan Cohen Yanarocak told Maariv on Wednesday.
Sharaa is trying to reduce dependency on Turkey without completely severing ties, while Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan watches with concern as a country that was once under his influence might join the Abraham Accords.
Is Turkey's influence in Syria strong enough to prevent it from joining? A complex geopolitical struggle in unfolding with Turkey at the center.
Turkey sees every step Damascus takes towards joining the Abraham Accords as a direct threat to Ankara's regional position.
Sharaa's motives are far from ideological, however, Yanarocak argues. "Sharaa is making this move not because he's a Zionist, but because it grants him a sort of independence from Turkey," he clarifies.
A closer relationship with Israel opens the door for the new Syrian government to have sanctions lifted and to approach the wealthy Gulf states, which represents a key to economic and security independence from Turkey's sphere of influence.
However, Turkey's influence in Syria is not just hypothetical. "Turkish intelligence was actually the first international body to conduct an open official visit to Syria after Assad's fall," Yanarocak noted.
"Northern Syria is still effectively under Turkish occupation. The Turks provide a lot of infrastructure for airports and transportation within Syria," he added.
Not only that, but "a significant portion of Syria's cabinet and leadership either studied in Turkey, while some are Turkish citizens, and most have ties to Turkey," Yanarocak commented.
The new Middle East's geopolitics also shapes Turkey's position.
"Iran and Turkey are historic rivals. The Turks won't admit it, but they really benefit from the result of the last war, namely, the humiliation of the Iranians," Yanarocak analysed.
In the wake of Iran's humiliation, Turkey can now label itself as the only Muslim power in the Middle East," he added.
The result is a new reality where "at the top of the Middle East, as regional powers, who do we see? Only Israel and Turkey," Yanarocak told Maariv.
Given this, Syria becomes the central area for expected friction between Israel and Turkey, Yanarocak noted.
"I definitely think Turkey will make efforts to ensure that the Syrians do not sign this agreement," he commented.
This is due to how Turkey "wants the Syrians to remain on their side along with Qatar. They also want to see Israel isolated."
While Erdogan is doing everything to delegitimize Israel, any agreement between Israel and Syria "also undermines Turkey's strategy," he added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
American bombs in Iran also reverberate in China and North Korea
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — President Donald Trump campaigned on keeping the United States out of foreign wars, but it didn't take long to convince him to come to the direct aid of Israel, hitting Iranian nuclear targets with bunker-buster bombs dropped by B-2 stealth bombers and Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from a submarine.
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
American bombs in Iran also reverberate in China and North Korea
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — President Donald Trump campaigned on keeping the United States out of foreign wars, but it didn't take long to convince him to come to the direct aid of Israel, hitting Iranian nuclear targets with bunker-buster bombs dropped by B-2 stealth bombers and Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from a submarine. Beyond the attack's immediate impact on helping bring the 12-day war to a close, experts say Trump's decision to use force against another country also will certainly be reverberating in the Asia-Pacific, Washington's priority theater. 'Trump's strikes on Iran show that he's not afraid to use military force — this would send a clear message to North Korea, and even to China and Russia, about Trump's style,' said Duyeon Kim, a senior analyst at the Center for a New American Security based in Seoul, South Korea. 'Before the strikes, Pyongyang and Beijing might have assumed that Trump is risk averse, particularly based on his behavior his first presidency despite some tough talk,' Kim said. China, North Korea and Russia all condemn US strike Ten days into the war between Israel and Iran, Trump made the risky decision to step in, hitting three nuclear sites with American firepower on June 22 in a bid to destroy the country's nuclear program at a time while negotiations between Washington and Tehran were still ongoing. The attacks prompted a pro forma Iranian retaliatory strike the following day on a U.S. base in nearby Qatar, which caused no casualties, and both Iran and Israel then agreed to a ceasefire on June 24. North Korea, China and Russia all were quick to condemn the American attack, with Russian President Vladimir Putin calling it 'unprovoked aggression,' China's Foreign Ministry saying it violated international law and 'exacerbated tensions in the Middle East,' and North Korea's Foreign Ministry maintaining it 'trampled down the territorial integrity and security interests of a sovereign state.' While the strikes were a clear tactical success, the jury is still out on whether they will have a more broad strategic benefit to Washington's goals in the Middle East or convince Iran it needs to work harder than ever to develop a nuclear deterrent, possibly pulling the U.S. back into a longer-term conflict. US allies could see attack as positive sign for deterrence If the attack remains a one-off strike, U.S. allies in the Asia-Pacific region likely will see the decision to become involved as a positive sign from Trump's administration, said Euan Graham, a senior defense analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. 'The U.S. strike on Iran will be regarded as net plus by Pacific allies if it is seen to reinforce red lines, restore deterrence and is of limited duration, so as not to pull the administration off-course from its stated priorities in the Indo-Pacific,' he said. 'China will take note that Trump is prepared to use force, at least opportunistically.' In China, many who have seen Trump as having a 'no-war mentality' will reassess that in the wake of the attacks, which were partially aimed at forcing Iran's hand in nuclear program negotiations, said Zhao Minghao, an international relations professor at China's Fudan University in Shanghai. 'The way the U.S. used power with its air attacks against Iran is something China needs to pay attention to,' he said. 'How Trump used power to force negotiations has a significance for how China and the U.S. will interact in the future.' But, he said, Washington should not think it can employ the same strategy with Beijing. 'If a conflict breaks out between China and the U.S., it may be difficult for the U.S. to withdraw as soon as possible, let alone withdraw unscathed,' he said. China and North Korea present different challenges Indeed, China and North Korea present very different challenges than Iran. First and foremost, both already have nuclear weapons, raising the stakes of possible retaliation considerably in the event of any attack. There also is no Asian equivalent of Israel, whose relentless attacks on Iranian missile defenses in the opening days of the war paved the way for the B-2 bombers to fly in and out without a shot being fired at them. Still, the possibility of the U.S. becoming involved in a conflict involving either China or North Korea is a very real one, and Beijing and Pyongyang will almost certainly try to assess what the notoriously unpredictable Trump would do. North Korea will likely be 'quite alarmed' at what Israel, with a relatively small but high-quality force, has been able to achieve over Iran, said Joseph Dempsey, a defense expert with the International Institute for Strategic Studies. At the same time, it likely will be seen internally as justification for its own nuclear weapons program, 'If Iran did have deployable nuclear weapons would this have occurred?' Dempsey said. 'Probably not.' The U.S. decision to attack while still in talks with Iran will also not go unnoticed, said Hong Min, a senior analyst at South Korea's Institute for National Unification. 'North Korea may conclude that dialogue, if done carelessly, could backfire by giving the United States a pretext for possible aggression,' he said. 'Instead of provoking the Trump administration, North Korea is more likely to take an even more passive stance toward negotiations with Washington, instead focusing on strengthening its internal military buildup and pursuing closer ties with Russia, narrowing the prospects for future talks,' he said. China and Taiwan will draw lessons China will look at the attacks through the visor of Taiwan, the self-governing democratic island off its coast that China claims as its own territory and President Xi Jinping has not ruled out taking by force. The U.S. supplies Taiwan with weapons and is one of its most important allies, though Washington's official policy on whether it would come to Taiwan's aid in the case of a conflict with China is known as 'strategic ambiguity,' meaning not committing to how it would respond. Militarily, the strike on Iran raises the question of whether the U.S. might show less restraint than has been expected by China in its response and hit targets on the Chinese mainland in the event of an invasion of Taiwan, said Drew Thompson, senior fellow with the Singapore-based think tank RSIS Rajaratnam School of International Studies. It will also certainly underscore for Beijing the 'difficulty of predicting Trump's actions,' he said. 'The U.S. airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities caught many by surprise,' Thompson said. 'I think it demonstrated a tolerance and acceptance of risk in the Trump administration that is perhaps surprising.' It also gives rise to a concern that Taiwan's President Lai Ching-te, who in recent speeches has increased warnings about the threat from China, may be further emboldened in his rhetoric, said Lyle Goldstein, director of the Asia Program at the Washington-based foreign policy think tank Defense Priorities. Already, Lai's words have prompted China to accuse him of pursuing Taiwanese independence, which is a red line for Beijing. Goldstein said he worried Taiwan may try to take advantage of the American 'use of force against Iran to increase its deterrent situation versus the mainland.' 'President Lai's series of recent speeches appear almost designed to set up a new cross-strait crisis, perhaps in the hopes of building more support in Washington and elsewhere around the Pacific,' said Goldstein, who also is director of the China Initiative at Brown University's Watson Institute. 'I think that is an exceedingly risky gambit, to put it mildly,' he said. ___ Tong-hyung Kim in Seoul, South Korea, and Didi Tang and Albee Zhang in Washington contributed to this report.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Eurovision Organisers Speak Out After Broadcasters Hold Discussions About Israel's Involvement
Eurovision organisers have confirmed that discussions were held with its participating broadcasters this week about whether Israel should remain part of the competition moving forward. Israel's involvement in Eurovision has long been a controversial issue due to the political situation in the Middle East. However, in the last few years, some fans have been calling for Israel's expulsion from the competition due to the ongoing conflict in Gaza. In the lead-up to this year's event, many public figures associated with the contest – including then-reigning winner Nemo from Switzerland – urged organisers to ban Israel from Eurovision, similar to how Russia has been excluded since its invasion of Ukraine in 2022. National broadcasters for Iceland, Ireland, Slovenia and Spain have all raised questions about Israel's participation in Eurovision in the last few months. The Palestine-led BDS movement has also called for a boycott of the competition for the last two years. Earlier this week, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) held a meeting with its participating national broadcasters in London, to discuss several issues relating to the Eurovision Song Contest, including whether Israel should be invited back in 2026. A statement released on Thursday said: 'At today's EBU General Assembly, Members held an open and constructive discussion on the Eurovision Song Contest (ESC) and the increasingly complex global context in which it takes place. 'The Assembly was a chance to celebrate the success of ESC 2025 - not just in terms of its record-breaking reach and engagement but in terms of its cultural resonance and ability to foster inclusivity, creativity, and a sense of belonging on a world stage. 'But of course, despite its extraordinary success, the Eurovision Song Contest, like many other events, is not immune to the pressures of global politics. Questions around participation have become increasingly sensitive and multifaceted, and our Members hold a wide range of perspectives on these issues which they were able to express in detail today.' The statement continued: 'Members had a constructive exchange of views. There was a shared understanding that this is an unprecedentedly complex situation and there is a wide diversity of opinions. 'Members also expressed their support for the work of the Israeli public broadcaster Kan and its independence, noting the pressure it is repeatedly experiencing from the Israeli government.' 'To help us navigate the current landscape, a former senior TV executive has now been invited to lead a structured and in-depth dialogue with our Member broadcasters in the coming weeks,' the EBU's spokesperson concluded. 'They will engage with Directors General and other stakeholders to gather insights on how we manage participation, geopolitical tensions, and how other organisations have approached similar challenges. They will report back with recommendations this autumn.' According to the English-language Israeli news site Ynet, the debate on Thursday lasted around 90 minutes, with Austria, Germany and Switzerland's broadcasters being the only ones to vocally back Israel's participation next year. It was also claimed that the BBC had 'called to avoid a vote' on the matter, and 'instead supported further dialogue'. In the end, no vote took place, although so-called EBU 'sources' apparently told Ynet that 'further discussions will be inevitable' if the war continues. Eurovision previously said: 'We understand the concerns and deeply held views around the current conflict in the Middle East. 'The EBU is not immune to global events but, together with our members, it is our role to ensure the Contest remains – at its heart – a universal event that promotes connections, diversity and inclusion through music. 'We all aspire to keep the Eurovision Song Contest positive and inclusive and aspire to show the world as it could be, rather than how it necessarily is.' They added: 'As a reminder, the EBU is an association of public service broadcasters, not governments, who are all eligible to participate in the Eurovision Song Contest every year if they meet the requisite requirements. It is not our role to make comparisons between conflicts.' Reigning Eurovision Winner JJ Calls For Israel To Be Removed From The Contest Remember Monday Speak Out About Getting Zero Points From Eurovision Viewers Eurovision Organisers Confirm Spanish Broadcaster Was Spoken To Over Pro-Palestine Message
