Latest news with #JavedAli
Fox News
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Why Syria plays a key role in Trump's plans for Middle East peace
Earlier this week, President Donald Trump signed an executive order lifting most U.S. sanctions on Syria, in a move experts say reflects growing recognition inside the administration that Syria, long a battleground for Iranian influence and Islamist terror, may now offer the U.S. a rare opportunity to reclaim regional leverage, counter enemies, and support allies like Israel and Jordan. At a White House press briefing Monday, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters, "This is another promise made and promise kept by this president," she said, referring to Trump's recent meeting with Syria's new transitional leader Ahmed al-Sharaa during a trip to Saudi Arabia. "He's committed to supporting a Syria that is stable, unified, and at peace with itself and its neighbors." "The sanctions did their job," David Schenker, former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs and now a senior fellow at the Washington Institute, told Fox News Digital. "They were crippling by and large. There's zero economic life in the country. But Trump is giving Syria a chance to succeed." Javed Ali, former senior official at the National Security Council and professor at the University of Michigan, told Fox News Digital, "It's a strategic calculation. A Syria that no longer hosts Iranian proxies, cooperates on counterterrorism, and integrates with Arab neighbors serves U.S. interests on every front." According to Schenker, Syria has taken steps the U.S. has long demanded: allowing inspections by the IAEA and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, sharing intelligence on ISIS, and cooperating with American liaison officers on counterterrorism. "These groups have declared al-Sharaa an infidel. They themselves are being attacked by ISIS," he noted. For the U.S., the stakes extend far beyond sanctions relief. Schenker said a stable Syria focused on education and social services, rather than military buildup, would be far less fertile ground for ISIS or Iranian influence. Ali described the current moment as part of a broader Trump strategy: "Now with Assad gone, it's another blow to the Islamic Republic of Iran. This creates an opportunity to coalesce the Sunni Arab states – either around the Abraham Accords or a growing anti-Iran coalition." The U.S. military still maintains a small but critical footprint in Syria – approximately 1,000 troops across three to four bases in the northeast – providing vital intelligence and rapid strike capability. "That footprint has been one of our most important counterterrorism outposts," Ali said. "We've seen multiple targeted operations this year alone." He said, however, that deeper U.S.-Syrian cooperation could bring new complications. "There's always a risk that as ties deepen, either the U.S. could reduce its presence – or al-Sharaa might ask us to scale back," Ali said. "That could impact our ability to monitor jihadist activity or manage the tens of thousands of ISIS detainees still in camps guarded by SDF forces." Meanwhile, the diplomatic implications of Trump's move are drawing global attention. Syria's new leadership has publicly distanced itself from Iran, reportedly blocked Hezbollah weapon shipments, and dismantled multiple Iranian military posts across the country. "The president is genuinely focused on expanding the Abraham Accords," said Schenker. "He sees Syria as the next possible candidate." NSC spokesman Taylor Rogers told Fox News Digital. "President Trump is working towards lasting peace in the Middle East, which includes supporting a Syria that is stable, unified, and at peace with itself and its neighbors. The President is empowering Syria's success by lifting sanctions on export controls while maintaining sanctions on terrorists and all other potential threats to the United States. The President made a promise to give Syria a chance to rebuild and thrive by lifting sanctions, and this President keeps his promises." Still, normalization with Israel remains politically fraught. Syria remains officially at war with the Jewish state, and while Sharaa has hinted at accepting the pre-1974 ceasefire lines, jihadist factions and Islamist groups within Syria remain staunchly opposed. "There have already been reported assassination attempts on Sharaa," Schenker said. "It's going to get harder if he moves from non-belligerency to full normalization." Charles Lister, director of the Syria program at the Middle East Institute, told Fox News Digital, "Syria has always been an open wound in the center of the region – an engine of instability… But if it stabilizes now, it unlocks a path for broader regional integration. It connects Israel and Jordan to a more secure arc and reduces the need for heavy U.S. military involvement." Despite encouraging signs on the diplomatic track – such as reported back-channel talks and reduced rhetoric – Israeli airstrikes on Syrian territory have continued, with hundreds launched this year alone. Syria's new leadership has not responded militarily, but tensions remain high. "The facts on the ground don't yet reflect the progress being made behind closed doors," Lister said. "We just have to hope that those two dynamics meet in the middle, and things calm down on the ground as well."
AllAfrica
14-06-2025
- Politics
- AllAfrica
How the US fits into an Israel-Iran war
Israel's strike on Iranian nuclear and military facilities has pushed the Middle East one step closer to a far wider, more dangerous regional war. It also has implications for recent US diplomatic efforts toward a deal with Tehran over its nuclear program. Iran's immediate response – the firing of about 100 drones into Israel, many of which were shot down – appears an opening gambit; meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said his country's airstrikes would continue 'for as many days as it takes.' The Conversation turned to Javed Ali, an expert on Middle East affairs at the University of Michigan and a former senior official at the National Security Council during the first Trump administration, to talk through why Israel chose now to strike and what the implications are for US policy on Iran. There was a combination of factors that led up to this moment. One of the more immediate reasons was that an International Atomic Energy Agency report found that Iran was making progress toward enriching uranium to a degree that, in theory at least, would allow Tehran to very quickly upgrade to a weapons-grade level. That is the thrust of what Netanyahu has said by way of reason for the attack now – that intelligence shows that Iran was getting closer to a possible breakout status for a nuclear weapon. But there is a confluence of other factors that have built up over the last year and a half, ever since the October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas in Israel. Iran's proxy Axis of Resistance – that is, regional groups aligned with Iran and supported militarily by Tehran, including Hamas and Hezbollah – doesn't present the same level of threat to Israel as it did in the pre-October 7 landscape. In the past, an Israeli attack of the sort we are seeing now would have invited a multidirectional response from all corners of the resistance – and we saw this in the early days after the October 7 attack. As of now, none of Iran's resistance partners have done anything in response to the latest strike – and that is, in large part, due to the fact that Israel has successfully degraded these group's capabilities through a series of campaigns and operations. The United States has also contributed to this effort to a degree with sustained operations against the Houthis in Yemen from March to May this year, including hundreds of airstrikes. Further, Israel's previous attacks on Iran in April and October 2024 managed to degrade Iran's ballistic and surface-to-air missiles and air defense radar systems. This likely played into Israel's calculations, too. Lastly, Israel knows that it has a strong supporter in the White House with President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress. Washington may not be 100% aligned with Tel Aviv on every issue, but at the moment, there is no criticism from the the White House or Republican members of Congress on Israel's attacks. The sixth round of talks was due to take place on June 15, led by White House envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Iran has signaled that the talks won't take place now. There may have been some dialogue between Netanyahu and the Trump administration over the timing of the Israeli strike preceding yesterday's attacks, during which Israel would have made the case that the time is right now to launch a very different type of campaign to really set back Iran's nuclear program. In recorded remarks about Israel's operations, Netanyahu stated he directed his national security team to begin planning for a large-scale campaign against Iran's nuclear program last November. Perhaps the White House did push back, saying that it wanted to see if any progress could be made in the talks. Certainly, it has been reported that Trump told Netanyahu in a phone call on June 10 that he believed a deal with Tehran could be negotiated. Regardless, Netanyahu still went ahead with the strike. Indeed, some observers have posited that collapsing the negotiations between the US and Iran may have been one of the intentions of Netanyahu, who has long opposed any deal with Tehran and has reportedly been irked by Trump's reversal on the issue. During his first administration, Trump unilaterally pulled the US out of a previous nuclear deal. A newspaper shows the portraits of Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and White House special envoy Steve Witkoff, who were due to meet in Oman. Photo: Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images / The Conversation The White House hasn't criticized Israel in its response to the strike, merely stating that it wasn't involved. In my assessment, the White House appears to be sincere in the substance of what it is saying: that there was no overt and direct US involvement with Israel during the actual strike. As for US involvement in any planning or intelligence sharing ahead of the strike, we may never know. But this is largely messaging for Iran: 'We didn't attack you. Israel attacked you.' The US is clearly worried that any response in Tehran may involve US assets in the region. In the past, parts of Iran's proxy network have hit American bases in Jordan and Iraq. Backing up this being a real concern in Washington is the fact that in advance of Israel's strike, it already made moves to protect some of its assets in the region and remove personnel. On June 11, Iranian Defense Minister Aziz Nasrizadeh warned that if Israel were to attack, Tehran would respond against U.S. personnel and bases in the region – but that hasn't happened yet. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and military officials must know that attacking US targets would be very risky and would lead to a significant response that would likely be even more damaging than Israel's latest attacks – including putting a potential deal over its nuclear program at risk. And the US has the capability to hit Iran even harder than Israel, both militarily and through the extension of sanctions that have already been very punishing to the Iranian economy. Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, points to a red line he drew on a graphic of a bomb while addressing the United Nations on Sept. 27, it will be Khamenei who decides Iran's response – and he remains firmly in control of Iran's national security apparatus despite his advanced age. He knows he will have to walk a fine line to avoid drawing the U.S. into a military campaign. Despite the challenges facing Iran at the moment, Iran will, I believe, have to respond in a way that goes beyond its previous attacks on Israel. Reports of drone attacks against Israel on June 13 fit within the framework of the attack Iran launched against Israel in April 2024 that included a combined salvo of almost 300 ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones over several hours. Despite the damage Israel has inflicted against Iran through its series of operations, Iran probably still possesses thousands or tens of thousands of these types of weapons that it can use against various targets in the region. Iran could look at targets outside Israel, without necessarily hitting the US directly – for example, by attacking maritime targets in the Persian Gulf and in effect closing the Strait of Hormuz. US military planners have long been concerned about Iranian naval attacks using small boats for ramming or small arms attacks against shipping in the Persian Gulf. Another option would be for Iran to increase its involvement in terrorism activities in the region. Tehran's proxy groups may be diminished, but Iran still has its Quds Force, through which the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps conducts nonstate and unconventional warfare. Will the Quds Force look toward targeted assassinations, bombings, or kidnappings as part of Iran's retaliatory options? It has employed such tactics in the past. And beyond conventional weapons, Iran also has pretty significant cyber capabilities that it has used against Israel, the United States and Saudi Arabia, among others. It would appear Trump is still holding open the possibility of some kind of deal with Iran. In his statement following the Israel attack, he warned Tehran that if it didn't come back to the table and cut a deal, the next Israeli attack would be 'even more brutal.' The attack could push Iran into reengaging in talks that were seemingly stalling in recent weeks. Certainly, that seems to be the thrust of Trump's messaging. But the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists in the attack, and the apparent wounding of one of the negotiators, may convince Tehran to double down on a path toward a nuclear weapon as the only means of deterrence against Israel, especially if it suspects US involvement. Javed Ali is associate professor of practice of public policy, University of Michigan This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What does Israel's strike mean for US policy on Iran and prospects for a nuclear deal?
Israel's strike on Iranian nuclear and military facilities has pushed the Middle East one step closer to a far wider, more dangerous regional war. It also has implications for recent U.S. diplomatic efforts toward a deal with Tehran over its nuclear program. Iran's immediate response – the firing of about 100 drones into Israel, many of which were shot down – appears an opening gambit; meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said his country's airstrikes would continue 'for as many days as it takes.' The Conversation turned to Javed Ali, an expert on Middle East affairs at the University of Michigan and a former senior official at the National Security Council during the first Trump administration, to talk through why Israel chose now to strike and what the implications are for U.S. policy on Iran. There was a combination of factors that led up to this moment. One of the more immediate reasons was that an International Atomic Energy Agency report found that Iran was making progress toward enriching uranium to a degree that, in theory at least, would allow Tehran to very quickly upgrade to a weapons-grade level. That is the thrust of what Netanyahu has said by way of reason for the attack now – that intelligence shows that Iran was getting closer to a possible breakout status for a nuclear weapon. But there is a confluence of other factors that have built up over the last year and a half, ever since the Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas in Israel. Iran's proxy Axis of Resistance – that is, regional groups aligned with Iran and supported militarily by Tehran, including Hamas and Hezbollah – doesn't present the same level of threat to Israel as it did in the pre-Oct. 7 landscape. In the past, an Israeli attack of the sort we are seeing now would have invited a multidirectional response from all corners of the resistance – and we saw this in the early days after the Oct. 7 attack. As of now, none of Iran's resistance partners have done anything in response to the latest strike – and that is, in large part, due to the fact that Israel has successfully degraded these group's capabilities through a series of campaigns and operations. The United States has also contributed to this effort to a degree with sustained operations against the Houthis in Yemen from March to May this year, including hundreds of airstrikes. Further, Israel's previous attacks on Iran in April and October 2024 managed to degrade Iran's ballistic and surface-to-air missiles and air defense radar systems. This likely played into Israel's calculations, too. Lastly, Israel knows that it has a strong supporter in the White House with President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress. Washington may not be 100% aligned with Tel Aviv on every issue, but at the moment there is no criticism from the the White House or Republican members of Congress on Israel's attacks. The sixth round of talks was due to take place on June 15, led by White House envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Iran has signaled that the talks won't take place now. There may have been some dialogue between Netanyahu and the Trump administration over the timing of the Israeli strike preceding yesterday's attacks, during which Israel would have made the case that the time is right now to launch a very different type of campaign to really set back Iran's nuclear program. In recorded remarks about Israel's operations, Netanyahu stated he directed his national security team to begin planning for a large-scale campaign against Iran's nuclear program last November. Perhaps the White House did push back, saying that it wanted to see if any progress could be made in the talks. Certainly, it has been reported that Trump told Netanyahu in a phone call on June 10 that he believed a deal with Tehran could be negotiated. Regardless, Netanyahu still went ahead with the strike. Indeed some observers have posited that collapsing the negotiations between the U.S. and Iran may have been one of the intentions of Netanyahu, who has long opposed any deal with Tehran and has reportedly been irked by Trump's reversal on the issue. During his first administration, Trump unilaterally pulled the U.S. out of a previous nuclear deal. The White House hasn't criticized Israel in its response to the strike, merely stating that it wasn't involved. In my assessment, the White House appears to be sincere in the substance of what it is saying: that there was no overt and direct U.S. involvement with Israel during the actual strike. As for U.S. involvement in any planning or intelligence sharing ahead of the strike, we may never know. But this is largely messaging for Iran: 'We didn't attack you. Israel attacked you.' The U.S. is clearly worried that any response in Tehran may involve U.S. assets in the region. In the past, parts of Iran's proxy network have hit American bases in Jordan and Iraq. Backing up this being a real concern in Washington is the fact that in advance of Israel's strike, it already made moves to protect some of its assets in the region and remove personnel. On June 11, Iranian Defense Minister Aziz Nasrizadeh warned that if Israel were to attack, Tehran would respond against U.S. personnel and bases in the region – but that hasn't happened yet. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and military officials must know that attacking U.S. targets would be very risky and would lead to a significant response that would likely be even more damaging than Israel's latest attacks – including putting a potential deal over its nuclear program at risk. And the U.S. has the capability to hit Iran even harder than Israel, both militarily and through the extension of sanctions that have already been very punishing to the Iranian economy. Ultimately, it will be Khamenei who decides Iran's response – and he remains firmly in control of Iran's national security apparatus despite his advanced age. He knows he will have to walk a fine line to avoid drawing the U.S. into a military campaign. Despite the challenges facing Iran at the moment, Iran will, I believe, have to respond in a way that goes beyond its previous attacks on Israel. Reports of drone attacks against Israel on June 13 fit within the framework of the attack Iran launched against Israel in April 2024 that included a combined salvo of almost 300 ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones over several hours. Despite the damage Israel has inflicted against Iran through its series of operations, Iran probably still possesses thousands or tens of thousands of these types of weapons that it can use against various targets in the region. Iran could look at targets outside Israel, without necessarily hitting the U.S. directly – for example, by attacking maritime targets in the Persian Gulf and in effect closing the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. military planners have long been concerned about Iranian naval attacks using small boats for ramming or small arms attacks against shipping in the Persian Gulf. Another option would be for Iran to increase its involvement in terrorism activities in the region. Tehran's proxy groups may be diminished, but Iran still has its Quds Force, through which the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps conducts nonstate and unconventional warfare. Will the Quds Force look toward targeted assassinations, bombings, or kidnappings as part of Iran's retaliatory options? It has employed such tactics in the past. And beyond conventional weapons, Iran also has pretty significant cyber capabilities that it has used against Israel, the United States and Saudi Arabia, among others. It would appear Trump is still holding open the possibility of some kind of deal with Iran. In his statement following the Israel attack, he warned Tehran that if it didn't come back to the table and cut a deal, the next Israeli attack would be 'even more brutal.' The attack could push Iran into reengaging in talks that were seemingly stalling in recent weeks. Certainly that seems to be the thrust of Trump's messaging. But the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists in the attack, and the apparent wounding of one of the negotiators, may convince Tehran to double down on a path toward a nuclear weapon as the only means of a deterrence against Israel, especially if it suspects U.S. involvement. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Javed Ali, University of Michigan Read more: Why Israel's air strikes signal a shifting relationship with the US and a weakening Iran Why did Israel defy Trump – and risk a major war – by striking Iran now? And what happens next? Two-state solution in the Middle East has been a core US policy for 25 years – is the Trump administration eyeing a change? Javed Ali does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
CNA
27-05-2025
- Politics
- CNA
CNA938 Rewind - Trump's not happy with Putin, but will it mean stronger action?
CNA938 Rewind Play U.S President Donald Trump has called Russia's Vladimir Putin 'absolutely crazy', after Moscow's largest aerial attack yet on Ukraine that killed at least 12 people and injured dozens more on Sunday. It's giving President Trump an impetus to add more pressure on Russia -- namely more sanctions, which some argue may not be enough to stop the war. Andrea Heng and Susan Ng get an analysis of the situation from Javed Ali, Associate Professor of Practice, Gerald R Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Yahoo
Police officer's tribute to boy, 7, who died 25 years ago on his way home from school
A police traffic officer has paid tributes to a seven-year-old who died in a crash 25 years ago. Rizwan Quraishi was on duty when he received the news of an incident on Blackburn Road in Haslingden. The crash happened on May 24, 2000, at around 3.15pm as Javed Ali was heading home from school. The fatal crash occurred on the doorstep of St James' Primary School at a pelican crossing. Mr Quraishi, who retired from policing following 30 years of service, said the harrowing incident shocked the local community. He said: 'I feel it necessary that we must not forget about Javed Ali who, at just seven years old was tragically killed. 'He is buried in the Islamic part of the Grane Road cemetery in Haslingden and I have visited his grave on this commemoration and laid some flowers down to give him the respect and prayers he deserves. 'Javed Ali, 25 years have passed, through this passage of time - you are not forgotten, may Allah bless your soul.' The crash happened on the doorstep of St James primary school (Image: LT) Javed was described as a 'delightful bubbly smart' boy. Following the incident Burnley magistrates fined driver Terence Arthur Yates, 44, £1,000, ordered him to pay £75 costs and imposed eight penalty points on his licence after he admitted driving without due care and attention. The sentence at the time was criticised by the family for being far too lenient. Yates, of Burnley Road, Rawtenstall, was not hurt in the incident but was treated at the scene for shock by paramedics.
