Latest news with #post-Assad
Gulf Insider
2 days ago
- Politics
- Gulf Insider
Syrians Fear Israel Normalization Could Trigger Another Countrywide War
Many Syrians fear another country-wide war could erupt if the country's new post-Assad rulers make peace with Israel through a normalization deal based on Trump's Abraham Accords. Last week, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar told reports that normalization with Syria and Lebanon is on the table, as Prime Minister Netanyahu agrees with Washington on a hoped-for expansion of the Abraham Accords. 'Israel is interested in expanding the Abraham Accords circle of peace and normalization,' Saar said. Israel had already signed deals with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan – the result of Trump's first term in office. 'We have an interest in adding countries such as Syria and Lebanon, our neighbors – to the circle of peace and normalization while safeguarding Israel's essential and security interests,' Saar added. PM Netanyahu himself has recently said that the June war with Iran had opened 'the path to dramatically enlarge the peace accord.' From a strategic point of view, Tel Aviv wants to isolate any Arab country which remains resistant and critical of its war in Gaza. Going back to Hafez al-Assad who ruled Syria since 1970, Ba'ath-ruled Syria had long been Israel's fiercest enemy and neighbor, with the two having fought several wars. The average Syrian has long been hugely critical of Zionism and Israeli expansionism, particularly since it came under control of the Golan Heights. Now under President Sharaa, hundreds of foreign jihadist groups are running around Syria, often persecuting Christians, Alawites, and Druze as Sharaa's HTS government in Damascus turns a blind eye. ISIS is also a continuing reality in parts of Syria – though Sharaa himself is 'former'-ISIS, as are some government ministers and officials. Strangely, or perhaps unsurprisingly given it was at one point a tool of the US regime change war on Damascus, the Islamic State has never really waged a terror war against Israel. The reality is that Israel was also a big player in the CIA's regime change operations, dubbed 'Timber Sycamore'.
Al-Ahram Weekly
3 days ago
- Politics
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Peace and moderation in Syria - World - Al-Ahram Weekly
It has not escaped the new Syrian leadership that the confrontation with Israel has entered a new phase. Syrian strength is at its nadir. The country cannot undertake any military confrontation with any party in its vicinity, especially given its complete focus on domestic security and the restoration of peace across the country. The Syrian-Israeli conflict also requires a fresh approach that takes into account recent developments in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran, including Israel's destruction of the core of the Axis of Resistance, which comprised the former Syrian regime, Iran, Hizbullah in Lebanon, and Hamas. Since the fall of Bashar Al-Assad regime, the major European powers and the Gulf states have hastened to embrace the new Syria. Particularly remarkable was Washington's 180-degree shift with its blanket lifting of all sanctions on the Syrian opposition. This was accompanied by expressions of hope from the US president and senior officials that Syria would quickly become a strong and effective force in a new and dynamic Middle East, contributing to spreading peace and development in the region. Israel has conducted more than 500 air raids against military targets in Syria since the overthrow of Al-Assad, who was backed by Iran. Israeli forces also swept into and occupied the buffer zone that had been monitored by UN peacekeeping forces since the Syrian-Israeli disengagement treaty of 1974. According to some military observers, Israel has destroyed 70 to 80 per cent of Syria's strategic weapons as well as the entirety of its naval and air forces. This has complicated the process of restructuring the military. Israel claims that the 1974 treaty was no longer valid because one of the signatories to the treaty – i.e., the former Al-Assad regime – was no longer able to implement it. It also claims that it was acting in self-defence against a potential hostile force that might take advantage of the post-Assad security vacuum. However, the situation is different now the US and other major powers have recognised the new regime and begun forging strategic relations with Damascus. The risk of chaos that might affect Syria's neighbours is over. The Syrian political analyst Said Muqbil told Al-Ahram Weekly, 'the former regime drained the national budget for 50 years for 'the confrontation against Israel'. Seventy per cent of the budget went to the army and security apparatus, impoverishing the country. In the name of 'resistance and steadfastness', it monopolised power and spread repression. The result was more economic losses, more military defeats, and more erosion of Syrian territory by Israel. Meanwhile, the fronts remained silent and the border with Israel remained tightly guarded while Iranian penetration nearly destroyed the country. 'The approach to Israel will certainly be totally different now, of that we can be certain,' Muqbil continued. 'Peace is better for Syria – a peace founded on just and firm foundations. Syrians do not want more war. They are exhausted by war, which has deprived them of 50 years of development. In any case, the military balance game is not feasible, not now and not in the long term, because the Syrian regime had used the Syrian military machine to repress and kill its own people.' Syrian President Ahmed Al-Sharaa has stated repeatedly that Syria has no intention to become a threat to its neighbours. In his meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron last month, he condemned Israel's 'arbitrary' behaviour and called on it to stop intervening in Syrian affairs and to return to the 1974 disengagement borders. He also suggested that indirect negotiations were in progress with Israel to restore calm and prevent the situation from spiralling out of control. He made no mention of any plan to normalise relations with Isreal. On the other hand, in a statement following a telephone exchange with his American counterpart Marco Rubio, Syrian Foreign Minister Asad Al-Shibani said, 'Syria is looking forward to working with the US to return to the 1974 disengagement line.' The US Envoy to Syria Thomas Barrack said peace between Syria and Israel was a 'necessity' and that 'the dialogue between them has begun.' Syrian analysts believe the intensive US-brokered talks underway aim to reach security arrangements that will include Israel's withdrawal from the Syrian territory it has occupied since 8 December in exchange for a Syrian declaration that the two countries are no longer in a state of war. Some sources suggest that this would take the form of a commitment rather than an official declaration. Official Syrian news outlets have described statements regarding a peace treaty between Syria and Israel as 'premature.' Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar said it is in Israel's interest to normalise relations with Syria and Lebanon, but he insisted that the Occupied Syrian Golan will be part of Israel under any future peace agreement. Observers believe that President Al-Sharaa would not sign a peace agreement with Isreal unless Isreal withdrew from the Syrian Golan. He will not offer a peace free of charge. That portion of territory that has been severed from Syrian geography remains an obstacle to a durable and lasting peace. 'The talks taking place at the moment between Syria and Israel through regional mediators are being closely monitored and encouraged by the US through diverse channels,' the military analyst Ayad Raji told Al-Ahram Weekly. 'They aim to reach an agreement on the lines of a necessary security truce satisfactory to both sides. This is not about reaching a permanent peace agreement, which is very politically sensitive. Many Syrians still oppose such a peace and going down that path could cause unrest. In any case, a permanent treaty must be ratified by parliament and signed into law by a permanent authority. All that takes consultations and time.' Syria and Isreal have been in a state of war in theory since the Palestinian Nakba in 1948. In 1967, Israel occupied about two-thirds of the Syrian Golan along with the entirety of historic Palestine. It annexed the occupied Syrian territory in 1981. In 1974, a year after the October War, Israel and Syria concluded a disengagement agreement that resulted in an 80 km-long buffer zone overseen by the UN. In addition to the aforementioned political sensitivities regarding a possible peace treaty with Israel, some thorny practical issues must be addressed. Even if the regional and international atmosphere is conducive, the two sides must agree on the status of the Occupied Golan, permanent borders, and security guarantees. What is beyond doubt is that Syria is doing everything in its power to reset its international relations on a sound foundation and, simultaneously, restore domestic stability and forge forward with reconstruction and development. It has no interest in engaging in new wars. This is not to suggest that the question of peace with Israel is not open to discussion. Indeed, everyone is searching for ways to beat the challenges to overcoming differences in order to reach a just formula for a lasting peace satisfactory to all parties. * A version of this article appears in print in the 10 July, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
Newsweek
5 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Syria 2025 Is Iraq All Over Again
The al-Nusrah Front was removed from the U.S. terror list on July 7, 2025. Officially, it marked a shift. But under the surface, it looked a lot more like a pattern we've previously seen. America has been here before. We saw this exact playbook in Iraq: regime change, a rush to legitimize the replacement, sweeping sanctions relief, and a premature declaration of stability. It didn't work then. And it won't work now. The backdrop to this sudden policy shift is the meteoric rise of Ahmed al-Sharaa, Syria's new president. Less than a year back, al-Sharaa was still going by his old name, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani. For years, he led al-Qaeda's Syrian affiliate. That group eventually rebranded as Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and now holds real control over large parts of the country. His troops helped remove Bashar al-Assad. And now, he's being treated as a legitimate head of state by Washington. Syrian Interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa attended the Antalya Diplomacy Forum on April 11, 2025, in Antalya, Turkey. Syrian Interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa attended the Antalya Diplomacy Forum on April 11, 2025, in Antalya, Turkey. Mert Gokhan Koc/ dia images via Getty Images This normalization has come fast and without accountability. The Trump administration's May 2025 announcement in Riyadh, and subsequent executive order in June, lifting all sanctions on Syria and praising al-Sharaa as a "young, attractive guy. Tough guy. Strong past. Very strong past. Fighter," which was followed barely two months later by the formal Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) delisting of al-Nusrah. The timing is not subtle. It signals a strategic pivot: from isolation to partnership, from punishment to pragmatism. But there's a problem. In March 2025, just four months ago, HTS-linked units participated in one of the worst sectarian atrocities of the post-Assad period. According to Reuters and Human Rights Watch, over 1,500 Alawite civilians were executed across Latakia and Tartus. Entire villages were emptied. Many were shot execution-style. These were not rogue factions. These were al-Sharaa's forces. The same man now photographed with American officials and heralded as Syria's transitional solution. The echoes with Iraq are deafening. In 2003, dictator Saddam Hussein was removed. Sanctions were lifted. Investments flooded in. We declared victory. What followed was a maelstrom: insurgency, sectarian bloodshed, and the birth of ISIS. The root cause wasn't just the power vacuum. It was the premature legitimization of a post-conflict authority before institutions, accountability, or even basic national cohesion had been established. Ahmed al-Sharaa did not simply inherit a war-torn state. He built it. Under his command, HTS didn't just fill a vacuum, they enforced it. Rivals were pushed out, sometimes violently. Dissent didn't last long. By the time they tightened their grip on Idlib, he'd already broken from al-Qaeda. But that break didn't change how he got there, or what people had to live under once he did. The U.S. response has been to reward this transformation with recognition and relief. In May, the Treasury Department issued General License 25, authorizing nearly all commercial activity with the Syrian government. That includes trade, investment, and infrastructure projects, even involving ministers and deputies still under Global Magnitsky sanctions. The justification? Stabilization. The reality? Strategic amnesia. The sanctions weren't about Assad's name, they were about his actions. Unless al-Sharaa shows he's actually governing differently, lifting sanctions doesn't mark progress, it just hands a pass from one regime to the next. U.S. officials said he's made promises: kick out foreign fighters, block ISIS from rebuilding, hold elections sometime in the next year and a half. These are good promises. But they're just that: promises. And they echo the same overconfidence we heard in Iraq. That local leaders would rise to the occasion. That militias would disarm. That money and markets would do the work of reconciliation. In Syria, the danger is even more acute. The al-Nusrah delisting was not a technical correction. It was a signal. One that tells future armed groups that if they wait long enough, hold enough territory, and rebrand effectively, Washington will meet them at the negotiating table. This is a dangerous incentive structure. It rewards tactical patience, not ideological reform. And it invites a future where today's insurgents become tomorrow's presidents, without ever accounting for the violence that brought them there. This is not a call for endless isolation. Engagement is necessary. But engagement must be disciplined. Sanctions relief should be conditional. Recognition should be phased. Aid should be tied to benchmarks: human rights, political pluralism, justice for victims. Instead, we've sprinted past all of that. In just five months, we've gone from labeling HTS a terrorist organization to legitimizing its leader as Syria's future. We must learn from Iraq. Not because history rhymes, but because this isn't rhyming, it's repeating. Foreign policy isn't about optics. It's about outcomes. And unless we slow down, apply pressure strategically, and demand real accountability from our new "partners," Syria may not just mirror Iraq. It may surpass it in the scale of our regret. Brett Erickson is the managing principal of Obsidian Risk Advisors. He serves on the advisory board of DePaul University School of Business and Loyola Law School-Center for Compliance Studies. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Shafaq News
5 days ago
- Politics
- Shafaq News
Syria plans mass foreign fighters relocation
Shafaq News - Damascus Syria's interim government is arranging the relocation of thousands of foreign armed forces' fighters to African countries, a source close to Syrian military leadership revealed on Wednesday. The source told the Emirati outlet Erem News that the move aims to ease 'growing internal and external pressure on the transitional authority' over the presence of foreign combatants, who reportedly number between 10,000 and 12,000—roughly 10 to 20% of the forces that helped topple the Al-Assad regime. The foreign fighter issue has become a central concern for Western governments engaging with post-Assad Syria. Observers say any progress on diplomatic normalization or reconstruction aid will likely hinge on how the interim authorities address the fate of these fighters, according to Erem News. Earlier, the Syrian administration took steps to formalize the role of some foreign fighters within its restructured army. However, their presence remains a critical challenge, particularly as Damascus seeks international legitimacy and explores the possibility of normalizing ties with Israel. Domestically, the issue has become increasingly contentious amid reports of foreign fighters acting outside government control, conducting raids, and seizing properties belonging to minority groups in Damascus and coastal cities. The Syrian interim government has not issued any statement regarding this matter, and it remains unclear how the proposed relocations would be implemented or whether the receiving countries have agreed to host the fighters.
Voice of Belady
06-07-2025
- Politics
- Voice of Belady
Identity Amid the Rubble: Syria and Iraq Between Grand Narratives and Systematic Dismantling
By: Mohamed Saad Abdel Latif – Egypt In a moment many perceived as a turning point, Ahmad al-Sharaa appeared in civilian clothes, speaking in a pragmatic tone about Syria's future. For some, his appearance signaled the dawn of a post-Assad era—perhaps a new Syria, radically different. Yet the Iraqi experience had already taught those willing to learn: no statue falls without casting a longer shadow, and no regime collapses without leaving behind its ghosts—in the alleys of cities, at the borders of identity, and in the pulse of geography. When Saddam Hussein's statue fell in Baghdad, the scene resembled more the toppling of a tyrant than the birth of a nation. Years later, the destruction of the Assad family's monuments in Damascus echoed that image—yet with one key difference: the game's threads were far more entangled, and the geography more defiant. What has happened—and continues to happen—in Damascus and Baghdad cannot be viewed through a single lens. It's not just a tale of fallen despotism or crushed revolution; it is an entire structure that continues to reproduce itself through new tools. The killer and the victim have begun switching roles, the masks change, but the stage remains the same—operated by the same forces whose interests intersect above rivers of blood. Here, the specter of Gamal Hamdan looms—the geographer who did not read fortunes but rather the genius of place and time. When he spoke of Iraq and the Levant, he was not prophesying, but mapping out the latent fractures in the region's fabric—those inherited from geography, history, and politics. He saw signs of disintegration that needed no military coup or foreign intervention—just one tremor for the entire image to collapse. Amid sects and minorities, regions and rival powers, the internal fabric morphs into a perpetual battlefield. Sectarianism has not only been a domestic tool but has also become a foreign one. Iran, Turkey, and Israel each view Damascus as an extension of their national security—just as Baghdad was once a playground for redrawing influence maps. Sovereignty became a worn-out slogan, and the 'state' a fragile framework governed by unwritten agreements among power brokers who see human beings as mere numbers in the balance of power. In this context, the democratic slogans hoisted atop tanks—whether in Baghdad or Damascus—proved to be flimsy veils for a bitter truth: democracy cannot be crafted by armies, and freedom cannot be imposed from abroad. The fragile political entities protected by militias or regional deals possess no soul of statehood. They are mere protectorates—awaiting the next deal or war. Iraq never produced a true 'state' in the Green Zone, and post-2011 Syria only yielded new faces over the same corpse. Lebanon continues to breathe through the lungs of others, while the Golan Heights—an open wound—now witnesses wars fought in names not its own. The result? A complex scene of organized fragmentation, the collapse of statehood concepts, and a battle over identity. The 'partition of the already-partitioned,' as some have written, is no longer a deferred scenario—it is a reality administered drop by drop, under global watch and through the hands of blood-soaked proxies. The geopolitical landscape of the region—with all its historical, ethnic, and sectarian entanglements—cannot be understood through a Facebook post or a shallow reading in the cafés of the virtual world. This moment calls for a pen that grasps the depth of time and place, and eyes that see beyond the mirrors—not fleeting whims or temporary allegiances. Mohamed Saad Abdel Latif Writer and researcher in geopolitics and international conflicts Email: saadadham976@
