Middle East
German think tank urges cooperation with Türkiye in Syria
The German state should cooperate with the countries of the region, especially Türkiye, in the “reconstruction” of Syria, writes the influential Berlin-based German think tank, the Institute for International and Security Policy (SWP).
In recent days, Berlin and Brussels have intensified their efforts to gain influence in Syria. German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier visited Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Türkiye this week to discuss the situation and prospects in Syria, while Chancellor Olaf Scholz discussed all these issues in a telephone conversation with the emir of Qatar on Tuesday.
EU foreign ministers also decided on Monday to suspend certain sanctions against Syria for a period of one year (e.g., those concerning the transport and financial sectors and energy infrastructure). However, the EU will also set up a mechanism for the immediate reinstatement of sanctions.
The EU is also campaigning for the HTS leadership in Syria to expel Russia’s Tartus naval base and the Khmeimim airbase from the region. On Wednesday, French President Emmanuel Macron telephoned Abu Mohammed al-Jolani (Ahmed al-Shara) and invited him to visit Paris in the coming weeks, suggesting that Paris has gained an advantage over Berlin in its quest for influence in Syria.
Years of German aid to Idlib not enough
This is why German government advisers are urging Berlin to work closely with Ankara, Riyadh, and Doha in its efforts to exert influence in Damascus. As German Development Minister Svenja Schulze reported in December, Berlin has for years maintained good relations with Idlib, which is controlled by the “terrorist organization” HTS, by funding aid projects there. However, while the interim government in Damascus is largely drawn from the power circles in Idlib, this is clearly not enough to have the desired effect.
That is why the Berlin-based Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) is calling for cooperation with Türkiye in the “reorganization and reconstruction of Syria.”
Ankara and Berlin propose a ‘geopolitical partnership’
According to an assessment by Yaşar Aydın in SWP, the first area of cooperation could be joint humanitarian aid and reconstruction projects for the reintegration of returning refugees. Another area would be reconstruction assistance for the Syrian armed forces, the disarmament of militias, and the securing and destruction of chemical weapons.
Pointing out that at the EU Foreign Ministers’ meeting Germany advocated the easing of EU sanctions and announced that it might work for their complete lifting in order to strengthen the transitional government and encourage it to accept Syrian refugees “fleeing the civil war,” the SWP writer said: “Berlin and Ankara should also act together geopolitically in the region. Both are interested in pushing back Iran’s hegemonic ambitions, especially in Syria, and in maintaining a balanced position vis-à-vis China, which has recently increased its influence through its mediation efforts between Iran and Saudi Arabia.”
German-Turkish partnership to stop Israeli operations?
Aydin argues that cooperation on Israel is also possible despite differences, arguing that a prolonged Israeli occupation of Syria would “alienate the population” and “push HTS towards an anti-Israel agenda.” Aydın reminds that the German Foreign Ministry has called on Israel not to establish any settlements on Syrian territory and reaffirmed its position that the Golan Heights belong to Syria according to international law, pointing out that Ankara and Berlin may have a common interest in reducing Israeli military operations.
Acknowledging that there may be a disagreement between the two countries on the issue of Kurdish autonomy and the YPG in Syria, Aydın argues that this disagreement can be overcome by Berlin mediating between Ankara and the YPG-led Syrian Democratic Forces, and writes: “Berlin is already holding talks with the YPG in coordination with Ankara.”
Ankara and Berlin’s Syria statements show ‘surprising synchronization’
“Türkiye is playing a central role in the reconstruction of Syria after the fall of the Assad regime,” Aydın said, arguing that Germany and Türkiye have a common interest in stabilizing Syria and the region “for both geopolitical and humanitarian reasons.” He argues that the Syria statements from Berlin and Ankara show a “surprising synchronization” in terms of content and believes that the two countries should work together despite their differences.
Aydin concludes his assessment as follows:
“The political stabilization of Syria through the reconciliation of interests between Ankara and the YPG in Syria would also create opportunities for the resolution of Türkiye’s armed conflict with the PKK. The advantages for Türkiye are obvious: Renewed economic ties with Syria, dynamic growth in both countries and the prospect of deeper regional economic integration. For Germany there will be opportunities for a development-oriented return policy and a better image in the Arab-Muslim world.”
EU-Gulf cooperation for Syria
Furthermore, the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) writes that the EU “will not be the most important player” in Syria in the near future but could take a common position with the Gulf Arab states in shaping Syria’s future.
The ECFR argues that the current Euro-Gulf relations offer great potential to “bring Syria the stability it deserves” and that despite its past, HTS has shown signs of “moderation” and “pragmatism” and that the Gulf countries therefore have a common interest in “making the New Syria work.”
The ECFR argues that the Europeans should seize the opportunity to define a common position with the Gulf on the future of Syria and that they share important interests with the Gulf Arab states in promoting a “stable Syria that contributes to regional stability,” “preventing the country from becoming a base for extremism” and ensuring the voluntary return of refugees.
On the other hand, ECFR writes that both the EU and the Gulf “should press Türkiye and Israel to end destabilizing military interventions that risk undermining the transition.”
Middle East
US warns Gulf allies of possible Iran strikes after midterms
The US administration has notified several Gulf allies that it could launch a short but intensive military campaign against Iran immediately following the congressional midterm elections on 3 November. Washington urged regional states to prepare for this contingency.
According to a Wall Street Journal report citing sources with direct knowledge of the discussions, the warning did not specify which countries were briefed. Meanwhile, military activity on the ground has accelerated alongside these disclosures.
The US military has deployed a Patriot air defence battery from Texas to the Middle East, while beginning to pull its personnel back from exposed bases within range of Iranian ballistic missiles and drones to more secure positions. These moves reinforce indications that the US and Israel are preparing for a direct, wide-scale confrontation with Tehran.
The White House declined to comment on sensitive military plans whose existence has not been officially confirmed. An official statement emphasized, however, that President Donald Trump keeps all options on the table to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
The New York Times reported last week that US and Israeli armed forces have stepped up joint military drills based on a short but intensive operational scenario. Potential targets identified by the newspaper include Iran’s nuclear facilities, critical energy infrastructure, and production centres for missiles and armed unmanned aerial vehicles.
The same report noted that while seen as an unlikely outcome, Trump could approve the operation before the end of October, though he might also opt against authorizing any military action. In recent months, Trump has repeatedly suspended decisions to re-enter active hostilities at the last moment.
The current active conflict between the two nations was triggered on 28 February by a joint US-Israeli strike on Iranian targets. Trump explained the primary rationale for the operation as ensuring that Tehran can under no circumstances attain a nuclear weapon.
These military actions follow the 12-day war fought in June 2025. During that air campaign, Washington directly targeted and struck Iran’s primary nuclear installations at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi outlined the latest situation on the ground during an address to the UN Security Council. Grossi stated that the agency has found no evidence indicating that Tehran is repairing or rebuilding from scratch the nuclear infrastructure damaged in the 2025 and 2026 strikes.
Criticizing the continued exclusion of monitors, Grossi urged Iran to grant international inspectors immediate access to all its nuclear sites, including damaged locations. Since the US bombardment in June 2025, the IAEA has been unable to independently verify the current status of Tehran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
According to official agency records, Iran held 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity prior to the June 2025 war. In nuclear physics, 60% enrichment is technically regarded as exceptionally close to the roughly 90% threshold required for weapons grade.
Following the bombings, Tehran barred international inspectors from entering the struck facilities. Because of this restriction, the regulatory body cannot ascertain how much of this critical stockpile remains intact or where it is currently stored.
Mounting military costs fuel domestic political pressure
President Trump maintains that the June 2025 air strikes demolished Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Nevertheless, the prolonged military operations have destabilized economic conditions, and soaring domestic fuel prices in particular are placing the governing Republican Party under severe political strain ahead of the midterms.
Trump has pushed back against criticism over rising energy costs, arguing that absorbing higher prices at the pump is necessary to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear arms.
Pentagon budget records reviewed by Reuters indicate that total US military spending on the Iran conflict has surpassed $47 billion. This figure stands 25% above official estimates released by defence officials in July.
The largest portion of total expenditures, $29 billion, was allocated to replenishing depleted munitions stocks, while $6 billion went toward replacing worn military hardware. It remains unclear whether repair bills for US bases damaged by retaliatory Iranian missile and kamikaze drone strikes are included in this official $47 billion sum.
Middle East
US military operations against Iran reach $47 billion
The total cost of US military operations against Iran has reached $47 billion.
According to a report by the American newspaper The Hill, citing an assessment by US Central Command (CENTCOM), the operation’s budget grew by more than $3 billion in the past month alone.
A detailed breakdown of the spending appears in a document prepared by the command. The largest share of the budget is accounted for by munitions shipments, totalling $29 billion.
Additional expenses arising directly from conducting the military operation stand at approximately $12 billion, whilst replacing lost military equipment and gear requires $6.1 billion.
Funding allocated to support military personnel deployed to the region, air transport, communications, and transport operations within the operational theatre is calculated at $7.6 billion.
Moreover, this overall total does not include the expenditure required to repair and rebuild US military bases in the Middle East.
According to information reported by The Hill, US President Donald Trump is weighing the possibility of launching fresh strikes against Iran following the country’s midterm elections.
Trump had previously described the military operation against Iran as one of the best decisions of his presidency.
Congress steps in as budget deficit deepens
The bill for the operation climbed swiftly in a short period. In a statement on 22 July, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced that the cost of the Iran campaign had reached $37.5 billion.
Hegseth noted that the figure covered both expenses already incurred and projected spending through the end of the fiscal year on 30 September.
A day before Hegseth’s statement, The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon was facing a severe cash crunch due to the war with Iran.
The newspaper reported that the White House had requested an emergency supplemental appropriation of $67 billion from Congress to cover military expenses, warning that the military would be forced to cut other spending items if the request were rejected.
Following these developments, the House of Representatives approved a $1.15 trillion defence budget.
The relevant resolution includes allocating $73 billion in additional funding to the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, primarily to cover the costs of the war being waged with Iran.
Middle East
Over 3,000 Palestinians displaced as Israel’s Hebron siege hits day 5
The Israeli army’s siege of the city of Hebron in the occupied West Bank has entered its fifth day. More than 3,000 Palestinians have been forced to flee their homes as raids, house demolitions, and forced evictions continue across the city.
According to data shared by Hebron Municipality on 26 October, the number of displaced people has reached 3,189. More than 200 of them are infants.
Municipal authorities announced that roughly half of the total displaced population consists of children and youths under the age of 18.
Palestinian officials in the besieged city declared a state of emergency and established an urgent crisis desk.
Rami Khamis, a member of the crisis desk, highlighted civic solidarity in remarks to Al Jazeera, saying local residents and benefactors who refused to let their fellow citizens stay in temporary shelters opened their homes to displaced families.
A Palestinian forced to abandon his home in haste recounted his ordeal to Al Jazeera on 26 October.
Explaining that they fled with only the clothes on their backs, the resident said their savings, household goods, and official documents were left behind. After placing his family in a relatively safe place, he attempted to return to salvage their belongings, but could not reach the house because the area was no longer safe.
The siege began immediately after an attack on 23 October in which two Israeli soldiers were killed. The two Palestinians who carried out the assault were killed at the scene by Israeli forces.
Citing this incident, the Israeli army blockaded the city and launched wide-ranging operations. The British newspaper The Guardian described the measures carried out in Hebron as “collective punishment”.
Hamas official Mahmoud Mardawi also condemned both the siege in Hebron and the military incursions spreading across the occupied West Bank in a statement on 26 October.
Emphasising that these steps constitute collective punishment, Mardawi warned that escalating tensions on the ground could lead to grave consequences.
Mardawi further argued that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government are using these attacks for propaganda and electoral calculations, stating that military pressure will not break Palestinian resilience and that calculations regarding annexation and mass expulsion will fail to achieve their goal.
Operation rift in Israeli leadership
As the blockade entered its fifth day, a divergence of opinion emerged between Israel’s military brass and the government.
According to a report in the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clashed over the future of the operation.
Zamir argued that the military campaign on the ground had delivered whatever benefit it could provide and that it was now time to bring it to an end.
Military officials said tangible gains achieved throughout the operation remained limited, indicating that whether to sustain the current push required reassessment.
Indeed, the newspaper reported that Israeli forces managed to seize only a limited number of weapons in the city, failing to uncover any unusual arsenals or major arms caches.
However, Chief of Staff Zamir’s proposal to end the operation was rejected. Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Defence Minister dismissed the recommendation and decided to continue the offensive.
At least 70 Palestinians have been detained in Hebron since the siege and operations began. The Israeli army is also continuing extensive demolition activities targeting civilian homes across the city.
-
America2 weeks agoHow Elon Musk fuses private empire with state power, Ben Tarnoff explains
-
Middle East2 weeks agoEgypt delays parliamentary vote on deploying troops to Saudi Arabia
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD leader Weidel calls funding lost Ukraine war a grave mistake
-
America1 week agoUS wealthy demolish multimillion-dollar mansions for land
-
America1 week agoAt least 47 major US data centre projects halted or cancelled
-
Middle East1 week agoNetanyahu unveils security doctrine and regional alliance map
-
Europe1 week agoEU rejects US proposal to resume Russian gas flows through Ukraine
-
Middle East1 week agoNetanyahu trails Eisenkot in Israeli polls despite Trump backing
