Connect with us

Middle East

International powers to set ‘minimum behavior standards’ for Syria, says James Jeffrey

Published

on

James Jeffrey, a retired US diplomat, has outlined his vision for the future of Syria following the agreement signed between Damascus and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

In an article penned for Al Majalla, the former US Ambassador to Türkiye and former Special Representative for Syria Engagement argued that Syrian unity must be established in a manner that prevents the country from sliding back into a new civil war.

According to Jeffrey, this objective is achievable only if Damascus reaches out to the country’s diverse ethnic and religious minorities and avoids violent government repression.

Jeffrey further noted that the central government must implement forms of local and regional self-governance, including cultural and political rights, the election of local officials, and democratic oversight of policing and public finance.

“While this type of roadmap is not particularly common in the Middle East, it is enshrined in the Iraqi constitution and has worked significantly well since 2006 in areas where Kurds do not live (the Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq operates under different provisions of that constitution and is not particularly applicable to Syria),” Jeffrey wrote.

Pointing out that the “international community” can facilitate this process, Jeffrey argued that the administration in Damascus is likely to cooperate if the US can bring together regional and international powers to link economic aid and diplomatic support to the “resolution of local governance and human rights issues.”

Jeffrey wrote that progress toward the “full integration” of the Kurds is not only the most critical project within Syria but also stands out as one of the most important regional priorities in the Middle East, alongside negotiations with Iran and the implementation of the second phase of President Donald Trump’s Gaza peace plan.

The retired diplomat summarized the necessary strategy for US-led international powers as “conditional support, collective pressure,” emphasizing that the US has learned it cannot impose solutions on the internal dynamics of sovereign states.

On the other hand, Jeffrey indicated that both the US and its international partners can speak with one voice on “unacceptable matters.” He noted, “This begins with a firm rejection of renewed clashes between the central government and local militias—such as the bloody conflicts that occurred last summer in Suwayda, a province with a Druze majority.”

Jeffrey pointed out that the “international community” could push for a reduction of the central government’s security presence in minority regions and the establishment of locally controlled police forces. In return, he advised that Kurds, Druze, and other minority groups should commit to decommissioning heavy and crew-served weaponry and allow central government forces freedom of movement in these areas following local coordination.

Jeffrey continued:

“Beyond this, the international community can offer recommendations on internal relations, but no external actor should insist on the implementation of a game plan that supports its own specific ideas. The international community must insist on minimum standards of behavior, particularly regarding the unjust use of force against minorities and citizens. Compliance with these standards should be linked to foreign aid and collectively enforced by all international supporters.”

According to Jeffrey, the other form of assistance the US can provide to Syria involves the foreign powers currently maintaining troops and influence in the country: Iran, Russia, Israel, and Türkiye.

Jeffrey believes that following the fall of Bashar al-Assad, Iranian influence is now negligible. He argued that preventing Iran’s return to Syria in any capacity must be a top priority for both Syria and the region.

Noting that the new Syrian administration already lacks such a desire, Jeffrey reminded that Israel and Türkiye are also opposed to an Iranian return to Syria.

Underlining that the Russian military presence is not a priority for the US, and that Israel and Türkiye view the Russian presence as a counterbalancing element against one another, the diplomat stated that the primary issue to monitor is the relationship between Israel and Türkiye.

Regarding Türkiye, Jeffrey wrote the following:

“Ankara’s strong position in Damascus implies a specific responsibility for what happens next. The most pressing issue is Kurdish integration, which could potentially fail. If this fails and Damascus resumes its attacks on the SDF—encouraged by certain circles in Ankara—Türkiye will be blamed. This blame would damage Türkiye’s relations with Washington and its NATO and trade partners in Europe, all of whom favor the SDF for its central role in defeating ISIS. Furthermore, a powerful and militarily successful Türkiye stands alongside an equally victorious Israel in Syria, and there is a risk that other bilateral frictions, such as Gaza, could spill over into Syria.”

Middle East

Iran resumes ballistic missile assembly using stockpiled parts

Published

on

Iran has resumed ballistic missile production in underground facilities, despite statements by Israeli and US authorities asserting that this capacity had been completely eliminated.

According to a report by The Wall Street Journal citing US and Middle Eastern officials, the Tehran administration is utilizing pre-stockpiled components in the manufacturing process.

Officials report that despite strikes on missile sites and industrial installations at the beginning of the war, Iran continues the assembly of both solid- and liquid-fuelled missiles.

Intelligence data indicates activity at numerous underground centres, including the Khojir complex in the southeast of the country, along with efforts to establish additional underground assembly points to protect against new air strikes.

Current assembly operations are being maintained at lower volumes compared with pre-war levels, as US and Israeli operations destroyed several facilities and a naval blockade has impeded the import of components and solid-fuel ingredients.

Assessing the process, Tal Inbar, a senior analyst at the US-based Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, stressed that damaged infrastructure can be repaired during periods when facilities are not targeted, and parts procured from other countries can be stored there.

Inbar noted that it would be naive to believe Iran is not rebuilding its missile production capacity.

Arguing that the facilities were destroyed and Tehran has suffered severe losses, the official stated that Iran remains weaker than ever before, and US President Donald Trump will never permit the country to acquire nuclear weapons.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell stated that the US has destroyed up to 90% of Iran’s drone, ballistic missile, and naval industrial infrastructure, severely degrading Tehran’s ability to launch missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.

Another US government official pointed out that the Tehran administration may have revived production, albeit on a low scale, following preliminary talks conducted in mid-June with the Trump administration regarding the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and ending the war. The official noted that existing stockpiles are sufficient to assemble at least two hundred missiles.

A CNN report in late May indicated that the Tehran administration was attempting to reopen underground missile shelters, struck by the US and Israel with costly munitions, using bulldozers and dump trucks.

Excavation activities accelerated after the April ceasefire decision; out of 69 tunnel entrances struck across 18 distinct locations, 50 have been made accessible again.

Experts stressed that it is impossible to destroy missile power solely by bombing tunnel entrances, underlining the limitations of such bombardments.

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth claimed in April that they had effectively ended Iran’s missile programme. However, an NBC News report noted that Tehran utilized the ceasefire period to reconstitute its military strength.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Mohammed bin Salman urges Trump to strike Houthis after Mokha falls

Published

on

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has requested that US President Donald Trump launch air strikes against the Houthis in Yemen.

According to two US officials who spoke to Axios, Trump rejected the request, and US officials emphasised that the administration has no plans for direct intervention against the Houthis for now.

Oil prices surged on Thursday after the resistance led by Houthi militias (Ansarallah) seized the strategic coastal city of Mokha in Yemen.

This development brought the Yemeni resistance one step closer to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which is vital for global trade and Saudi oil exports.

With Iran already disrupting traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, Houthi control over Bab el-Mandeb could provide Tehran with powerful new leverage over the US and its Gulf allies.

On Thursday, as Houthi forces advanced towards the coastal city of Mokha and Saudi-backed Yemeni forces retreated, bin Salman telephoned Trump to brief him on the deteriorating situation.

A few hours later, the prince called again to request that Trump carry out US air strikes against the Houthis.

Trump declined, but a US official stated that the administration would provide Saudi Arabia with intelligence and targeting data on the Houthis.

The official noted that approximately 200 US military personnel are currently stationed in Saudi Arabia, providing non-military support.

A senior Trump administration official indicated that Washington’s priority is keeping the Red Sea open, while leaving the broader fight to regional partners.

“We are in continuous dialogue with Saudi Arabia and the Government of the Republic of Yemen regarding regional stability,” the official said.

The official continued:

“The US remains focused on protecting our core national security interests, such as ensuring freedom of navigation in the Red Sea, while empowering our regional partners to take the lead in managing and resolving regional security challenges.”

The US is concerned by the rapidly escalating conflict in Yemen and is seeking to avoid direct military intervention while increasing its support for Saudi Arabia.

According to two sources familiar with the matter, Admiral Brad Cooper, Commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM), travelled to Saudi Arabia on Thursday for urgent coordination meetings.

The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemeni resistance forces reignited in July after Riyadh blocked an Iranian aircraft carrying senior Houthi officials from landing in Sanaa following their return from Ali Khamenei’s funeral.

Bin Salman requested Trump’s political support to strike Sanaa airport, but made clear that Saudi Arabia did not require US military assistance. Trump granted his support.

The Houthis subsequently retaliated by attacking Saudi tankers in the Red Sea. These strikes threatened a route crucial to the kingdom’s oil exports, and the group later expanded its attacks to Saudi energy facilities.

Saudi Arabia and its Yemeni allies responded with air strikes and ground operations against Houthi positions.

Saudi Arabia’s request for direct US military intervention marks a sharp reversal from July, when Riyadh informed Washington that it could manage the Houthis on its own.

As clashes intensified, the Saudis began seeking progressively greater support from the US.

Sources close to the discussions noted that in recent weeks, US military and civilian officials informed their Saudi counterparts that Trump’s directive is to keep American forces focused on Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, and to avoid opening a new front.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Netanyahu ignored MBZ warning on Hamas 7 October plan, report says

Published

on

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly ignored a direct warning from UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan in the run-up to 7 October 2023, according to an investigation by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

The report states that the UAE leader, widely known as MBZ, was convinced in September 2023 that an explosion was imminent in the region, particularly given the escalating tensions in the West Bank.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who maintains close ties with bin Zayed, recounted: “In the months leading up to the war, he spoke with me about this issue frequently. He consistently conveyed the message that the situation needed to be de-escalated. He even dispatched a special envoy to Israel who met with the prime minister. The emir appeared to sense that the region was on the verge of erupting.”

MBZ also engaged in direct discussions with Netanyahu. These exchanges followed a standard operational protocol: a representative from the United Arab Emirates embassy would arrive at the prime minister’s office equipped with a specialised, secure telephone device to ensure confidentiality.

However, according to the newspaper, the call initiated by bin Zayed on this occasion was extraordinary in nature.

A week and a half before 7 October 2023, the UAE ruler placed a call to Netanyahu from the Presidential Palace in Abu Dhabi, and the two leaders spoke for 45 minutes.

During this conversation, bin Zayed warned that Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader in Gaza, was planning a major operation against Israel.

Bin Zayed voiced deep concern that such an event would not only lead to significant bloodshed, but would also destabilise the entire region and undermine the Abraham Accords.

Haaretz reported that three senior foreign sources possess direct knowledge of the call’s contents, marking the first public disclosure of the conversation’s existence.

A close Palestinian adviser to bin Zayed, who had emigrated from Gaza to Abu Dhabi years earlier and maintained extensive connections across the Gaza Strip, was also present during the exchange.

According to the adviser, the UAE ruler stressed to Netanyahu that Israel needed to prepare for this specific threat.

The adviser stated:

“The emir explained that, according to his assessment, Sinwar was preparing for a major event. He told Netanyahu that Israel had to be prepared. At the same time, he proposed working towards an economic solution for the Gaza Strip to prevent escalation, alongside calming the situation in the West Bank.”

Bin Zayed urged Netanyahu to take the matter seriously. Yet, to the emir’s surprise, the prime minister reacted with relative calm.

Netanyahu told bin Zayed that, in his own assessment, Hamas was planning to operate in the West Bank area. Reassuring the Emirati leader, Netanyahu insisted that Israel was prepared for any scenario.

The UAE leader later recounted his conversation with Netanyahu and his subsequent warning to CIA Director William J. Burns.

Bin Zayed shared with Burns the intuitive alarm he had sought to convey to Netanyahu—that “something over there is about to blow”—and noted the Israeli prime minister’s conviction that the unstable theatre was in fact the West Bank.

“The emir hoped that, despite Netanyahu’s reserved reaction, he would take the message seriously and take action,” the adviser said.

However, neither anticipated that the prime minister would hear the warning without briefing the heads of his defence and security establishments: neither the director of the Shin Bet, nor the director of the Mossad, nor the chief of staff of the Israel Defence Forces was informed of MBZ’s warning.

Haaretz noted that Gaza-related negotiations between Israel and Hamas had been proceeding smoothly in early 2023, providing the context in which the Emirati ruler’s concerns emerged.

The report received swift corroboration from the Israeli political opposition. Former prime minister and leader of the B’Yachad party, Naftali Bennett, stated that he knew the warning issued by UAE leader Mohamed bin Zayed to Netanyahu concerning Hamas’s plans prior to 7 October was genuine.

Speaking to 103FM, Bennett said: “I am telling you: I know this to be true.”

Bennett continued:

“Mohamed bin Zayed of the UAE warned Netanyahu that Sinwar was planning an operation. The head of the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate, Abbas Kamel, also notified Netanyahu a few days before the massacre that a major operation was being planned. I do not wish to discuss my sources with anyone. I am telling you: I know this fact to be true.”

Contending that Netanyahu had led Israel “blindly into this horrific disaster,” the opposition figure asserted: “He was so deeply captive to the conception that Hamas was an asset that, despite receiving explicit warnings, he did nothing.”

Bennett maintained that Netanyahu bears direct responsibility for 7 October, not merely by virtue of being prime minister, but because “he spent 15 years strengthening Hamas and doing nothing.”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey