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

US waives human rights terms on $320m military aid to Egypt

Published

on

The US State Department stated that it has waived human rights conditions on more than $300 million in military aid to Egypt.

The statement emphasised that this decision was taken in consideration of Cairo’s “helpful role” since the outbreak of the war against Iran.

Egypt began receiving substantial support from the US after signing a peace treaty with Israel in 1979.

Since the late 1980s, the country has received approximately $1.3 billion annually in US military assistance.

A portion of this aid is subject to conditions related to human rights and democracy, which can be waived on national security grounds.

Withholding funds, including during the administration of former US President Joe Biden, has caused tension between Cairo and Washington in the past.

A letter dated 21 September and addressed to various congressional committees, obtained by Reuters, stated that Secretary of State Marco Rubio “decided to waive the certification requirement under the fiscal year 2025 Foreign Military Financing programme for Egypt of $320 million.”

This waiver was subsequently confirmed by the State Department.

An accompanying memorandum justifying the decision stated that this portion of military aid was “essential for counterterrorism, border security, or non-proliferation programmes, or otherwise important to the national security interests of the United States.”

The memorandum, dated 4 September and bearing Rubio’s signature, stated: “Exercising this waiver authority is critical to the US-Egypt relationship and to US national security priorities, particularly given the helpful role Egypt has played in the aftermath of Operation Epic Fury.”

“Operation Epic Fury” is the designation used by the US military for the campaign launched jointly with Israel against Iran in late February.

The State Department memorandum, whose authenticity was confirmed by two sources in Washington familiar with the letter, did not provide detailed information regarding what was termed Egypt’s “helpful role”.

The State Department’s annual decision on military aid to Egypt typically covers funds allocated for the preceding fiscal year, which ends on 30 September.

A State Department spokesperson stated that Rubio waived the certification in the interest of US national security and that the US continues to cooperate with the Egyptian government across a range of issues.

In an emailed statement, the spokesperson said: “This waiver recognizes the importance of maintaining security cooperation with Egypt at a time of significant security challenges in the region.”

The Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not immediately comment on the matter.

The spillover effects of the Iran war have imposed a heavy toll on US security partners, including Egypt.

Owing to rising fuel prices and other disruptions, the Egyptian economy is passing through a difficult period.

Under the Biden administration, the US withheld portions of the annual military allocation on multiple occasions over Egypt’s human rights record.

In 2024, following the Hamas-led 7 October attack on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza, the Biden administration set aside human rights conditions, disbursing the entire $1.3 billion allocation to Egypt for the first time in its tenure.

Human rights organisations have long accused Egypt, under the administration of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, of widespread human rights abuses, including torture and enforced disappearances.

This week, Egyptian police detained six journalists from a fact-checking and investigative media outlet, accusing them of spreading false information on behalf of the banned Muslim Brotherhood.

Egyptian authorities state that they have taken steps to address human rights issues. Sisi said stability is paramount and that the government supports human rights by working to provide for basic needs.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Britain expands curbs on arms exports to Israel over Gaza risks

Published

on

Britain has significantly broadened its military export restrictions targeting Israel, suspending or rejecting more than 80 licences for items the IDF could use in Gaza.

This figure is nearly triple the number affected when the policy was first introduced in September 2024.

United Kingdom Minister of State for the Middle East Stephen Doughty said that as part of what he described as a “tighter system” for assessing exports to Israel, more than 50 further export applications have been refused since approximately 30 licences were initially suspended.

Under the initial decision taken in September 2024, 30 of roughly 350 licences were suspended after the British government concluded there was a “clear risk” that certain military exports could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.

The affected equipment included components for military aircraft, drones, naval systems, and targeting gear.

Doughty said additional measures adopted this month established what he termed a “double safeguard” mechanism within the approvals process.

Export applications must now be assessed both against existing international humanitarian law criteria and in light of Britain’s position on the legality of Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories.

“We have so far suspended or refused more than 80 licences,” Doughty said, adding that he had personally examined each licence.

Despite the wider restrictions, British-origin parts entering the international F-35 fighter jet supply chain continue to be largely exempt.

The UK government argues that preventing British-made components from entering the global F-35 pool could undermine the programme as a whole and have serious consequences for the security of the UK and its allies.

Direct exports of F-35 parts intended specifically for Israel remain suspended.

Doughty defended maintaining the supply of components via the international programme, arguing that halting it could have severe ramifications for the broader European and allied security architecture.

Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Emily Thornberry challenged this position, arguing that the issue was political rather than purely legal.

Thornberry suggested adopting an approach similar to the Dutch model, under which components entering the international supply chain could be flagged as “not intended for aircraft bound for Israel”.

The initial suspension was implemented in September 2024 by then Foreign Secretary David Lammy.

Lammy stressed at the time that the measure did not constitute an arms embargo and applied solely to items assessed as usable in military operations in Gaza.

Since then, the policy has been tightened further under Prime Minister Andy Burnham.

The expanded export restrictions follow the Burnham government’s adoption of a more confrontational policy toward the Israeli government.

Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband drew sustained applause at the Labour Party’s annual conference in Liverpool after delivering a sharp critique of the Netanyahu government’s policies and defending the decision to ban trade with Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Accusing Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza, Miliband stated that the British government heard public outrage over the conflict, telling delegates: “We hear you. You were right.”

Continue Reading

Middle East

Netanyahu holds secret UAE talks with Saudi Arabia and Arab officials

Published

on

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with representatives of Gulf and Arab nations that lack diplomatic ties with Israel, including Saudi Arabia, during his weekend visit to the United Arab Emirates.

Sources close to the gathering told the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth on Monday that representatives from Morocco, Libya, Jordan, and Qatar also took part in the meeting.

Netanyahu made a unannounced visit to Abu Dhabi on Sunday, where he met with the country’s leader, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

According to Israeli media, this marked the first time the United Arab Emirates officially confirmed a visit by Netanyahu.

The meeting was arranged by Mossad Director Roman Goffman “at the request of Saudi Arabia, which asked for Israel’s assistance against Houthi attacks in the Red Sea region,” according to Yedioth Ahronoth.

The discussions addressed Iran and the Houthi militia. The newspaper added that the Arab states heard from Israel that “Israel is prepared to assist countries in the region with air defence systems, just as it aided the UAE during the conflict with Iran.”

Conflict in Yemen intensified in September when Ansarullah militiamen launched a rapid offensive that seized Yemen’s entire Red Sea coastline, including the vital maritime corridor of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

The Yemeni resistance also imposed a blockade on Saudi Arabia’s energy exports and staged multiple attacks against the kingdom.

Saudi Arabia reportedly sought military assistance from the US to counter Ansarullah.

Washington declined to attack the Houthis directly, but announced that it would provide intelligence and targeting support.

Reporting on the same visit, The Jerusalem Post said Netanyahu spent six hours in the UAE and that the principal subject of his discussions with MBZ was Iran.

Citing sources familiar with the matter, the newspaper added that the trip came “after Netanyahu exerted heavy pressure on the United Arab Emirates to arrange a meeting ahead of the Israeli elections on 27 October.”

Separately, the Associated Press, citing a person with direct knowledge of the meeting, reported that Netanyahu’s visit to the UAE was arranged in part to ask MBZ to deny reports that he had warned the Israeli prime minister of an impending Hamas threat prior to 7 October 2023.

According to Israeli media, Netanyahu’s office denied the AP report, issuing the following statement:

“Fake news. The visit focused solely on strengthening ties between the two countries and on regional issues.”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey