Middle East
Is Tunisia standing at a critical crossroads?
In Tunisia, which has been rocked by corruption, unsolved murders, and economic crisis under the 10-year Ennahda administration, the government is now in the hands of an unauthorized assembly and the President, whose public support weakens day by day. “Tunisia, where the tradition of grassroots democracy is relatively strong, will seemingly be standing at a critical crossroads in the near term,” notes Dr. Selim Sezer.
An early general election was held in Tunisia on December 17 to determine the new members of the 161-seat parliament. According to unofficial results, Independent High Authority for Elections in Tunisia announced that turnout rate was 11.22 percent. “In the first round of parliamentary elections, 1 million 25 thousand 418 voters cast ballots. After the votes counted, the turnout was measured as 11.22 percent,” said ISIE member Farouk Bouasker. The number of valid votes was 956,16 Bouasker reported, adding that the number of invalid votes was 45,613 and the number of blank votes was 23,789.
Farouk Bouasker, Head of the High Election Board, announced the election results. Photo: Yassine Gaid/AA
Bouasker announced that 23 candidates, who could win more than 50 percent of the votes in the region they were racing in, were elected to parliament in the first round, and a second round would be held in 131 regions to determine the remaining deputies. The final results of the early general elections are expected on January 19.
Before President Kais Saied dissolved the Assembly, the country had been ruled by the governments of the Ennahda Movement, the Tunisian affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, for 10 years. After the economic crisis hit the country and the Parliament chaired by Rached Ghannouchi became dysfunctional, Kais Saied froze the work of Parliament and lifted the parliamentary immunities. On 13 December 2021, Saied announced that with the “road map to the exit the political crisis”, the referendum on the constitutional amendment will be held in the country on 25 July 2022, and early general elections will be held on 17 December 2022, and the Parliament will remain closed until then. The referendum held on July 25 with the participation of 30.5 percent of voters, approved the new Constitution with 94.6 percent “yes” votes.
The fact that the turnout rate was low in the elections due to the parties boycotting the election, left questions over Saied’s legitimacy. The National Salvation Front, which includes opposition parties in the country, especially the Ennahda Party, has called for mass protests and sit-ins, demanding fresh presidential elections.
We talked about the process that led Tunisia to early elections, discussions on the President’s legitimacy and what awaits the country with Gedik University Faculty Member, Dr. Selim Sezer.
‘The Council will be Saied’s ‘advisory council’’’
- What was the process that brought Tunisia to the point where the President dissolved the Parliament, which resulted in the referendum and the election? Why did the country hold an early election?
Undoubtedly, the starting point of the process was President Kais Saied’s dismissal of the government in July last year and the dissolution of the Parliament. At the time, Saied alleged that the provisions of Article 80 of the Tunisian Constitution gave him such a mandate, notifying the speaker of the Parliament and prime minister with a phone-call and shelving both legislative and executive bodies. Although the article allowed for a state of emergency that would last only 30 days and said that work of the Parliament would not be terminated in the process, Kais Saied has ruled the country unilaterally for a long time. Again, although the constitution said that the Constitutional Court would decide whether the state of emergency would continue at the end of 30 days, there was no mechanism that could limit it in this process, as Saied prevented the establishment of the Constitutional Court, which was previously envisaged by vetoing the relevant law from the Parliament.
Naturally, during the Ennahda era, the country’s political atmosphere, in which serious corruption and unsolved murders prevailed, prompted the reaction of majority of the Tunisian people. However, Saied’s coup was supported by some of the main political actors in Tunisia, while at the same time it was the target of criticism from many actors, including some of Ennahda. Exactly one year later, during a new constitutional referendum in July this year, which gave the President very broad powers, the criticism became much more intense and spread to a much broader base. Tunisia’s Workers’ Party, for example, defined this referendum as “the registration of an autocratic regime to the public” and “clowning.” As is known, the participation rate in this referendum remained at 30%.
In order to complete the establishment of Saied’s personal regime, and at the same time to constitute a formal “legitimacy”, a new parliament had to be opened in place of the dissolved one. For this reason, the first round of the election was held recently, and a second round will be held in the coming months, and if there is no unexpected development; the Parliament, which will not go beyond Saied’s “advisory council” at best, will take office by March.
Photo: Royal Court of Saudi Arabia
‘People do not believe that the parliament will find a solution’
- The low turnout in the elections prompted a debate on the President’s legitimacy. Why do you think turnout rate was low? What are the challenges facing the President, whose legitimacy is questioned?
The record low voter turnout is due to several complementary reasons. First, the new parliament to be formed will have almost no real function. Deputies will not be able to dismiss the president and give the government a no-confidence vote. The draft laws submitted by the president to parliament will be a priority.
There will be no party groups in this dysfunctional parliament. Individual candidates have been placed before voters, not party lists, and most of these candidates are not recognized by the people.
Tunisia, on the other hand, has been experiencing a serious economic crisis for a long time. Basic consumables such as milk, sugar, butter is hard to find. People do not believe that a parliament that will arise from an election held in this environment and under these conditions can find a solution to any problem.
As a result, Tunisia’s major political parties, non-governmental organizations, and trade unions such as the UGTT had called for a boycott of the election. These calls received a fairly broad response, and 90 percent of voters did not go to the polls. In the previous elections, turnout rate ranged from 40-60%. After the participation rate was officially announced, the opposition formation called “Salvation Front”, including Ennahda, and many other movements and figures announced that Saied had lost his legitimacy and called for his resignation and public demonstrations. The pressure on Saied will be intense in the coming weeks and months.
‘He’s losing support day by day’
- Despite the opposition in the country, where does the President get the power to manage the process that began with the dissolution of the Parliament?
It is not possible to say that Kais Saied has international support that is worthy of note. Inside the country, he initially had much greater support and was elected president with more than 70 percent of the vote in 2019. What allowed him to advance the process that began with the dissolution of the Parliament in the summer of 2021 was that he was able to receive the support of the political spectrum at least in the early periods, and that he was deemed more preferable to various circles than to a political equation in which Ennahda and its allies were strong. However, it is possible to say that he loses another piece of its power, prestige, and legitimacy every day and his support base shrinks rapidly. Saied’s ability to maintain his current position seems to be due to the fragmentation of the opposition and the lack of a stronger actor within the country.
Necip al-Shaabi thinks that the people no longer support Said. Photo: Yassine Gaidi/AA
‘Ennahda’s fate is intertwined with the Salvation Front’
- For the last elections, “The last nail in the coffin of the Ennahda Movement” comments were made. Does Ennahda have a future in Tunisia?
Although the Ennahda movement has now lost much of its former strength as a political actor, it appears to be in a recovery effort with some of its allies. As a matter of fact, five political parties and some grassroots movements, including Ennahda, came together under the roof of the “Salvation Front” about six months ago. Ahmed Najib Chebbi, left-wing politician, has become the leader of this Front. The coalition aims to rebuild democracy after Kais Saied’s intervention in political life. From time to time, the movement was accused of trying to restore Ennahda’s power, but Chebbi repeatedly denied such claims. In any case, Ennahda’s political destiny seems to be intertwined with the destiny of this formation.
Tunisia has been in striking and deep loops for 12 years. In the future, perhaps as an interesting twist in history, it will be emphasized that the date of the rebellion against Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s personal regime and the economic crisis (17 December 2010) coincide with the date of the consolidation of Kais Saied’s personal regime and the start of the passive resistance against the economic crisis (17 December 2022). Although it is difficult to predict the results of the process in the medium and long term, Tunisia, where the tradition of grassroots democracy is relatively strong, will seemingly be standing at a critical crossroads in the near term.
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.
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.
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.”
AfD’s Siegmund links German rearmament to remigration plans
Chinese carmakers expand European share as Stellantis loses ground
Iran resumes ballistic missile assembly using stockpiled parts
Analysts warn new surge in Chinese exports threatens global markets
Anthropic uncovers Claude use by Iranian, Houthi, and Russian units
-
Europe5 days agoGermany’s CDU drafts tougher citizenship rules to counter AfD
-
Russia2 weeks agoWhat to know about Russia’s upcoming State Duma elections?
-
Europe2 weeks agoMarine Le Pen leads all 2027 French presidential scenarios, poll shows
-
Diplomacy1 week agoGeoffrey Roberts sees Ukraine war concluding within coming months
-
Middle East2 weeks agoIran expands deterrence as Gulf strikes expose US munitions limits, analysts say
-
Europe2 weeks agoGerman industrial bosses push for return to 40-hour working week
-
Russia2 weeks agoRussia warns NATO over Arctic militarisation and conflict risks
-
Asia2 weeks agoBOJ faces critical rate decision as US presses for faster hikes
