Connect with us

Middle East

Professor Hasan Unal: ‘We can get Northern Cyprus recognized, if we agree with Syria’

Published

on

Recent statements made by Turkish officials, mainly by the President Erdogan, about the possibility of an “upper-level dialogue” with the Syrian government, have brought up expectations for the normalization of relations between Ankara and Damascus.

Syria was on the top agenda, first at the trilateral summit in Tehran in Astana Format between Turkiye, Russia and Iran, then at the Sochi summit where Erdogan and Putin met two weeks later the Tehran Summit. And shortly after the Sochi summit, President Erdogan made statements regarding the improvement of relations with the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and the restoration of diplomatic relations with the Syrian administration, stating “There is no such thing as resentment in the international politics. You have to be at peace at all times. You have to keep the opportunity to get in contact at any time”.

When the civil war in Syria began with an American-backed provocation in 2011, the AKP government supported the groups that defined as the “opposition”, and then declared they did not recognize the government in Damascus as the legitimate Syrian government. There were high hopes within the AKP politicians that the Bashar al-Assad would be overthrown quickly, however more than 11 years after the war began, Bashar al-Assad remained in power while regaining the control over most parts of Syria especially the areas that were under the control of ISIS. All these high hopes were crushed in the end…

Now the Syrian government demands Turkiye to withdraw from the areas it currently holds, stop supporting the groups under its control, and accelerate the resolution process in Idlib Governorate; Ankara on the other hand, demands the withdrawal and a full control over the PKK/YPG groups, which pose a threat to Turkiye within its own borders. The fastest way to resolve these mutual security demands is only through establishing upper-level relations and a full cooperation. Therefore, it has recently been on the agenda that the relations between Damascus and Ankara could be re-established.

‘Relations will quickly be normalized’

Assessing the recent developments for Harici, Professor at Maltepe University Department of Political Science and International Relations Hasan Unal, told that he was pleased to hear President Erdogan’s recent statements about improving the relations with the Syrian government to a higher level and making a new beginning in bilateral relations. Criticizing the attitude of the Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, Unal said “There is something that Cavusoglu keeps insisting on: That is to reconcile between the opposition and the regime, and trying to find a political solution. This demand is quite against Turkiye’s own national interests and may undermine the dialog process”, adding “However, I believe that the relations will quickly be normalized, by the President Erdogan’s own will”.

‘Cavusoglu’s attitude is wrong’

Stating that Cavusoglu insistently used the term “regime” to address the Syrian government, Unal said “This term has become toxic over the last years, and such language could not be used if we really desire to normalize our relations. We would also be disturbed if they referred to us as the “Erdogan regime”. We are talking about a leader and a government elected by the Syrian people themselves. It is not right to use the term regime”.

Emphasizing that Turkiye’s Syrian policy should not be focused on reconciling the Syrian government with the opposition, Professor Hasan Unal stated that the Syrian government should demonstrate their goodwill, with a number of political projects and that Ankara could act in a way that could help the Syrian government in this process.

Referring to the term “political solution” that the Turkish Foreign Minister often uses in his speeches, Unal commented “If you use this term, you would be talking about another side within Syria that is at least as legitimate as the Syrian government itself, and that would not be true. After all, there is the legitimate Syrian government, and some groups that have rebelled against it”. Underlining that it is out of the question for the groups in Idlib to be defended by Turkiye, Unal stated that there are political projects in Syria’s for the other rebel groups such as a national amnesty etc.

The three main agendas Turkiye should put forward

Professor Hasan Unal has listed three main agendas that Turkiye should forward regarding Syria, as following:

  1. Returning of the temporary refugees: We should report all the names and other identities that sought refuge in our country, and Syria should report back from which regions these groups come from, and a possible schedule for their return back home. And the refugees who cannot be returned to their original homes, are to be directed to the Syrian government’s responsibility. They can be subjected to a temporary settlement and then sent to their original home addresses.

‘We should update the Adana Memorandum’

  1. Our second aim should be towards updating and re-implementing the Adana Memorandum. PKK was specifically included in the previous memorandum, and now the YPG and other PKK-affiliates should be added to the updated memorandum. Turkiye may also demand Russia to be a signatory to the memorandum, in order to establish a full trust. Terrorist organizations such as the PKK, YPG, etc. could be included in this agreement, and Russia can also add the terrorist organizations it deems as a threat, and a mutual trust will be built.

‘Russia would recognize the TRNC if we could reach an agreement with Damascus’

  1. We should demand Syria to recognize the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), during the gradual handover of the territories currently controlled by Turkiye, back to Syria. Turkiye can also reach an agreement with Russia on TRNC’s recognition. A peace in Syria would crown Russia’s geopolitical efforts. Turkiye is in a position that is able to demand this from Russia in return for Turkiye’s careful policies in Ukraine. Russian-Greek relations are rough more than ever before, while a two-state solution in Cyprus is completely in Russia’s own favor. In a one-state solution, the entirety of the island of Cyprus would become EU territory, Turkiye would shift more towards the Western camp, and the island of Cyprus would be a full member of NATO. Such a solution on the island definitely cannot serve Russia’s national interests, that is why if Turkiye goes to a solution in accordance with its own interests regarding Syria, Russia could also be asked for diplomatic recognition of the TRNC.

Middle East

UNDP estimates $1.38 billion in building damage across southern Lebanon

Published

on

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Lebanon’s National Council for Scientific Research have released a rapid assessment report on building damage in southern Lebanon.

According to Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar newspaper, the study relied on satellite imagery and geospatial artificial intelligence (GeoAI) technologies to assess externally visible damage to buildings along the southern border between October 23, 2025, and April 29, 2026.

The report found that a total of 11,095 buildings had been completely destroyed in the areas surveyed. Based on an assumed average apartment size of 150 square metres, these destroyed structures are estimated to correspond theoretically to 17,891 housing units.

The volume of debris generated in the region is estimated at 3,107,756 cubic metres.

In addition to the buildings that were completely destroyed, the assessment identified partial damage to 2,242 buildings and minor damage to 9,311 others.

At the housing-unit level, the report estimates that alongside the approximately 17,891 units that were completely destroyed, around 5,219 homes sustained partial damage and 18,282 suffered minor damage.

The report stressed that these housing figures are not based on direct field surveys but on mathematical modelling using average floor-space assumptions and therefore constitute theoretical estimates.

Preliminary cost of building damage estimated at $1.38 billion

The report calculated reconstruction costs using a standard benchmark value of $450 per square metre. On that basis, the total preliminary cost of building damage was estimated at $1.384 billion.

Geographically, Nabatieh Governorate accounted for the largest share of the damage, estimated at $1.053 billion, while losses in South Governorate were assessed at $331 million.

At the district level, preliminary costs were estimated at $688 million in Bint Jbeil, $333 million in Marjayoun, $315 million in Tyre, $32 million in Nabatieh district and $16 million in Sidon.

The report emphasised that these figures cover only external physical damage to buildings and do not represent the final cost of reconstruction or the total economic losses caused by the war.

In Bint Jbeil district, the highest levels of destruction were recorded in Aitaroun, where 1,658 buildings were destroyed, followed by Bint Jbeil city with 1,076, Ayta al-Shaab with 539, Beit Lif with 371, Yaroun with 242 and Ainata with 227.

In Marjayoun district, 969 destroyed buildings were recorded in Mais al-Jabal, 824 in Taybeh, 285 in Houla, 199 in Markaba, 184 in Blida and 174 in Deir Siryan.

In Nabatieh district, 71 buildings were destroyed in Yahmar al-Shaqif, 69 in Zoutar al-Sharqiya and 37 in Kfar Sir. In Tyre district, 370 buildings were completely destroyed in Burj al-Shamali, 216 in Naqoura, 162 in Abbassiyeh, 80 in Tyre city and 65 in al-Mansouri. In Sidon district, destruction was concentrated mainly in Zirariyeh, where 65 buildings were destroyed, and Arzi, where 62 buildings were levelled.

The report also outlined significant limitations that prevent the findings from being treated as a definitive final assessment.

The study did not cover entire administrative districts but was limited to areas where clear satellite imagery was available.

As a result, the area south of the Litani River constituted the main focus, while only limited data from areas north of the river were included. Some municipalities were fully surveyed, while only selected sections of others could be examined.

For example, all cadastral zones in Bint Jbeil district were surveyed. In Tyre district, 74 of 75 cadastral areas were fully covered, while one was only partially included.

In Marjayoun, 17 of 33 areas were fully surveyed and 21 partially covered. In Nabatieh, only four of 52 areas were fully analysed, while 15 were partially examined. In Sidon, none of the 77 areas underwent a complete survey, with only five areas partially included in the assessment.

The report listed several additional limitations:

Critical infrastructure damage, including roads, bridges, electricity networks, water systems and telecommunications facilities, was not assessed.

Damage to underground shelters, basements and non-visible interior sections of buildings could not be detected.

No clear distinction could be made between residential, commercial and industrial structures.

Buildings with minor damage were excluded from debris-volume and cost calculations.

Structural density, shadows and narrow streets introduced potential margins of error in satellite analysis.

No field visits or on-site inspections were conducted to verify the findings. The assessment was carried out entirely through desk-based analysis of satellite imagery.

Given the scale of destruction and confidence in the methodology employed, no on-site verification procedures were undertaken in cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces or the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS).

UNDP said the findings should be regarded as preliminary planning data and that the scope of the assessment would be expanded as additional satellite imagery and field information become available.

Officials noted that once excluded categories and infrastructure losses are taken into account, the true cost of the destruction in southern Lebanon is likely to be significantly higher than the estimates contained in the report.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Iran makes Lebanon ceasefire prerequisite for final agreement with US

Published

on

Assessments that efforts to restrain Israel in Lebanon are being shaped less in Beirut or Tel Aviv than in closed-door talks between Iranian and American negotiators resurfaced ahead of negotiations in the Swiss town of Bürgenstock.

Unlike the current approach adopted by the Lebanese government, Iran continues to pursue a strategy of leveraging its influence on the ground to secure diplomatic gains.

The Lebanese government, meanwhile, remains committed to a separate negotiating track that critics say facilitates concessions to Israel at the negotiating table in Washington that could not be achieved on the battlefield.

US Vice President JD Vance, who arrived in Switzerland to participate in the latest round of talks, confirmed that efforts to make the ceasefire in Lebanon permanent would be among the negotiations’ top priorities.

According to CNN, citing a diplomatic source familiar with the matter, the US and Iranian delegations agreed to convene an emergency session on the situation in Lebanon as the first item of discussion, placing the issue at the top of the agenda.

US says it faces difficulties over Israeli withdrawal

According to diplomatic sources cited by Al-Akhbar newspaper, US officials informed the Iranian side that Washington had made intensive efforts to persuade the Israeli government to complete a full withdrawal from Lebanon but had encountered significant difficulties in the process.

US officials requested Iranian support in facilitating Hezbollah’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon as part of efforts to enable an Israeli pullout.

The Iranian delegation responded that Hezbollah was an internal Lebanese matter. While indicating that Tehran did not oppose an agreement by the Lebanese authorities on a timetable providing for a rapid Israeli withdrawal, the delegation outlined what it viewed as its own area of responsibility.

Iranian representatives said both Tehran and Washington had committed to implementing measures aimed at ending the war across the region, including in Lebanon, and argued that the United States should exert pressure on Israel not only to uphold a ceasefire but also to withdraw quickly.

Iran reiterates Lebanon condition for final agreement

An Iranian official also told CNN that ending the conflict in Lebanon was the most important item on the Iranian delegation’s agenda.

During the talks, Vice President Vance said Washington would continue working toward peace between Lebanon and Israel and expressed hope that the temporary ceasefire could be transformed into a permanent agreement capable of delivering long-term stability.

Speaking before the session, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Tehran would not begin negotiations on a final agreement with Washington unless the war in Lebanon was halted, as stipulated in the US-Iran memorandum of understanding.

In a post on X, Baghaei wrote: “It is not possible to move to the negotiation stage for a final agreement unless these provisions are implemented, foremost among them the first clause, which calls for ending the war on all fronts, including Lebanon.”

Military and diplomatic developments ahead of the Bürgenstock talks threatened to undermine the understanding reached between the parties. Following Israeli attacks in Lebanon and what Iran described as an escalation of military tensions in violation of the US-Iran agreement, Tehran announced that it had closed the Strait of Hormuz to traffic.

In a statement, Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters said the closure of the strait was only the first step in a series of measures planned by Tehran. Iran’s Foreign Ministry subsequently announced the suspension of the Geneva negotiations with the United States.

Following those developments, reports indicated that Washington intervened and increased pressure on Israel, leading Israeli military commanders to issue definitive orders for a complete halt to military operations in southern Lebanon for the second time within 24 hours.

Israeli media reports said the decision was not taken solely on Tel Aviv’s own initiative and that military operations were curtailed as a result of intense US pressure following Iran’s move in the Strait of Hormuz.

Continue Reading

Middle East

US lifts naval blockade of Iran after ceasefire memorandum signed

Published

on

The United States has lifted its naval blockade of Iran on the orders of President Donald Trump, ending restrictions on vessels entering and leaving Iranian ports.

Announcing the development, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) said the US military was no longer blocking maritime traffic to Iranian ports and had halted all operations related to enforcing the naval blockade.

The statement added that US warships would remain in the region to monitor compliance with the terms of the agreement.

The decision to lift the blockade follows the memorandum of understanding signed by the United States and Iran on June 18, aimed at ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic.

After signing the document in France, where he was attending the G7 summit, Trump sent the agreement to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian for approval.

In a statement, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said a formal signing ceremony between the two delegations, previously scheduled to take place in Geneva on June 19, would no longer be held.

Negotiations to continue in Switzerland

According to Axios, citing sources familiar with the matter, the signing process for the memorandum of understanding was accelerated in order to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to shipping as quickly as possible.

A planned meeting between US and Iranian representatives in Switzerland has not been cancelled. The talks are expected to focus on launching negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, with US Vice President James David Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf set to take part.

According to CNN, the 14-point memorandum calls for an immediate ceasefire on all fronts, the lifting of the naval blockade, the resumption of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the removal of oil sanctions on Iran and the withdrawal of US troops from areas surrounding Iran.

The agreement also includes the allocation of $300 billion for Iran’s economic reconstruction, the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets and a 60-day negotiation process aimed at reaching a final agreement on the nuclear programme.

In return, the authorities in Tehran pledged not to develop nuclear weapons.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey