Connect with us

Middle East

Transition from ‘non-state actors’ to interstate relations in Syria

Published

on

Those who oppose normalization with Syria: The United States, the Pentagon-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which is active in Idlib and Aleppo outskirts and which Turkey considers a terrorist organization, some groups within the Free Syrian Army (FSA) …

U.S. Department spokesman Ned Price said: “We do not support countries upgrading their relations or expressing support to rehabilitate the brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad.” But let us note that there have been no loud objections from senior U.S. officials, senators, and European capitals. Çavuşoğlu, who is set to visit the United States on January 18, said, “The United States did not say ‘Why do you hold meetings?’ but we understand that they oppose to normalization.”

From the side of Syrian organizations, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, leader of the HTS terror coalition, released a four-minute video titled ‘We will not compromise.’ “Talks between the Syrian regime and its Russian ally with the Turkish side represent a serious deviation from our goals,” he said.

The Syrian Democratic Council, which serves as the political framework of the separatist structure in Syria (YPG/PYD/SDF), also called on the “opposition” to the Ankara-Damascus alliance to unite: “We call on the forces of revolution and opposition to oppose and destroy the alliance between Turkey and Damascus, to unite against tyranny and those who sell the blood of Syrians for their interests.”

Abdullah Gedo of the Syrian Kurdish National Council (ENKS), withing the circle of the Iraqi Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), said the Syrian opposition would be uncomfortable with taking Ankara-Damascus rapprochement to the political level.

Protests were held in many FSA and HTS-controlled settlements in the north of Syria under oath of allegiance to the so-called ‘Syrian revolution.’

The remaining “Syrian opposition”

Minister of Foreign Affairs Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu met with the President of the Syrian National Coalition Al-Meslet, the President of the Syrian Negotiation Commission Bader Jamous and the Prime Minister of the Syrian Interim Government Abdurrahman Mustafa. “We reiterated our support for the Syrian opposition and the Syrian people in line with the U.N. Security Council Resolution 2254,” he said.

It is possible to infer some sort of uneasiness from Salem Al-Meslet’s statement, “Turkey is a strong ally of the Syrian revolution and opposition forces. I expect Turkey will remain so in all international decisions on the Syrian issue, especially the Geneva Resolutions 2118 and 2254.”

Resolution 2254 calls for the formation of a “unity government” to be followed by elections. Damascus, however, is not willing to give administration space to opposition groups that are no longer able to seize the state with their armed forces.

Although adjectives such as ‘Prime Minister of the Interim Government’ are used, this political fiction has no practical equivalent in Syria. Although it seems to be one of Ankara’s main priorities for these groups to find a place in a possible Syrian peace, apparently this is not a realistic approach and that these structures are a ‘trump card’ to be discarded at a certain stage of the negotiations.

It became clear in last autumn’s SNA-HTS clashes that efforts to bring countless undisciplined groups together and turn the FSA into the ‘Syrian National Army’ (SNA) were also in vain. Already after 2016, the role of the FSA was shaped in line with Ankara’s policy change, from overthrowing Assad to quickly fighting the PKK’s Syrian extension.

Why should Damascus share its authority with a structure that will be overthrown as soon as the TAF withdraws its support? It is clearly possible to interpret Syria’s demand for “TAF’s withdrawal from Syria” as “TAF is supporting the parallel armed force that wants to be a partner in my authority. I don’t want to share my sovereignty.”

What is Syria’s FSA plan?

A source from Damascus, who is in contact with the Syrian security bureaucracy, said that Syria raised the following demands on the FSA during the talks: “We have a clear path in the talks, we have some conditions. There are certain groups. These are no different from ISIS. We want Turkey to declare them a terrorist organization. And that won’t be easy.”

The source continued: “Turkey is not willing to make concessions from the FSA in the negotiations. Turkey is officially calling for joint action against the YPG. Damascus has no objection to this. However, Turkey also needs to take steps on certain issues.”

A report on the Middle East Eye website, based on Turkish officials, claimed that Turkey did not accept the request from Damascus to “declare some groups a terrorist organization.”

A source from Syria, who informed Harici, said that Damascus has plans for the future of the various armed groups that have rebelled against FSA and the administration, and quoted the following notes:

“One: According to Damascus, a large section of the FSA can benefit from the amnesty laws.

Two: Damascus does not expect the extradition to Syria of criminals who run criminal networks and are involved in illegal activities.

Three: FSA militants can join the 5th Corps, which was established with Russia’s guarantee of security in reconciliation negotiations with the opposition.”

Expectations from the Arab world

Stating that “the atmosphere of optimism prevails in Damascus” regarding the negotiation process, the source added that Syria is “balancing” relations with Iran and “counting days” to open up to the Arab world.

Noting that the reports of “cleaning the army” published in the Turkish press regarding the recent appointments in the Syrian army do not reflect the truth, the source said that these appointments are a routine process that is carried out every six months.

Damascus continues its ‘normalization’ tours not only with Turkey but also with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed met with Syrian Leader Bashar al-Assad in Damascus. Traffic is also heavy on the Syria-Saudi Arabia lane. It can be said that he wants to feel the support of the Arab world behind Damascus in normalization with Turkey.

The United States is doing everything to slow down the flow of the river…

In addition to the Caesar Act sanctions, Washington’s main goal, which aggravated the sanctions on Syria with the Captagon Act, is to Iraqize the Syrian state structure. It is possible to summarize what the U.S. understands by the ‘political solution in Syria’ as an autonomy in which the PYD can find a legal sphere of existence or as options for the federation where local governments are strong. It seems unlikely that Ankara will approve this plan under any circumstances.

The dismantling of Iran’s land logistics system from Iraqi territory to the east of the Euphrates and from there to Lebanon is also among the priorities of the United States and Israel. In other words, we can say that for a possible normalization, Iran will be tried to be removed from Syria and Washington will continue to tighten the sanctions until it includes autonomy.

Now, Astana partner Iran has not been involved in Ankara-Damascus meeting yet. For Tehran, which frequently give advises through official dialogues, the east of the Euphrates and the passageways are very important because they are the window to Lebanon. It is also unrealistic for Damascus to approve the proposals by pushing its foul-weather friend Iran completely out of the game. However, Syria does not want to be seen as fully engaged in Iranian politics as a state.

For now, Ankara’s operation demand has been replaced by dialogue and diplomatic traffic, which all sides are watching closely. As we get closer to the final agreement and the parameters of the possible rapprochement become clear, what lies beneath the objections and reactions will come to the surface. In this context, the year 2023 is decisive for Turkey-Syria relations. With the meeting of foreign ministers in January, the state-to-state dialogue and diplomacy line will be strengthened.

To summarize, 2023 is a candidate year for the transition from non-state actors to interstate relations. The possible resistance of the groups that do not want to lose their wartime ‘state-like’ status strengthens the possibility of opening a final bloody page in the Syrian book…

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