Middle East
US balances support and sanctions for Syria’s new Julani-led government
The US is holding the stick of sanctions while also offering support to the new Damascus government led by former al-Qaeda leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani (Ahmed al-Sharaa).
Tom Barrack, the US Ambassador to Turkey and Special Envoy for Syria, who has emerged as one of the biggest supporters of the Julani administration, has made another in a series of statements.
Barrack told al-Sharaa to reconsider his policies and adopt a “more inclusive” approach following last week’s clashes in Suwayda, which raised the possibility of a new sectarian war. Otherwise, he said, al-Sharaa would risk losing international support and facing the country’s fragmentation.
Speaking to Reuters in Beirut, where he was visiting to discuss the disarmament of Hezbollah, the envoy said that in private talks with Julani, he advised him to reconsider elements of the pre-war army structure, reduce “Islamist indoctrination,” and accept regional security assistance.
Barrack: Sharaa risks losing the momentum that brought him to power if he doesn’t make changes
Barrack argued that without rapid change, al-Sharaa risks losing the momentum that brought him to power.
Barrack said, “Sharaa should say: ‘I will adapt quickly, because if I do not, I will lose the universal momentum that is behind me.'”
The envoy also said that Julani could “mature as a president and say, ‘The right thing for me is not to pursue my own agenda, which has not been very effective.'”
Barrack also said the new government should consider being “faster and more inclusive” in integrating minorities into the power structure, but he denied reports that HTS-affiliated security forces were responsible for violations against Druze civilians.
According to the American diplomat, there is still no alternative to the current administration
Barrack suggested that ISIS militants may have disguised themselves in government uniforms and that videos posted on social media were unreliable as they could be easily manipulated. He claimed, “Syrian soldiers did not enter the city. These atrocities are not being committed by Syrian regime forces. They are not even in the city because they agreed with Israel that they would not enter.”
Arguing that the risks in Syria are dangerously high and that there is no “succession plan” or viable alternative to the country’s new government, Barrack said, “There is no Plan B for this Syrian regime. If this Syrian regime fails, someone is trying to provoke its failure. To what end? There is no successor.”
When asked if Syria could follow the terrible scenarios of Libya and Afghanistan, he replied, “Yes, and even worse.”
The Julani government has not been hostile to Israel from the outset
Barrack confirmed that the US does not support Israel’s airstrikes on Syria, saying the attacks increase the “confusion” in Syria.
Barrack said his message to Israel is to engage in dialogue to address its concerns about Syria’s new leaders, and that the US could play the role of an “honest broker” to help resolve any concerns.
He said that the Julani government has stated from the beginning that it is not an enemy of Israel and could normalize relations when the time is right.
The special envoy claimed that the US does not dictate what Syria’s political structure should be, saying it demands nothing but stability, unity, justice, and inclusivity.
Barrack said, “If they establish a federalist government, that is their decision. And the answer to the problem is that everyone may now need to adapt.”
Lifting the Caesar Act in Congress will be made conditional
On Tuesday, the US House Financial Services Committee passed a bill introduced by New York Republican Congressman Mike Lawler that would allow President Donald Trump to permanently lift significant sanctions on Syria within two years, provided the new government meets a series of conditions, including the release of political prisoners arrested by the deposed former leader Bashar al-Assad.
Trump had already lifted many sanctions on Syria. However, many members of Congress from both parties are skeptical of Trump’s embrace of the new Syrian leader so quickly.
In this context, Lawler’s proposal to impose conditions on the remaining US sanctions has led to an unprecedented alliance between “conservatives” and “progressives” who prefer the complete removal of sanctions.
In another example of bipartisan cooperation, two centrist Democratic lawmakers, Brad Sherman of California and Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, helped Republicans advance the Lawler plan. Florida Representative Byron Donalds, who is close to Trump, voted “no” along with all other Democrats.
Lawler told Semafor, “The goal here is very clear: to ensure that this government can really establish itself and succeed. For that, of course, economic cooperation and the easing of sanctions need to begin.”
Nevertheless, the Representative added that he “thinks it would be foolish to lift all sanctions immediately without a truly stable situation on the ground,” pointing to the possibility of a “coup or the collapse of this newly established government.”
Lawler said he has been “in contact with members of the White House” about his legislation.
A 2-year transition period for the complete removal of sanctions
Donalds told Semafor, “I understand what Mike is trying to do, but I don’t think we should get ahead of the White House. A lot has changed on the ground; let’s give the president some time.”
Under current law, Trump has the authority to waive the remaining US sanctions on Syria under a law known as the Caesar Act every 180 days.
Lawler’s bill gives the new administration two years to certify that the new Syrian government has met the specified conditions before sanctions can be lifted completely.
Members of Congress who advocate for the complete removal of sanctions rather than Lawler’s solution include conservative Representative Joe Wilson, who called on the committee to “reconsider the measure,” and Representative Maxine Waters of California, the top Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
Wilson said he supported an amendment proposed by Waters to Lawler’s bill on Tuesday, which was rejected.
Regarding Waters’ proposal, Wilson said, “Yes, she is right. It is very gratifying that the president has indicated he wants to give Syria a chance. The way to do that is to lift the sanctions completely so that the business community knows it can invest.”
Some Democrats were undecided before the vote. Greg Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told Semafor it was a “delicate situation.”
“If you lift all the sanctions at once, you know what that means. At the same time, you want to make sure that progress is being made. Maybe when I get out, I can tell you exactly what I think,” Meeks said, ultimately voting against the bill.
Amendment for “reasonable steps to protect religious and ethnic minorities”
The president cannot permanently lift the sanctions imposed by the Caesar Act unless Congress repeals the law (or allows it to expire in 2029).
Lawler acknowledged that “the administration’s position will be vital” to securing enough support in the House and Senate.
On the other hand, he expressed concerns about lifting sanctions following the events in Suwayda last week, where sectarian violence led to the death of a US citizen.
Lawler voted yes after accepting an amendment that added a new condition for lifting sanctions: “reasonable steps to protect religious and ethnic minorities.”
As the Trump administration tries to include Syria in the Abraham Accords, Lawler expressed optimism that his proposal could be a useful tool in this regard.
In May, the president had promised the new Syrian president that sanctions would be eased if Damascus agreed to normalize relations with Tel Aviv.
“This can be used as a tool to help normalize economic ties with the Israelis in practice,” Lawler said.
Middle East
US envoy says Syria interim leader Sharaa seeks Israel normalization
US Ambassador to Türkiye and Special Envoy for Syria Tom Barrack stated that Syria’s interim president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, wants to normalize relations with Israel.
At the same time, he called for an end to Israel’s military operations in Syria and questioned whether Washington should intervene to halt them.
Speaking at the Global Security Forum held in Doha, Qatar, Barrack said Sharaa had managed difficult circumstances well and was trying to reassure Israel that his government poses no threat.
“I think President Sharaa has done a very good job under very difficult circumstances,” Barrack said, describing the message he believes the Syrian leader is conveying to Israel: “I am not aggressive, I have no problem with Israel, I want relations with Israel to normalize.”
Barrack also urged Israel to stop its operations in Syria, while voicing uncertainty over whether the US should step in to end them:
“It’s time to stop this [Israel’s actions in Syria]. I don’t know if it’s time for the US to intervene to stop it.”
Israel intensified its military operations in Syria following the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad on 8 December 2024. Israeli forces entered the demilitarized “buffer zone” along the Golan Heights and took up positions on the Syrian side of Mount Hermon (Jabal al-Shaykh), with Israel describing the deployment as a temporary security measure.
Israeli air strikes have also targeted military facilities and weapons depots across the country.
Barrack pointed to Syria’s political transition as an example of how groups once viewed as adversaries could be incorporated into new political and security structures.
“You can take Nusra, which was once designated a foreign terrorist organization; following the transformation that took place on December 8, many people today evaluate this example as ‘here is a model,'” the US diplomat said.
The Nusra Front was a jihadist group that emerged during the Syrian civil war and, after pledging allegiance to al-Qaeda, announced its departure from the network. The organization was designated as “terrorist” by several countries and bodies, primarily the US and the UN.
The group’s leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa (Abu Mohammad al-Julani), subsequently headed Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which led the offensive that ousted Assad.
Barrack also highlighted the integration of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) into the Syrian national army as an outcome many had previously considered unlikely.
“Nobody thought you could reintegrate this Kurdish entity, the SDF, into a national army, but it happened,” the US official said.
Damascus and the Kurdish-led forces signed an agreement on 10 March 2025 to integrate the SDF’s military and civilian institutions into the Syrian state.
However, delays occurred in the implementation of the agreement due to disputes over integration terms and the future of self-administration in the region.
Barrack nevertheless expressed doubts about the effectiveness of earlier US interventions in the Middle East, citing Washington’s involvement in what he characterized as “23 regime changes” across the wider region.
“Whenever we have tried to intervene, to change a person or a regime, it seems to have been a mistake,” Barrack said, while also questioning the value of US intervention in Yemen, describing it as apparently “senseless.”
Middle East
US and Israel weigh Iran strikes after midterm vote, reports say
The US and Israeli defence ministries have drawn up plans for a fresh assault on Iran, with the envisioned offensive under consideration to launch after the US Congressional midterm elections on 3 November.
Citing sources, The New York Times reported that the blueprint anticipates a brief but intense campaign.
As military units step up their drills, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth discussed prospective strike options with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The list of targets encompasses Iran’s nuclear sites, its energy infrastructure, and its arsenals of missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.
Several officials who spoke to the newspaper argued that a new wave of attacks could deal a heavy blow to the Iranian economy, forcing the leadership in Tehran into concessions.
Conversely, other sources doubt whether a resumption of fighting would prove any more successful than the earlier campaign conducted between February and April.
That previous offensive drove energy prices higher and drained US stockpiles of interceptor missiles.
It remains unclear whether US President Donald Trump will authorise the operation.
Domestic political calculations in Israel could also influence the trajectory of the plans, given that the country faces general elections on 27 October.
While some experts speaking to the newspaper contended that Netanyahu could leverage the threat of war to form a national unity government, others pointed to the opposition’s distrust of the prime minister.
Washington fears regional spillover
The US administration also harbours concerns that the fighting could engulf the wider region. On Wednesday, the US State Department ordered non-essential government personnel and their family members to leave Saudi Arabia following attacks by the Iran-backed Houthis.
A US military build-up, comprising three aircraft carriers, fighter aircraft, and special forces units, is slated to be fully deployed to the region by early November.
The targets under review include the deep underground nuclear facility code-named “Pickaxe”. Trump suggested that the high-yield GBU-43/B bomb, known as the “mother of all bombs”, could be deployed against the site, though experts doubt whether the ordnance can destroy a complex buried so deeply.
For its part, Tehran is preparing for a potential escalation, threatening to broaden its target list. Retaliatory options under consideration by Iran reportedly include data centres and subsea internet cables, in addition to shipping and energy facilities.
Mehdi Mohammadi, an adviser to an Iranian negotiator, dismissed US hopes of wrapping up a new campaign within 72 hours as a “fantasy”. Mohammadi warned that Tehran’s response would be more severe and unpredictable.
The Financial Times previously reported that an Israeli strike on Iran set for 10 October had been called off because the US president was unwilling to risk a broader conflict ahead of the Congressional midterms.
According to that report, the Israeli military had prepared a multi-day assault on nuclear sites, Iranian government targets, power plants, and civilian infrastructure on Netanyahu’s orders. The strikes had been designed to exceed the intensity of the campaign begun in February.
Washington seeks to secure an agreement from Tehran covering both the Strait of Hormuz and its nuclear programme.
“It will either be a deal or a strike,” one source told the Financial Times, adding that an operation could get under way in the coming weeks.
Another official who spoke to the paper suggested that Israeli preparations might serve as leverage to squeeze Iran in negotiations.
Axios also reported that the Pentagon had issued orders to prepare for renewed strikes, though the directive contained no specific date and Trump has yet to take a final decision.
The US and Israel launched their offensive against Iran on 28 February. Iran hit back by targeting US and Israeli assets across the region and curbing vessel transit through the Strait of Hormuz.
Although both sides signed a memorandum of understanding in June that provided for a ceasefire and talks to lift the blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, reciprocal attacks between the US and Iran have persisted.
Middle East
Netanyahu trails Eisenkot in Israeli polls despite Trump backing
As general elections scheduled for 27 October approach in Israel, the opposition camp led by former Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot continues to lead Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in public opinion polls.
Survey data published in the Israeli press on 19 and 20 October reveal that the governing coalition has failed to catch the opposition, despite explicit backing from US President Donald Trump.
However, the current distribution of votes documents that neither wing can reach a governing majority on its own.
Netanyahu reaches 61 seats in Channel 14’s latest poll. He doesn’t in i24’s.
Both give him a stronger position than Kan and Maariv. Likud gets 29 seats in Channel 14, 25 in i24, 21 in Kan and 18 in Maariv.
Count the same five lists—Likud, Shas, United Torah Judaism, Otzma… pic.twitter.com/Qb0fCq0qdK
— Zvika Klein צביקה קליין (@ZvikaKlein) October 19, 2026
Neither bloc reaches the 61 seats needed to form a government
According to a survey conducted by Channel 13, if an election were held today, Eisenkot’s bloc would win 51 seats, while the Netanyahu coalition would take 50.
A Channel 12 poll indicates that the gap has widened slightly, projecting 55 seats for Eisenkot’s alliance and 51 for the governing bloc. A minimum of 61 seats is required to form a government in the Knesset, Israel’s 120-seat parliament.
A key factor deadlocking the political arithmetic is the refusal by both sides to form a coalition with parties representing Palestinian citizens of Israel. This stance stands as the most tangible obstacle to securing a parliamentary majority after the election.
Channel 12 data shows that overall voter turnout is expected to remain at 72%. The inclination to head to the ballot box climbs to 81% among opposition voters, compared with 74% measured among Netanyahu supporters.
The same poll notes that Eisenkot has widened his lead over Netanyahu by two further points in prime ministerial preferences.
Yashar party climbs after Gantz bows out
A survey published on the Walla news site shows that the balance shifted after Benny Gantz decided to withdraw his Blue and White party from the race. Following that move, Eisenkot’s Yashar party increased its projected tally to 23 seats, while Netanyahu’s Likud dropped by one seat to 19.
Eisenkot’s party and the “Zionist Opposition” bloc it anchors have remained atop the polls for several months.
In an earlier message of support, Trump praised Netanyahu as “a great fighting prime minister and an even greater partner for peace.” Public opinion polls document that this diplomatic and political backing has not proved sufficient to tip the preferences of the Israeli electorate in favour of the incumbent government.
Support for Ben Gvir rises among young voters
Although Netanyahu’s alliance trails in overall strength, far-right figures within the coalition appear to be expanding their grassroots base. Gauged interest in the Jewish Power party of Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir is climbing, particularly among younger voters.
Speaking to a study conducted by Agam Labs, affiliated with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, an 18-year-old student described his shifting preference: “I used to think he was a bit crazy, but then I actually looked at what he was saying, and it all made sense.”
Another Israeli citizen stated that Ben Gvir’s push to arm West Bank settlers gave them “room to breathe.”
Ben Gvir is known for leading settler incursions into the Al-Aqsa compound and distributing military-grade rifles to tens of thousands of settlers since 7 October 2023.
Criticized for escalating violence against Palestinians, Ben Gvir has called for starving Gaza, maintaining military operations in Lebanon, and bombing Beirut. The far-right minister’s militaristic stances also find a political constituency across several opposition parties in Israel.
-
Europe2 weeks agoBerlin Left Party backs Israel’s right to exist for coalition pact
-
America2 weeks agoTrump weighs presidential memorandum to cut surging US diesel prices
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoSWP urges backing for Gulf trade routes bypassing Strait of Hormuz
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoEU and China reach preliminary deal to curb hybrid car imports
-
America2 weeks agoThiel targets Pope and Obama over AI in new ‘Antichrist’ lectures
-
Europe2 weeks agoLSE study finds post-bailout Greece turned into a cafe economy
-
Russia2 weeks agoRussia relaxes diesel export curbs after talks with Trump
-
America2 weeks agoEnergy firms enlist ex-US officials to tap Venezuelan oil
