Connect with us

Middle East

US balances support and sanctions for Syria’s new Julani-led government

Published

on

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

Iran resumes ballistic missile assembly using stockpiled parts

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Mohammed bin Salman urges Trump to strike Houthis after Mokha falls

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Netanyahu ignored MBZ warning on Hamas 7 October plan, report says

Published

on

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.”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey