Connect with us

Middle East

US envoy reports deadlock in talks between Syria’s new government and the SDF

Published

on

While a group from the PKK is expected to lay down its arms tomorrow, the impasse in yesterday’s talks between Syria’s new central government and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which controls the country’s northeast with US support, could not be overcome. US Ambassador to Ankara and Special Envoy for Syria Tom Barrack stated that following the meetings in Damascus, which he attended, the transitional government in Damascus and the Kurds still disagree on the issue of integration.

An integration agreement was signed on March 8 between Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which established a transitional government in Syria after overthrowing the Bashar al-Assad regime, and the SDF. The agreement described the Kurds as a “fundamental component” of Syria and stipulated that the SDF and the political institutions in northeastern Syria would be integrated into the central army and administration by the end of the year. The plan also included transferring control of border crossings with Turkey and Iraq, as well as airports, oil fields, and camps holding ISIS members in the northeast, to the central government.

However, after the agreement, whose details were not fully clarified, the dispute over the SDF’s demand to be included in Syria’s new army as a single bloc without being disbanded had not been resolved.

The parties met in Damascus yesterday to discuss this issue as the PKK’s disarmament process accelerated. The talks between HTS leader Ahmed al-Sharaa (Abu Mohammad al-Jolani), who has declared himself Syria’s interim president, and SDF General Commander Mazloum Abdi were attended by Barrack, as well as France’s Special Envoy for Syria, Jean-Baptiste Faivre. However, Barrack announced that the “serious differences of opinion” between the parties on joining forces could not be overcome.

‘Unification is still a major issue’

Speaking to the Associated Press (AP), Barrack said of the issue of whether the SDF will join the new Syrian army as a separate unit or be disbanded with its members joining individually, “I don’t think there has been progress on this.” Barrack stated, “This is still a major issue between these two sides.”

“I think these kinds of things happen in baby steps because making progress is based on trust, commitment, and understanding,” Barrack said, adding, “Two sides that have been living apart for a while, and perhaps have had a hostile relationship for some time, need to build trust step by step.”

‘I hope the SDF will act quickly’

Notably, Barrack praised the new administration in Damascus, saying it was “doing a great job of presenting options to the SDF.” Regarding the SDF, the US representative said, “I hope they will consider these options. I hope they will do it quickly.”

Barrack stated that their confidence in the new Syrian army is “complete” and that the SDF is a “valuable partner” in the fight against ISIS. “The US wants to ensure that the SDF has the opportunity to integrate respectfully into the new government,” Barrack said, adding that for now, they are “not in a hurry” to completely withdraw the approximately 1,300 American soldiers in Syria.

‘Federalism will not work in Syria’

In an interview with the Erbil-based website Rudaw after the talks in Damascus, Barrack’s statement that “federalism will not work in Syria” was noteworthy. In response to a question about the relationship between the HTS government in Damascus and the SDF, Barrack said, “My perspective is this: The Syrian government has shown extraordinary and great enthusiasm to include the SDF in the framework we discussed: One homeland, one nation, one army, one government. As for the details of how this will be implemented, I think the Syrian government has shown its flexibility very well and decisively in finding a way to reconcile these interests.”

Tom Barrack continued, “To be honest, I think the SDF has been slow to accept this situation, to negotiate, and to take steps in this direction. My advice to them is to speed up this process. There is only one way, and that way is Damascus. That is the message.”

‘Adaptation takes time, but a state within a state cannot be established’

Regarding US Senator Marco Rubio’s statement that “Kurdish autonomy is one of the main pillars of US policy in Iraq,” Barrack made the following comments:

“With his words about autonomy and sovereignty, Senator Rubio means that Iraq is one nation, and Syria is one nation. The Kurds are a unique, distinguished, and beautiful component within these nations. I do not believe he meant an independent Kurdistan… The problem is that we have seen that federalism does not work in all these countries and that an independent state cannot be established within another state. So it takes time for everyone to understand this, especially after the terrible events Syria has experienced for years; adaptation takes time. But we are running out of time. The world is moving fast, the region is moving very fast. Look at what has happened in the last three weeks, it’s incredible. So this is the opportunity. The opportunity for Syria is now. The world wants to help them. Everyone complements each other. We must not stand in our own way. We all need to compromise and reach this conclusion: One nation, one people, one army, one Syria.”

The ‘onion peel’ analogy on the Israel issue

Meanwhile, regarding the reported talks between Syria’s new administration and Israel, Tom Barrack said, “My feeling about what is happening in the neighborhood is that this needs to happen, and as the region builds trust in each other, it will happen slowly, like peeling an onion.”

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