Syria: 10 Days That Shook The World

Dr Khairi Janbek

Without much ado, the western media is currently preoccupied with this question: Are the Syrian rebels Jihadis? This is while the Arab media appears to be in a state of euphoria about the Syrian rebels seen as liberators. The issue however is about two perspectives, the first being cautious about the next phase for the country, and this is for understandable reasons, while the second reflects optimism for the next stage and also for understandable reasons.

Now, the fear of dividing Syria on ethnic and sectarian grounds has its blueprint in the colonial history of Syria and certainly not a product of today and/or creative chaos utterances.

Looking back

In fact, on 1 July, 1922, the French colonial authorities divided Syria into federal statelets: statelet of Damascus, statelet of Aleppo, statelet of the Alawites, and the statelet of the Druze. Of course, the idea was that the country would be easier to rule and a regional and a sectarian balance would guarantee political stability. Of course, the Kurds were outside this formula as they were struggling to create an independent state of their own.

But what about Syria now, to paraphrase John Reed, after the 10 days that shook the world. Indeed, the two regional police stations in the region, Turkey and Israel seems to be gaining major influence in the current affairs, while the third police station, Iran, has lost out in this formula.

Rivalry

For all intents and purposes, no one is naive enough to think that the march towards Damascus could have occurred without Turkish support, and the Israeli foreign minister has confirmed that talks were held between his government and the Druze as well as the Kurds of Syria, whom he described as having good relations with them.

But what about the Russians? One would venture to say that they are like to stay in Syria as most probably, paying guests of the new Syrian government, renting their military installations from them.

Undoubtedly, no matter how much we can be optimistic about the future of all-inclusive democratic Syria, we will always reluctantly fall back on our cognitive dissonance regarding the case of Iraq, and make the mistake of comparison with the post-Saddam era of terrorism, sectarianism an ethnic strife.

This is simply because, we forget that in Iraq there was superpower which brought down the regime and destroyed all the functioning institutions of the country favoring when religious Islamic sect over another, and supporting one ethnicity against others. While in Syria, its the Syrians themselves brought down the Ba’ath regime.

On the face of it, the rebels don’t seem to want to be the new masters of Syria and they are working very hard to protect and preserve the functioning institutions of the country, and claim their adherence to pluralism and for an all inclusive new regime.

But two important questions remain outstanding, and only time will tell how these will unfold: To what extent will there be Turkish and Israeli influence on the emerging regime, and more importantly, what would be the share of those two police stations of the country?

In other words, how will Turkey perceive the future of the Kurds in Syria, and where does Israel see its border posts with the “new” Syria?

In all likelihood, the rebels will keep their word of wanting a stable pluralist Syria, but let us not forget also, that a future spark of ethnic, regional or sectarian conflict, will very likely turn all into extremists in the country.

Dr Khairi Janbek is Jordanian commentator based in Paris.

Related Posts

Can Israel Change The Middle East?

By Mohammad Abu Rumman

In the short term, Israel is no longer in a hurry to normalise relations with Saudi Arabia, which it considers the grand prize in the Islamic world. Although its leaders view normalization as necessary, indeed inevitable, over the long run, what Netanyahu and his team currently see is an unprecedented historical opportunity that has not occurred since the founding of the State of Israel. They are thus pushing to implement sweeping and profound changes to the Palestinian situation, through displacement, expulsion, settlement expansion, annexation, and the Judaization of Jerusalem, from Gaza to Jerusalem and the West Bank. For the Israeli right, these policies take precedence over any other strategic interests.

It is not only about the Palestinians. The Israeli right’s ambitions today extend to constructing new and unprecedented spheres of regional influence and redefining Israeli security. This includes striking at any source of potential future threats and establishing Israel as the dominant regional power.

There are three key variables that must be taken into account when analyzing the current geopolitical shifts and the repercussions of Israel’s war on Gaza, not only in terms of the Palestinian issue, but also on a regional and global scale.

The first variable can be described as “Political Netanyahuism.” Today’s Israel is no longer the Israel of the past—this marks the era of Benjamin Netanyahu, especially post-Operation “Al-Aqsa Flood.” This era has unleashed the historical project of the Israeli right-wing in full force, with no intention of reversing course. The key features of this project include, first, a complete abandonment of the peace process, a rejection of the Oslo Accords and their consequences, and the annexation of large parts of the West Bank—effectively nullifying the Palestinian Authority’s political relevance and perhaps returning to a system of disconnected “cantons.” Additionally, this entails the Judaiztion of Jerusalem. Second, Netanyahuism is reflected in a complete structural shift of Israel toward the right, with the near-total erosion of the secular-leftist stream in Israeli politics. Third, it involves the deep penetration of religious ideology into Israel’s security and military institutions, leading to their full domination by religious-nationalist elements.

Even if Netanyahu were to exit the political scene, this would not alter the course of these policies or shift current events. Israel post-Netanyahuism will not be the same as it was before. The historical Zionist dream persists—ideologically, strategically, and religiously—even if tactical approaches differ. This new political reality is not merely shaped by individuals like Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich; rather, they are products of a broader environment and not anomalies within it.

The second variable is the major Arab strategic collapse—a process that began decades ago but reached a far more dangerous stage in the past 15 years, especially after so called “the Arab Spring”. The resulting transformations led to the fragmentation and collapse of numerous Arab states and the weakening of the entire Arab geopolitical map—in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, and Libya. It now seems as though the Arab geopolitical landscape, shaped after World War I, is disintegrating. This has created a strategic opportunity for Israel to expand, particularly following the recent decline in Iran’s regional influence over the past year in the wake of the war on Gaza.

The third variable is the return of Donald Trump to the White House—this time accompanied by a team that is more Zionist and ideologically aligned with the Israeli right than ever before. The unprecedented genocide unfolding in Gaza, the (implicit) green light granted to settlers and Netanyahu’s government in the West Bank and Jerusalem, and the statements made by Trump’s team concerning Palestine, Iran, Lebanon, and Syria all suggest an unprecedented alliance—perhaps even an organic one—between a hardline right-wing American administration and an extremist Israeli right. Although US policies have historically been biased in favor of Israel, the situation has never reached this level of alignment and support.

These three variables together shape a new political landscape, they significantly impact Jordan’s strategic perspective on national interests and security and necessitate a reevaluation by political elites who previously believed that there were multiple factions within Israel with whom one could engage, or that American influence could constrain the Israeli right, or that an effective Arab strategic space could be mobilized to counter such dangerous transformations.

The writer is a columnist in the Jordan Times

Continue reading
Netanyahu Has Irked Trump. Why?

What should one make of the recent White House meeting between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?

Well, this time Netanyahu was almost summoned to the White House to be told few home truths. This meeting was not like the first time when Netanyahu came to the White House in early February when it was all glow to be unexpectedly told that Trump wants the USA to take over Gaza.

This time around, the meeting was more subdued, almost in a rush, like an after-thought on the part of Trump who keeps chopping and changing as he figures out how he wants to conduct America’s foreign policy in his second “robust” administration.

This time around, although Trump displayed the usual friendliness to Netanyahu, he was somewhat distant because of the tariffs the White House is set upon to start imposing on the rest of the world including best-friend Israel. Its leaders, businessmen are still in shock because Washington has slammed a 17 percent tariff on its products entering the United States.

Israeli industrialists continue to be up-in-arms. It was they who appealed to Netanyahu to seek Washington clarification because they argued that the new tariffs will cost them up to $3 billion in losses, reduce Israeli exports by 26 percent and increase unemployment by 26,000. They are already in a bad situation because of the war on Gaza but this latest step will surely cripple them.

At the White House meeting last Monday, with a chitchat in front of the cameras that looked as if it was a rehearsed meeting with Trump dominating the conversation and everyone taking their que to speak only when they are told, he pointed out to Netanyahu that he “may not” consider reversing tariffs on Israeli exports because “we give Israel $4 billion a year. That’s a lot.” He really sounded like lecturing to the Israelis.  

For a man considered to be greatly influenced by the Israeli lobby that seemed to be tough talking for in the immediate conversation Trump told Netanyahu that there would be and for the first time direct face-to-face talking with Iranians about their nuclear file.  

This seemed to be another unsuspecting blow. If there was a “shock” on his face, Netanyahu didn’t show it as he just nodded; the Israeli Prime Minister was looking for a tough military stance on Iran, possibly going to war and striking the country’s nuclear facilities. It was he, who persuaded Trump in 2018 to exit from the 2015 nuclear deal brokered by the UN with other world powers of Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany at the behest of the Barack Obama administration.

Now with Trump in the driving seat, and wanting a “tainted-Donald” deal, Netanyahu couldn’t but agree with an alluring American president. If he had any misgivings, he kept them to himself except to say Tel Aviv and Washington had an objective not to let Iran have nuclear weapons, but Tehran constantly said and throughout the past years that their nuclear program was for peaceful purposes unlike the clandestine extensive Israeli nuclear program.

Although he may not have outwardly shown it, Trump may have been a little irritated by Netanyahu in other ways. Take Gaza for example when Israel restarted its war on the enclave on 19 March exactly two months after a ceasefire took effect ending a 15-month genocide and which was brokered by Trump and his team lead Steve Witkoff.

The recent talks in the White House, and shown in front of the cameras suggest Trump would have like more time for the Doha negotiations to take hold between Hamas and Israel to see the release of the 59 remaining hostages – which include one American who is still deemed to be alive – hidden in the Gaza enclave.

The relaunching of the war, and so quickly, and with the breaking of the 19 January ceasefire is adding to the tension between Washington and Tel Aviv and is sending signals that Netanyahu wants to continue the war in Gaza and doesn’t particularly care about the remaining hostages, and whether they come out of their nightmare dead or alive.

Trump, and as shown by the White House meeting, is showing a diversion from thoughts projected by Netanyahu. As well as Iran, he has told Netanyahu, he favors Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and that he has a ‘very, very good relationship with Turkey and with their leader…”, adding that “I happen to like him, and we never had a problem” and he offered to mediate between Israel on any problem between the two countries.

Such words may have suddenly added to the glum mood of the Israeli PM who fears that Turkish influence in Syria despite the fact it is Israel that is today bombarding different Syrian cities and occupying parts of their territory, a situation that increased after the toppling of the Bashar Al Assad regime on 9 December, 2024 by a new government in Damascus, and which is seen as a threat to Israeli security by Tel Aviv.

What is worrying Netanyahu is the fact Trump recognizes Turkish influence and Syria and Ankara’s relationship with the new government in Damascus, and apparenty the man in the White House, is “ok” with it.

With all this going on, Netanyahu is not sure anymore of the way the White House is going despite the fact that Washington continues to be the main supplier of weapons to Tel Aviv. But with Trump as “fickle-minded” as he is, all cards are on the table for a new and changing relationship between the USA and the rest of the world with the strong possibility of including Israel in the new international set of thinking.

This comment is written by Dr Marwan Asmar, chief editor of the crossfirearabia.com website. 

Continue reading

You Missed

George Clooney For President

George Clooney For President

Palestine

Palestine

Remember a Late Birthday

Remember a Late Birthday

Israeli Academics, Soldiers, Airmen Say ‘No’ to Netanyahu

Israeli Academics, Soldiers, Airmen Say ‘No’ to Netanyahu