Middle East Psychosis

By Dr Khairi Janbek

As far as one is concerned, the Middle East has been for a long time a matter of balance of power overlapping with strategic reluctance to change its status quo. But the advent of US President Donald Trump is ushering a new era with all sorts of possibilities.

On the microcosm level for instance, Arafat’s Fateh movement in the PLO was checked in a formula of a balance of power by the leftists organizations as well as the Palestinian organizations sponsored by some Arab countries, the affiliation of all in the PLO created the sense of a balance of power.

However, with the emergance of the PNA and the affiliation of the Palestinian groups in it, albeit with variable influence, created a unit which under the balance of power notion, necessitated the creation of a check and balance on its power.

Consequently Hamas was created, and what seemingly appeared as contradiction between them, turned out to be a symbiotic relationship between them. Now, one cannot say with certainity what will happen next, however, if the objective is to maintain the balance of power by just weakening Hamas, this will require symbiotically weakening the PNA as well, but if the objective is to eleminate Hamas, the next step will be to eleminate the PNA.

As for the macro level, and as one often repeats, the Middle East, has at least for the last five decades was strategically governed by the famous triangle, Iran-Israel-Turkey, with the Arab world having little say in their own affairs , if at all.

However, since the fall of the Shah regime in Iran, the search started for a third angle to replace Iran in governing the Middle East, considering the open hostility of Iran towards West. Consequently some Arab countries jumped into the frey as possible candidates, like Egypt, then Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia. But as it seems, a preference for the old triangle was decided upon by the world powers, accepting the inconvenience of having to negotiate with Iran.

Now, we can see a new development that breaks the taboo of the old balance of power in the region.

Starting mid-way from the Biden administration, and with the start of the second Trump administration, the notion of balance of power by the usual triangle has turned into a balance of aggressiveness in the region, as Israel and Iran “bombard” each other, Turkey’s involvement in toppling Assad, and now the distinct possibility of confrontation with Israel in Syria, while being threatened itself by Iran if it cooperates in any possible American attack on Persia. Thus the stability which this triangle had sustained itself, is no more.

From appearances, at least how things look like: It seems Israel is being supported by Trump explicitly and by many other international parties implicitly, to be either the major power that has a say in Middle Eastern affairs. This means that Iran’s grip on the region will be curtailed through negotiations at least if not war; and here the symbiotic issue appears again, with Turkey’s role curtailed through pressures and/or and economic threats.

Here, as well, the aim is to designate Israel as only point of compass on the map of the Middle East, which Arabs are expected to flock to and normalise with.

In this case events will inevitably take a nasty symbiotic turn, meaning Iran will have to be attacked and taken out altogether with its surrogates from the power relations of the Middle East, and Turkey forced to take a more insular step from the affairs of the region, even with a regime change if required.

But we will have to wait and see what lies in store!

Dr Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris, France.

Continue reading
The Middle East Octopus

By Dr Khairi Janbek

When we think of contemporary Iran, one always believes that the Arab Middle East had always been dominated by three Non-Arab American allies: Iran of the Shah, Turkey and Israel. One thinks that those “neighborhood police stations” were the guarantors of stability through their convergence, and at times contradictions in the age of Cold War and oil. However, the Shah of Iran was deposed and the anti-communist Cold War ended, but that didn’t mean that oil stopped becoming important nor that both Russia and China were no longer threats.

One would say, that the rehabilitation of Iran and possibly turning it into a negotiations partner aims at keeping the third angle of the police stations triangle going, because non of the Arab countries, no matter how much they tried, could never replace Iran, because no “Arab police station” is permitted to emerge as a third angle.

Having said that, it would be beyond naive to think that the expansion of Iran’s power and influence happened by stealth or escaped the notice of the US and NATO. After all, Iran grew to become a Red Sea country through its influence on the Houthis in Yemen, a Mediterranean country through its influence in Syria as well Lebanon through Hezbollah, and the major Gulf country through its supporters in Iraq. In fact this Iranian domination of space is what has created a common space between all its long arm organizations in the region.

Essentially, if we compare Iran to an octopus, all those various groups are its tentacles, and they all serve the purpose of Iran’s strategic interests, albeit not through a push-button approach, but through not taking any action which would not please their master Iran. Of course, this puts Iran in a strong position to be a major player in the region and an inescapable negotiations partner for the US, which is also convenient for the Americans, in order to remind their Arab allies who is their protector in a region policed by Turkey, Israel and Iran.

Of course, this takes us to the point of saying that, for all intents and purposes, for the Americans a trusted adversary is more important than distrusted friends, and that it would be absurd to think that all those long arms of Iran in the Arab world can be amputated by military means; they certainly can be weakened, but without the consent of Iran and without the right price, so long as it remains behind them, nothing much can change.

At this point, from what one can only see, is that no one in their right mind or otherwise, will permit a war to emerge in which Israel is pitted against Iran and the US as well as NATO putting all their weight behind Israel and forcing the Arabs to choose their camp. That would be the scenario of the end of the world as we know it , or with major civil wars in the Arab countries controlled by the tentacles of Iran, and no one wants that.

Dr Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris

Continue reading
Israel is Exporting its “Crises” to Syria – Experts

Syrian political analysts are warning that Israel is seeking to export its internal crises to Syria, following its military failure in the Al-Aqsa Flood battle in Gaza. They add Tel Aviv wants to fuel regional tensions to divert attention from its worsening internal crisis.

Weakening Syria to unite the Israelis

Member of the Syrian National Dialogue Conference Abdul Nasser Hawshan believes the recent Israeli escalation “aims to prevent the establishment of a strong Syrian state and destabilize the region,” adding the Israeli occupation government is trying to unite the Israelis behind it to escape the increasing internal and international pressures it is facing.

https://twitter.com/Dylanjusti79850/status/1895386169812361434

Hawshan told Quds Press, the recent National Dialogue Conference held in in country witnessed a national consensus on the unity and independence of Syria, and the rejected partition projects as espoused by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). He described such a project as a “separatist” one that “serves the Israeli agenda.”

He also pointed out that the Israeli incursions into southern Syria came “in response to this popular rejection of foreign plans.”

Druze position and rejection of Israeli intervention

Regarding the Druze community’s position in these developments, Hawshan explained that “some Druze leaders have adopted a discourse in line with the Israeli proposal,” but he stressed they “do not represent the Druze sect in general, which rejects any foreign intervention in Syrian affairs.”

He also denied the possibility of establishing the so-called Daoud Crossing, which links Israel to the areas under the control of the SDF, stressing “this project will not succeed under any circumstances.”

Irksome Turkey-Israel ties over the SDF

Political analyst Adel Hanif Daoud believes Israel is trying to exploit regional tensions to strengthen its position as an effective force, despite its escalating political and military crisis.

But Daoud warned that “any Israeli attempt to link the Druze and the SDF through the Tanf crossing could lead to an inevitable military confrontation with Turkey.” He noted Ankara considers the “Syrian Democratic Forces” a direct threat to its territorial integrity, and may resort to large-scale military intervention even if that leads to an international conflict.

He added the Druze leadership is divided between those who support Israel and those who are loyal to Damascus, but he expected that Druze leader Kamal Jumblatt would intervene to pressure the Druze community to reject the Israeli project.

As for the Turkish position, Daoud indicated that Ankara, as a member of NATO, has many political tools that it can use before resorting to the military option.

Military escalation in southern Syria

These warnings come in light of the escalation of Israeli military violations in southern Syria, as the occupation forces have intensified their airstrikes on sites in the Damascus countryside and Quneitra in recent weeks, targeting military and civilian infrastructure. Unprecedented Israeli military movements were also monitored along the occupied Golan Heights, amid reports of limited ground incursions.

In this context, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu escalated his rhetoric, stressing that his army would not allow the Syrian army or its allied forces to enter southern Syria, stressing Tel Aviv would not back down from its control of Mount Hermon, considering it a “strategic part of Israel’s national security.”

Damascus rejects Israeli aggression

For his part, Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa stressed his categorical rejection of these attacks, considering them a threat to regional security and a continuation of the policies of aggression against Syria’s sovereignty.

In light of this escalation, Syria continues to defend its sovereignty and rights, while calls are increasing for the international community to act to stop Israeli violations, amid growing complications that threaten the stability of the entire region.

Continue reading
World Condemn Trump’s Plan Over Gaza

US President Donald Trump’s recent proposal to relocate Palestinians from Gaza and place the territory under long-term US control has sparked widespread international backlash.

Unveiled during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the plan envisions transforming Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East” by resettling Palestinians in neighboring countries like Jordan and Egypt.

While the proposal received support from Israel, the global response has been overwhelmingly negative, with strong condemnations from major powers, regional countries, and even US lawmakers.

Global powers reject forced relocation

Both Russia and China criticized the plan, highlighting the violation of international norms.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov reaffirmed Russia’s support for a two-state solution, while the Russian Foreign Ministry said: “Any populist comments are counter-productive and ramp up tensions.”

China condemned the forced displacement, emphasizing that “Palestinians governing Palestine” is fundamental for post-conflict stability.

European countries have also been vocal on the plan, expressing strong opposition.

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock labeled the proposal a breach of international law, stressing that Gaza belongs to the Palestinians.

France reiterated its opposition to any forced displacement, calling it a serious violation of international law.

The UK, under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, supported Palestinian rights to return and rebuild, while Denmark said: “It doesn’t seem to be a realistic way forward.”

Reasserting Italy’s support for the two-state solution, the Italian foreign minister said nothing can be achieved without the Palestinians, noting: “It seems to me that it is a bit difficult (to implement the plan).”

Spain, Ireland, and Slovenia, having recognized Palestine in 2024, condemned the plan, calling it ignorant of Palestinian history and contradiction of the UN Security Council resolutions.

Belgium said forced displacement of populations constitutes “a grave breach of international humanitarian law” while Poland expressed support for a two-state solution.

Canada, where Trump put tariffs on hold last week, said its longstanding position on Gaza has not changed and is committed to achieving a two-state solution.

Relocation plan ‘unacceptable’

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan condemned the plan as “unacceptable,” stressing that even considering such a proposal is wrong. The Turkish Defense Ministry declared its complete opposition to the displacement of Palestinians.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas rejected the plan outright, stating peace cannot be attained without a Palestinian state.

Hamas group called it “hostile,” while Qatar, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia warned it would destabilize the region.

Iran also voiced firm opposition to the plan, and Iraq condemned the plan to displace Palestinians.

Although Latin American countries were largely silent, Brazil’s President Lula da Silva criticized the proposal as “incomprehensible,” questioning where displaced Palestinians would live.

Dissent within US

Despite originating in Washington, the plan faced criticism even from US lawmakers.

Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen condemned it as “ethnic cleansing by another name.” Representative Rashida Tlaib, a Palestinian-American, declared: “Palestinians aren’t going anywhere.”

Even Republican figures like Senator Lindsey Graham found the proposal “problematic,” while Senator Tim Kaine labeled it “deranged.”

Trump’s Gaza relocation plan has united a broad spectrum of global opposition, transcending geopolitical divides.

While no country has openly expressed support for the plan, many countries have remained silent. Argentina, Japan, and India, the countries that sent representatives to Trump’s inauguration, have not made any statements on the issue.

Countries that want to maintain good relations with the new US administration have also remained silent. Latin American countries, where Trump has cracked down on immigration and drugs after taking the office, have so far kept mum.

Aside from Israel, the international community remains steadfast in rejecting forced displacement, advocating instead for a two-state solution as the only viable path to lasting peace in the region according to Anadolu.

Continue reading
Syria: A Hot Political Potato

By Dr Khairi Janbek

All eyes are on Syria, simply because the only thing known about how the new Syria will look like is frankly, the unknown. What is prevailing in the new predictions and analysis is at best, and at worst blunt fears.

Of course, this is understandable considering the composition of the groups which are now trying to run the country. What is vey disconcerting however, is how the international media presented the war prior to the fall of Damascus in no more than a side show, giving the impression that, as big Syrian cities fell one after the other in the hands of the rebels, that an agreement was likely to be struck which will solve the concept peaceably. Well, such an agreement was not struck, and the victorious rebellion became the hot potato in the hands of all.

Now, how will the new regime look like in Syria? Frankly your guess is as good as mine. Will they act momentarily in a pluralistic manner, then adopt political Islam as regime ideology? Again, only time will tell, but also that would depend primarily, on the prevailing regional and international actors and players.

For a start, the rapprochement between Russia and Turkey will not greatly depend on the shape of the new regime, so long of course, as the new regime in Damascus continues to protect the Russian interests in warm water bases, and be a wall against Kurdish armed groups threatening Turkish interests.

Then of course there is Israel, which after it destroyed Syrian military capabilities, has no fear of war with Damascus, but does fear the potential presence of a regime adopting political Islamist trappings on its borders, which it will use as an excuse use to expand and probably annex Syrian, and maybe Lebanese territories before the dust settles down.

However, when it comes to the Arab neighbors of Syria, Jordan and Iraq, it’s only natural they would feel concerned but for different reasons. For Jordan, the recent history of Iraqi political instability and the associated acts of terrorism are still fresh in the mind of everyone in the Kingdom, so in no uncertain terms, Jordan would wish to see on its border, a regime adopting political Islam, lest it suffers once more from terror acts that are likely to push for military action and in which it doesn’t wish to be involved in.

As for Iraq, the sectarian troubles are still fresh in the minds of everyone. Certainly the Iraqi government doesn’t wish to see a regime on its borders which has the potential of igniting an unwanted sectarian civil war. As for the rest of the Arab countries, the question remains theoretical – plainly speaking being against political Islam .

As for Syria itself, it’s rather banal to repeat the obvious which is, that it is pluralistic country. But, how can you mange such a country, if indeed this is the intention intention and not shoving it up everyone’s throat ideology by blood and fire.

For a start every community, ethnic and religious, has to feel secure, and secondly they need to know that they have a stake in the future of the country, and that can only happen by establishing a truly functioning parliament freely elected by all of its constituents, then adopt a prime ministerial system of government accountable to the people with a titular president of the republic. No political party should be prohibited to field parliamentary candidates except those associated with armed groups.

At the end of the day, the only thing which will turn the current victorious rebels into extremist islamists is the specter of internal civil conflict which everyone is trying to avoid.

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian commentator currently based in Paris.

Continue reading