Turkey Archives - CrossFireArarbia

The Middle East Octopus

Dr Khairi Janbek
March 29, 2025

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

Analyses

Israel is Exporting its “Crises” to Syria – Experts

CrossFireArabia
February 28, 2025

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.

News

World Condemn Trump’s Plan Over Gaza

CrossFireArabia
February 6, 2025

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.

https://t.co/K6qreNWFK0
Trump's Gaza Plan Rejected By the World, Creates Demand for LaRouche Two-State Oasis Plan pic.twitter.com/89F8weWNRL
— Helga Zepp-LaRouche (@ZeppLaRouche) February 6, 2025

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.

Opinion

Syria: A Hot Political Potato

Dr Khairi Janbek
December 16, 2024

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.

HTS Leader Al- Jolani: Syria Won’t Be Used As Launchpad For Attacks On Israel – Timeshttps://t.co/etqtdBsOw5
— LiveSquawk (@LiveSquawk) December 16, 2024

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.

Opinion

Syria: 10 Days That Shook The World

Dr Khairi Janbek
December 10, 2024

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.