More signs of Britain grooming Syria’s Al-Qaeda-rooted government
The Cradle | June 4, 2025
When Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa (previously known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani), the former Al-Qaeda emir who led the Nusra Front, was affiliated with ISIS, and later headed Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), visited Saudi Arabia to meet Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) in February, he was accompanied by a surprising figure: Razan Saffour, a 32-year-old British-Syrian activist who had never set foot in Syria before the fall of former president Bashar al-Assad’s government in December.
Saffour also joined Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani on his trip to the Munich Security Conference that same month. Her presence in Syria’s new ruling circle highlights Britain’s outsized role in shaping the conflict – bringing Al-Qaeda to power, whitewashing its leadership, and embedding UK operatives within its political infrastructure.
Her presence alongside Julani on official state visits signals not just personal ascension, but the triumph of Britain’s long war to launder extremist power through western-groomed proxies.
Razan Saffour was born and raised in London, studied at SOAS, and emerged as a high-profile Syrian opposition voice during the early years of the war, when she was only in her early 20s. Platformed by major western and Arab media outlets from the Persian Gulf, she was a familiar figure on the regime-change circuit. Her father, Walid Saffour, a leading Muslim Brotherhood (MB) dissident, had fled Syria in 1981 during the MB’s armed uprising against the state.
Walid Saffour would later become the Syrian opposition’s ambassador to the UK, representing the Syrian National Council. Academic Dr Dara Conduit notes that this gave “the Brotherhood an important formal diplomatic link to the UK through an undeclared member.”
Engineering regime change
By the mid-2000s, the British government had aligned with US neoconservatives and MB-linked activists to prepare a full-blown insurgency in Syria.
In October 2006, several members of an MB front group, the National Salvation Front (NSF), traveled to Washington to meet with Michael Doran, a member of the US National Security Council, to discuss plans for regime change in Syria. Doran was a close associate of prominent Jewish neoconservative and former US president George W. Bush’s administration official Elliott Abrams.
In 2009, former French foreign minister Roland Dumas was told by top British officials that “they were preparing something in Syria … Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria.” When asked why, Dumas responded, “Very simple!” because “the Syrian regime makes anti-Israeli talk.”
The covert US-UK effort to topple Assad involved training young, media-savvy Syrian activists to organize anti-government protests, as well as flooding Syria with Al-Qaeda militants from Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, and dozens of other countries to carry out false flag attacks against Syrian police and security forces.
Many were UK nationals and members of the Al-Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). They had been allowed by British authorities to travel to Libya to topple late Libyan president Muammar al-Gaddafi, before being funneled into Syria via Turkiye.
US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford served as the operation’s field coordinator. As former US Naval officer Wayne Madsen reported in 2011, Ford was recruiting death squads from Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Chechnya. His previous role as political officer in Iraq involved implementing the El Salvador Option: organizing Shia death squads to crush Sunni insurgents under Ambassador John Negroponte.
Among those released from the US-run Bucca prison in Iraq and dispatched to Syria was none other than Abu Mohammad al-Julani. He would go on to found the Nusra Front, the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda, after orchestrating a series of suicide bombings in Damascus.
The Powell connection
While Al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchise grew, British intelligence cultivated parallel assets to manage the political front. In 2011, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, founded the NGO Inter Mediate, a Foreign Office-funded project designed to open secret channels with insurgent groups.
In March 2012, Powell wrote to Hillary Clinton’s advisor Sidney Blumenthal seeking US support: “We are setting up secret channels between insurgents and governments.” He boasted that his group worked “closely with the FCO (the Foreign and Commonwealth Office), NSC (National Security Council) and SIS (Special Intelligence Service, or MI-6) in London.”
“We are starting work in Syria,” Powell added, suggesting that he was communicating with the Nusra Front and other Al-Qaeda linked groups.
By this time, Walid Saffour had assumed his UK ambassadorial post for the Syrian opposition. He lobbied hard for the arming of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) – a cover or “weapons farm” for transferring NATO-grade weapons to Nusra.
His appointment gave “the Brotherhood an important formal diplomatic link to the UK through an undeclared member,” academic Dara Conduit wrote in her book detailing the history of the MB in Syria.
Armed with CIA-supplied TOW missiles and led by Julani’s suicide battalions, Nusra captured Idlib in 2015. A year later, it declared an Islamic emirate in the province, modeled on ISIS’s Raqqa. Brett McGurk, the US envoy to the anti-ISIS coalition, would later call Idlib “the largest Al-Qaeda safe haven since 9/11.”
While McGurk claimed “Idlib now is a huge problem,” the US and UK were quietly working with the Nusra, which was soon rebranded as HTS.
Arab media outlet Jusoor wrote that the “attempts of [Hayat] Tahrir Al-Sham for polishing itself began in the summer of 2017, with a campaign of contacts with the west.”
Jusoor added that HTS media official Zeid Attar had a meeting with the former UK diplomat Powell, “who manages many back channels for negotiating with designated terrorist groups either internationally or nationally.”
From terrorist to statesman
In 2019, US envoy James Jeffrey openly described HTS as an “asset” to Washington’s Syria strategy. The goal: preserve an Al-Qaeda-controlled buffer in Idlib to pressure Damascus.
Russian media later revealed that Powell had met Julani near the Bab al-Hawa crossing with Turkiye, coaching him on how to rehabilitate his image. Julani was advised to grant a western media interview to soften his profile.
PBS journalist Martin Smith soon arrived in Idlib. His April 2021 interview with Julani aired in the US, casting the Salafist extremist leader as a reformed figure who posed no threat to western interests.
In May 2024, Robert Ford revealed at a conference that he, too, had met Julani in Idlib. “In 2023, a British non-governmental organization specializing in conflict resolution invited me to help with their efforts to get this man out of the terrorist world and into regular politics,” Ford told attendees.
That NGO, according to Independent Arabia, was Powell’s Inter Mediate. In a revealing twist, Powell was appointed UK National Security Advisor on 8 November 2024 – just weeks before Julani’s HTS launched its final offensive on Damascus. By 8 December, Julani, who now goes by his government name Ahmad al-Sharaa, had assumed power.
London’s ‘post-Assad’ playbook
As Sharaa settled into the presidential palace, western and Arab media launched a PR blitz to sell him as a modern, diversity-friendly ruler. This was difficult given his previous pledges to carry out a genocide against any of Syria’s minority Alawites who refused to convert to Sunni Islam, and his role in dispatching car and suicide bombers, killing tens of thousands in Syria and Iraq over more than a decade.
An image facelift ensued nonetheless: Military fatigues gave way to tailored suits; his nom de guerre was dropped in favor of his alleged birth name. Time magazine listed Sharaa as one of the year’s 100 most influential people – at Ford’s behest, no less. And the US lifted its $10 million bounty on his head for terrorism.
Sharaa pledged to protect minorities, including the Alawites – even as Syria’s new HTS-led security forces began targeting them under the guise of counterinsurgency. HTS-led Syrian government forces were carrying out brutal massacres against Alawite civilians on the Syrian coast, during an operation to quell an armed uprising against the authorities. During a four-day period of massacres, at least 1,700 Alawite civilians, including scores of women and children, were killed.
The following February, after Razan Saffour accompanied Julani to meet MbS, The National reported that Powell had recently held a “low-key meeting” with Syria’s new government in his new role as National Security Advisor, “boosting suggestions he will play a leading role in relations.”
Syrian analyst Malek Hafez told the Syrian Observer that Powell’s team even runs a media office inside the presidential palace, “reportedly run by two women – one British, the other of Lebanese-British heritage.”
As Hafez concludes, “The rise of Ahmad al-Sharaa was not spontaneous – it was carefully engineered through a long-term, western-backed strategy, in which Britain played a disproportionately influential role among western powers.”
While London has not yet officially expressed its support for Sharaa and Syria’s new government, the UK’s “fingerprints” are increasingly visible, the Observer added.
When weighed against the hundreds of thousands of Syrians killed, the millions displaced, and the wreckage of a nation, the UK’s central role in bringing Julani to power should not be forgotten.
US reshuffle of pro-‘Israel’ officials alarms occupation
Al Mayadeen | June 3, 2025
Israeli officials are expressing growing concern over a series of unexpected personnel changes within the US administration, which have targeted figures long regarded as staunch supporters of “Israel”, Israeli news outlet Ynet reported.
The shake-up comes amid escalating tensions between US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over both the war on Gaza and a possible strike on Iran.
Among the most notable dismissals are Merav Ceren, a dual US-Israeli citizen who oversaw the Iran and “Israel” portfolio at the National Security Council, and Eric Trager, who led Middle East and North Africa policy. Both were appointed by former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, a strong supporter of “Israel”, who was removed by Trump.
Their removal was reportedly executed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Waltz’s successor.
Another high-profile figure expected to be removed is Morgan Ortagus, deputy to special envoy Steve Witkoff and in charge of the Lebanon file.
Ortagus’s leaving her post, although unfavorable for “Israel” due to her critical role in efforts to disarm Hezbollah, marks the departure of a controversial figure in Lebanon, with her statements, such as thanking “Israel” for what she claimed was defeating Hezbollah in the Presidential Palace in Baabda, inflaming tensions in the country, flouting proper protocol, and meddling in Lebanon’s internal affairs.
Her dismissal, which sources say was not voluntary, has shocked officials in “Israel”, where she was seen as a key ally. Ortagus is reportedly being reassigned to internal duties within the State Department and will have no further role in Middle East diplomacy.
According to Lebanese outlet al-Akhbar, Ortagus had sought a more senior regional role, aiming to take over the Syria portfolio. However, her responsibilities are now expected to be reassigned, possibly to Joel Rayburn or Thomas Barrack. The Lebanese file, sources noted, has been downgraded in US priorities, with attention shifting to Syria.
American sources confirmed to Lebanon’s MTV network that Ortagus had been dismissed due to internal professional issues unrelated to Lebanon. Her upcoming trip to Beirut has been canceled, and Rayburn is expected to assume oversight of the Lebanon file as assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs.
US roadmap for Syria sanctions removal includes Israel normalization, expulsion of Palestinian factions
The Cradle | May 23, 2025
A State Department proposal circulated among officials lays out “sweeping conditions for future phases of relief or permanent lifting of sanctions” on Syria, including normalizing relations with Israel by signing the Abraham Accords, AP reported on 23 May, citing an anonymous US official familiar with the matter.
US-imposed sanctions have devastated the Syrian economy, plunged millions into poverty, and blocked post-war reconstruction. They were imposed as part of the US and Israeli effort to topple the government of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.
Assad was ousted in December by militants from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the former Al-Qaeda affiliate, with US, Israeli, and Turkish assistance. HTS leader Ahmad al-Sharaa is now the de facto Syrian president.
However, the US is not yet ready to remove sanctions.
A document issued last week by the State Department’s policy and planning staff has proposed a three-phase road map for sanctions relief, starting with short-term waivers. Permanent lifting of sanctions would only be given after several conditions are met.
According to the document, “Palestinian terror groups” must be removed from Syria to get to the second stage.
The Syrian government must also take control of detention facilities housing ISIS fighters in northeast Syria and carry out a recent deal to incorporate the US-backed, Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) into the Syrian army. The SDF currently controls the prisons housing ISIS members and their families, as well as much of Syria’s oil fields.
Phase three would require Damascus to normalize relations with Tel Aviv by joining the Abraham Accords, as well as prove that it had destroyed all of the previous government’s chemical weapons.
If normalization happens, Syria would de facto acknowledge Israel’s annexation of the occupied Syrian Golan Heights.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has previously pushed for US President Donald Trump’s administration not to lift sanctions on Syria.
President Trump raised expectations that all Syria sanctions would quickly be removed when he announced in Saudi Arabia last week that he would “be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance at greatness.”
“We’re taking them all off,” Trump said a day before meeting the Syrian president, a former deputy of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
“Good luck, Syria. Show us something special,” he went on to say.
However, when asked what sanctions relief should look like overall, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said relief would be “Incremental.”
Washington has levied sanctions against Syria since 1979 for its foreign policy opposing Israel.
To block Syria’s post-war reconstruction, the harshest sanctions were imposed in 2019 by Congress through the passage of the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act.
As a result, a new law in Congress must be passed to remove the Caesar sanctions. Trump is only able to issue six-month waivers, which is not enough to encourage investors to return to doing business in the country.
On Friday, two Palestinian sources told AFP that the leaders of Palestinian resistance factions have left Syria under pressure from the new authorities in Damascus.
The leaders include Khaled Jibril, son of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) founder Ahmad Jibril, as well as Palestinian Popular Struggle Front Secretary-General Khaled Abdel Majid and Fatah al-Intifada Secretary-General Ziad al-Saghir.
Are US-Israel ‘special relations’ about to end?
By Murad Sadygzade | RT | May 19, 2025
Last week, US President Donald Trump embarked on his first official overseas tour since taking office, choosing to visit three key Gulf nations – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.
This itinerary was both unexpected and, in many ways, unprecedented. Unlike his predecessors, who traditionally began their foreign policy engagements with visits to long-standing Western allies, Trump opted to prioritize America’s Arab partners, deliberately bypassing Israel – Washington’s principal strategic ally in the region. This marked the first time in decades that a sitting US president visiting the Middle East consciously excluded it from the agenda.
This decision signaled a potential recalibration of Washington’s priorities in the region. Relations between the Trump administration and the Israeli leadership, particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, were already strained in the early stages – largely due to Israel’s growing intransigence on the Palestinian question and the increasing influence of far-right factions within the Israeli government. Faced with mounting frustration over Israel’s hardline policies, the White House appeared to pivot toward a more pragmatic, less confrontational, and economically advantageous partnership with the Gulf monarchies.
However, the rationale behind this shift extended beyond political calculation. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar have long played a pivotal role in sustaining American influence in the Middle East – not only because of their strategic geography but also due to their substantial investments in the US economy and multi-billion-dollar arms contracts. For a business-minded president eager to showcase the profitability of foreign policy through economic deals, these nations represented ideal counterparts.
The lavish receptions afforded to Trump during his Gulf tour might have been dismissed as mere pageantry were it not for their deeper symbolic resonance. The true significance of the visit lay in what it revealed about broader geopolitical currents: namely, the transformation of the Gulf monarchies from regional players into increasingly assertive global actors.
Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar are no longer content with being perceived as passive participants in American-led regional frameworks. Instead, they are positioning themselves as independent centers of power in an emerging multipolar world order. Their growing international stature stems from several interrelated factors.
First, these countries have embraced ambitious and forward-looking development strategies, investing heavily in infrastructure, clean energy transitions, technological innovation, and global finance. No longer simply hydrocarbon exporters, they are becoming hubs of digital transformation, international logistics, Islamic finance, and global policy discourse on issues ranging from security to sustainable development.
Second, the Gulf states have pioneered a distinctive model of governance that blends traditionalism with modernization. While maintaining deep-rooted commitments to Islamic and tribal values, they have achieved remarkable progress in building diversified and globally competitive economies. This synthesis has not only enabled them to thrive amid intensifying global competition but, in some respects, to outpace certain Western nations grappling with internal divisions and economic stagnation.
Equally noteworthy is the political resilience of these monarchies. Western narratives often portray them simplistically as ‘absolute monarchies,’ failing to appreciate the internal mechanisms of governance that underpin their stability. In reality, the political architecture of the Gulf is more accurately described as ‘sheikhism’ – a system rooted in consensus among tribal and familial elites, structured around a balance of obligations, reciprocal loyalties, and ongoing consultation. This model, which integrates Islamic principles such as shura (consultation) with practical statecraft, has proven remarkably adaptive and resilient.
In this context, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar can no longer be viewed merely as privileged US allies or energy suppliers. They are emerging as autonomous actors in global politics – capable of forging regional alliances, shaping international agendas across energy, media, and technology, and mediating in global conflicts. Their evolving role reflects not dependence on external security guarantees, but the outcome of deliberate, long-term strategies to consolidate sovereignty, enhance prestige, and assert influence in the 21st century.
Money above all: Trump’s deal-based diplomacy
President Donald Trump’s visit to the Gulf states was far more than his first foreign trip as head of state. It was a bold, highly symbolic debut of a new US foreign economic doctrine rooted in pragmatism, transactionalism, and strategic capitalism. Unlike previous administrations, which typically foregrounded diplomacy, security alliances, and value-based partnerships, Trump approached this tour as a high-stakes business deal. His mindset was that of a dealmaker, not a traditional statesman. The objective was clear: to restore America’s economic dominance by leveraging the vast wealth and strategic ambitions of the Middle East’s richest monarchies.
Trump’s campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” found tangible expression in this tour. His mission was to bring back jobs, reindustrialize key sectors, boost the US high-tech ecosystem, and enhance national competitiveness – all fueled by a surge in foreign direct investment. In this pursuit, the oil-rich, capital-heavy Gulf monarchies – endowed with massive sovereign wealth funds and seeking greater global visibility – emerged as ideal partners.
In Saudi Arabia, Trump signed an unprecedented economic package worth over $600 billion, including the largest arms deal in US history – $142 billion covering missile defense systems, advanced aviation platforms, cybersecurity capabilities, and military-grade AI technologies. Equally significant was the launch of a new tech alliance: Saudi-based DataVolt committed $20 billion to build data centers and energy facilities in the US, while a consortium led by Nvidia, AMD, and Amazon Web Services will co-develop an AI innovation hub within the Kingdom. A $50 billion venture fund was also established to support US-based startups in renewable energy and cybersecurity.
In Qatar, the results were even more staggering: agreements totaling $1.2 trillion, the largest single-country deal package in US diplomatic history. Central to this was Qatar Airways’ order for 210 Boeing aircraft valued at $96 billion, making it the most lucrative deal ever for the American aerospace giant. Qatar also pledged tens of billions of dollars for joint ventures in quantum computing, smart energy networks, and STEM education programs for engineers and IT specialists in the US. In a provocative symbolic gesture, Qatar proposed gifting President Trump a custom-built Air Force One, sparking intense debate in the American media landscape.
In the United Arab Emirates, new agreements totaling $200 billion were signed – in addition to a previously negotiated $1.4 trillion package. Key components included the construction of an aluminum plant in Oklahoma, expansion of oil and gas infrastructure with US firms, and a landmark $100 billion commitment to American companies specializing in artificial intelligence over the next three years.
In total, Trump’s Gulf tour yielded over $2 trillion in contracts and investment pledges – an economic windfall of historic proportions. But beyond the numbers, the trip marked a fundamental redefinition of American foreign policy: from projecting power through military force and ideological alignment, to securing influence through economic penetration and transactional partnerships. Trump unveiled a new image of the US – not as a global policeman, but as a global entrepreneur. A nation that negotiates not with declarations, but with data, contracts, and employment metrics.
This new model resonated deeply with the Gulf monarchies themselves, which are undergoing profound transformations. Once reliant solely on oil exports, these states are rapidly evolving into tech-driven economies with ambitions to become global hubs of innovation, finance, and logistics. In Trump’s America, they found not just a security guarantor, but a strategic co-architect of a post-oil economic order – one where capital, innovation, and mutual profit outweigh traditional diplomatic protocol and ideological rhetoric.
Trump’s message was unambiguous: the era of foreign policy as charity is over. What now matters are mutual returns, strategic alignments, and economic gains. The Gulf states, driven by their own visions of modernization and diversification, eagerly embraced this shift. Together, they reimagined international relations not as a sphere of obligations, but as a marketplace of opportunities.
What about Israel?
One of the most significant – albeit unofficial – outcomes of Donald Trump’s Middle East tour could be discerned even before the journey began: the US President conspicuously bypassed Israel. This omission became all the more striking given that even Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who had initially planned a visit to Tel Aviv, abruptly cancelled his trip at the last moment. The message did not go unnoticed in either Washington or Jerusalem: nearly all observers interpreted the move as a clear sign of a cooling relationship between the US and Israel – more precisely, between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The rift between the two leaders appears less personal than strategic, rooted in diverging visions of the region’s future. Tensions had been mounting for months. The first major flashpoint came when Trump unilaterally announced the withdrawal of American forces from operations against Yemen’s Houthi rebels, citing the group’s supposed commitment to halt attacks on Red Sea shipping lanes. The decision, made without prior consultation with Israel – which continues to endure daily rocket fire from the Houthis – dealt a blow not only to diplomatic norms but also to the foundational trust between Israel and its closest ally.
An even more sensitive issue has been the quiet resumption of US contacts with Iran. With Oman acting as mediator, Washington has been exploring the outlines of a possible new nuclear agreement. Meanwhile, Israel remains steadfast in its conviction that no negotiations with Tehran should occur until decisive military action is taken against its nuclear and military facilities – a show of force intended to compel concessions. Netanyahu failed to persuade Trump of this hardline approach, and the US president has increasingly charted his own, more flexible course.
Tensions have also sharpened over the future of Syria. Israel refuses to recognize the country’s new leader, Ahmad al-Sharaa, branding him a former al-Qaeda affiliate and a dangerous actor. Israeli airstrikes on Syrian territory continue, the buffer zone in the Golan Heights remains under Israeli control, and the Druze population has formally been placed under Israeli protection. While Israel promotes the vision of a weak, decentralized Syria, Washington is embracing the opposite: al-Sharaa was invited to meet with Trump in Saudi Arabia, and following those talks, the US signaled its intent to lift sanctions on Damascus. Even more striking was the revelation that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE – previously restrained by US pressure – are now prepared to invest in Syria’s reconstruction, viewing it as both a stabilizing opportunity and a chance to expand their regional influence.
Israeli frustration has been further stoked by Washington’s evolving stance on the Palestinian issue. Despite Israel’s ongoing military operation in Gaza, Trump has increasingly expressed a desire – even a demand – for a resolution to the conflict. His Gaza reconstruction plan, unveiled in February, sent shockwaves through Washington: it proposed the complete depopulation of Palestinians from the enclave and the transformation of the territory into a luxury international resort zone under US control. Not only was this radical proposal never coordinated with Israel, but it also raised fundamental questions about the future of the US-Israel alliance.
To make matters more complex, credible reports have emerged that the US has been engaged in direct negotiations with Hamas, without informing Israel. The recent release of an American citizen, IDF soldier Idan Alexander, who was captured in October 2023, was reportedly achieved through these covert channels – of which the Israeli government only became aware through its own intelligence services.
Against this backdrop, speculation is growing that the White House is seriously considering formally recognizing an independent Palestinian state. Such a move would not be a mere diplomatic gesture – it would reshape the strategic architecture of the Middle East. Should Washington proceed down this path, Israel could find itself in strategic isolation, while the center of regional gravity shifts toward Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Türkiye – countries with which Trump is building pragmatic, mutually beneficial, and business-driven relations.
None of these states demand unconditional support from Washington, meddle in its internal politics, or leverage domestic crises for influence. More importantly, they offer Trump what he values most: investment, trade, strategic partnership based on reciprocal interest, and freedom from ideological constraints.
Thus, a new geopolitical reality is taking shape before our eyes. In this emerging landscape, Donald Trump appears less inclined to view Israel as an indispensable ally and more drawn to politically agile, economically potent, and regionally assertive actors across the Arab world – and Türkiye. If rumors of Palestinian state recognition prove true, it will mark the end of the long-standing era of “special relations” between the US and Israel and signal the dawn of a new chapter in American Middle East policy – one governed not by ideological loyalty, but by unambiguous political and economic rationality.
Murad Sadygzade is President of the Middle East Studies Center, Visiting Lecturer, HSE University (Moscow).
Trump’s Middle East theatricals were all about putting Bibi in his place
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 16, 2025
Was it Bill Clinton in the White House with Benjamin Netanyahu who, in a press conference, muttered those vulgar and certainly immortal words “who’s the f*** superpower around here?” The question was really about whether the U.S. is running Israel and its activities in the Middle East or it is in fact Israel which is running the U.S.
In recent months in both the Biden administration and the Trump one which followed, many pundits have claimed that Israel is in control of U.S. foreign policy, with some even going as far as speculating that this control even goes beyond the Middle East itself. This cabal of online commentators made so much of how Trump adjusted Bibi’s seat when he sat down in the Oval Office.
We can see now though that this idea of the tail wagging the dog, even if once it might have been true to some extent, has now been dealt with head on by Trump.
His visit to the Middle East and his impressive speech in Saudi Arabia which mocked the bellicose approach to bombing civilians was a direct message to Netanyahu in Israel: America is back.
Trump is literally taking control of U.S. foreign policy in the region and pushing back Israel’s attempts to bomb its way to peace, whether this be in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria or, of course, in Iran.
The move comes at a tough time in the region where the country which seemed to bring about a revolution with the Arab Spring – Tunisia – is falling into an abys as it becomes a leading example of a dictatorship which knows no limits on its brutal suppression.
For Netanyahu, a number of pundits now are pointing to the “clear light” between Trump and him with some claiming that these two leaders aren’t even talking anymore. Trump defied him by talking to Iran, negotiating with the Houthis and now scrapping sanctions in Syria.
Israel cannot even dream of attacking Iran with the U.S. help and so a big part of Netanyahu’s mojo has been removed. And now Trump is calling the shots on aid to Gaza, but stopped short of calling for the Palestinians to have their own state.
Yet his move on Syria is telling. Israel’s plans were always to have head-chopping extremists running the show – which they backed in the Syria civil war – with a constant mayhem present so that they can always take advantage of the chaos while ensuring that the path which once stood between Tehran and Beirut is always blocked.
Trump’s announcement that all sanctions will be lifted will not be welcomed by Bibi who will see the move as a stunt by the Donald to demonstrate who is running the show, although the announcement itself might prove to be premature.
Senator Lindsey Graham states only Congress can change the country’s designation as a “state sponsor of terror” and that Trump must make his case to Congress for that to happen.
“That report has not been received, and Congress has the opportunity to review this action if it chooses. The designation of Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism has tremendous ramifications apart from the sanctions,” Graham stated. The senator stated that he is sure that Congress must be informed before sanctions are lifted, and the legislative body would then “make an informed decision on whether or not it should approve the change in designation.” But he also stated that Israel’s opinion matters and that Congress would consult Netanyahu so it’s fair to say that Syria’s fate is still yet to be decided regardless of whatever Trump has said at the podium in Riyadh. It would appear that Bibi and Trump are set to clash now and we shouldn’t be surprised at what resources Trump will deploy to show Israel’s leader that Trump is both serious about peace in the region but also that Israel must put aside its warmongering – which may well include even supporting a two-state solution, pushed more recently by France and the UK. And then we will see who is the f*** super power and who is the client state. Almost certainly the fate of Syria and Gaza will be used as a rod for Bibi’s back until he succumbs to Trump’s rule.
The Israeli Syria Dilemma
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | May 15, 2025
Although it could appear that the Israelis are having their way with Syria, their aggression is short sighted and could at any moment backfire. The only reason they still enjoy the freedom to continue carrying on in the manner they are, is because of the leadership in Damascus.
Syria’s new President Ahmad al-Sharaa and his administration, staffed primarily by members of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), have so far failed to take advantage of opportunity after opportunity that have fallen in their laps. Instead of uniting the country behind a common cause, working on building a strong functional nation, and finding some leverage to use in future negotiations, they chose the path of least resistance.
We have now reached a phase in Syria where President al-Sharaa, according to several sources who spoke to both Reuters and The Times, is considering a normalisation deal with the Zionist entity. To begin with, even the fact that this is being spoken of and he hasn’t denied it is an admission of guilt and represents a betrayal of the Palestinian people.
Yet, putting aside the fact that normalisation with the Zionist entity would make al-Sharaa and his administration directly complicit in the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and a collaborator with the Israeli regime, it is a ridiculous move, politically speaking.
What we have to understand here is that the Israelis are not the ones begging Syria for a normalisation agreement, it is the other way around. However, the Syrian government has no leverage whatsoever. As al-Sharaa remains trapped between multiple regional and Western interests, he evidently has little wiggle room with which he can work in order to make his regime work.
For example, one of his primary backers is Turkiye, which has at least publicly expressed its interest in strengthening the Syrian State and also uniting it, whereas the Israelis put their foot down and are openly seeking balkanisation of the country. This all came to a head when the Syrian security forces were ordered to seize Druze majority areas south of Damascus and to head towards Sweida.
Unfortunately, al-Sharaa decided to completely dismantle the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and pull apart the security forces, meaning that the de facto military and security forces of the country are a collection of largely ill-trained and undisciplined militiamen. So, when they are sent into any area, we see sectarian bloodshed and lawlessness. This is then exploited by the Israelis, who back their own militia forces, falsely claiming to be on the side of Syria’s Druze community.
To give some context to this situation, the Israelis were giving military, financial, and medical aid to Jabhat al-Nusra – now rebranded as HTS – at a time when it was committing massacres against Druze civilians, yet are now pretending to be the saviours of those same communities.
Because of the fact that al-Sharaa doesn’t have a real army or security forces yet, militarily, he is weak. Then, when he attempts to disarm Syrian villages, this only ends up dividing the country further. Meanwhile, the US, EU, UK, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and other players all have their own opinions on what Damascus should be doing.
What al-Sharaa has chosen to do is suck up to the United States and the rest of the collective West, yet he lacks the intellectual prowess necessary to negotiate with them properly. Instead, he is floating ridiculous proposals like the construction of a Trump Tower in Damascus and a Ukraine-style resource deal with the US. He also believes that making friends with the West is as easy as joining a normalisation deal with the Zionist regime.
Yet, when the Israelis look at Syria, they see a leadership that is willing to crack down on the Palestinian Resistance, allow the occupation of their lands and abandons its own people who are coming under attack. Therefore, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu looks at the predicament of Syria and laughs at the prospect of normalisation for now, not because he doesn’t eventually seek this outcome, but because there is no need to entertain it yet.
Instead, the Israelis are looking to exploit the weakness of the Syrian leadership and push for finishing their agenda in at least the south of the country. The Zionists have long sought to annex a large portion of strategic territory in southern Syria, which they are doing without so much as a single bullet fired at them from the forces belonging to Damascus, while working alongside Syrian minority militias to extend their de facto control all the way to the Euphrates River.
The major challenge now, for the Zionist entity, has nothing to do with the government in Damascus, but rather how far it can get away with pushing. We have already seen signs from local forces in Daraa, that there are groups willing to defend their villages and cities. This local resistance, rather than the government, is the primary factor holding the Zionist advance back.
If you trace back to the reaction to the ambushes carried out against the convoys of Israeli soldiers in southern Syria, the immediate response was to withdraw and use airpower to inflict deaths and injuries in Daraa. It has now been over a month since the clashes occurred, and the Israelis have not admitted to their casualties, nor have they bothered returning on the ground.
The Israeli agenda does not actually encompass any areas that extend beyond Damascus, they have been very open with their intentions being contained to everywhere south of the Syrian Capital. Yet, they have painted themselves into a corner that could result in a brief incursion into Damascus at some point or another.
The Israeli Premier, Benjamin Netanyahu, has pledged to come to the aid of the Druze communities in Syria, which has ended up causing tensions within the Israeli Druze population in occupied Palestine. The Israeli Druze serve crucial roles in the Israeli military and contribute greatly to the Zionist regime’s economy, therefore, when Netanyahu pledges to help the Druze of Syria, this is not a pledge he can simply go back on.
When Ahmed al-Sharaa sent his security forces towards Sweida, this caused protests amongst Israeli Druze and calls for a ground incursion to fight against the Syrian government forces. That night, Israeli airstrikes were launched within 500 meters of the Presidential palace as a warning to the Syrian president. This was followed by one of the largest bombing campaigns in past decades against the country.
In response, al-Sharaa capitulated and decided to arrest the Secretary General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command (PFLP-GC), Talal Naji, likely in a good will gesture to help the Zionist regime locate the body of an Israeli soldier considered missing since 1982.
It is clear that the Israeli project in Syria is not over and that Tel Aviv seeks to use what it sees as a historic opportunity to divide the country and achieve “Greater Israel”. But this will come at a potentially huge cost, due to the fact that more action inside southern Syria will eventually lead to an organic resistance movement emerging. On the other hand, if the Zionists decide to engage with Syrian security forces on the ground, there is no telling how things could spiral out of control.
The Israelis simply do not have the ground capability to open up another broad front inside of Syria, because if they do so, they are going to leave themselves vulnerable on other fronts. If the current Syrian administration was politically intelligent, it would weaponise the situation to its benefit. Instead, it appears to be appealing for normalization without any need for Israeli concessions, meanwhile, Netanyahu doesn’t appear to be entertaining a deal at this time and wants to steal more from Syria first.
Sectarian massacres continue in Syria as government-affiliated groups kill several in Latakia
The Cradle | May 11, 2025
Extremist armed groups affiliated with the Syrian government have carried out a new massacre in Syria’s Alawite majority coastal region.
On 10 May, at least nine civilians, including a 13-year-old boy, were killed in a massacre in the village of Ain al-Sharqiyah near Jableh, in Latakia province. Two victims were found decapitated in what locals described as sectarian-motivated killings.
Eyewitnesses and local sources attribute the killings to a foreign-backed faction affiliated with the Ministry of Defense’s 107th Brigade, reportedly linked to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). Among the victims were Hilal al-Ali, Anwar Hamouda, and his son. Graphic images circulated on social media showed the bodies following the brutal killings.
Pro-government Syria TV reported on the same incident, stating that “Four people, including a child, were killed by unknown assailants in the village of Ain al-Sharqiya in the countryside of Latakia and the General Security has begun investigating the incident.”
This attack is the latest in a series of abuses carried out by forces associated with the Ministry of Defense.
On 7 March, armed groups belonging to the ministry raided the coastal regions, carrying out a series of massacres and killing over 1,600 Alawite civilians on the basis of their religious identity, while looting and burning homes.
Residents have accused authorities of failing to rein in foreign factions and auxiliary forces responsible for the massacres.
In a related development, Adham Mukhtar Rajoub, the mayor of Al-Waer neighborhood in Homs, was assassinated by members of an extremist group aligned with the HTS-led Syrian government while driving his car.
Meanwhile, in Damascus, at least 50 homes were seized in the Alawite-majority Ash al-Warwar neighborhood. Armed groups reportedly threatened residents with arrest, labeling them as regime collaborators or “shabiha,” to justify the expulsions. Victims claim that even minimal resistance led to verbal abuse, detention, or forced displacement.
On 7 May, government-affiliated armed groups raided multiple villages in Tartous and Latakia, destroying homes and abducting civilians. In Jableh’s Ras al-Ain village, a respected Alawite sheikh, Saleh Mansour, was kidnapped from his home, his family assaulted, and his property looted by auxiliary forces. Locals prevented further kidnappings by intervening.
Since HTS, led by former Al-Qaeda commander Ahmad al-Sharaa, took power in Damascus in December, toppling the government of Bashar al-Assad, Syria has witnessed a chilling wave of mysterious kidnappings of young women, predominantly from the Alawite community.
Dozens of women, primarily from the Alawite religious sect, have been abducted and taken to live as sex slaves in Idlib governorate, the traditional HTS stronghold, by armed factions affiliated with the new Syrian government.
‘Israel’ launches extensive strikes across Syria
Al Mayadeen | May 2, 2025
Israeli warplanes launched a wide-ranging series of airstrikes across Syria in what local reports describe as one of the most expansive attacks in recent months.
According to Syrian sources and Israeli media outlets, the operation began with intense drone activity over the provinces of Daraa, Homs, and Hama, before transitioning into a coordinated aerial assault carried out by Israeli fighter jets overnight.
Strikes target military sites across central and southern Syria
One of the earliest reported strikes targeted the area near the village of Shaṭḥa in western Hama countryside, where a military warehouse located within what is being described as a Syrian army base of the former regime was hit. Simultaneously, Israeli aircraft were heard over multiple governorates, signaling the broad scale of the attack.
In Latakia’s countryside, airstrikes struck the al-Sha‘ra region, while further south, Israeli jets flew heavily over Damascus and its surroundings. Explosions were reported in and around the capital, particularly near the Harasta suburb.
Confirmed targets included the Signal Battalion headquarters and areas around the former Tishreen Military Hospital in northern Damascus. Local sources confirmed that the strikes targeted camps, sites, and military warehouses in the mountain range surrounding Harasta, Barzeh, and al-Tall.
Additional raids reported in Daraa and Idlib
Further south, the town of Muthbin in northern Daraa was also hit by an Israeli airstrike. Israeli media outlets reported that the strikes included previously untouched areas in Damascus and simultaneous hits on positions in Idlib.
Local sources said that a second Israeli airstrike on Daraa hit the outskirts of the city of Izra’ in the governorate’s countryside. The attack targeted the Syrian Arab Army’s 175th Regiment camps.
No official response from Damascus yet
As of Sunday, the Syrian government had not issued any official statement regarding casualties or the extent of material damage. Local sources said that one person was martyred in the strikes that targeted the outskirts of Harasta.
This latest escalation marks a significant moment in the Israeli regime’s ongoing air campaign in Syria.
Israel ‘backs down’ from Gaza truce talks, demands to occupy strip until year’s end
The Cradle | May 2, 2025
Egyptian sources told Al Arabiya on 2 May that Israel has backed down from terms for a truce in Gaza agreed upon in recent days, insists on expanding the military operation in the strip, and wants its forces to remain there until the end of the year.
The news comes as the Israeli military claimed it sees the return of the 59 captives still held by Hamas in the Gaza Strip as the most important goal of the war, contrary to the position of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said on Thursday that “victory” over the Palestinian resistance movement, not the return of the captives, was the supreme objective.
“The supreme mission that the IDF is dealing with is our moral duty to return the hostages. The second mission is defeating Hamas. We are working to advance both goals, with the return of the hostages being at the top [of the list of priorities],” said a military official who briefed reporters earlier this week.
The occupation forces have been gearing up for an intensified offensive that would see the call-up of a large number of reservists and troops operating in new areas of Gaza, according to the military.
Netanyahu’s remarks on Thursday came as families of the captives held in Gaza accused the premier of sabotaging a potential truce deal and withholding information about the remaining 59 captives.
“There are another up to 24 alive, 59 total, and we want to return the living and the dead,” said Netanyahu, whose wife on Monday said the number of living captives was lower than the official figure cited by her husband.
“It’s a very important goal,” Netanyahu continued, but then added, “The war has a supreme goal, and the supreme goal is victory over our enemies, and this we will achieve.”
The deal’s 42-day first phase expired on 2 March amid Netanyahu’s refusal to negotiate the potential second phase, which would have required a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.
Israel imposed a new blockade on the strip on 2 March and renewed its attacks on it on 18 March.
The deal’s second phase would have seen Hamas release 24 captives still thought to be alive – all of them current or former Israeli soldiers abducted by Hamas on 7 October 2023.
On 29 April, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich declared that Israel would only stop fighting following the partition of Syria and the forced displacement of “hundreds of thousands” of Palestinians from Gaza.
“With God’s help and the valor of your comrades-in-arms who continue to fight even now, we will end this campaign when Syria is dismantled, Hezbollah is severely beaten, Iran is stripped of its nuclear threat, Gaza is cleansed of Hamas and hundreds of thousands of Gazans are on their way out of it to other countries, our hostages are returned, some to their homes and some to the graves of Israel, and the State of Israel is stronger and more prosperous,” the far-right minister told a gathering at the Eli Yeshiva.
Al Jazeera reported that, according to medical sources, at least 22 people have been killed in Israeli strikes on the strip on Friday alone, with one strike on Bureij in central Gaza killing nine members of the same family.
Also on Friday, humanitarian coordinator Amjad Shawa in Gaza warned that more children are likely to die from malnutrition as “the whole strip is starving” due to Israel’s blockade of aid, which began 60 days ago.
Israel’s war on Gaza has killed at least 52,418 Palestinians and wounded 118,091, according to the enclave’s Health Ministry. The Gaza Government Media Office updated the death toll to more than 61,700, saying thousands of people missing under the rubble are presumed dead.
Syria’s geopolitical reorientation: Unravelling a revolution, redrawing alliances
By Amro Allan – Al Mayadeen – May 1, 2025
Recent events in Syria mark a significant shift in the country’s geopolitical identity. The arrest of two senior members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) by Syria’s de-facto leaders cannot be dismissed as an isolated incident or a routine security matter. This action coincided with a meeting between Syria’s new ruler, Ahmad al-Sharaa, AKA Abu Mohammad al-Joulani, and US Congressman Cory Mills, during which al-Sharaa reportedly expressed openness to joining the “Abraham Accords”, the US-brokered framework for normalisation with “Israel”, “under the right conditions”.
Moreover, leaked information confirms that Damascus has signalled its approval of the majority of eight conditions set forth by the US in exchange for political and economic incentives. According to Reuters, US Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Levant and Syria, Natasha Franceschi, gave the list of eight demands to the new Syrian foreign minister during an in-person meeting on the sidelines of a Syria donor conference in Brussels on March 18, 2025.
These conditions include the complete dismantling of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles, a commitment to ending support for what the US classifies as terrorism, cessation of threats toward regional ‘neighbours’, chiefly “Israel”, curtailment of what the US call Iranian influence, the banning of Palestinian factions’ activities on Syrian soil, primarily Hamas and the PIJ, security cooperation with Washington, and possibly granting the US permission for ‘counterterrorism’ strikes inside Syria.
In response to the US’s eight conditions, a formal message reportedly sent by the new Syrian government on April 14, 2025, pledged to prevent Syrian territory from being used as a launching ground for threats against any state, including “Israel”. It also announced the formation of a committee to monitor the activity of Palestinian groups within Syria.
These moves underscore a transformation that goes beyond surface-level diplomacy, signalling a strategic reorientation and a potential willingness to normalise relations with “Israel”.
The so-called Syrian revolution, having succeeded in ousting President Bashar al-Assad, is now entering a new phase, one defined by strategic realignment and integration into the so-called “Moderate Arab States,” accompanied by political and economic openness to the West.
This pivot implies a readiness to make concessions that would have been unthinkable under the former government, particularly those undermining Syria’s former ideological pillars and long-standing role as a bastion of pan-Arab and Islamic resistance against occupation.
This article does not seek to re-litigate the Syrian conflict, a war that has already consumed much energy and is now widely seen as a lost cause for the region’s remaining Resistance forces. Instead, it raises a pressing question: Is it accurate, or even justifiable, to continue referring to those who fought to dismantle Syria and Libya as “revolutionaries”?
Many of these uprisings were described as noble struggles for freedom and dignity. But if the result of these so-called “pure and patriotic” revolutions is the dismantling of national sovereignty and the empowerment of Western-aligned regimes, should the term “revolution” still be applied?
Typically, four justifications are presented when confronting this contradiction:
- The revolution lost its way.
- Those in power today do not represent the revolution.
- Revolution is a cumulative process: historical examples like the French Revolution are cited.
- The future will correct the mistakes of the present.
Each of these claims warrants brief examination:
- The revolution lost its way
This claim lacks analytical rigour. A popular uprising is either chaotic by nature, or it is a structured movement with clear ideological foundations and defined goals. If it achieved its stated objectives — regime change, in this case — then arguing it “lost its way” is logically inconsistent. One cannot claim both success and deviation simultaneously. - Today’s leaders do not represent the revolution
This is a form of historical revisionism. The individuals currently in power are the very figures who were celebrated in public squares and entrusted by the movement’s supporters and their affiliated media. To deny their representative status is to erase the revolution’s actual trajectory and leadership. - Revolution is a cumulative process
While true in principle, this argument is frequently misapplied. Not all revolutions are equal, and context matters. Drawing equivalence between the French Revolution and modern Arab uprisings, for instance, ignores crucial differences in geopolitical circumstances, external interventions, and ideological underpinnings. - The future will correct the present
This line of thinking defers accountability indefinitely, assuming a future revolution will rectify today’s failures, without offering a plan, timeframe, or even a clear understanding of how or why this corrective revolution will succeed. It is often promoted by the same voices that championed the first revolution, despite its evident failures.
Meanwhile, Palestinian Resistance movements are engaged in an existential struggle against a campaign of collective annihilation, orchestrated by a US-Israeli axis intent on cementing regional dominance and dismantling all forms of resistance.
In such a context, referring to those who imprison resistance fighters in “new Syria” as “revolutionaries” is not only misleading but morally and politically indefensible. Such characterisations serve only to blur the line between genuine revolutionary action and acts of sabotage dressed in revolutionary language.
Clinging to a romanticised version of the Syrian and Libyan uprisings, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, amounts to intellectual suicide. It confuses the public, paralyses future movements, and hinders the emergence of authentic revolutionary efforts rooted in critical reflection and historical awareness.
Now more than ever, a rigorous reassessment is needed. Not as an academic exercise, but as a moral and national duty. And this reassessment must take seriously the alternative readings offered by steadfast Resistance movements, from Gaza to southern Lebanon to Yemen, whose leaders remain committed to a vision of liberation that cannot be co-opted or outsourced.
This article is not an ideological attack or a rhetorical spat. It is a call to clarity. A reminder that true revolution is not a slogan but a commitment grounded in vision, sacrifice, and integrity.
Those unwilling to reassess their missteps or acknowledge the consequences of their choices should step aside from public discourse. They should not undermine the concept of revolution by associating it with ventures rooted in destruction, subservience, and betrayal.
When alignments become clear and illusions are shattered, the enduring hope lies in the memory of the people, and in the resilience of those who continue to prove that genuine revolutions are not borrowed or bought. They are born from struggle and clarity alike.

