Follow us on social

2023-03-19t121359z_80610353_rc2uwz9doclm_rtrmadp_3_syria-security-assad-emirates-scaled

Middle Eastern rivalries alive and kicking despite de-escalation

While détente may be the word of the day, there are open wounds and a lot of bad blood raging right under the surface.

Analysis | Middle East

Middle Eastern battlegrounds are alive and kicking even though rivals seek to balance contentious relations.

Take efforts by the United Arab Emirates, and more recently Saudi Arabia, to bring Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in from the cold in a bid to drive a wedge between Syria and Iran and address numerous repercussions from the more than decade-long brutal war he waged to keep himself in power.

Sanctioned by the United States and Europe, Assad was also a pariah in the Arab world after the 22-member Arab League suspended Damascus’s membership in response to his conduct in the war. A meeting of the League’s foreign ministers decided on Sunday to readmit Syria.

With sanctions and international isolation failing to topple Assad or moderate his policies, the UAE and Saudi Arabia hope engagement will be more productive.

That hasn’t prevented the UAE from continuing to counter the influence of Turkey and Iran in Syria, two countries with which it has formally buried its hatchets.

In the latest round, Mazlum Abdi — the commander-in-chief of the U.S.-backed, predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), who is also known as Mazloum Kobani — reportedly traveled last month to Abu Dhabi to seek UAE assistance in negotiating an agreement with the Assad government.

The SDF played a crucial role in helping the United States defeat the Islamic State in Syria.

Abdi was accompanied by Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) leader Bafel Talabani. The PUK is one of two major rival factions in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Emirati officials confirmed Abdi’s visit but denied reports that he met with UAE national security adviser Tahnoun bin Zayed al Nahyan.

The UAE is concerned that further engagement with the Kurds could strain relations with Assad.

Abdi’s visit came just days after a Turkish drone targeted him as he was traveling in northern Syria with three U.S. military personnel in a PUK convoy.

Kurdish officials read the drone attack and an almost simultaneous Turkish ban on flights from Sulaimaniyah in Iraqi Kurdistan, a PUK stronghold, as a warning against involving the UAE in Kurdish affairs.

Turkey said its airspace was closed due to increased activity of the outlawed Kurdish Workers Party, or PKK, in Sulaimaniyah. Turkey asserts that Abdi’s SDF is the Syrian wing of the PKK.

The PKK has been waging a decades-long intermittent guerrilla war for greater Kurdish rights in Turkey.

The attack on Abdi was part of a relentless Turkish drone campaign designed to weaken, if not destroy, the Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration in North and East Syria. It was also intended to facilitate the return of some four million Syrian refugees in Turkey, which hosts the world's largest Syrian refugee community.

Thousands of Turkish troops were dispatched to northern Syria to support the campaign.

The attack likely reinforced Abdi’s fear that the combination of uncertainty about the U.S. commitment to the Kurds, a potential rapprochement between Turkey and Syria that would involve a withdrawal of Turkish troops from northern Syria, and a restoration of Assad’s control of Kurdish areas will put the Kurds at risk.

Even so, the Kurdish administration has been reaching out to the Assad government since 2019, when the Trump administration first announced it was withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria, essentially abandoning the SDF and the Kurds to their fate. Due to bipartisan pressure in Congress, Trump subsequently reversed his decision.

In response, in a deal brokered by Russia, the Kurds allowed Syrian troops to deploy along the border with Turkey to deter a new Turkish military offensive.

Assad has demanded a return to the situation that prevailed in northern Syria before the civil war’s outbreak as a condition for a rapprochement between Ankara and Damascus.

Abdi's concerns were likely heightened last week when the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq joined their Syrian counterpart to demand the restoration of the Assad government's sovereignty in all of Syria and an end to operations by armed groups, militant organizations, and all foreign forces in Syria.

Assad wants to see an end to foreign influence in Syria, which by his lights includes the presence of some 900 U.S. military personnel in the country, U.S. support for the SDF, and the deployment of thousands of Turkish troops in the north.

A UAE-mediated agreement between the Kurds and Assad would facilitate both a Turkish withdrawal from Syria and Assad’s rehabilitation.

Russia has facilitated talks between senior Turkish, Syrian, and Iranian officials to achieve the same goal. However, the officials have disagreed on the terms for a meeting between Assad and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Assad has made a meeting conditional on Turkey’s willingness to withdraw its military from northern Syria and restore the situation that prevailed before the Syrian war. For now, that seems unlikely.

On the campaign trail in advance of presidential and parliamentary elections on May 14, Erdogan used the Kurds as a foil to prepare the ground for a possible judicial coup should he fail to be reelected.

“My nation will never hand over this country to someone who becomes president with the support of Qandil,” Erdogan said in a reference to PKK bases in Iraq’s Qandil mountains and Kurdish support for his opposition.

Alongside the Russian and Emirati moves, Erdogan’s posturing suggests that improved relations between rival states have yet to do much, if anything, to resolve the region's powder kegs.

The same applies to Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt, which continue to maneuver in conflict areas such as Sudan, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq. The jockeying also demonstrates the risks inherent in fighting proxy wars by supporting armed non-state or renegade state actors, like the various Kurdish groups, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan.

The risks run from reducing conflict to a zero-sum game to proxies exercising their agency and weakening state institutions. As evident with Turkey and the Kurds, recent de-escalation in the Middle East highlights those risks.

Assad was likely strengthened in his resolve to get Turkish troops out of Syria and restore his  control over the Kurds by last week’s visit to Damascus by Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, the first by an Iranian head of state since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011. Iran has supported Assad throughout the war.

A Jordanian plan to return Syria to the Arab fold “step by step” notes that “current conditions” enable "Iran to continue imposing its economic and military influence on the Syrian regime and several vital parts of Syria by taking advantage of the people's suffering to recruit militias."

The paper warns that "Iran's proxies are becoming stronger in the main areas, including the southern region, and the drug trade generates significant income for these groups while posing an increasing threat to the region and beyond."

Raisi opted for Damascus ahead of seeking to deepen Iran's China-mediated rapprochement with Saudi Arabia by honoring Saudi King Salman's invitation to visit the kingdom.

Raisi hoped to fortify Tehran’s relations with Damascus by tightening economic cooperation. His foreign, defense, oil, transport, and telecommunications ministers accompanied him.

In the end, the principle of “The king is dead, long live the king” applies to de-escalation in the Middle East. De-escalation may dial tensions down a notch and help manage conflicts to ensure they do not spin out of control. It offers no resolution and allows open wounds like Kurdish aspirations to fester.


UAE Armed Forces Honour Guards participate in a reception for heads of state, at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates March 19, 2023. Abdulla Al Neyadi/UAE Presidential Court/Handout via REUTERS THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY A THIRD PARTY.
Analysis | Middle East
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less
The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan
Taipei skyline, Taiwan. (Shutterstock/ YAO23)

The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan

Asia-Pacific

For the better part of a decade, China has served as the “pacing threat” around which American military planners craft defense policy and, most importantly, budget decisions.

Within that framework, a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan has become the scenario most often cited as the likeliest flashpoint for a military confrontation between the two superpowers.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.