Syria’s Assad: Last man standing amid new Arab uprisings

Some of Assad's supporters regard his family rule as the base of stability in Syria. (AFP/File)
Updated 13 April 2019
Follow

Syria’s Assad: Last man standing amid new Arab uprisings

  • Assad seems secure in his position as the Syrian crisis enters its ninth year
  • The support of his minority group was one of the reasons that helped him remain in power

BEIRUT: It’s Arab Spring, season II, and he’s one of the few holdovers. The last man standing among a crop of Arab autocrats, after a new wave of protests forced the removal of the Algerian and Sudanese leaders from the posts they held for decades.

Syria’s President Bashar Assad has survived an uprising, a years-long ruinous war and a “caliphate” established over parts of his broken country. As the Syrian conflict enters its ninth year, the 53-year-old leader appears more secure and confident than at any time since the revolt against his rule began in 2011.

But the war for Syria is not over yet, and the path ahead is strewn with difficulties.

The back-to-back ouster of Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika after two decades of rule and Sudanese leader Omar Al-Bashir after three, has been dubbed a “second Arab Spring,” after the 2011 wave of protests that shook the Middle East and deposed longtime dictators in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen.

Social media has been filled with pictures of leaders at past Arab summits, noting almost all of them were now deposed except for Assad. Some pointed out ironically that Al-Bashir’s last trip outside of Sudan in December was to Damascus, where he met with the Syrian leader.

In most countries of the Arab Spring, the faces of the old order were removed, but either the ruling elite that had been behind them stayed in place or chaos ensued.

In Syria, Assad and his inner circle have kept their lock on power and managed to survive eight bloody years of chaos. That resilience may keep him in power for years to come even with a multitude of challenges, including a rapidly degenerating economy and a persisting insurgency in the northwest.

What is Assad’s staying power?

Assad has survived through a mix of factors unique to him. His is a minority rule, and he has benefited from a strong support base and the unwavering loyalty of his Alawite sect, which fears for its future should he be deposed.

That support stretched beyond his base to other minority sects in Syria and some middle- and upper-class Sunnis who regard his family rule as a bulwark of stability in the face of radicals. Despite significant defections early in the conflict, the security services and military have not shown significant cracks. Loyal militias grew and became a power of their own.

Even as vast parts of his country fell from his control or turned into killing fields, Assad kept his core regime in place.

Perhaps Assad’s largest asset is Syria’s position as a geographic linchpin on the Mediterranean and in the heart of the Arab world. That attracted foreign intervention, particularly from Russia and Iran, whose crucial political and military assistance propped up Assad and turned the tide of the war in his favor.

The unwavering backing from powerful friends is in sharp contrast to the muddled response by the US administration, and something none of the other Arab leaders benefited from in their own struggle against their opponents.

Is he completely out of the woods?

For now, Assad appears to be secure. With the help of Russia and Iran, he has restored control over key parts of the country, and the world appears to have accepted his continued rule, at least until presidential elections scheduled for 2021.

Gulf countries reopened embassies after years of boycott. Delegations from Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan have visited in recent months, discussing restarting trade, resuming commercial agreements and releasing prisoners. Although the Arab League said it was not yet time to restore Syria’s membership to the 22-member organization, the issue was discussed at their annual summit for the first time since the country was deprived of its seat eight years ago.

Much of what happens next depends on Assad’s ability to keep a lid on rising discontent as living standards deteriorate, and whether he is able to preserve Russia and Iran’s support.

An economy in shambles

After years of war and ever-tightening US sanctions, Syria’s economic pinch is becoming more painful. The government’s coffers are reeling from lack of resources, and the UN estimates that eight out 10 people live below poverty line.

Gas and fuel shortages were rampant in Damascus, Latakia and Aleppo this winter. Social media groups held competitions over which city had the longest lines at gas stations, forcing the issue to be debated in parliament.

This week, the government-imposed gas rationing, limiting motorists to 20 liters every 48 hours. The crisis was worsened when reports spread about an impending price hike, prompting lines of hundreds of cars to stretch for miles outside gas stations. Oil Minister Ali Ghanem denied plans for a hike, warning of a “war of rumors that is more severe than the political war.”

The government’s inability to cope with rising needs has fueled criticism and anger even among its support base. Still, it’s unlikely the discontent will set off another wave of protests. Most Syrians by now will put up with anything to avoid another slide back to violence.

Still, the United Nations describes the level of need in the country as “staggering,” with 11.7 million Syrians requiring assistance, nearly 65 percent of the estimated 18 million people who remain in the country, millions of whom are displaced from their homes. Another more than 5 million fled abroad during the war.

Going full circle?

Demonstrations reminiscent of the early years of the conflict have resurfaced.

In Daraa, where the revolt started, hundreds took to the streets recently, offended by the government’s plan to erect a statue of the president’s father, the late Hafez Assad. Further protests took place in some former opposition areas recaptured by the government after authorities moved to enforce military conscription there despite promises to hold off.

Arrests and detentions continue to be reported in recaptured areas, fueling fear that so-called reconciliation deals between authorities and residents of former opposition areas are only facades for continued repression and exclusion.

In eastern Ghouta, which the government recaptured last year after a siege, the government has been arresting former protest leaders and anti-government groups despite reconciliation deals, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Militarily, the defeat of the Daesh group’s “caliphate” last month closed one brutal chapter of the war but opens the door to an array of potential other conflicts. The militant group’s defeat sets the stage for President Donald Trump to begin withdrawing US troops from northern Syria, a drawdown that’s expected to set off a race to fill the vacuum.

The focus also pivots to Idlib, the last remaining rebel bastion in Syria where an estimated 3 million people live, under control of Al-Qaeda-linked militants.


Medical NGO blames new US aid group for deadly Gaza chaos

Updated 02 June 2025
Follow

Medical NGO blames new US aid group for deadly Gaza chaos

  • Humanitarian aid must be provided only by humanitarian organizations who have the competence and determination to do it safely and effectively

RAFAH, Palestinian Territories: Medical charity Doctors Without Borders said Sunday that people it treated at a Gaza aid site run by a new US-backed organization reported being “shot from all sides” by Israeli forces.
The NGO, known by its French name MSF, blamed the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s aid distribution system for chaos at the scene in the southern Gaza town of Rafah.
Gaza’s civil defense agency said Israeli fire killed 31 Palestinians at the site. Witnesses told AFP the Israeli military had opened fire.
The GHF and Israeli authorities denied any such incident took place but MSF and other medics reported treating crowds of locals with gunshot wounds at the Nasser hospital in the nearby town of Khan Younis.
“Patients told MSF they were shot from all sides by drones, helicopters, boats, tanks and Israeli soldiers on the ground,” MSF said in a statement.
MSF emergency coordinator Claire Manera in the statement called the GHF’s system of aid delivery “dehumanizing, dangerous and severely ineffective.”
“It has resulted in deaths and injuries of civilians that could have been prevented. Humanitarian aid must be provided only by humanitarian organizations who have the competence and determination to do it safely and effectively.”
MSF communications officer Nour Alsaqa in the statement reported hospital corridors filled with patients, mostly men, with “visible gunshot wounds in their limbs.”
MSF quoted one injured man, Mansour Sami Abdi, as describing people fighting over just five pallets of aid.
“They told us to take food — then they fired from every direction,” he said. “This isn’t aid. It’s a lie.”
The Israeli military said an initial inquiry found its troops “did not fire at civilians while they were near or within the humanitarian aid distribution site.”
A GHF spokesperson said: “These fake reports have been actively fomented by Hamas,” the Islamic militant group that Israel has vowed to destroy in Gaza.


Algeria ‘regrets’ Britain backing Morocco autonomy plan for W.Sahara

Updated 02 June 2025
Follow

Algeria ‘regrets’ Britain backing Morocco autonomy plan for W.Sahara

  • “Algeria regrets the choice made by the United Kingdom to support to the Moroccan autonomy plan

ALGIERS: Algeria’s foreign ministry said it “regrets” Britain’s decision on Sunday to support Morocco’s automony plan for the disputed territory of Western Sahara, overturning a decades-long policy in favor of self-determination.
“Algeria regrets the choice made by the United Kingdom to support to the Moroccan autonomy plan. In 18 years of existence, this plan has never been submitted to the Sahrawis as a basis for negotiation, nor has it ever been taken seriously by the successive UN envoys,” the ministry said in a statement.
 

 


Egypt’s foreign minister urges end to Israeli war in Gaza during call with Witkoff

Updated 01 June 2025
Follow

Egypt’s foreign minister urges end to Israeli war in Gaza during call with Witkoff

  • Badr Abdelatty emphasized that a just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires a comprehensive political settlement
  • He said alleviating the humanitarian suffering in Gaza must be a priority for the international community

LONDON: Egypt's Foreign Minister, Badr Abdelatty, stressed the urgent need for an immediate cessation of Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip during a phone call with Steve Witkoff, the US President's Special Envoy to the Middle East.

Abdelatty emphasized that alleviating the humanitarian suffering in the Palestinian coastal enclave must be a priority for the international community and called for unconditional access to humanitarian aid.

He emphasized that a just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires a comprehensive political settlement that aligns with President Trump's vision for sustainable peace in the Middle East, the Emirates News Agency reported.

Abdelatty was a member of the Ministerial Committee designated by the Joint Extraordinary Arab-Islamic Summit on Gaza, which Israel prevented from visiting the occupied West Bank on Sunday to meet with Palestinian officials in Ramallah.

Arab ministers from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, and Egypt, along with the Secretary-General of the Arab League, condemned what they described as the "arrogant" decision by Israel to block their visit and its rejection of any peace efforts.


Is Iraq ready to stand alone against extremist threats if US withdrawal goes ahead?

Updated 02 June 2025
Follow

Is Iraq ready to stand alone against extremist threats if US withdrawal goes ahead?

  • Decades of training and investment have improved security forces, but critical capability gaps remain
  • Analysts warn premature pullout could erase progress against extremism and empower armed groups

LONDON: When Daesh extremists seized control of swathes of Iraqi territory in 2014, many wondered whether the onslaught could have been prevented had US troops not withdrawn from the country three years earlier.

As the militants surged into Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul, there were reports of members of the Iraqi Security Forces stripping off their uniforms as they fled.

“We can’t beat them,” an unnamed army officer told Reuters amid the chaos. “They are well-trained in street fighting, and we’re not. We need a whole army to drive them out of Mosul.”

After three years of fierce fighting that took Daesh within 25 kilometers of the capital, Baghdad, the extremists were finally driven back and Mosul was liberated.

The gargantuan military effort was spearheaded by Iraq’s elite Counter Terrorism Service, bolstered by the return of American troops and the US Air Force.

Crack troops of the Iraqi Counter-Terrorism Services (CTS) advance in western Mosul's al-Islah al-Zaraye neighborhood on May 12, 2017 during an offensive to retake the area from Daesh jihadis. (AFP)

Images of the destruction in Mosul, along with the catastrophic impact of Daesh’s occupation, might be playing on the minds of Washington officials as they once again weigh whether or not to remove American troops still stationed in Iraq.

As it stands, the US and Iraq have agreed to end Operation Inherent Resolve — the US-led coalition’s mission to combat Daesh — by September. Most of the 2,500 US personnel in Iraq are scheduled to leave in the initial phase, with a small number remaining until 2026.

Many believe US President Donald Trump, acting under his isolationist tendencies, will want to hasten the withdrawal of those forces, or is unlikely to extend their stay if the Iraqi government requests it.

With reports of an increase in attacks by Daesh sleeper cells, fears of instability across the border in Syria, and with Iran looking to shore up its proxy militias in Iraq, there are concerns that another complete US withdrawal will once again leave the country vulnerable.

“The risk of premature withdrawal from Iraq is that the Iraqi Security Forces will lose critical operational and tactical support, and Daesh will seize the opportunity to reconstitute and once again terrorize the Iraqi people and state,” Dana Stroul, research director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former Pentagon official, told Arab News.

The mooted withdrawal of US troops comes more than 20 years after the US-led invasion of Iraq toppled Saddam Hussain, freeing the country from dictatorship, but ushering in a period of sectarian civil war.

File photo showing US soldiers near an Iraqi army base on the outskirts of Mosul during the fight against Daesh militants on November 23, 2016. (AFP)

US forces were drawn into cycles of violence and routinely became the target of two mutually antagonistic sectarian forces: Iran-backed militias and an insurgency in which Al-Qaeda played a prominent role.

When President Barack Obama took office in 2009, he vowed to end US involvement in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not without first ordering a massive troop surge in an attempt to salvage the mission.

In Iraq, where more than 100,000 people were estimated to have died in the violence, there was widespread public anger at the American presence. In the US, the war was also deeply unpopular with thousands of American soldiers having been killed.

Some American and Iraqi officials wanted to maintain a US military presence in the country, fearful of an Al-Qaeda resurgence. But attempts to negotiate an agreement for a reduced force failed and in October 2011 Obama announced that all of the remaining 39,000 US troops would be withdrawn by the end of that year, bringing a close to the mission.

The US spent $25 billion on training and equipping Iraq’s security forces up to September 2012, alongside Iraq’s own spending on fighter jets and other advanced materiel. So it was something of a surprise that Iraqi forces were so quickly overrun when Daesh launched its offensive in 2014, having emerged from the remnants of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Images of Daesh fighters driving around in US armored vehicles captured from the Iraqi military symbolized how quickly Iraq’s armed forces had deteriorated since the 2011 withdrawal.

An image grab taken from a propaganda video released on March 17, 2014 by the Daesh's al-Furqan Media militants with their flag as they stand on a captured armored vehicle in Iraq’s Anbar province. (AFP/File)

As the extent of Daesh’s brutality began to emerge, including the slaughter of the Yazidi minority and the beheading of Western hostages on YouTube, the US ordered its forces back to the region, as part of an international coalition, to fight the extremists in both Iraq and Syria.

After some of the most brutal urban warfare seen since the Second World War, Iraq’s then-prime minister, Haider Al-Abadi, declared the territorial defeat of Daesh in December 2017. US forces continued to help their allies in Syria to defeat the extremists there in March 2019.

By December 2021, US forces in Iraq no longer held combat roles, instead working on training, advisory, and intelligence support for the country’s military. The remaining 2,500 US troops are spread between Baghdad, Irbil in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region, and Ain Al-Asad air base.

However, soon after Al-Abadi’s declaration of victory over the extremists, a new threat emerged in Iraq in the shape of Iran-backed militias, originally mobilized to help defeat Daesh. Having extended their reach over Sunni and Kurdish areas, these groups began attacking US bases with rockets and drones in a bid to force their immediate withdrawal.

Members of the Hashed al-Shaabi (Popular Mobilisation Forces) paramilitary unit take part in a parade in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul on December 10, 2024, to mark the nation’s victory against Daesh militants. (AFP)

These attacks, sponsored by Iran’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, prompted President Trump, during his first term, to order the killing of militia chief Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis and Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike on their motorcade as they left Baghdad Airport on Jan. 3, 2020.

Soleimani’s death was a major setback for Iran’s proxies throughout the region, but the attacks on US positions did not subside. In fact, with the onset of the war in Gaza in October 2023, Iraq’s Shiite militias mounted a fresh wave of strikes, ostensibly in support of Hamas.

The deadliest of these occurred on Jan. 28, 2024, when three US personnel were killed and 47 wounded in a drone attack on Tower 22 just over the border in Jordan, prompting then-US president, Joe Biden, to order a wave of airstrikes on militia positions in Iraq.

Mindful of the need to protect its proxies in Iraq, at a time where Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Yemen’s Houthis have been weakened and the sympathetic Assad regime in Syria has fallen, Iran appears to have forsworn further militia strikes on US forces.

This picture taken on January 8, 2022, shows Iraqi Shiites commemorating the second anniversary of the killing of top Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani and Iraqi paramilitary commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis (posters) in the southern Iraqi city of Basra. (AFP)

The latest agreement to end the US presence was reached in September last year with the aim of moving to a fully bilateral security partnership in 2026.

Meanwhile, the US Defense Department announced in April it would be halving the number of troops in northeast Syria “in the coming months.”

An indication of Trump’s aversion to the continued US military presence came during a speech in Saudi Arabia while on his tour of the Gulf in May when he decried “Western interventionists.”

A clear concern surrounding a US withdrawal is whether Iraq’s security forces are now strong enough to withstand threats like the 2014 Daesh assault. The disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 is also no doubt fresh in the minds of defense officials.

A recent report by the New Lines Institute think tank in New York said that a US withdrawal from Iraq would “heavily impede the intelligence and reconnaissance collection, artillery, and command-and-control capabilities of Iraqi military forces.”

The report studied quarterly independent audits for the US Congress between 2019 and 2024 to assess the capabilities of Iraqi forces. It looked at the three main forces in Iraq: the Iraqi Security Forces, Counter Terrorism Service, and the Kurdish Peshmerga.

The report said: “While segments of Iraq’s military, such as the CTS and Kurdish security forces, have proven efficient in counterterrorism operations, several gaps exist in Iraq’s conventional capabilities, including artillery, command and control, inter- and intra-branch planning, and trust.”

In this photo taken on October 20, 2016, Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga fighters fire a multiple rocket launcher at a Daesh position near the town of Bashiqa, Iraq. Analysts fear that while segments of Iraq’s military, such as the CTS and Kurdish security forces called Peshmerga, have proven effective in the fight against Daesh, there are plenty of gaps in Iraq's national defense capabilities. (AFP)

The think tank said there were serious questions about whether Iraq’s security forces would be able to “hedge against internal and external challenges” in the absence of the US security umbrella.

The report’s co-author Caroline Rose, a director at New Lines, says the gaps in Iraqi capabilities “could reverse over a decade of progress that Operation Inherent Resolve has made in Iraq.”

“If the objective is still to advance Iraqi forces’ operational capacity, sustain gains against Daesh, and serve as a ‘hedge’ against Iranian influence, there is work still to be done,” she told Arab News.

While Iraq has enjoyed a period of relative stability, the threats to its national security continue to lurk within and beyond its borders.

The biggest fear is of a Daesh resurgence. Although the group has been severely depleted, it continues to operate cells in rural areas of Iraq and Syria, and has since made headway in Afghanistan, the Sahel, and beyond.

“Since January, the US military is still actively supporting the Iraqis,” said the Washington Institute’s Stroul. “There have been monthly operations against Daesh, including the killing of a senior leader in western Iraq. This tells us that Daesh is still a threat, and the US support mission is still necessary.”

's Security analysts have warned that the huge number of Daesh prisoners in northeast Syria posses a threat to the region in case they break out. (AFP)

Another concern is that instability in Syria, where the embryonic, post-Assad government is facing significant security challenges, could again provide a breeding ground for Daesh that could spill across the border.

“There are still 9,000 Daesh detainees held in prison camps in northeast Syria,” said Stroul, adding that these present “a real risk of prison breaks that will replenish Daesh ranks and destabilize Syria, Iraq, and the rest of the region. If the security situation deteriorates in Syria, this will have seriously negative impacts in Iraq.”

And then there is the ongoing threat posed by Iran-backed militias. While these militias have been officially recognized as part of Iraq’s security apparatus, some believe the US presence in Iraq helps keep them — and, by extension, Iran — in check.

“The staging of US forces and equipment, combined with a deep Iraqi dependence on American technical and advisory support, creates an obstacle and point of distraction for Tehran and its proxies,” Rose said.

If the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq is inevitable, then how can Washington best prepare Iraq to go it alone?

For Rose, the US should play a “long game” to sustain security ties with Iraq and preserve the progress made under Operation Inherent Resolve.

She recommended the US continue investing in Iraq’s defense and security, conducting regular joint military exercises, and using its current presence in Irbil and Baghdad to build strong relations with security officials.

She also advised other international bodies, like the NATO Mission-Iraq and the EU Advisory Mission Iraq, to coordinate closely with the US as the drawdown gets underway.

This photo taken on December 9, 2021, shows Iraqi and NATO military officials at a press briefing after a meeting on the continuing campaign against Daesh at the Joint Operations Center in Baghdad. (AFP)

Although the US appears set on pivoting away from the region to focus strategic attention on the Asia-Pacific, some still hope there could be a way for America to maintain some form of military presence, given the rapidly evolving situation in the wider Middle East.

Reports earlier this year suggested some senior Iraqi politicians aligned with Iran privately want a US presence to continue, at least until ongoing US-Iran nuclear talks reach a conclusion.

“The US military mission is one of support, advice, and assistance by mutual consent of Baghdad and Washington,” Stroul, of the Washington Institute, said. “If the Iraqi government invites the US military to remain for some period of time, there should be agreement on the supporting role that the US can play.”

If Iraq hopes to maintain lasting stability, it needs to ensure its security forces can act alone to protect the country and population from internal and external threats.

Continuing to work with the world’s foremost military power, even in a limited capacity, would go some way to ensuring the horrors of 2014 are not repeated.
 

 


Egypt unveils plan for new desert city in latest megaproject

Updated 01 June 2025
Follow

Egypt unveils plan for new desert city in latest megaproject

  • The new city, named Jirian, meaning “Flow” in Arabic, is part of Egypt’s Nile Delta scheme, a massive agricultural initiative to reclaim about 2.5 million acres west of the original Nile Delta

CAIRO: Egypt has unveiled plans for a vast new urban development west of Cairo where a man-made channel of the River Nile will eventually wind through what was once arid desert.

The new city, named Jirian, meaning “Flow” in Arabic, is part of Egypt’s Nile Delta scheme, a massive agricultural initiative to reclaim about 2.5 million acres west of the original Nile Delta.

The ambitious agricultural project, which started in 2021, seeks to boost production of strategic crops such as wheat and corn while reducing the North African country’s food import bill.

The project is the latest in a string of megaprojects launched by President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi in recent years, including a new administrative capital east of Cairo.

While officials say these projects are key to Egypt’s long-term growth, they have also contributed to the country’s soaring foreign debt, which quadrupled since 2015 to reach $155.2 billion by late 2024.

The country has also received billions of dollars from the International Monetary Fund and the EU to ensure its financial stability, with the EU pledging billions more last month.

At a launch event on Sunday, Egyptian Prime Minister Moustafa Madbouli called the Jirian project “an urban and development revolution.”

He added that it would create 250,000 jobs and serve as the cornerstone of a wider development zone equivalent in size to four to five governorates.

“We are talking about full-spectrum development,” he told reporters, describing a sprawling urban zone that will include industry, logistics hubs, and homes for “between 2.5 and 3 million families.”

The government did not disclose the project’s total cost, which is being developed in partnership with three major Egyptian real estate firms.

The new Nile Delta project comes at a time when Egypt is already under pressure to secure its water future.

With 97 percent of its fresh water sourced from the Nile, the country has been locked in a years-long dispute with Addis Ababa over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, which Cairo fears could reduce downstream water flows.