Tag: politics

The Fall of the Assad Dynasty – A New Chapter in the Syrian Crisis

Posted on by Ana Nives Radovic

The civil war in Syria is one of the key crisis points of the 21st century, with complex interactions between local, regional, and global powers, each with its own agendas, alliances, and rivalries. For over a decade, the war has involved a broad range of state and non-state actors, from Assad’s regime to Kurdish forces, from Iran and Hezbollah to the United States and Russia. However, despite the blockade that marked most of the war, the sudden and unexpected change in Syria’s political landscape has raised numerous questions about the future of the region, as the rapid advancement of opposition forces in Syria marks a key turning point in the civil war.

The regime of Bashar al-Assad, once thought to be invincible, is beginning to show cracks. The complex political landscape of Syria has been largely altered by recent events, highlighting the fragile nature of Assad’s power.

A London student, who was more interested in new technologies than politics, was unexpectedly called to return to Syria to inherit his father, Hafez al-Assad, the “Lion of Damascus” (Assad means lion in Arabic), who came to power in a 1970 coup. After Hafez died in 2000, Bashar took power. However, the 50-year regime was toppled when rebels launched a stunning attack, seized Damascus, and forced Assad to flee, marking the fall of the long-standing Assad dynasty.

This “accidental president,” as Le Monde called him, was not groomed for leadership, as he was trained to be an ophthalmologist, and his older brother, Basel, was meant to be the successor. However, the tragic death of Basel in a car accident in 1994 pushed Bashar into political prominence. With little experience in governance, he quickly took leadership, relying on his father’s old allies to consolidate power and shape the country’s complex political landscape.

Influence of External Powers

Historically, Assad’s regime largely depended on strategic alliances with Russia and Iran, who invested heavily in its survival. The decline in external support for Assad, particularly from Russia and Iran, led to a sudden decrease in his authority, making his regime more vulnerable. Russia’s diminished military capacity due to the war in Ukraine, as well as Iran’s focus shifting to its conflict with Israel, have significantly weakened the pillars that once upheld Assad’s rule.

In essence, the collapse of the regime is not only a domestic phenomenon but also a result of the withdrawal of these foreign political factors. As CNN points out, the political vacuum created by reduced support for Assad is quickly being filled by forces that were previously marginalized, particularly Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a group that began as a faction of al-Qaeda but later presented itself as a more sophisticated actor. With Turkey’s support, HTS has gained ground as an alternative to Assad’s regime, particularly among the diverse ethnic groups in the country that have long been divided.

One of the most significant developments in Syria’s changing landscape is the growing role of Turkey, which has long been involved in the conflict but is now emerging as a key player. Turkey’s involvement in relations with Syria can be traced back to its strategic concerns regarding the Kurdish population along its border. The Syrian Democratic Forces, which received support from the United States in the fight against ISIS, were seen by Turkey as a direct threat due to their links to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. U.S. support for the Syrian Democratic Forces put Ankara in a delicate position, forced to balance its NATO membership with its own regional security interests.

Despite these tensions, Turkey has become a key player in shaping Syria’s post-Assad future. Turkey’s support for HTS, particularly in recent weeks, suggests that Ankara sees an opportunity to reshape Syria’s political dynamics to its advantage. CNN reports that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan openly supported the opposition attack, signaling Ankara’s growing influence on the course of events. The swift military success of HTS, despite its controversial roots in al-Qaeda, marks a new period in Syria’s civil war, where foreign political actors, particularly Turkey, will play a decisive role in determining the country’s future direction. HTS’s apparent evolution from an extremist group to a more inclusive political force, though still unclear, offers Ankara a potential ally in its efforts to secure its borders and influence Syria’s future governance.

Turkey’s growing influence also reflects broader changes in the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, as its proactive engagement in Syria can be seen as part of its ambition to expand regional influence, especially in the context of diminished Russian and Iranian power. Turkey’s increasing alignment with certain factions in Syria is not only a matter of immediate military interests but also an attempt to establish a long-term strategic presence in the region, where Turkey can exert significant influence over its neighbors and challenge other regional powers.

Shifting Power Balance

The weakening of Assad’s regime coincides with a broader regional trend — the decline of Russian and Iranian influence in the Middle East. Russian military interventions in Syria were a key feature of the conflict, providing Assad with essential air support and diplomatic protection. However, Russia’s involvement in the war in Ukraine has drastically drained its resources, both in terms of military capacity and political focus. Russia’s inability to effectively assist Assad in this new phase of the war was underscored by the comments of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who acknowledged that Syria’s future is uncertain and beyond Moscow’s immediate control.

Similarly, Iran’s influence has been weakened by its ongoing conflict with Israel, leading to more visible Iranian military activities in the region. The Washington Post evaluates that Iran’s support for Assad has waned, as the Islamic Republic has been overstretched in trying to balance its proxy war policy against Israel and broader regional ambitions. Iran’s inability to create the same level of influence in Syria, along with the shift in global alliances and reduced benefits from its involvement in Syria, suggests that Tehran’s once-dominant role is now facing significant limitations.

This decline in the power of Russia and Iran has created a vacuum in Syria, allowing Turkey to take the initiative. With Russia focused on Ukraine and Iran facing numerous regional challenges, the geopolitical center of gravity in Syria has shifted, and Ankara is seizing the opportunity. The withdrawal of these once-dominant powers from Syria, whether due to overstretching or changing priorities, has significantly disrupted the regional balance of power.

With the sudden erosion of Assad’s regime and the rapid rise of opposition forces like HTS, Syria finds itself at a crossroads, and the country’s future remains highly uncertain, with the possibility of fragmentation still present. Le Monde highlights that Syria’s complex ethnic and sectarian structure makes any attempt at reconciliation or stabilization even more difficult. The rise of HTS, despite its messages of inclusivity, has raised concerns about the potential for greater fragmentation as ethnic groups fight for control of key territories. These divisions, which have existed throughout Syria’s history, are now exacerbated by interventions from foreign powers, each with opposing interests.

The possibility of reaching a resolution through negotiations seems increasingly distant, especially with the weakening of Assad’s regime and the emergence of rival factions vying for control. The West’s failure to act decisively during earlier stages of the conflict may have helped create conditions that allowed extremist groups to flourish, leading to the complex and chaotic situation that now threatens to engulf the entire region.

Syria’s future will depend on how foreign political powers adjust their strategies in response to these changes, and whether Syria moves toward a more stable political order or further fragmentation will ultimately depend on the ability of regional and global actors to reconcile changes in alliances, which continues to delay the end of the Syrian crisis.

A Montenegrin version of this article is available on the Antena M portal.

EU Leadership Crisis Leaves It Powerless in Middle East Conflict

Posted on by Ana Nives Radovic

Conflicts in the Middle East are increasingly worrying the rest of the world, while the European Union, caught in internal political struggles, appears indecisive and incapable of taking concrete action. This complex geopolitical situation, in which Iranian missile attacks on Israel and Israel’s aggressive responses are destabilizing the region, exposes an evident weakness in European foreign policy. As the threat of war grows by the day, the EU, grappling with internal divisions and focused on its own problems, sends the message that it cannot assert itself as a decisive player in mitigating the crisis.

The Middle East is experiencing an escalation of violence, with recent attacks, including an Iranian missile strike on Israel, pushing the region to the brink of a catastrophic war. According to Euro News reports, the attack involved around 180 ballistic missiles, sparking fears of a broader conflict that could spread to neighboring countries such as Lebanon and Syria, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s promise to retaliate only increases the risks of uncontrolled escalation.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and other European leaders have condemned Iran’s actions, calling for restraint and a ceasefire in conflict zones like Lebanon and Gaza. The urgency is felt in Europe, as EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell warned of the risks of a chain of attacks that could spiral out of control. Similar condemnations of the violence came from UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. However, these verbal condemnations are mostly reactive, reflecting Europe’s limited influence in the region, rather than proactive diplomatic engagement.

At the core of Europe’s problem lies its inability to present a coherent strategy for addressing the Middle East crisis. According to an analysis published by The Guardian, while the EU has managed to develop ambitious policies on economic and environmental issues, its stance towards the Global South, especially the Middle East, remains uncoordinated and weak. Although the EU previously achieved successes, such as the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, it now seems passive, almost absent from current efforts to resolve or even influence events in the region.

European leaders have repeatedly called for ceasefires and negotiations, but few concrete actions have followed these statements. For instance, despite growing consensus on the need for de-escalation, few European countries are willing to suspend arms sales to Israel or engage more actively in diplomacy. This is further complicated by internal divisions, as evidenced by the EU’s weak performance at the United Nations General Assembly, where its votes on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were scattered and inconsistent. While individual EU member states, such as France, Germany, and Italy, have historical and strategic interests in the region, these efforts remain fragmented, and Europe’s overall response is, at best, incoherent.

The paralysis in EU foreign policy is closely tied to domestic political challenges, particularly regarding migration and the rise of nationalism across Europe. As violence in the Middle East escalates, especially in Lebanon and Gaza, the risk of a new refugee crisis grows. Lebanon, a key flashpoint in the current conflict, is just over 160 km away from Cyprus, an EU member state, and any regional war could lead to a sharp increase in refugees heading towards Europe.

This possibility is already causing concern in European capitals, particularly in countries where anti-immigration sentiment is on the rise. From France and Italy to Austria and Germany, populist and right-wing parties have gained popularity by exploiting fears of uncontrolled migration, and a new influx of refugees from the Middle East would only exacerbate these tensions. In fact, domestic political pressure often dictates the EU’s foreign policy approach, making it more focused on short-term crisis management, such as migration agreements with North African countries, rather than long-term engagement.

This was evident in the EU’s ineffective response to recent Iranian provocations. Despite the immense importance of this issue, the EU is stuck in its own internal problems. Perhaps the most damaging aspect of Europe’s current position is its sense of helplessness. While the EU has sent aid to Lebanon and deployed peacekeeping troops as part of a UN mission in the country, it appears completely unprepared to deal with the consequences of an all-out regional conflict. Sixteen EU member states, including France, Italy, and Spain, have significant peacekeeping forces in Lebanon, but as tensions between Israel and Hezbollah rise, there is no indication that Europe can protect its interests or have a significant impact.

Although the EU has expressed concern over regional stability and offered diplomatic initiatives, such as von der Leyen’s calls for hostage releases and ceasefire negotiations, these efforts have not changed the situation. Despite Borrell’s public appeal for all sides to show “maximum restraint”, the reality is that Europe lacks the leverage to impose its will in the Middle East. The EU’s focus has shifted to internal problems, and its once prominent role in international diplomacy has significantly diminished.

One of the most glaring failures of the EU is its neglect of the Global South, particularly in relations with Middle Eastern and African countries. As The Guardian notes, increasingly protectionist and inward-looking policies in Europe have alienated many countries in these regions, further diminishing their influence on shaping international outcomes. EU initiatives that have often been announced, such as the €300 billion Global Gateway infrastructure program, have so far had little impact on these countries, while its internal regulations, such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, have been criticized for imposing unfair burdens on developing nations.

The crisis in the Middle East highlights a broader challenge facing Europe – its withdrawal from the global stage, particularly about the Global South. As violence continues in the West Bank, Gaza, and Lebanon, the EU risks becoming irrelevant in a region where it once had significant influence. In its current state, Europe is seen more as an economic partner than as a geopolitical power capable of making a decisive impact.

A Montenegrin version of this article is available on the Antena M portal.

Iranian Attacks on Israel Challenge U.S. Role in the Middle East

Posted on by Ana Nives Radovic

Yesterday’s rocket attacks by Iran on Israel pose a threat not only to Israel’s security but also to American policy in the region, which is facing challenges such as the rise of Iranian nuclear ambitions and uncertainties regarding regional alliances. The Middle East is once again a hotspot of conflict following yesterday’s Iranian rocket attacks on Israel, which threaten to provoke a full-scale regional conflict. While Israeli and American air defenses intercept these attacks, the rest of the world watches the situation with great concern, not overlooking the fact that the balance between deterrence and escalation is becoming increasingly unstable. What once seemed like a distant scenario – a direct military conflict between Iran and Israel – is now becoming a reality.

The recent rocket attacks on Israel are just part of a broader mosaic. In a recent analysis by the New York Times, it was assessed that Iranian nuclear ambitions are no longer a hypothetical threat. Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently warned that Iran is one step away from producing enough uranium for a nuclear bomb. The proximity of the Iranian regime to nuclear capability, combined with its willingness to carry out direct rocket attacks, places the entire Middle Eastern region on high alert. The Iranian regime has shown a readiness to cross boundaries, and as it gets closer to the status of a nuclear power, the stakes for Israel, and indirectly for the United States, have never been higher.

This development represents a decisive moment for U.S. President Joe Biden and his administration. Long-standing U.S. policy to curb the Iranian nuclear program through diplomacy and covert sabotage has failed to prevent Tehran from approaching the nuclear threshold. For decades, Israel has tried to slow Iranian nuclear ambitions through secret actions – assassinations, sabotage, and cyberattacks – but these efforts have always aimed at buying time rather than permanently neutralizing the threat. Today, Israel has fewer options at its disposal, and the Biden administration must confront the uncomfortable reality – that diplomatic engagement is insufficient to deter Iranian aggression.

To understand the seriousness of the current crisis, one must also consider the broader geopolitical dynamics. Iran does not act in isolation. Its partnerships with Russia, China, and North Korea provide it with strategic protection, encouraging Tehran to act more aggressively. According to the New York Times, such alliances result not only in the Iranian attacks on Israel but also in challenges to the liberal international order led by the U.S. Tehran sends a clear message that it is ready to target American allies and test U.S. resolve in the region.

However, the Biden administration’s response so far has been restrained. The hesitation to confront Iran more aggressively reflects a more complex American fatigue with conflicts in the Middle East, particularly after the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. The U.S. administration, cautious not to be drawn into another protracted war, has instead opted for diplomatic gestures and cautious rhetoric. Yet, as Iran continues to act, the question arises whether such an approach is sustainable.

As CBS News reported, U.S. missile defense strategies, rooted in Cold War thinking, have proven inadequate in addressing the complexities of modern missile threats. Billions spent on missile defense have failed to produce a system that reliably counters these threats, whether from North Korea or Iran, leaving the U.S. and its allies in a precarious position – while missile defenses save lives in the short term, they do not offer a long-term solution to the broader strategic problem posed by Iran’s growing missile and nuclear capabilities.

Moreover, the assumption that missile defense alone can ensure security is a dangerous fallacy. Even if technology advances, missile defense systems are fundamentally reactive, contributing little to preventing aggression or neutralizing the root causes of conflict. As CBS News emphasizes, the U.S. has focused on hypothetical missile threats, such as those from North Korea, while ignoring the actual, present danger posed by Iran’s increasingly sophisticated arsenal. The technical challenges of intercepting missiles are enormous, and any system, even if reliable, could easily be overwhelmed by a barrage of missiles.

The consequences of these technological and political failures are severe. The latest Iranian rocket attacks on Israel are not isolated incidents – they are part of a broader strategy of regional destabilization, which includes the use of proxy forces such as Hezbollah and the Houthis. Iran’s support for Hezbollah, which has fired thousands of projectiles at Israel in solidarity with Hamas, illustrates how the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon are connected to the larger Iranian-Israeli struggle. Israel, already burdened by fighting on multiple fronts, cannot afford to be constrained by American calls for restraint.

However, as Israel prepares for an escalation of military response, it faces a paradox. Biden’s administration’s calls for restraint may reflect a desire to avoid deeper involvement in the conflict, but Washington’s unwavering commitment to Israel’s security ensures that any action by Israel, whether aggressive or not, will ultimately receive U.S. support. As the New York Times notes, the Israeli missile defense system, previously criticized, has proven its worth by saving lives, yet even the most sophisticated defensive technology cannot resolve the fundamental problem – Iran’s pursuit of regional dominance and nuclear weapon capability.

In this context, it is clear that Israel is unlikely to heed American calls for restraint for long. The Israeli government and Benjamin Netanyahu, encouraged by recent successes against Hezbollah and Hamas, may decide that now is the time for a stronger blow against Iran, hoping to deliver a decisive strike against its military infrastructure and nuclear program. While the Biden administration would prefer to avoid direct military involvement, it may face pressure to support Israel in any confrontation with Iran.

This situation poses a dilemma for Biden. Allowing Iran to operate with impunity, whether through support for proxies or advancing its nuclear program, could embolden Tehran and undermine U.S. influence in the region. Moreover, the convergence of these events, along with the campaign for the American presidential election, adds a political dimension to the crisis. As Donald Trump positions himself as a candidate who claims he can restore global stability, Biden must not allow his administration to appear weak or indecisive on national security.

The Biden administration must decide whether to continue with a cautious approach or take a firmer stance against Iran. The consequences of either decision are profound. Escalating the conflict would risk drawing the U.S. into another conflict in the Middle East, while inaction could allow Iran to become a nuclear-armed state. This is a dangerous balancing act for the U.S. as the future of American leadership in the region is now at stake.

The current approach of the Biden administration to the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran is unsustainable. Iranian aggression and nuclear ambitions require a more decisive response, both from Israel and the U.S. While missile defense systems have provided temporary security, they are not a long-term solution. The U.S. must reassess its strategy, acknowledging that failure to act decisively now may lead to even greater conflict soon. The stakes are high, and the eyes of the world are on their next move.

A Montenegrin version of this article is available on the Antena M portal.