Most Syrian roads lead to Washington
Okaz, Saudi Arabia, February 26
Syria is enduring a severe humanitarian and economic crisis that has affected every facet of life, with the country experiencing a collapse in infrastructure and a sharp decrease in the availability of essential resources. Key sectors such as health, education, agriculture, and industry are facing near-total paralysis, complicating recovery efforts amid persistent political and security challenges.
Despite attempts to foster stability, Syria continues to grapple with a security vacuum and the government’s failure to assert control over the entire nation. From the northernmost regions to the south, and from major urban centers to remote villages, crises persistently arise, confronting the new administration with daunting challenges for which it is ill-prepared.
In recent years, specifically since 2019, Syria has seen a kind of military and security equilibrium facilitated by regional and international forces; however, this balance has been insufficient to extricate the country from its profound difficulties, instead rendering it akin to fragmented territories under various influences.
The fall of Bashar Assad’s regime marked a significant turning point not only within Syria but across the region, with the ongoing effects of this change continuing to provoke political and security consequences. The appointment of Ahmed al-Sharaa as president during the transitional phase was a step toward long-awaited political stability, yet the country still faces significant hurdles that demand more decisive actions to address lingering crises.
Among these initiatives, the recent “national dialogue sessions” held in Syrian cities are deemed essential as a precursor to a comprehensive national dialogue conference aimed at forming a government that represents all Syrian demographics and drafting a constitutional declaration to legitimize the transition, complete with a clear timetable for implementing transitional justice and achieving national reconciliation.
Amid these challenges, the European Union’s partial lifting of sanctions on energy, transport, and banking sectors has provided Syrians with a glimmer of hope for economic improvement. Nevertheless, the impact of these measures is constrained by ongoing US sanctions, particularly those targeting the Central Bank of Syria, which sever the Syrian economy from the global banking system, notably SWIFT, thereby hindering the country’s investment appeal and prospects for genuine economic revival.
Currently, Washington is a pivotal force in shaping Syria’s future, holding sway over several key aspects including the easing of sanctions, political support for the Syrian government, and resolving issues in the northern part of the country. In this vein, the impending visit of US President Donald Trump to the region holds special significance, with Syrians hopeful that al-Sharaa’s administration will secure crucial agreements with the US.
Concurrently, the Saudi Arabia has been instrumental in opening communication channels between the new Syrian government and international stakeholders, thereby improving the likelihood of achieving enduring solutions to the Syrian conflict. There remains hope that these endeavors will ultimately succeed, ushering in a new era of prosperity and stability that will alleviate years of hardship and restore the nation’s well-being. – Rami Al-Khalifa Al-Ali
Bigger disasters await Ukraine
Al-Ahram, Egypt, February 27
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has positioned himself between two starkly different narratives on the global stage: he is either fully complicit in maneuvering his country into a military entanglement designed to exhaust Russia, seemingly indifferent to the immense peril this poses to Ukraine, or he is profoundly naive, believing in the possibility of defeating Russia without comprehending the full scope of risks involved in such a conflict.
Furthermore, following the immediate catastrophes that befell Ukraine in this war, Zelensky appears to think he can outmaneuver the US into achieving gains, with no certainty that Ukraine will ultimately benefit.
In his most recent predicament with the Trump administration, it was revealed that Zelensky himself proposed leveraging Ukraine’s wealth of rare minerals through a joint investment venture with the US, committing half of its output to this partnership. He presented this idea to the Biden administration in September, mere weeks before the US elections, even as the prospect of excluding Biden from the race was determined.
Assuming Zelensky’s intentions were well-meaning, he aimed to engage the forthcoming US president in actualizing this proposal, assuming it would secure approval from both the administration and Congress within those few weeks – a highly unlikely scenario. However, upon Trump’s entry into the White House, he encountered this nascent idea and repurposed it, exploiting America’s dominance essentially to seize Ukraine’s resources without cost.
Trump introduced a novel justification for this strategy, claiming it would offset what America had spent supporting Ukraine in the conflict, initially estimating this support at $350 billion and later increasing it to $500 billion. At this juncture, Zelensky protested, asserting that the aid was intended as a non-repayable grant, its value merely about 10% of what Trump proposed, and that America taking half of Ukraine’s production meant the repayment obligation would span 10 generations, a term he outright rejected.
Meanwhile, some of Zelensky’s allies, America’s longstanding partners, counseled the Ukrainian president against engaging in a confrontation where he would have to respond to Trump’s deeply personal insults, suggesting instead that he show some flexibility toward Trump’s proposal. Should he not listen to their advice, it is likely that bigger disasters await Ukraine. – Ahmed Abdel-Tawwab
Egypt & Iran: Benefits & constraints
Al-Watan, Kuwait, February 28
Relations between Egypt and Iran have long been a crucial factor in shaping regional alliances and alignments, reflecting differing visions and priorities. Over the last four decades, diplomatic ties between the two nations were severed and subsequently maintained at a minimal level, yet Iran has persistently taken the initiative to restore full relations with Egypt.
This Iranian push is seemingly encouraged by shifts toward more pragmatic policies in the Middle East, where there has been a significant improvement in Iranian-Gulf relations, though connections with Egypt remain tenuous.
Despite the geographical distance, Iran operates within the same regional arenas as Egyptian foreign policy, including Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Bab el Mandeb, and even the Horn of Africa. This distance has led some to view cooperation as nonurgent, with economic ties so minimal that they hardly warrant an enhancement of diplomatic relations. Current levels of security dialogues, addressing mutual concerns such as Red Sea and Bab el Mandeb security and relations with the Houthis or Iraq’s stability, are deemed sufficient.
At present, Iran is seeking to negotiate directly with US President Donald Trump, expressing a preference for direct talks over the indirect negotiations of the past. This raises questions about whether Iran wants Egypt to mediate between it and Washington and what benefits or obstacles this could entail. The significance of Egypt-Iran relations may be more critical to regional and global powers than to the two countries themselves, particularly Egypt.
Iran has, over recent years, extended invitations to Egypt to enhance diplomatic ties, proposing new bilateral opportunities in tourism and the economy. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has highlighted the shared historical and civilizational heritage of the two nations, advocating for increased cooperation that would benefit both the region and the Islamic world.
Under the administration of former Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi, Iran pursued a policy aimed at improving relations with neighboring Arab countries, including several rounds of dialogue with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and a reconciliation agreement with Saudi Arabia brokered by China. Relations with the United Arab Emirates have also seen improvement, with Iranian officials, including the supreme leader, signaling a new level of diplomatic engagement.
Current President Masoud Pezeshkian’s meeting with President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi at the D-8 summit was lauded as a “historic moment” by the media, with others noting a diplomatic thaw from Tehran to Cairo. A full restoration of relations could coordinate Cairo and Tehran’s approaches to key regional issues.
Egypt’s potential role as a mediator between Iran and Washington could enhance its stature before the US, with implications beyond just the Palestinian issue. For Iran, improved relations could facilitate economic expansion through increased use of the Suez Canal and enhanced trade with Egypt.
The recent regional detente has spurred Iran to pursue pragmatic cooperation, viewing renewed ties with a significant Arab player like Egypt as a major political achievement and an indicator of shifting regional power balances and acceptance.
However, the benefits to Egypt may not be as substantial as those to Iran. Shared concerns like Red Sea security and potential oil trade through Iraq, contingent on the lifting of US sanctions, are of mutual interest. Future understandings might also address tensions around the Palestinian issue.
Yet challenges persist, including Egypt’s concerns about Iran’s regional conduct and the security of the Arabian Gulf, which Egypt considers integral to its own security. Fluctuations in Iran’s relationships with Gulf states reflect this complexity.
Iran’s reduced activity in regional conflicts, its withdrawal from Syria, and its diminished influence in Gaza following setbacks for Hamas indicate a strategic reevaluation. The primary focus now appears to be Iran’s nuclear negotiations with Trump.
Despite these hurdles, Iran remains determined not to yield in the face of challenges from Israel and Washington. As a regional powerhouse, Iran is poised to reassert its strategic position and rebuild its deterrence capabilities, seeking alternatives to its setbacks in Syria and Lebanon. – Hoda Raouf
Zelensky’s White House ‘trap’ sends dangerous world message
Asharq Al-Awsat, London, March 2
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s recent controversial meeting at the White House has generated a plethora of images and quotes, not to mention conspiracy theories. This encounter sent a resounding message to the world, offering a stark lesson for those still bound by outdated perceptions of US President Donald Trump’s thinking, his value system, his understanding of political mechanisms, his definitions of enemies and allies, and his respect for institutions, traditions, and historical relationships.
What the cameras and microphones captured seemed more akin to a “trap” laid by the Trump administration for the Ukrainian leader than a sincere political dialogue between allies, irrespective of their size. Although Zelensky probably anticipated that today’s Washington is not the same as yesterday’s, I doubt he expected to face a firing squad as he did in reality.
It is well documented that most American commitments to Ukraine were solidified during the Democratic administrations since 2014, including the terms of Barack Obama (2009-2017) and Joe Biden (2021-2025), encompassing Trump’s initial term (2017-2021).
What has been confirmed, whether during Trump’s years in office, through his campaign slogans, or his media statements, is that his mold is not only distinct from his Democratic predecessors but also from a significant portion of American presidents and leaders post-World War II in 1945.
One might argue that Trump possesses an independent mind that enables him to think outside the box. Others might assert that times have changed, along with the concepts and political dangers, necessitating a new approach that liberates from the constraints of inherited alliances and considerations that have traditionally restricted presidential actions and limited maneuverability.
This reality has even recently reflected the coexistence of two “schools” of conservative thought that have increasingly influenced the Republican Party, at least since the early 20th century. The party has historically housed right-wing and center-right currents, as well as centrist and progressive elements.
A retrospective glance at a few notable figures from the 20th and 21st centuries within the party’s ranks reveals hardline conservative right-wingers like senators Robert Taft and Joseph McCarthy, presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, governor and president Ronald Reagan, and then governor and president George W. Bush.
They rose to prominence in the Republican and American political arena before the Trump era, influenced by extremist phenomena such as McCarthyism, the clash with the East, and the moral majority representing evangelical Christianity, followed by neoconservatives, a coalition of the Christian religious right, the Jewish lobby, and the arms lobby.
Alongside these were the realist and center-right currents, exemplified by figures like President Dwight Eisenhower, presidents Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush, and political leaders like Thomas Dewey, Robert Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Prominent liberal and progressive centrists historically included president Theodore Roosevelt (considered leftist by today’s standards), and statesmen like vice president Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, Charles Percy, John Chafee (former secretary of the Navy), and James Jeffords.
The pluralism once evident within the Republican Party seems absent in Donald Trump’s second term. Indeed, the previously mentioned extremist elements, despite their fervor, appeared more adherent to democratic foundations, institutions, and traditions, guided by the principle of separation of powers and more accepting of coexistence with opposing views.
Despite their intensity, these movements were less prone to “deification” compared to the MAGA phenomenon, which we’re seeing not only with the populist political base of President Trump. The MAGA movement, with Trump at its helm, disregards the separation of powers, the peaceful transition of power, and the independence of the judiciary, and refuses to acknowledge any election outcome unfavorable to its candidate. To achieve its goals, it did not hesitate to storm the Capitol building in Washington – the sacrosanct symbol of American democratic legitimacy.
Domestically, what remains of the New Deal, initiated in the 1930s following the Great Depression to provide a safety net for the American citizen, is currently being dismantled in cooperation with unelected billionaires. On the international front, all traditional prohibitions have been lifted; the erstwhile enemy has become a friend, the ally an irritating economic rival; and the territories of “neighbors” have turned into alluring, loose spaces open for annexation, occupation, and enforced acquisition, or regions from which undesirable inhabitants must be isolated behind walls of separation.
The entire political culture Washington inherited from the Cold War era has collapsed, with the notable exception of unwavering alignment with the ambitions of the Israeli far-right settler movement.
The distressing and profoundly detrimental signal sent by Washington, under Donald Trump, to the world, through the demeaning treatment of President Zelensky, signals that there is no longer peace of mind for Washington’s allies in the Far East and Western Europe, no vision for a stable and viable Middle East, no South Asia safe from nuclear calamities, and no South America free from the emergence of reckless populist regimes that fail to learn or be deterred. – Eyad Abu Shakra
Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb. All assertions, opinions, facts, and information presented in these articles are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of The Media Line, which assumes no responsibility for their content.