عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

Israeli-Iranian Clash: A Test for both Sides in Syria

Israeli security stands around the wreckage of an F-16 that crashed in northern Israel, February 10, 2018. (AP)
Israeli security stands around the wreckage of an F-16 that crashed in northern Israel, February 10, 2018. (AP)
    Tel Aviv – Nazeer Majali
TT
TT

Israeli-Iranian Clash: A Test for both Sides in Syria

Israeli security stands around the wreckage of an F-16 that crashed in northern Israel, February 10, 2018. (AP)
Israeli security stands around the wreckage of an F-16 that crashed in northern Israel, February 10, 2018. (AP)

In Israel, they know that something new happened on the Syrian front. The developments may not lead to a dangerous escalation at this point, because Russia has moved to contain the situation, saying that it does not want further escalation.

According to sources in Tel Aviv, Tehran and Damascus share the sentiment to avert escalation.

Now all sides involved in the tensions will go about analyzing what happened, derive lessons and take strategic decisions later.

The first assessment is that after 34 years of calm and seven years of tolerating Israeli strikes and refraining from retaliating to them, an S-200 missile was fired at the jets, downing one and forcing another to an emergency landing.

We cannot say that this change was completely unexpected. In Israel, they had been debating the possibility of a change in the Syrian stance on repeated Israeli strikes. They predicted that the Syrian air defense would shoot at an Israeli jet, especially after the regime’s achievements on the ground against the opposition and with Russian and Iranian support. According to Israeli assessments, the regime has been boastful and arrogant as of late, all boosted by Iran and Russia.

All these factors made Israel suspect that the regime had something in store, so it threatened it. Israel had spoken several months ago about the danger of the Iranian project and the expansion of its “crescent” to include Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. This expansion has reached the Mediterranean, Yemen and the Red Sea.

Over the past weeks, we had heard direct threats against Iran and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netayahu had traveled to Moscow to meet President Vladimir Putin to inform him of Iran’s dangerous expansion. The expansion is creating a new reality and transforming Syria into an arena for an Israel-Iranian clash.

This same stance was presented before several European leaders, as well as, undoubtedly, US President Donald Trump.

On the ground, Israel struck a Syrian position in September which is known for its Iranian activity. In December, it struck Shi’ite militia positions near Damascus, in what was a direct hit against Iranian presence in Syria.

Over the past two days, signs of a change in the Syrian response began to emerge. Israel first struck a research center near Damascus and the regime responded by firing several missiles against the jets. Damascus claimed to have downed an aircraft, while Israel declined to comment. It did however acknowledge that a plane was damaged. On Wednesday, Netanyahu and his ministers carried out a field visit to the Golan where they made direct threats to Iran and Syria.

The new change is that Iran has now become part of the scene and it retaliated to the recent developments by dispatching on Friday a drone to fly over Israel and wander some 40 kilometers deep into its airspace before Israel discovered and downed it.

The explanation in Israel is that Iran’s flying of the drone was a stunt that was not aimed at espionage, but to show the Israelis that they were capable of infiltrating its airspace in spite of their advanced defenses.

Israel understood the message and it apparently was prepared for it. It had compiled a list of targets to that end and it consequently retaliated by first downing the Iranian drone and then carrying out air strikes against 12 joint Syrian-Iranian targets.

Four Iranian positions are among these targets. The largest is the T-4 airbase in the Palmyra region. This strategic base is used by both the Iranians and Russians. Coordination with Moscow was therefore necessary to avoid striking Russian jets or batteries during the Israeli raid.

On the Iranian and Syrian side, the goal was to achieve a morale victory in the retaliation against Israel that would create an appropriate “balance of fear”, said the Tel Aviv sources.

In the end, the Israeli strikes were a success, but the Syrian air defense tarnished this victory when it downed one of Israel’s F-16 jets. It was not just any F-16, but one of the most modern ones in Israel.

The Israelis described its downing as a “painful blow”. Preliminary investigations focused on whether its pilots were reckless in their mission.

Most significant in these developments was that Iran responded directly to Israel. It achieved two goals: The first is successfully retaliating to Israeli raids and the second is that it is now in a direct confrontation with Israel.

It managed to deliver the message that future Israeli strikes will not be a cakewalk. It also sent a message to not only Israel, but to the United States and Russia that Iran will not be a “punching bag” like Syria and Gaza. They should not expect a strike to go without a response. The third message is directed to Damascus itself and that is that the Iranian request for the establishment of a naval base in Syria will benefit Iran and Syria. The regime has been hesitant to meet this demand and has not yet agreed to it.

Israeli military spokesman Ronen Manelis was severe in commenting on Friday’s developments, saying: “Iran is dragging the entire region towards an adventure, which it will pay for.”

This was interpreted as a sign that more strikes are in store.

This was also an invitation to Russia and the US to restrain Israel. Tel Aviv expects Moscow to intervene between it, Damascus and Tehran to put in place new rules of engagement. At the same time, it is trying to draw the attention of the American administration and see how it will comment on the escalation.

Will it follow the lead of the Obama administration and call on all sides for calm and restraint? Or will it take a more hardline stance in favor of Israel that will give it free reign to strike Iran and even become a partner in such as step?

In Israel, they believe that calm will be restored to this front after these mutual strikes and diplomacy will now take centerstage. There is also a conviction that the situation is headed towards the edge of the abyss and a slight nudge could send everything toppling over.

Most Viewed

 
 
Features

Iran's Hormuz Leverage Wanes as US Economic Squeeze Bites

Vessels in the Strait of Hormuz near the beach of Bandar Abbas, Iran, September 5, 2026. (Reuters)
Vessels in the Strait of Hormuz near the beach of Bandar Abbas, Iran, September 5, 2026. (Reuters)
TT
TT

Iran's Hormuz Leverage Wanes as US Economic Squeeze Bites

Vessels in the Strait of Hormuz near the beach of Bandar Abbas, Iran, September 5, 2026. (Reuters)
Vessels in the Strait of Hormuz near the beach of Bandar Abbas, Iran, September 5, 2026. (Reuters)

Six months after a conflict that rattled markets and pushed the region to the brink of a wider war, the tide may be turning against Iran as Washington unleashes an unprecedented economic offensive to achieve what military force could not.

After years of surviving sanctions, Tehran is now confronting one of the harshest squeezes in the regime's history, according to Iranian insiders and regional sources cited by Reuters.

A US naval blockade and tougher sanctions are curbing oil exports, ‌restricting access to foreign currency and exposing growing strains in the economy.

The campaign has led US and regional officials to wager that mounting economic pressure can force Tehran to allow free passage through the Strait of Hormuz, which carries about a fifth of global oil and LNG supplies.

Their bet rests on a simple calculation: Iran is suffering more economic damage than it is inflicting. Efforts to choke off oil exports have cut state revenues, while attempts to disrupt shipping through Hormuz have not triggered the global economic shock Tehran hoped would force Washington to compromise. Energy markets have adjusted and alternative supplies have continued to flow.

Whether the pressure will force concessions remains unclear, the regional sources said. Tehran has failed to impose the costs it hoped would break Washington's resolve but has shown little sign of abandoning demands for sanctions relief, access to frozen assets and recognition of its security role in Hormuz.

Still, a new formula for resolving the standoff is now under discussion between mediators and Iran, the sources said.

Can Tehran outlast the squeeze?

Three senior Iranian sources acknowledged that Washington's campaign is becoming increasingly difficult to withstand. The latest measures have sharply restricted Tehran's ability to access foreign currency, import goods and tap global financing networks that have helped keep the economy afloat.

Iranian leaders fear a worsening economy, marked by surging prices, weaker trade and pressure on household incomes, could reignite nationwide unrest that has repeatedly challenged Tehran.

Shortages of key imports, including fuel and wheat, are becoming an increasing concern, officials said.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described the strategy as a “one-two punch” combining the blockade with “the toughest sanctions in history.”

“It is going to work in Iran and we are going to collapse this regime,” he told CNBC.

For some US, Israeli and regional officials, such ‌strains strengthen ⁠hopes that economic pressure could eventually carry political consequences inside Iran by triggering unrest, widening rifts within the leadership and weakening its grip on power.

Others remain skeptical that economic and military coercion will produce a political rupture, pointing to decades of failed efforts to destabilize the regime and Tehran's willingness to suppress dissent. They argue Iran's rulers may again prove more resilient than their adversaries expect.

Resilience test

Dennis Ross, a former US negotiator, said Washington may be interpreting Iran's economic distress as evidence of strategic success when the reality is more complicated. Tehran remains determined to demonstrate it can control Hormuz, but appears to be calibrating its use of force while keeping further escalation in reserve.

The Revolutionary Guards may believe Iran can absorb the economic pain and outlast the pressure rather than compromise, ⁠Ross said.

“The Iranians have consistently surprised us in terms of their resiliency,” he added, saying he doubted economic and military pressure alone would force a retreat. Hardliners, he said, may believe they can endure and ultimately secure what they want.

Resilience may depend as much on public tolerance as Tehran's ability to absorb economic hardship, said Burcu Ozcelik, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute.

“Of course, the economic squeeze raises the risk of public unrest, but for now, a wartime mentality appears to have a significant hold ⁠over the population,” said Ozcelik. “Foreign military intervention, civilian casualties and the perception of a wider civilization confrontation with a US-led order are sustaining a degree of 'Iran-first' patriotic support, tolerance or simply patience with the regime.”

The result is a more stubborn impasse than Washington may have anticipated. Economic pressure is deepening the pain, but Tehran's powerful Revolutionary Guards may see endurance, backed by the threat of escalation, as leverage rather than a reason to concede.

The key question is not whether Iran is ⁠hurting, but whether it is hurting enough to compromise before either side slips toward another confrontation, the regional sources said.

Ross said the clearest path to a deal may lie in the dispute over shipping fees through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran could abandon any demand for a toll while retaining the right to charge for legitimate navigational, security or environmental services, he said.

Such an arrangement could give both sides a claim to victory, allowing Tehran to step back without appearing to capitulate.

“If you could announce that the Strait were reopened,” Ross said, “I think Trump would do a deal.”

Features

China's Memories of Mao Fade to Nostalgia 50 Years after His Death

The Great Helmsman, who died September 9 1976, is still very much a fixture in central Henan province's Nanjie -- often dubbed "China's last Maoist village". Pedro PARDO / AFP
The Great Helmsman, who died September 9 1976, is still very much a fixture in central Henan province's Nanjie -- often dubbed "China's last Maoist village". Pedro PARDO / AFP
TT
TT

China's Memories of Mao Fade to Nostalgia 50 Years after His Death

The Great Helmsman, who died September 9 1976, is still very much a fixture in central Henan province's Nanjie -- often dubbed "China's last Maoist village". Pedro PARDO / AFP
The Great Helmsman, who died September 9 1976, is still very much a fixture in central Henan province's Nanjie -- often dubbed "China's last Maoist village". Pedro PARDO / AFP

The crimson flags on Nanjie village's "East is Red" Square hang limp in the sweltering summer heat as a trickle of tourists take photos with a towering statue of Chairman Mao Zedong, still gleaming white almost 50 years after he died.

The Great Helmsman, who died September 9 1976, is still very much a fixture in central Henan province's Nanjie -- often dubbed "China's last Maoist village", said AFP.

Nostalgia for Mao's egalitarian ideals is growing in China as memories of his turbulent rule fade and the country grapples with a slowing economy and inequality.

Mao, who led the 1949 communist revolution against the ruling nationalists, ushered in an era of collectivized ownership he argued would drive industry and unite the country, but his drastic policies are also blamed by historians for mass starvation and millions of deaths.

While the ruling Chinese Communist Party maintains Mao was a revolutionary hero, it publicly acknowledged after his death that his devastating Cultural Revolution was a "grave mistake" -- a verdict upheld by subsequent leaders.

In Nanjie, countless murals of the former Chinese leader are plastered around the village.

Residents still live under Maoist principles of shared ownership, while the rest of the country moved on from that economic model.

"I still revere him very much," Xie Kaiyue, a 22-year-old local university student, said of Mao, who died almost three decades before she was born.

"I think young people in the village and, actually, myself, aren't as strong-spirited as in the past... People were purer," she said.

Nearby, electric carts whisked visitors past uniform apartment blocks plastered with socialist slogans as guides explained how cooperative ownership in local enterprises funds free housing for residents.

- Party line -

Around 500 kilometers (310 miles) north, in the mountain village of Dazhai in Shanxi province, once promoted by Mao as a national model after locals terraformed its arid hills into irrigated fields, tourists reminisce about an era when the Great Helmsman dominated political and social life.

"(People) didn't have enough to eat or to wear," Li, a 64-year-old tourist from Xi'an, said of his childhood.

"But... the whole country was full of vigor, and there was a spirit of struggling with heaven, earth, and people to change every aspect of China," the retiree said.

"Of course I miss it."

Now, Dazhai is overflowing with shops selling items that support Mao's personality cult -- posters, playing cards, and crockery emblazoned with his image, and the "Little Red Book" of his quotations.

Still, references to dark chapters of his decades in absolute power are tightly censored in public discourse.

The decade-long episode instigated by Mao in 1966 saw intellectuals brutally targeted as "class enemies" and schools shuttered, setting China back for years in education and development.

Private property and land were collectivized, while economic management pushed the country to the Great Famine, which the government says killed around 15 million people, while historians estimate around 20-43 million.

In one museum, text mentioning the Cultural Revolution had been crudely scraped off signage.

"Everything you see in the public domain... is the party line. No one is allowed to deviate from this," said scholar Xu Chenggang, who was targeted as a child in Beijing during the Cultural Revolution because his father was labelled a "rightist".

Mao's face is printed on banknotes, his portrait overlooks Tiananmen Square, and his body is preserved in a mausoleum.

Every year new movies and TV shows dramatizing Mao's life beam the message of his great deeds to public.

Public discussion has been squeezed further under current leader Xi Jinping, who warns against "historical nihilism", or narratives contradicting the party's own.

"The Communist Party told people there were mistakes, but what's the meaning of 'mistake'? No one knows," Xu said.

- 'Great figure' -

The sanitized history has left space for romanticized interpretations among youths frustrated by long working hours and intense competition in education and the job market.

In December, a viral video series on Bilibili -- a platform popular with those under 30 -- argued that the 2017 movie 'Youth', which follows young performers in a military dance troupe during the 1970s, was a subtle ode to the Cultural Revolution.

The videos, which praised Mao and blamed capitalist elites for crushing the movement, were removed after gaining over 35 million views in less than a week.

"Today, there is more of a sense that the Cultural Revolution was a period of idealism, where society was fired by ideals and not by the relentless pursuit of money and material goods," said to Kerry Brown, head of the Lau China Institute in London and author of a recent book on Mao.

"This is, of course, a total fabrication," he said.

Many also credit Mao with laying the foundation for China to become a modern, technologically advanced nation, said Mobo Gao, professor of Chinese studies at Adelaide University.

"They ask, where did (today's China) come from? It came from the establishment of the PRC," said Gao, who lived through the Mao era in rural Jiangxi province.

"Who was the one who really established the PRC? It must be Mao."

In Shijiazhuang, an industrial city of seven million northeast of Dazhai, 20-year-old Wang Zhihao and his classmates posed with a giant Mao statue opposite the municipal government.

"We admire and revere Chairman Mao very much. He is a great figure," Wang said, as the sound of elderly residents singing songs praising the Communist Party drifted over from the nearby square.

"He led the founding of New China."

 

Features

Is US Military Cooperation with Ethiopia Driven by Anger over Egypt-China Rapprochement?

US President Donald Trump during his meets with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on the sidelines of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly in September 2018. (Egyptian Presidency)
US President Donald Trump during his meets with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on the sidelines of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly in September 2018. (Egyptian Presidency)
TT
TT

Is US Military Cooperation with Ethiopia Driven by Anger over Egypt-China Rapprochement?

US President Donald Trump during his meets with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on the sidelines of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly in September 2018. (Egyptian Presidency)
US President Donald Trump during his meets with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on the sidelines of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly in September 2018. (Egyptian Presidency)

A US defense agreement with Ethiopia was announced days before an important visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping to Cairo that saw agreements and memorandums of understanding signed in several fields and coincided with joint Egyptian-Chinese air exercises.

The timing raised questions over whether Washington’s military cooperation with Addis Ababa was driven by “US anger at Cairo” and what objectives it serves amid tensions in the Horn of Africa.

The United States and Ethiopia signed a defense agreement on Aug. 21 during an official visit by an Ethiopian military delegation to Washington. Both sides described it as a strategic framework aimed at strengthening military and security cooperation, protecting national interests and securing mutual benefits.

Raafat Mahmoud, head of the African Affairs Research Unit at the Egyptian Cabinet's Information and Decision Support Center (IDSC), told Asharq Al-Awsat that Washington was seeking to rebuild ties with Addis Ababa after years of tension, particularly over the Tigray war and US criticism of Ethiopia’s human rights record.

He argued that the agreement showed Ethiopia had become part of broader US calculations involving Red Sea security, countering Chinese and Russian influence and combating armed groups in the Horn.

Ethiopian lawmaker Mohammed Al-Arusi noted that Washington views the Horn as directly linked to Red Sea security, international trade and maritime routes, while also facing terrorist threats.

“Ethiopia lies at the heart of this geography, with its demographic, political and military weight across a broad region, and it hosts the permanent headquarters of the African Union,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat. Washington, he added, was not seeking a temporary stance but it is “rebuilding its position in a region where the balance of power is changing.”

US Republican and strategic affairs expert Adolfo Franco cautioned that the agreement lacks formally binding treaties and direct financial funding, adding that future defense exports remain subject to strict restrictions and case-by-case assessments, including human rights considerations.

Al-Arusi pointed to a US-Ethiopian dialogue launched in May covering economics, trade, investment, defense and security. The defense track advanced just three months later, a sequence he said showed Washington was approaching Ethiopia with long-term considerations.

Mahmoud said growing US support could strengthen Ethiopia’s negotiating position not only on water but also in its efforts to secure maritime access and expand its presence in the Red Sea region.

Recent media reports have portrayed the US-Ethiopian rapprochement as Washington’s response to Egypt’s growing ties with China, highlighted by Xi’s visit to Cairo this week.

Mahmoud countered that Egyptian-Chinese rapprochement was not new, although recent developments naturally raised sensitivities in Washington, particularly amid expanding economic and security cooperation.

In January 2026, Ethiopia and China elevated their relations to an “all-weather strategic partnership,” nearly two years after Egypt and China upgraded their ties to a “strategic partnership” in 2024.

Al-Arusi argued that Washington’s expanding partnership with Addis Ababa should not be viewed as replacing one partner with another, but rather as evidence of Ethiopia’s growing strategic value.

Former US diplomat Henry Ensher told Asharq Al-Awsat that Washington wants a security partner in the Horn and that Ethiopia is the best option given its capabilities.

While China and the United States compete in Africa, Egypt is the more important partner, he said, making it unlikely that Washington would use this approach to confront or punish Cairo.