عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

Will the Syrian-Israeli Negotiations Resume?

US President Bill Clinton welcomes Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak (L) and Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa (R) in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, DC 15 December 1999 at the resumption of Syrian-Israeli peace talks. © AFP
US President Bill Clinton welcomes Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak (L) and Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa (R) in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, DC 15 December 1999 at the resumption of Syrian-Israeli peace talks. © AFP
TT
TT

Will the Syrian-Israeli Negotiations Resume?

US President Bill Clinton welcomes Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak (L) and Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa (R) in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, DC 15 December 1999 at the resumption of Syrian-Israeli peace talks. © AFP
US President Bill Clinton welcomes Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak (L) and Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa (R) in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, DC 15 December 1999 at the resumption of Syrian-Israeli peace talks. © AFP

Will the Syrian-Israeli peace negotiations resume? Where is Russia and the United States from opening the channels between Tel Aviv and Damascus? What is the required price and the rewards offered? These questions have been raised for a long time, but they have returned intensely to the diplomatic corridors in recent weeks as a widespread belief emerged about the presence of secret negotiations between the two capitals.

There is a reasonable explanation for this belief: modern history showed that whenever Damascus was on the brink of major transformations or isolation, the only “way out” was to resume negotiations, according to the saying: “The road to Washington always passes through Tel Aviv.”

When the Soviet Union collapsed and the features of the new world order started to emerge, President Hafez al-Assad decided to participate in the Madrid Peace Conference at the end of 1991 and then enter into direct negotiations with Israel. Those were led by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and then-Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa at the beginning of 2000.

Two decades of negotiations were sufficient to spare Damascus the throes of transformations in the region and the world. But Hafez al-Assad passed away in the mid-2000s without signing the peace agreement.

When former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated in 2005, Damascus was isolated from its regional and international entourage. All eyes turned to Tel Aviv. In 2008, a secret negotiation channel was opened between the two sides, the Syrian aim of which was to break this state of isolation.

This is what happened. Secret negotiations took place. President Bashar al-Assad was invited to international and Arab conferences, tours, and summits. In the end, the talks sponsored by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan collapsed, and in December 2008 Assad did not agree to direct negotiations.

In this regard, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert quotes former US President George W. Bush as saying: “For me, if you sign an agreement with Assad, it will make me very happy, because I want the Syrian president to know that the road to Washington passes through Jerusalem.”

Damascus is now in the American “isolation ax”. Is repeating previous experiences the only way out?

The first explicit “peaceful signal” came from Damascus. After the signing of the Israeli agreements with the Emirates and Bahrain, Damascus has not issued any official condemnation statement, contrary to its ally, Tehran. It remained silent. Silence here is a political stance. Indeed, the Emirati-Israeli agreement coincided with the arrival of a shipment of UAE humanitarian aid to the Syrian capital.

In fact, this Syrian “peace signal” is based on a pivotal development that took place in mid-2018, when US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, sponsored an agreement guaranteeing the return of the Syrian government forces to the south of the country in exchange for the removal of Iranian fighters from the borders of Jordan and the Golan and the deployment of the UN Disengagement Observer Force.

The security and military arrangements in the Golan are in accordance with the disengagement agreement and UN Resolution 338, Putin said, meaning a return to pre-2011 arrangements.

But talks have recently emerged about a bigger step between Damascus and Tel Aviv, which should include answers to three elements: First, US-Russian sponsorship, as the US mediation alone is no longer sufficient for several reasons, including the Russian presence in Syria and the strong relationship between Moscow and Tel Aviv and Damascus.

Second, the Iranian presence. This file represents an American-Russian-Israeli intersection point. It was previously tested in the 2018 deal and has been a major dossier in the Syrian-Israeli negotiations, when Tel Aviv’s interest shifted from convincing Damascus to “normalization” and “normal peace relations” to regional concessions regarding abandoning Tehran and Hezbollah. But is Damascus able/willing to abandon its alliance with Tehran, which is deeply involved in Syria? Can Russia make such a deal? Does the grand bargain include all foreign powers, including the American and Turkish forces? What is the internal political price required from Damascus for such arrangements?

Third, the future of the Golan. Trump had announced his support for Israel’s decision to extend its sovereignty over the Golan. But Damascus considered the decision “void”. Will Russia offer a “magic solution” that combines sovereignty, geopolitical interests, and security arrangements? What is the relationship of such a deal with the US election results and the questions of a “smooth transition” in the White House?

Most Viewed

 
 
Features

The Perfect Storm That Turbocharged Venezuela’s Twin Quakes

A view of a building destroyed by the June earthquakes; in Catia La Mar, Venezuela, 05 August 2026. (EPA)
A view of a building destroyed by the June earthquakes; in Catia La Mar, Venezuela, 05 August 2026. (EPA)
TT
TT

The Perfect Storm That Turbocharged Venezuela’s Twin Quakes

A view of a building destroyed by the June earthquakes; in Catia La Mar, Venezuela, 05 August 2026. (EPA)
A view of a building destroyed by the June earthquakes; in Catia La Mar, Venezuela, 05 August 2026. (EPA)

A dangerous cocktail of tectonic positioning, loose earth and shoddy construction contributed to the unprecedented damage caused by Venezuela's twin earthquakes, experts say.

Jennire Garcia's home in the coastal Catia La Mar neighborhood was rendered unlivable by the tremors in late June, which devastated the state of La Guaira.

The 7.2 and 7.5 magnitude quakes killed over 6,300 people and sent 190 buildings crashing down, while 856 more sustained damage.

Garcia and her family are now living in tents next to the ruins, and the 42-year-old says she is "sick with stress all day long."

This was the same site as deadly mudslides that killed thousands of people in 1999.

The region's "unconsolidated" soils, where construction requires specific geotechnical studies, added to the severity of the damage, according to engineer Feliciano De Santis.

"These soils generally tend to be loose soils" and caused the ground to move with even greater intensity, said De Santis, who is president of the Venezuelan Geologists Society.

Garcia's residential complex, which was declared uninhabitable, was built after the landslide.

Deep cracks run through its yellow walls, several balconies have dislodged from the building and some high-rises have crumbled altogether.

- 'So anxious' -

Rescuers across the quake zone have not abandoned the search for victims under the rubble, and are working through the debris of buildings up to 12 stories high.

The last adjustment made to earthquake regulations for buildings was in 2019, and before that, in 1967 when a horrific 6.6 magnitude tremor struck the country.

A closer look at La Guaira's infrastructure reveals significant construction flaws, said Japanese engineer Kit Miyamoto, who is touring the state with support from Washington.

For instance, large quantities of steel "seems like it's really good," he told AFP.

"But once you get down to look at how actually the rebar (steel reinforcement) is connected to the foundation, it's not much," the engineer added.

In the early 2010s, the government of late leader Hugo Chavez built 43 flagship social housing high-rise buildings.

The quakes flattened 16 of them, crushing hundreds of residents underneath.

A recent investigation by Armando.info revealed that "contracts awarded at discretion to companies whose experience was unknown" fueled the damage.

In Caracas' worst-hit neighborhood Chacao, 68 people died while three buildings collapsed and dozens more are uninhabitable.

Most of these buildings were constructed before the 1967 earthquake, Venezuela's Engineering Order said.

"Some had been reinforced," said organization representative and engineer Felix Ojeda, adding that rubble samples taken on site can provide clues about the state of the infrastructure.

"The obvious next step," said Miyamoto, "is to take down the buildings," adding that retrofitting and strengthening buildings was also important to do as much as possible.

Public fury about the government's slow response to the quakes is widespread.

Interim leader Delcy Rodriguez -- who effectively governs under Washington's thumb since her predecessor Nicolas Maduro's ouster -- has promised to deliver around 4,000 housing units this year.

Back in Catia La Mar, Garcia pines for her former home.

"It makes me sad because I see it there every day. I think about the comforts I had and that I can't have here," she said.

"We are so anxious," she said, "waiting for an answer, and we don't have one."

Features

China Missile Test Deepens Pacific Divide Over Growing Militarization

The headquarters for the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Fiji, August 7, 2026. (Reuters)
The headquarters for the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Fiji, August 7, 2026. (Reuters)
TT
TT

China Missile Test Deepens Pacific Divide Over Growing Militarization

The headquarters for the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Fiji, August 7, 2026. (Reuters)
The headquarters for the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Fiji, August 7, 2026. (Reuters)

China's test of a nuclear-capable missile last month has exposed the limits of Pacific leaders' ambition to make the region an "Ocean of Peace", free from the crossfire of major-power rivalry.

The July launch, China's first known ballistic-missile test into the Pacific since September 2024, was fired into the Pacific just hours after Fiji and Australia signed a major defense treaty, marking Fiji's first ever alliance.

More than a month after the test, Pacific Islands foreign ministers were unable to agree on a collective statement condemning Beijing's missile test, despite individual leaders expressing alarm, publicly and privately, about militarization of the region.

The test was "totally inappropriate", Papua New Guinea Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko told Reuters on the sidelines of the foreign ministers' meeting in Suva last week.

"China is a very close friend and ally to Papua New Guinea, but we feel this doesn't help at all," he said, adding that Beijing had given PNG advance notice of the launch but no details on where ‌the missile would ‌land.

At the time of the launch, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said it was ‌conducted "safely", ⁠adding: "We hope relevant ⁠countries will not over-interpret the matter."

The missile launch capped a year of more visible military activity across the Pacific, which is fiercely contested between the US and China for influence. That has included Chinese naval deployments and live-fire drills in the Tasman Sea, US-allied exercises around Guam and Hawaii, and a steady flow of warship visits linked to expanding security partnerships.

The United States, meanwhile, retains a substantial military presence across the region, including in Hawaii, Guam and the Marshall Islands.

Tuvalu permanent foreign secretary Pasuna Tuaga, who was speaking in a personal capacity, was concerned about growing militarization, not only because of the missile test but also security arrangements such as the AUKUS partnership between Australia, ⁠Britain and the United States.

UNITED, BUT DIVIDED

In September 2025, Pacific Leaders endorsed the Ocean ‌of Peace Declaration, which committed to safeguard the region, recognized the right of the ‌people to peace, and resolved to contribute to and strengthen international peace and security.

David Peebles of the Australian National University's Pacific Security College said ‌Pacific countries had long resisted having peace and security defined by outside powers and their competing Indo-Pacific strategies. The Ocean ‌of Peace initiative was an attempt to reclaim that agenda, he said.

The regional declaration inspired the defense pact signed between Australia and Fiji last month, known as the Ocean of Peace Alliance.

Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade did not immediately respond to a request for comment on concerns that the growing number of regional security pacts could further militarize the Pacific.

For many governments, security partnerships bring benefits: surveillance against illegal fishing, ‌disaster response, policing support and access to equipment and training. But critics fear a proliferation of bilateral arrangements could leave Pacific countries with little say over how their territory, waters and infrastructure ⁠are used.

Solomon Islands Foreign Minister ⁠Rick Houenipwela, who chaired the talks in Suva, said the region's agenda must remain "conceived by the Pacific, shaped by the Pacific and only by the Pacific."

Yet by the end of the one-day meeting, no unified statement in response to the missile test had emerged.

Kiribati and Nauru, which have deepened ties with Beijing since switching diplomatic recognition from Taiwan in 2019 and 2024 respectively, did not support the statement's wording, according to an official familiar with the discussions.

New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters blamed foreign influence for the failure to reach consensus, without naming a country.

The impasse illustrates the central challenge facing these small island nations which have different economic, political and security interests.

In the northern Pacific, where the US has maintained a military presence for decades, some governments want deeper security engagement with the US while others remain wary.

Fiji Foreign Minister Sakiasi Ditoka said Pacific governments faced an unavoidable tension.

Countries wanted "to be free of all these war-making paraphernalia," he said, but also recognized that some security capabilities helped keep them safe. "I believe it's maintaining that balance."

Fiji for the first time participated last month in US-led war games in the Pacific known as RIMPAC.

Pacific leaders will meet in Palau in three weeks for the Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting, where the missile test and regional unity are expected to return to the agenda.

Features

One year after Putin-Trump Summit, 'Spirit of Anchorage' Dissipated

FILE - US President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin, Aug. 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)
FILE - US President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin, Aug. 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)
TT
TT

One year after Putin-Trump Summit, 'Spirit of Anchorage' Dissipated

FILE - US President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin, Aug. 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)
FILE - US President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin, Aug. 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)

In the year since Donald Trump hosted Vladimir Putin on US soil for a summit designed to broker an end to Russia's offensive on Ukraine, the diplomatic initiative has fizzled out and the conflict has escalated.

For months, Russian officials talked up the "spirit of Anchorage" -- a supposed climate of detente, renewed dialogue with Washington and a framework for finding a way out of the deadliest European conflict since World War II, said AFP.

Now there are few traces of that atmosphere. US mediation efforts are at a standstill, both Russia and Ukraine are ramping up attacks and more civilians are being killed than at any point since the first months of the war.

- 'Ending the war'-

On August 15, 2025, Trump broke with the West's policy of isolating Putin, rolling out the red carpet as the Kremlin chief stepped off his plane at the Elmendorf-Richardson air base in Alaska.

It remains unclear what was decided or discussed behind closed doors.

Russia has always maintained some kind of understanding on a peace deal was struck -- "a compromise proposal", as Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called it.

Washington has rebuffed any talk of a deal being reached.

"There was a proposal in Alaska, but there was no agreement. If there had been an agreement, we would have had an end of the war," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in June.

Moscow had hoped the summit would lay the foundations for a "lasting peace" by addressing what it calls the "root causes" of the conflict, said political analyst Sergei Markov -- designated a "foreign agent" but still close to the Russian authorities.

For years -- including right before launching its offensive in February 2022 -- Russia has called for a new overarching security deal with the United States over Europe, NATO and arms control.

The "compromise" Russia tabled in Alaska, Markov told AFP, was to limit its territorial claims on Ukraine to the eastern Donbas region in exchange for recognition of Russia's new borders by Washington and the lifting of sanctions.

- Disenchantment -

Those Russian demands were included in a 28-point document drafted by the United States -- later cut down to 19 -- after separate negotiations with Kyiv and Moscow.

The document was never published officially and never came to fruition.

US-brokered direct talks between Russia and Ukraine in early 2026 broke down, chiefly over the issue of territory.

Ukraine refuses to cede land it still controls and wants an immediate ceasefire along the current front line, with territorial status to be decided during fuller peace talks.

And since late February, Washington's attention has been consumed by the war on Iran.

Trump has since issued fresh sanctions on Russia and the last remaining nuclear arms control agreement -- New Start -- has been allowed to lapse.

Having once sensed a window of opportunity to press its demands and been at pains to praise Trump's efforts, Russia has lately allowed itself to publicly question Washington's commitment to diplomacy.

"I don't even want to imagine that Alaska ... was conceived to gain time in order to strengthen Ukraine militarily," Lavrov said in June.

A meeting between Lavrov and Rubio in Manila in July -- their first since September 2025 -- lasted only around 30 minutes.

"We'll have to find new suggestions and new ideas" that both "Russia and Ukraine can agree to," Rubio said after that meeting.

"That's going to require a lot of work," he added.

- Escalation -

The two sides' conditions for peace are irreconcilable.

Russia demands territory alongside political and military concessions that Ukraine rejects as capitulation.

At the same time, both are convinced force can improve their negotiating position.

"The Russian armed forces will continue their mission to liberate the Donbas and Novorossiya in line with the approved plan," Russia's army chief Valery Gerasimov told Putin in a televised meeting in early July -- referring to land stretching across eastern and southern Ukraine.

Buoyed by European support, Kyiv is banking on its long-range strike campaign to tip Russia's economy and society over the edge.

Its attacks triggered a nationwide fuel crisis over the summer, and have forced Moscow-installed authorities to put the annexed Crimean peninsula under a local "state of emergency".

Russia has upped its missile attacks on Kyiv, killing dozens there in recent weeks.

It has also brought Ukrainian exports through the Black Sea to a standstill through a campaign of port and ship strikes.

"The spirit of Anchorage has dissipated," said Russian political analyst Fyodor Lukyanov -- close to the ruling elite -- in August.

The result? "Brutal escalation."