عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

Biden and the ‘Advice’ to Syria’s Kurds

A US soldier oversees members of the Syrian Democratic Forces as they raise a Tal Abyad Military Council flag. (Reuters)
A US soldier oversees members of the Syrian Democratic Forces as they raise a Tal Abyad Military Council flag. (Reuters)
TT
TT

Biden and the ‘Advice’ to Syria’s Kurds

A US soldier oversees members of the Syrian Democratic Forces as they raise a Tal Abyad Military Council flag. (Reuters)
A US soldier oversees members of the Syrian Democratic Forces as they raise a Tal Abyad Military Council flag. (Reuters)

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), with American backing, can negotiate with Damascus over the establishment of autonomous political rule in the region east of the Euphrates River. This should not, however, be a repeat of the “disastrous” independence referendum that was held in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region in 2017.

This piece of advice, offered by the team handling the Syrian file in Washington, will reverberate in the new administration of President-elect Joe Biden, who is sympathetic of the Kurds who spearheaded the fight against ISIS in Syria.

This is one of the pieces of advice offered by former US envoy to Syria, James Jeffrey, who was appointed earlier this month as Chair of the Middle East Program at the Wilson Center. In an article published by the Wilson Center, he said: “The SDF is vital to suppress ISIS efforts to reconstruct a caliphate in its homeland along the Euphrates River. It’s also vital because there will be no end to ISIS in Syria until the Syrian civil war ends and Damascus has a government that accommodates its Sunni Arab majority.”

He added that given president Bashar Assad’s political intransigence and Moscow’s acquiescence, the war will only end with ongoing pressure from multiple axes:

“First, the US-led ‘relentless pressure’ political and economic campaign on Assad and his allies. Second, military pressure from Turkey in the north; Israel from the air; US forces in the northeast and at the Tanf base; opposition and SDF armed forces, particularly in the north; and military deterrence by the United States, Britain and France against Syria’s use of chemical weapons,” revealed Jeffrey.

“The linchpin of all that military pressure is the US presence in northeast Syria, without which the other elements are likely to unravel or lose effectiveness. But that US presence depends on the willingness and capability of the SDF to host US forces,” he went on to say.

“It needs limited direct military support (in training and weapons), but it depends on US air power to strike ISIS targets and control the air over SDF-held territory. The SDF also needs US diplomatic support to fend off military and political efforts by Turkey, Russia and the Assad government to weaken the SDF or encroach on the territory it controls,” he continued.

Furthermore, Jeffrey stressed that the SDF needed to avoid taking any of four steps in Syria: “Cutting off all oil shipments to Damascus; declaring autonomy or independence from Syria, analogous to the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG)’s disastrous referendum in Iraq in 2017; strengthening relations with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which is considered a terrorist group in Turkey; or attacking Turkey from northeast Syria.”

“Any of those actions could lead to counterstrikes on the SDF. Long-term, the SDF wants Damascus to grant political autonomy to the northeast region and allow the SDF to maintain an armed force independent of the Syrian Army,” he stated.

These are two issues that Damascus is vehement in rejecting so much so that it is almost taking the same stance as Ankara that strongly opposes the establishment of an autonomous Kurdish region in Syria. Moscow, meanwhile, is attempting to play the role of mediator between Damascus, Ankara and the Kurds.

Washington has taken note of the Turkish escalation east of the Euphrates, but at the same time, it believes that the tensions in the region are “local, not strategic”. They will not change any of the fronlines that were cemented in winter 2019 after operation Peace Spring that was launched by Turkey in Ras al-Ain and Tal Abyad. Washington is therefore, using its diplomatic influence to contain tensions there and avert any new Turkish offensive in the region east of the Euphrates.

Washington, meanwhile, is using its influence to prevent the Syrian regime from recapturing the Idlib province. This is among the pressure cards at its disposal. It is also providing Ankara with logistic and diplomatic support to improve its military and negotiating position with Moscow.

Turkey has deployed over 20,000 soldiers and set up dozens of bases and a few rocket launchers at its border near northwestern Syria to prevent any Syrian military operation there.

Any widescale operation in Idlib, similar to the one that took place in spring 2019, will be suicidal for the Syrian army, said Jeffrey. Turkey wants to keep the frontlines as they are and does not want to trade Idlib for any other region. It has the US and NATO’s support in this regard.

After settling in at the White House, the Biden team is expected to employ its “tools” to negotiate with Moscow, and perhaps even Tehran and Ankara, to assess just how much of the Kurdish advice can be implemented.

Most Viewed

 
 
Features

Report: Iran Fears US Strike May Reignite Protests, Imperil Rule

A man walk past a mural depicting the Statue of Liberty with the torch-bearing arm broken, painted on the outer walls of the former US embassy in Tehran, colloquially-referred to as the "Spy Den,"on February 1, 2026. (AFP)
A man walk past a mural depicting the Statue of Liberty with the torch-bearing arm broken, painted on the outer walls of the former US embassy in Tehran, colloquially-referred to as the "Spy Den,"on February 1, 2026. (AFP)
TT
TT

Report: Iran Fears US Strike May Reignite Protests, Imperil Rule

A man walk past a mural depicting the Statue of Liberty with the torch-bearing arm broken, painted on the outer walls of the former US embassy in Tehran, colloquially-referred to as the "Spy Den,"on February 1, 2026. (AFP)
A man walk past a mural depicting the Statue of Liberty with the torch-bearing arm broken, painted on the outer walls of the former US embassy in Tehran, colloquially-referred to as the "Spy Den,"on February 1, 2026. (AFP)

Iran’s leadership is increasingly worried a US strike could break its grip on power by driving an already enraged public back onto the streets, following a bloody crackdown on anti-government protests, according to six current and former officials.

In high-level meetings, officials told Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that public anger over last month's crackdown -- the bloodiest since the 1979 revolution-- has reached a point where fear is no longer a deterrent, four current officials briefed on the discussions said.

The officials said Khamenei was told that many Iranians were prepared to confront security forces again and that external pressure such as a limited US strike could embolden them and inflict irreparable damage to the political establishment.

One of the officials told Reuters that Iran's enemies were seeking more protests so as to bring the republic to an end, and "unfortunately" there would be more violence if an uprising took place.

"An attack combined with demonstrations by angry people could lead to a collapse (of the ruling system). That is the main concern among the top officials and that is what our enemies want," said the official, who like the other officials contacted for this story declined to be named ‌due to the sensitivity of ‌the matter.

The reported remarks are significant because they suggest private misgivings inside the leadership at ‌odds ⁠with Tehran’s defiant public stance ‌towards the protesters and the US.

The sources declined to say how Khamenei responded. Iran's Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment on this account of the meetings.

Multiple sources told Reuters last week that US President Donald Trump is weighing options against Iran that include targeted strikes on security forces and leaders to inspire protesters, even as Israeli and Arab officials said air power alone would not topple the clerical rulers.

PEOPLE ARE EXTREMELY ANGRY, SAYS FORMER OFFICIAL

Any such uprising in the wake of a US strike would stand in contrast to Iranians' response to Israeli and US bombing attacks on Iran's nuclear program back in June, which was not followed by anti-government demonstrations.

But a former senior moderate official said the situation had changed since the crackdown in ⁠early January.

"People are extremely angry," he said, adding a US attack could lead Iranians to rise up again. "The wall of fear has collapsed. There is no fear left."

Tensions between Tehran and Washington are ‌running high. The arrival of a US aircraft carrier and supporting warships in the Middle ‍East has expanded Trump's ability to take military action if he so ‍wishes, after repeatedly threatening intervention over Iran's bloody crackdown.

'THE GAME IS OVER,' SAYS FORMER PRIME MINISTER

Several opposition figures, who were part of the establishment ‍before falling out with it, have warned the leadership that "boiling public anger" could result in a collapse of the ruling system.

"The river of warm blood that was spilled on the cold month of January will not stop boiling until it changes the course of history," former prime minister Mirhossein Mousavi, who has been under house arrest without trial since 2011, said in a statement published by the pro-reform Kalameh website.

"In what language should people say they do not want this system and do not believe your lies? Enough is enough. The game is over," Mousavi added in the statement.

During the early January protests, witnesses and rights groups said, security forces crushed demonstrations with lethal force, leaving thousands killed and many wounded. Tehran blamed the ⁠violence on "armed terrorists" linked to Israel and the US.

Trump stopped short of carrying out threats to intervene, but he has since demanded Iran make nuclear concessions. Both Tehran and Washington have signaled readiness to revive diplomacy over a long-running nuclear dispute.

SIMMERING ANGER, 'DANGER OF BLOODSHED'

Analysts and insiders say that while the streets are quiet for now, deep-seated grievances have not gone away.

Public frustration has been simmering over economic decline, political repression, a widening gulf between rich and poor, and entrenched corruption that leaves many Iranians feeling trapped in a system offering neither relief nor a path forward.

"This may not be the end, but it is no longer just the beginning," said Hossein Rassam, a London-based analyst.

If protests resume during mounting foreign pressure and security forces respond with force, the six current and former officials said they fear demonstrators would be bolder than in previous unrest, emboldened by experience and driven by a sense that they have little left to lose.

One of the officials told Reuters that while people were angrier than before, the establishment would use harsher methods against protesters if it was under US attack. He said the result would be a bloodbath.

Ordinary Iranians contacted by Reuters said they expected Iran's rulers to crack down hard on any ‌further protests.

A Tehran resident whose 15-year-old son was killed in the protests on January 9 said the demonstrators had merely sought a normal life and had been answered "with bullets.”

"If America attacks, I will go back to the streets to take revenge for my son and the children this regime killed."

Features

What to Know about Gaza's Rafah Border Crossing

Ambulances wait on the Egyptian side of the Rafah border crossing with the Gaza Strip in northeastern Egypt on February 1, 2026. (Photo by AFP)
Ambulances wait on the Egyptian side of the Rafah border crossing with the Gaza Strip in northeastern Egypt on February 1, 2026. (Photo by AFP)
TT
TT

What to Know about Gaza's Rafah Border Crossing

Ambulances wait on the Egyptian side of the Rafah border crossing with the Gaza Strip in northeastern Egypt on February 1, 2026. (Photo by AFP)
Ambulances wait on the Egyptian side of the Rafah border crossing with the Gaza Strip in northeastern Egypt on February 1, 2026. (Photo by AFP)

Pedestrians are set to begin passing through the Rafah border crossing between the Gaza Strip and Egypt on Monday, after it was largely shut for close to two years since Israeli forces seized the Palestinian side.

The reopening, demanded by the United Nations and aid groups, is a key part of the second phase of US President Donald Trump's truce plan for the Palestinian territory.

AFP looks at what to know about this crucial crossing:

- Vital access point -

COGAT, the Israeli defense ministry body coordinating Palestinian civilian affairs, has said it will only be open for the passage of "residents in both directions".

AFP images showed ambulances lined up on the Egyptian side of the border, preparing to receive medical evacuees, who are expected to be the first groups allowed out.

The Rafah crossing into Egypt -- often called Gaza's "lifeline" -- was the only border access for the territory that does not pass through Israel.

It now lies in an area held by Israeli forces following their withdrawal behind the so-called "Yellow Line" under the terms of the US-brokered ceasefire.

For a long time, the crossing was the main exit point for Palestinians from Gaza who were authorized to leave the narrow strip of land, under Israeli blockade since 2007.

From 2005 to 2007, it was the first Palestinian border terminal controlled by the Palestinian Authority, and later became a symbol of Hamas control over the Gaza Strip after the group seized power.

- Under Israeli control -

On May 7, 2024, the Israeli army took control of the Palestinian side, claiming that the crossing was being "used for terrorist purposes".

Many access points have since been mostly closed, including those used by the United Nations.

Rafah briefly reopened for medical evacuations during a short ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in January of last year.

Israel has said it will "conduct security clearance of individuals" permitted in and out of Gaza, which is meant to be administered by a 15-member Palestinian technocratic body.

The National Committee for the Administration of Gaza is also waiting to enter the territory, after Israel's approval.

No agreement has yet been reached on the number of Palestinians permitted through, sources said, noting that Egypt plans to admit "all Palestinians whom Israel authorizes to leave".

Palestinians intending to return to Gaza will be allowed limited luggage, no metal or electronic items and limited amounts of medication, according to the Palestinian embassy in Cairo.

- EU-Palestinian mission -

COGAT said "an initial pilot phase" began Sunday, "in coordination with the European Union Border Assistance Mission (EUBAM), Egypt, and all relevant stakeholders."

"The actual passage of residents in both directions will begin upon completion" of preliminary preparations, it added.

The Palestinian side of the crossing is expected to be administered by EUBAM and a delegation from the Palestinian Authority.

The EU had set up a civilian mission in 2005 to help monitor the Rafah crossing, but it was suspended two years later after the Hamas group took control of Gaza.

The European mission aims to provide a neutral, third-party presence at the key crossing and involves police from Italy, Spain and France. It was briefly redeployed in January of last year but suspended again in March.

Both the EUBAM and the Palestinian Authority delegation have arrived at the crossing, sources at the border told AFP.

- Aid entry -

Trump's plan, which underpins the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, stipulates the reopening of the Rafah crossing and the entry of 600 aid trucks per day.

But Israeli authorities have stalled on the matter and life-saving aid remains inadequate, according to aid groups.

International aid is generally routed from Egypt, through the Rafah checkpoint, before trucks are directed to the nearby Israeli crossing of Kerem Shalom -- which currently processes three-quarters of aid entering Gaza.

Drivers disembark their vehicles, which go through strict Israeli inspection before being unloaded and reloaded onto other vehicles authorized to enter Gaza.

Two aid sources on the Egyptian side told AFP on Thursday that Israel has continued to obstruct aid delivery, returning "dozens" of trucks without unloading them.

Other access points have operated in the past, but Israeli authorities have not communicated on whether they will reopen.

Features

NATO's Ability to Deter Russia Has Taken a Hit with Trans-Atlantic Infighting

A photo shows a residential area near the airport at the city of Nuuk, western Greenland, with a slightly snow covered mountain in the background, on January 28, 2026. (AFP)
A photo shows a residential area near the airport at the city of Nuuk, western Greenland, with a slightly snow covered mountain in the background, on January 28, 2026. (AFP)
TT
TT

NATO's Ability to Deter Russia Has Taken a Hit with Trans-Atlantic Infighting

A photo shows a residential area near the airport at the city of Nuuk, western Greenland, with a slightly snow covered mountain in the background, on January 28, 2026. (AFP)
A photo shows a residential area near the airport at the city of Nuuk, western Greenland, with a slightly snow covered mountain in the background, on January 28, 2026. (AFP)

European allies and Canada are pouring billions of dollars into helping Ukraine, and they have pledged to massively boost their budgets to defend their territories.

But despite those efforts, NATO’s credibility as a unified force under US leadership has taken a huge hit over the past year as trust within the 32-nation military organization dissolved.

The rift has been most glaring over U.S. President Donald Trump's repeated threats to seize Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark. More recently, Trump's disparaging remarks about his NATO allies' troops in Afghanistan drew another outcry.

While the heat on Greenland has subsided for now, the infighting has seriously undercut the ability of the world’s biggest security alliance to deter adversaries, analysts say.

“The episode matters because it crossed a line that cannot be uncrossed,” Sophia Besch from the Carnegie Europe think tank said in a report on the Greenland crisis. “Even without force or sanctions, that breach weakens the alliance in a lasting way.”

The tensions haven’t gone unnoticed in Russia, NATO’s biggest threat.

Any deterrence of Russia relies on ensuring that President Vladimir Putin is convinced that NATO will retaliate should he expand his war beyond Ukraine. Right now, that does not seem to be the case.

“It’s a major upheaval for Europe, and we are watching it,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted last week.

Filling up the bucket

Criticized by US leaders for decades over low defense spending, and lashed relentlessly under Trump, European allies and Canada agreed in July to significantly up their game and start investing 5% of their gross domestic product on defense.

The pledge was aimed at taking the whip out of Trump's hand. The allies would spend as much of their economic output on core defense as the United States — around 3.5% of GDP — by 2035, plus a further 1.5% on security-related projects like upgrading bridges, air and seaports.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has hailed those pledges as a sign of NATO’s robust health and military might. He recently said that “fundamentally thanks to Donald J. Trump, NATO is stronger than it ever was.”

Though a big part of his job is to ensure that Trump does not pull the US out of NATO, as Trump has occasionally threatened, his flattery of the American leader has sometimes raised concern. Rutte has pointedly refused to speak about the rift over Greenland.

Article 5 at stake

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed in 1949 to counter the security threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and its deterrence is underpinned by a strong American troop presence in Europe.

The alliance is built on the political pledge that an attack on one ally must be met with a response from them all — the collective security guarantee enshrined in Article 5 of its rule book.

It hinges on the belief that the territories of all 32 allies must remain inviolate. Trump’s designs on Greenland attack that very principle, even though Article 5 does not apply in internal disputes because it can only be triggered unanimously.

“Instead of strengthening our alliances, threats against Greenland and NATO are undermining America’s own interests,” two US senators, Democrat Jeanne Shaheen and Republican Lisa Murkowski, wrote in a New York Times op-ed.

“Suggestions that the United States would seize or coerce allies to sell territory do not project strength. They signal unpredictability, weaken deterrence and hand our adversaries exactly what they want: proof that democratic alliances are fragile and unreliable,” they said.

Even before Trump escalated his threats to seize control of Greenland, his European allies were never entirely convinced that he would defend them should they come under attack.

Trump has said that he doesn’t believe the allies would help him either, and he recently drew more anger when he questioned the role of European and Canadian troops who fought and died alongside Americans in Afghanistan. The president later partially reversed his remarks.

In testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismissed criticism that Trump has undermined the alliance.

“The stronger our partners are in NATO, the more flexibility the United States will have to secure our interests in different parts of the world,” he said. “That’s not an abandonment of NATO. That is a reality of the 21st century and a world that’s changing now.”

A Russia not easily deterred

Despite NATO’s talk of increased spending, Moscow seems undeterred. The EU's foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said this week that “it has become painfully clear that Russia will remain a major security threat for the long term.”

“We are fending off cyberattacks, sabotage against critical infrastructure, foreign interference and information manipulation, military intimidation, territorial threats and political meddling,” she said Wednesday.

Officials across Europe have reported acts of sabotage and mysterious drone flights over airports and military bases. Identifying the culprits is difficult, and Russia denies responsibility.

In a year-end address, Rutte warned that Europe is at imminent risk.

“Russia has brought war back to Europe, and we must be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents or great-grandparents endured,” he said.

Meanwhile in Russia, Lavrov said the dispute over Greenland heralded a “deep crisis” for NATO.

“It was hard to imagine before that such a thing could happen,” Lavrov told reporters, as he contemplated the possibility that “one NATO member is going to attack another NATO member.”

Russian state media mocked Europe's “impotent rage” over Trump's designs on Greenland, and Putin's presidential envoy declared that “trans-Atlantic unity is over.”

Doubt about US troops

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is due to meet with his counterparts at NATO on Feb. 12. A year ago, he startled the allies by warning that America’s security priorities lie elsewhere and that Europe must look after itself now.

Security in the Arctic region, where Greenland lies, will be high on the agenda. It’s unclear whether Hegseth will announce a new drawdown of US troops in Europe, who are central to NATO’s deterrence.

Lack of clarity about this has also fueled doubt about the US commitment to its allies. In October, NATO learned that up to 1,500 American troops would be withdrawn from an area bordering Ukraine, angering ally Romania.

A report from the European Union Institute for Security Studies warned last week that although US troops are unlikely to vanish overnight, doubts about US commitment to European security means “the deterrence edifice becomes shakier.”

“Europe is being forced to confront a harsher reality,” wrote the authors, Veronica Anghel and Giuseppe Spatafora. “Adversaries start believing they can probe, sabotage and escalate without triggering a unified response.”