Syria Proposes Initiative to Confront Turkish, Iranian ‘Infiltration’, Return to Arab Fold

People wearing face masks walk in Damascus, Syria. (EPA)
People wearing face masks walk in Damascus, Syria. (EPA)
TT
20

Syria Proposes Initiative to Confront Turkish, Iranian ‘Infiltration’, Return to Arab Fold

People wearing face masks walk in Damascus, Syria. (EPA)
People wearing face masks walk in Damascus, Syria. (EPA)

An upcoming meeting between Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, Jordan’s King Abdullah II and Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi in Baghdad will probably reveal the outcome of Russia’s recent diplomatic push to restore Syria’s membership in the Arab League.

It will also reveal the results of Syria’s “Arab depth” proposal, which it submitted to Baghdad, that outlined the steps needed for returning Damascus to the Arab fold and confronting Iran and Turkey’s infiltration of its territories.

Russia had dispatched its foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, to the region. He held talks with Egyptian officials in Cairo on Monday and had carried out a tour of the Gulf region a month ago. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s envoy to Syria, Alexander Lavrentiev, had also met with Syria’s President Bashar Assad two days ago and made unannounced visits to Arab countries.

Russia’s position
Moscow has urged Arab countries to restore Syria’s membership in the Arab League and to draft an Arab position that would be declared at the League’s next summit, which is set for Algeria. Lavrov had discussed this issue during his visit to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar last month.

Moscow believes that the Syrian presidential elections will serve as a turning point in the course of the country’s ten-year conflict. It has also seen “progress” in the political process as demonstrated in the meetings of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva and frontlines that have remained largely unchanged since March 2020.

Meeting behind closed doors, Russian officials have said that “weakening Iran in Syria demands that Arabs restore their political and economic presence in Damascus.” They have also stressed the need to avert the collapse of the Syrian state due to American and European sanctions that are “suffocating the Syrian people”.

The Russians have therefore, urged Arab countries to offer financial aid to the Syrian government. Moscow has also sought to free some 1 billion dollars belonging to the Syrian government and that have been frozen in Arab banks. The funds will be used in financing the delivery of wheat and oil derivatives to Syria. Moscow has also vowed to offer a 500-million-dollar loan to Damascus as part of measures to avoid the collapse of the Syrian pound.

Russia and Arab countries are aware of the “limits of what they can offer” to Damascus given the legal restrictions imposed by Washington’s Caesar Act and European-American conditions on Syria’s reconstruction.

Arab position
The Arabs are divided over restoring Syria’s membership to the Arab League and normalizing relations with it. Some countries are committed to the need to implement the Geneva declaration and United Nations Security Council 2254 and ensure the withdraw of sectarian and foreign militias from Syria. The first steps in this regard should be taken by Damascus.

Some Arab countries have already reopened their embassies in Damascus, but without appointing ambassadors in what is seen as a test of Syria’s position. Others have reappointed ambassadors, such as Mauritania. Oman has maintained its diplomatic ties with Damascus and their foreign ministers have exchanged visits over the years.

Throughout this situation, one issue is clear: Arab countries are growing increasingly concerned with Turkey’s “infiltration” of northern Syria and Iran’s entrenchment in the country amid the “complete Arab absence from the scene”.

Arabs believe that Syria’s return to the Arab League demands a “collective position” from the chief Arab countries, as well as initiatives on Damascus’ end. The host, Algeria, is hoping for such an achievement to be reached on its territories. On the technical side, Damascus needs to submit a formal request to the League for its membership to be restored.

On the political side, Arab countries are waiting on Damascus to “carry out a series of political steps to implement resolution 2254 and approach the UN-sponsored Constitutional Committee meetings with tangible positivity.” Moreover, it should provide the necessary conditions for the safe return of refugees to their homes.

On the geo-political side, Arab countries expect “tangible steps” from Damascus in easing Iran’s influence in its territories and pulling out sectarian militias. They expect Moscow to take measures that prevent Turkey’s incursions in northern Syria and exert efforts to push the political process forward. Moscow is also expected to respect prior understandings about curbing Iran’s influence.

‘Arab depth’ initiative
Given the above, prominent Syrian figures proposed the “Arab depth” initiative to Arab countries, including Egypt, Jordan and Iraq to bolster their contribution in “finding the best solution that should lead to achieving internal Syrian stability and boost the Arab role.” The figures believe that several Arab countries share Damascus’ keenness in restoring stability in Syria and its fear over the expansion of religious extremism and terrorism in the region. They are also concerned with Turkey and Iran’s growing influence in Syria amid the absence of an effective Arab role.

Should the “Arab depth” initiative truly get off the ground, then it will act as a parallel platform to the Astana process that includes Russia, Turkey and Iran and the new platform that was recently launched by Russia, Turkey and Qatar.

The initiative calls for the release of detainees, encourages the return of refugees with Arab support, urges the establishment of an independent judiciary and hopes for the formation of a new Syrian platform with the Arab League’s sponsorship. It also urges dialogue with the Americans and Russians to ensure the success of the initiative.

Damascus’ position
Damascus believes it can break through the Arab “wall” after finding the door firmly shut against it by the Americans and Europeans. It has received some of the ideas of the initiative during its foreign minister’s recent visit to Muscat, Assad’s meeting with Lavrentiev and security contacts between Syrian and Arab officials.

Damascus has expressed reservations over the speed and “depth” of the conditions it is expected to meet and the “incentives” it is set to receive. On the technical side, two years ago Damascus refused to submit a request to the Arab League to end its suspension, saying at the time: “The Arabs should request to return to Syria, which is a founding member of the organization.”

Politically, Damascus is so far prioritizing its presidential elections, set for mid-May, with Assad expected to claim victory. Some officials have hinted that “political reforms could take place after the polls” and that they would positively deal with the Constitutional Committee. Damascus is also prioritizing its fight against western sanctions and its efforts to improve living conditions for the Syrians by receiving oil shipments from Iran and food from Russia. It is also striking deals with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to receive oil derivatives and grain from northeastern Syria.

Tactically, Damascus is still playing both sides, between Moscow and Tehran, whereby it turns to one whenever it comes under pressure from the other. This strategy is so far working as demonstrated in Lavrov’s recent remarks that “the more Russia pressures Damascus, the more it turns to Iran.”

Geo-politically, Damascus believes that the further Turkey, Iran and Russia expand their influence in Syria and the region, Arab countries will eventually find themselves forced to cooperate with it. The “initiatives” and “incentives” will then flow from Arab capitals, not Damascus.



The 911 Presidency: Trump Flexes Emergency Powers in His Second Term

FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
TT
20

The 911 Presidency: Trump Flexes Emergency Powers in His Second Term

FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

Call it the 911 presidency.
Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors.
Whether it’s leveling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion.
An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump’s 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors.
The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress’ authority and advance his agenda.
“What’s notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,” said Ilya Somin, who is representing five US businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs.
Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it.
Growing concerns over actions
The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump’s strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there’s growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the US is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address.
“The temptation is clear,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. “What’s remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we’re in a different era now.”
Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy.
“It’s the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,” Bacon said of Congress’ power over trade. “And I get the emergency powers, but I think it’s being abused. When you’re trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that’s policy, not emergency action.”
The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority.
“President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.
Trump frequently sites 1977 law to justify actions
Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports.
The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces “an unusual and extraordinary threat” from abroad “to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.”
In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on US soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the US economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.
The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion.
Congress has ceded its power to the presidency
Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice.
Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The US Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals.
Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II.
Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump’s eventual veto.
“Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,” said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. “Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.”
Trump, Yoo said, “has just elevated it to another level.”
Trump's allies support his moves
Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump’s actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy.
“We believe — and we’re right — that we are in an emergency,” Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax.
“You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,” Vance said. “I’m not talking about toys, plastic toys. I’m talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I’m talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.”
Vance continued, “These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.”
Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president’s emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance.
Similar legislation hasn’t been introduced since Trump’s return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency.
“He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there’s oversight and safeguards,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a “path toward autocracy and suppression.”