Why Did the G7 Refuse to Criticize 'Normalization' With Damascus?

Attendees take part in G7 foreign ministers meeting in London, Britain May 5, 2021. Ben Stansall/Pool via REUTERS
Attendees take part in G7 foreign ministers meeting in London, Britain May 5, 2021. Ben Stansall/Pool via REUTERS
TT

Why Did the G7 Refuse to Criticize 'Normalization' With Damascus?

Attendees take part in G7 foreign ministers meeting in London, Britain May 5, 2021. Ben Stansall/Pool via REUTERS
Attendees take part in G7 foreign ministers meeting in London, Britain May 5, 2021. Ben Stansall/Pool via REUTERS

Discussions that took place between the foreign ministers of the Group of Seven in London over the past two days revealed some change in the position of the United States and its allies regarding the Syrian file. While the group has maintained the same policy, efforts to implement it have declined and are no longer an urgent priority for the administration of US President Joe Biden.

Some parties suggested adding a phrase to the final statement of the London meeting, including an indication that the time was not appropriate for “any form of normalization” with Damascus. The assistants of some of the ministers drafting the proposal relied on two previous statements issued on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Syrian protests: the first by the foreign ministers of the US, Britain, Germany, France, and Italy, and the second by Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

The two statements noted that the proposed Syrian presidential elections this year would be neither free nor fair, and should not lead to any measure of international normalization with the Syrian regime.

However, the G7 final statement issued following the first direct meeting between the leaders in two years reiterated previous points announced in UN Security Council Resolution 2254, namely the chemical file and humanitarian aid, in addition to a brief reference to the Syrian presidential elections scheduled for May 26.

The statement read: “In line with UNSCR 2254 and 1325, we urge all parties, especially the regime, to engage meaningfully with the inclusive UN-facilitated political process to resolve the conflict, notably the Constitutional Committee, to include the release of detainees and the meaningful participation of women. This includes a nationwide ceasefire and a safe and neutral environment to allow for the safe, voluntary, and dignified return of refugees. It should pave the way for free and fair elections under UN supervision, ensuring the participation of all Syrians including members of the diaspora.”

Without any reference to the normalization, the statement added: “Only when a credible political process is firmly underway would we consider assisting with the reconstruction of Syria.”

On the other hand, the focus of the G7 was placed on the humanitarian and chemical files, as the ministers condemned “the Assad regime and its backers’ ongoing atrocities against the Syrian people and attempts to disrupt regular and sustained humanitarian access into and within Syria.”

“We call for the full, unhindered humanitarian access into Syria that is vital for alleviating the impact of the crisis. We strongly support the re-authorization of cross-border humanitarian assistance later this year so that those in need can get the assistance they require,” the statement underlined.

The G7 also urged the regime in Syria to adhere to its obligations under UNSCR 2118. It strongly welcomed the decision of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Conference of the States Parties to suspend Syria’s rights and privileges under the Chemical Weapons Convention, until it completes the steps set out in the OPCW Executive Council Decision of 9 July 2020 and refrains from further use of chemical weapons.

“We are firmly committed to accountability for those responsible for the use of chemical weapons and violations of international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, as applicable, and pledge support for the work of appropriate international criminal justice and investigative mechanisms and transitional justice mechanisms,” the statement concluded.

The G7 position on Syria converges with priorities set by the new US administration. Since Biden came to power, his team has requested a review of the Syria policy, which is expected to be completed this month.

It is noteworthy that officials working on the Syrian file in Washington avoid participating in public meetings, in an indication to a break with the previous approach adopted by former US President Donald Trump, which was based on “maximum pressure” on Damascus and "strategic patience", through the use of tools such as sanctions.

The new US priorities in the Syrian file include three axes:

First, the humanitarian dimension, by focusing on the renewal of the Security Council’s decision to provide “cross-border” humanitarian aid on July 10.

Second, the chemical file, by exerting great pressure on Damascus and Moscow to abide by the Russian-US agreement signed between Sergei Lavrov and John Kerry at the end of 2013.

Third, the fight against ISIS, by making sure that reducing the US presence in Iraq and the region will not affect the strategy of preventing the re-emergence of the organization.

In these three axes fall the US focus, based on which Washington’s allies in Europe and Arab capitals are acting, until a major development in the US-Russian understanding takes place to revive the “step-by-step” approach, which is currently difficult to achieve amid mounting tension between Washington and Moscow on the one hand, and the Europeans and the Russians on the other.



A Look at Sudan’s War by the Numbers

Sudanese refugees, who have fled the violence in their country, line up to receive food rations from World Food Program (WFP), in Adre Chad July 20, 2023. (Reuters)
Sudanese refugees, who have fled the violence in their country, line up to receive food rations from World Food Program (WFP), in Adre Chad July 20, 2023. (Reuters)
TT

A Look at Sudan’s War by the Numbers

Sudanese refugees, who have fled the violence in their country, line up to receive food rations from World Food Program (WFP), in Adre Chad July 20, 2023. (Reuters)
Sudanese refugees, who have fled the violence in their country, line up to receive food rations from World Food Program (WFP), in Adre Chad July 20, 2023. (Reuters)

Sudan is entering a fourth year of war between the military and paramilitary forces.

The fighting has pushed many people into famine, caused a huge displacement crisis and left over 30 million people in need of humanitarian assistance. Parties have been accused of committing atrocities like ethnic cleansing, extrajudicial killings and sexual violence against civilians.

Here's a look at the war by the numbers:

59,000 At least this many people have been killed, according to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data, or ACLED. Aid groups say the true toll could be much higher as access to areas of fighting across the vast country remains limited.

4.5 million About this many people have fled the country to places like Egypt, South Sudan, Libya and Chad.

9 million About this many people remain displaced in Sudan.

19 million More than this many people face acute hunger, according to the World Food Program.

24% This is the amount that fuel prices have shot up in Sudan since conflict in the Middle East escalated.

354 This is the number of community kitchens that have closed over the last six months after providing a lifeline for millions of people, according to Islamic Relief.

Over 4,300 About this many children have been killed or maimed in the war, according to UNICEF.

8 million At least this many children are still out of school, according to UNICEF.

11% About this many schools are being used by warring sides or are shelters for displaced people, according to UNICEF.

63% This many of Sudan's health facilities are fully or partially functioning, according to World Health Organization chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

217 This is the number of verified attacks on health facilities since the war began, according to the WHO.

1,032 This was the number of civilians killed by air and drone strikes in 2025, according to ACLED, as a surge in drone strikes took a growing toll.


Iran Nuclear Program ‘Badly Damaged’ But Not Wiped Out

This image from an Airbus Defense and Space's Pléiades Neo satellite shows a truck that analysts believe was carrying highly enriched uranium to a tunnel in the compound of the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, in Isfahan, Iran, June 9, 2025. (AP)
This image from an Airbus Defense and Space's Pléiades Neo satellite shows a truck that analysts believe was carrying highly enriched uranium to a tunnel in the compound of the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, in Isfahan, Iran, June 9, 2025. (AP)
TT

Iran Nuclear Program ‘Badly Damaged’ But Not Wiped Out

This image from an Airbus Defense and Space's Pléiades Neo satellite shows a truck that analysts believe was carrying highly enriched uranium to a tunnel in the compound of the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, in Isfahan, Iran, June 9, 2025. (AP)
This image from an Airbus Defense and Space's Pléiades Neo satellite shows a truck that analysts believe was carrying highly enriched uranium to a tunnel in the compound of the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, in Isfahan, Iran, June 9, 2025. (AP)

The United States and Israel may have obstructed the path towards a future Iran-built nuclear bomb by severely damaging Tehran's nuclear and ballistic capabilities in recent attacks.

But they have not succeeded in seizing its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, key to any future negotiations between Washington and Tehran, experts and diplomatic sources told AFP.

One of US President Donald Trump's justifications for the war he launched on February 28 was an accusation -- denied by Tehran -- that Iran was developing an atomic bomb. Trump has repeatedly vowed to never allow the country to possess a nuclear weapon.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for his part, has stated that the previous war waged against Iran, a 12-day conflict in June 2025, as well as the current one “wiped out” Iran's nuclear program.

But two European diplomatic sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, expressed caution about the future of Iran's atomic ambitions.

Immediately following the June 2025 strikes, “we were told the program had been set back by several years, before the figure was revised to just several months,” one source noted.

“Iran is no longer a threshold power as it once was,” an Israeli diplomatic source, who requested anonymity, told AFP.

A “threshold” state has the expertise, resources and facilities needed to develop a nuclear weapon on short notice should it choose to.

The source argued that, in addition to the infrastructure damage suffered, Iran's know-how “has been seriously undermined by the elimination of the scientists and officials” and the targeting of universities “where the data centers containing Iran's expertise were located.”

Substantial setback

“Overall, this conflict has set back Iran's nuclear program substantially,” said Spencer Faragasso of the Institute for Science and International Security, a US think tank that monitors Iran's nuclear program.

“It will take a significant amount of time, investment, and resources to reconstitute all of those lost capabilities,” he said.

However, “the gains from the conflict are not permanent by any means.”

Tehran still possesses a significant quantity of uranium enriched both to 60 percent, close to the 90% level required to make an atomic bomb, as well as a stockpile of uranium enriched to 20%, another critical threshold.

Prior to the US strikes in June 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) calculated that Iran possessed approximately 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, well above the 3.67% limit set by a 2015 agreement from which the United States subsequently withdrew.

Since June 2025, the fate of this stockpile has remained uncertain, with Tehran refusing access to IAEA inspectors at the sites ravaged by US and Israeli strikes.

IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi has repeatedly called for the return of international experts.

Removing enriched uranium

Part of the stockpile of highly enriched uranium (HEU) is believed to remain buried in the tunnels at the Isfahan site in central Iran.

“At least 220 kilogram – roughly half of Iran's declared stockpile of 60% HEU – is believed to be stored in the underground tunnel complex at Isfahan,” said Faragasso.

“The status of the other half is unclear, but we believe it is buried under the rubble at Fordow as large significant quantities of 60% HEU were produced prior to the June 2025 war,” he said.

Only an independent inspection would be able to dispel these doubts.

The issue is how this uranium could be removed from Iranian territory under any eventual accord.

Russia reiterated on Monday that it remained ready to accept Iranian enriched uranium on its soil as part of any potential peace agreement between Washington and Tehran.

“This proposal was put forward by President (Vladimir) Putin during contacts with the United States and with countries in the region,” said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, in response to a question from AFP.

But that scenario is a red line for the Europeans in view of the war that Russia has been waging against Ukraine for more than four years.

Moscow and Tehran are cooperating on nuclear matters through Iran's Bushehr power plant, built and operated with Russian assistance for civilian purposes.

The Iranians “don't have an ability to enrich uranium anymore... So it means they cannot build a nuclear bomb at the moment,” said Danny Orbach of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

“But they still have the enriched material, which is the hardest thing to obtain,” he said.


Rare Precedents for Lebanon-Israel Talks

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio (C), alongside US State Department Counselor Michael Needham (2L) and US Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa (2R), speaks during a meeting with Lebanon's Ambassador to the US Nada Hamadeh Moawad (out of frame) and Israeli Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter (out of frame) at the State Department in Washington, DC, on April 14, 2026. (AFP)
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio (C), alongside US State Department Counselor Michael Needham (2L) and US Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa (2R), speaks during a meeting with Lebanon's Ambassador to the US Nada Hamadeh Moawad (out of frame) and Israeli Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter (out of frame) at the State Department in Washington, DC, on April 14, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Rare Precedents for Lebanon-Israel Talks

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio (C), alongside US State Department Counselor Michael Needham (2L) and US Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa (2R), speaks during a meeting with Lebanon's Ambassador to the US Nada Hamadeh Moawad (out of frame) and Israeli Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter (out of frame) at the State Department in Washington, DC, on April 14, 2026. (AFP)
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio (C), alongside US State Department Counselor Michael Needham (2L) and US Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa (2R), speaks during a meeting with Lebanon's Ambassador to the US Nada Hamadeh Moawad (out of frame) and Israeli Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter (out of frame) at the State Department in Washington, DC, on April 14, 2026. (AFP)

There are few precedents for the direct talks between Lebanese and Israeli officials that began in Washington on Tuesday.

- 1949, Fragile armistice -

The first Arab-Israeli war began on May 15, 1948, the day after the declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel.

Five countries -- Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq -- had rejected a UN plan adopted in November 1947 to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states and went to war against the new state.

In 1949, Israel and neighboring countries signed armistice agreements, but they collapsed with the start of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.

- 1983, Unimplemented agreement -

Israel invaded Lebanon on June 6, 1982, in an operation it dubbed "Peace for Galilee" that was initially aimed at expelling Palestinian fighters, but which resulted in a nearly 18-year Israeli occupation.

On May 17, 1983, Lebanon and Israel signed an agreement on the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon after four-and-a-half months of direct talks with US participation.

The deal was scrapped less than a year later, in March 1984, under pressure from Syria and its allies in Lebanon.

- 1991-93, Washington talks -

A series of bilateral negotiations between Israel and Syria, Lebanon, and a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation was launched in late 1991, following the Madrid conference on Middle East peace.

Ten rounds of bilateral talks were held in Washington over 20 months until 1993, but failed to produce results.

- 2022, Maritime border deal -

After years of US mediation, Lebanon and Israel reached an agreement on October 27, 2022, which demarcated their maritime border and set the terms for sharing offshore gas resources in the eastern Mediterranean.

There was no direct contact between the two sides, with the deal formalized through separate exchanges of letters with the United States.

- 2024, Fragile ceasefire -

A November 2024 ceasefire sought to end more than a year of fresh hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, but Israeli forces kept up strikes in Lebanon, saying they aimed to prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding its capabilities.

In December 2025, civilian officials for the first time joined Lebanese and Israeli military representatives in ceasefire-monitoring meetings in southern Lebanon, led by the US and also involving France and the United Nations peacekeeping force.

The talks marked the first direct discussions between the two sides in decades.