Putin Presses for ‘Legitimizing’ Assad amid Western Conditions, Arab Silence

A poster depicting Syria’s president Assad is seen as supporters of him celebrate after the results of the presidential election were announced, in Damascus, Syria, May 27, 2021. (Reuters)
A poster depicting Syria’s president Assad is seen as supporters of him celebrate after the results of the presidential election were announced, in Damascus, Syria, May 27, 2021. (Reuters)
TT
20

Putin Presses for ‘Legitimizing’ Assad amid Western Conditions, Arab Silence

A poster depicting Syria’s president Assad is seen as supporters of him celebrate after the results of the presidential election were announced, in Damascus, Syria, May 27, 2021. (Reuters)
A poster depicting Syria’s president Assad is seen as supporters of him celebrate after the results of the presidential election were announced, in Damascus, Syria, May 27, 2021. (Reuters)

Syrian president Bashar Assad’s reelection to a new seven-year term was met with doubts in the West over the transparency of the elections and a reminder of the conditions to normalize relations with Damascus. Russia, Syria’s main ally, meanwhile, pressed for “legitimizing” the results of the polls, while the silence of Arab countries was interpreted as a positive sign.

Another positive sign was the World Health Organization’s decision to elect the Syrian government to its executive board, a month after the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague revoked Damascus’ rights and privileges.

Assad’s speech
In contrast to recent years, Assad’s victory speech was short and hand-written and broadcast on television, reminiscent of his father’s speeches in the 1980s. Assad also sought to respond to the anti-regime protests that erupted in 2011 and even attempted to portray his win as a counter-revolution.

Thousands of people had gathered in main squares in cities in regions held by the regime. The elections were held in regions controlled by the regime, therefore, excluding the province of Idlib and its western areas, Qamishli and its eastern areas and some southern regions. Syrians displaced abroad were also excluded from the vote.

In his speech, Assad declared that the Syrian people’s actions in recent weeks were “unprecedented defiance to the enemies of the nation and a shattering blow to their false arrogance and slap in the face to their agents and cronies.” Addressing the people, he added: “You have turned the tide and blown up the rules of the game. You have confirmed, without any doubt, that the national rules are set here, by our hands. There is no room for partners, except our brothers and friends.”

“You have known the revolution and reclaimed it after its name was tarnished by some mercenaries” and some traitors of the Syrian identity, he continued. The elections, he remarked, were not a celebration, “but a revolution, in every meaning of the word, against terrorism, treason and depravity.” It is a revolt of dignity against every immoral person who deigned to be manipulated by others.

Assad aimed his speech against the opposition and “revolutionaries” and thanked those who voted for him. He did not criticize any country or individual by name as he did in his 2014 electoral speech. Sights will be turned to his swearing in speech that should outline Damascus’ political agenda in the coming phase.

In his 2014 speech, Assad had slammed the so-called Arab Spring revolts, saying the Syrian people’s perseverance was the death knell of the uprisings.

Russian leadership
In 2014, Assad was declared victor with 88.7 percent of the vote. He received at the time cables of congratulations from the leaders of Armenia, Afghanistan, Belarus, Venezuela, South Africa and Iran and the BRICs Group (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).

Russia did not lead the congratulations, but it did after this year’s polls.

President Vladimir Putin’s cable to Assad carried clear signs of defiance to the West, which has refused to acknowledge the “farce” elections.

“The results of the vote categorically confirm your high political reputation and trust your people have in the approach your leadership has adopted to stabilize Syria,” Putin said in his cable.

The Kremlin said that the Putin stressed that he will continue to provide all forms of support to the Syrian partners in fighting terrorism and extremism and offering a comprehensive political process.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said the elections were a sovereign Syrian affair, slamming western criticism of the vote.

Soon after, cables of congratulations poured in from countries allied to Russia and opposed to the United States.

China’s Foreign Ministry expressed Beijing’s readiness to help Damascus defend Syria’s sovereignty and territorial unity. Belarus’ President Alexander Lukashenko voiced his country’s readiness to take part in Syria’s reconstruction. The leaders of Venezuela, North Korea and Abkhazia also extended their congratulations. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the Syrian people’s vote was as “an important step towards deciding Syria’s fate and prosperity.”

Arab signals
As in 2014, cables of congratulations were sent by the leaders of Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority and Algeria to Assad. Lebanese President Michel Aoun hoped Assad’s reelection will help stabilize Syria, restore unity among its people and pave the way for the return of refugees back to their homes.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas expressed his pride in the mutual ties of fraternity and respect between the Palestinian and Syrian people.

In 2014, head of the Lebanese Hezbollah party Hassan Nasrallah had declared that the “solution in Syria starts with Assad and ends with Assad.” In congratulating Assad on Friday, he issued a brief statement in which he hoped that “the coming years would be a major opportunity for Syria’s return to its natural and leading role in the Arab world and on the international scene.”

Significantly, this year’s elections were held at the Syrian consulates in the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. This stands in contrast to the 2014 Arab position. The elections at the time were only held in 39 countries, including nine Arab ones: Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, Sudan, Algeria and Mauritania.

In 2014, then Arab League chief Nabil al-Arabi said the elections were a “clear and flagrant violation” of Damascus’ vows before the UN. The polls were also met with Gulf criticism and the recognition of over a hundred countries, including Arab ones, of the opposition Syrian National Coalition as a representative of the Syrian people.

In sharp contrast today, no Arab country or official has come out to reject the results of the elections. This new position has emerged in wake of the “cautious normalization of relations” taking place between Arab countries and Damascus, and reports that Syria’s membership at the Arab League may be restored. It has been suspended since late 2011.

Qatar was the sole standout in declaring that it “had no reason to restore relations with the Syrian regime.”

Absent American leadership
In 2014, the West, lead by the United States, was clear in rejecting the elections. Indeed, the G7 said: “We denounce the 3 June sham presidential election: there is no future for Assad in Syria.”

With the 2021 polls, a statement by the foreign ministers of the US, Britain, France, Germany and Italy questioned the integrity of the elections. “We denounce the Assad regime’s decision to hold an election outside of the framework described in UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and we support the voices of all Syrians, including civil society organizations and the Syrian opposition, who have condemned the electoral process as illegitimate.

“As outlined in the resolution, free and fair elections should be convened under UN supervision to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability. For an election to be credible, all Syrians should be allowed to participate, including internally displaced Syrians, refugees, and members of the diaspora, in a safe and neutral environment.

“Without these elements, this fraudulent election does not represent any progress towards a political settlement,” they said.

The European Union went a step further in warning that the polls should not be a precursor to normalizing relations with Damascus. The day of the elections, the bloc extended sanctions against 353 Syrian figures and entities for another year. EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell stressed that the bloc does not recognize the results of the polls, a stance echoed by Ankara.

Western officials reiterated their conditions for normalizing relations and contributing in Syria’s reconstruction.

In Washington, officials underlined the Caesar Act against Syria and the sanctions that would be imposed against any party that helps in the country’s reconstruction.

“We have absolutely no intention to normalize our own relations with the Assad regime. And we would certainly, I think, call on all other governments that are thinking of doing so to think very carefully about how the Syrian president has treated his own people,” a senior US official said on Wednesday.

“You know, it’s very difficult to imagine normalizing diplomatic relations with a regime that’s been so brutal to its own people,” the official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said.

Seven years ago, then UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon rejected the Syrian elections and their impact on the political process. Now, UN chief Antonio Guterres has yet to make a statement about the elections. UN envoy to Syria Geir Pedersen has also shied away from commenting on the polls, sufficing by recalling the standards that should be followed in any elections to be considered credible.



Ceasefire Ends Iran-Israel War, Stakeholders Weigh Costs and Benefits

US President Donald Trump (Reuters)
US President Donald Trump (Reuters)
TT
20

Ceasefire Ends Iran-Israel War, Stakeholders Weigh Costs and Benefits

US President Donald Trump (Reuters)
US President Donald Trump (Reuters)

In a stunning development, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire that effectively ended the conflict between Iran and Israel.

The announcement came shortly after a carefully calibrated Iranian retaliation targeted a US military base in Qatar, an attack that caused no casualties or material damage.

Trump expressed gratitude to Iran for pre-warning Washington about the strike, framing the gesture as a face-saving move.

The question now gripping regional and international capitals is: What have the United States, Iran, and Israel each gained if the ceasefire holds?

United States

The United States has once again asserted itself as the dominant and decisive power in the Middle East. It delivered a crippling blow to Iran’s nuclear facilities without escalating into full-scale war, thereby undermining the very justification for Israel’s initial strike on Tehran.

Recent events have underscored that Israel cannot engage Iran militarily without close coordination with Washington, nor can it exit such a conflict without a pivotal American role.

The confrontation has also highlighted the unparalleled strength of the US military machine, unmatched by any other power, large or small.

Iran, for its part, clearly showed reluctance to escalate the conflict in a way that could trigger direct, open confrontation with the United States.

Trump himself demonstrated tactical skill by combining military pressure with diplomatic overtures, swiftly moving to invite Iran back to the negotiating table.

Meanwhile, the limited role of Europe and the modest involvement of Russia became apparent, unless aligned with US efforts. China appeared “distant but pragmatic,” despite its broad interests in Iran and a vested concern in keeping the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz open.

Iran

Iran demonstrated that the devastating initial strike it suffered from Israel did not undermine its military or political resolve despite the severity of the attack.

The Tehran regime confirmed that, although Israeli fighter jets controlled Iranian airspace briefly, its missile arsenal remained capable of unleashing scenes of destruction across Israeli cities unseen since the founding of the Jewish state. Iran’s missile forces, it showed, could sustain a costly war of attrition against Israel.

Tehran also succeeded in preventing calls for regime overthrow from becoming a shared objective in a US-Israeli war against it.

Yet, Iran appeared to lack a major ally comparable to the United States or even a lesser power, despite its “strategic” ties with Russia and China.

The confrontation revealed Tehran’s inability to fully leverage its proxy forces in Gaza and Lebanon following the fallout of the “Al-Aqsa flood” escalation.

The exchange of strikes further highlighted Israel’s clear technological superiority and the success of Israeli intelligence in penetrating deep inside Iran itself, raising alarming concerns in Tehran.

Israel

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can claim credit for persuading the Trump administration to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, particularly those beyond the reach of the Israeli military.

Israeli forces succeeded in gaining control over distant Iranian airspace within days, a feat Russia has not achieved after three years of war in Ukraine.

Israeli intelligence breakthroughs inside Iran played a crucial role in the conflict, culminating in Israel’s public release of videos it labeled “Mossad-Tehran branch” and drone bases.

Netanyahu can argue that he made a difficult decision to attack Iran and convinced the Israeli public that the fight was existential. He can also remind critics that he expelled Iran from Syria and curtailed Hezbollah’s ability to wage war on Israel.

He may also point to new regional power balances he has imposed - part of his broader ambition to reshape the Middle East - with Israel maintaining the region’s most powerful military force.

However, Netanyahu’s policies risk renewed clashes with many, especially as tensions over Gaza and the “two-state solution” resurface.

Observers say the gains made by the parties at the end of the Iran-Israel conflict remain fragile and could shift depending on how events unfold.

Any calm could enable Israeli opposition forces to reopen debates on Netanyahu’s “wars” and their costs. It might also prompt the Iranian public to question their leadership’s responsibility for the military setbacks and Iran’s regional and global standing.

For now, the spotlight remains firmly on the primary player: Trump.