Extension, Expansion of Cross-Border Aid Delivery Tops Washington’s ‘3’ Goals in Syria

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken at a presser in Rome (Reuters)
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken at a presser in Rome (Reuters)
TT
20

Extension, Expansion of Cross-Border Aid Delivery Tops Washington’s ‘3’ Goals in Syria

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken at a presser in Rome (Reuters)
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken at a presser in Rome (Reuters)

At a closed session in Rome, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken defined three main goals Washington has for Syria. The most urgent of which is convincing Russia to allow an “extension” and “expansion” on the UN resolution for cross-border humanitarian relief in the war-torn country.

Dovetailing with the Biden administration’s plan, Moscow and Washington decided on holding a private meeting to bring together high-ranking officials from both sides in Geneva next week.

The meeting will likely include the Russian Special Presidential Envoy on Syrian Reconciliation Alexander Lavrentiev and US National Security Council Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa Brett McGurk.

Blinken’s attendance in Rome represents the first high-profile political step taken by Biden’s team since he took office, Western officials who attended the Rome meeting told Asharq Al-Awsat.

They noted the importance of the Rome meeting since the 2015 “Vienna peace talks for Syria,” which saw the participation of over 20 countries, including Russia and Iran, have nearly faded away.

For Washington, the Rome conference presented a unique opportunity to restore its leadership role by coordinating with allies and expanding the “mini-group” that included seven major and Arab countries.

It also restored consultation channels with Qatar and Turkey, which had sided with Russia in the “Astana Talks” or the “Doha Platform,” and bridging gaps with two influential blocs in the Syrian matter, the Arab League and the European Union (EU).

“URGENT RELIEF”

According to available information, Blinken filled in participating ministers in Rome about Washington’s three primary goals in Syria today:

The first goal, which is “urgent,” concerns an appeal for extending and expanding the scope of an international resolution for cross-border humanitarian delivery in Syria. During a meeting with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Geneva on May 16, US President Joe Biden had raised the issue of extending the special international resolution, whose period of operation is set to expire on July 10.

Indeed, the Biden administration’s opinion on the matter was made clear. It set the premise that the Russian position on this issue will be decisive and affect Washington’s positions in the next stage.

“The US message is: If Russia responds to Washington’s desire, bilateral dialogue on Syria can be resumed and expanded, and other positive measures can be taken,” a western diplomat told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“But if Moscow votes against reauthorizing and expanding the resolution (from one to three crossings), a stalemate on the Syrian issis fated, especially amid calls in Washington to escalate pressure and resume the imposition of sanctions,” the diplomat explained.

The US-Russian dialogue in Geneva is slated for a few days later and will be the first of its kind under the Biden administration.

It is noteworthy that the last meeting a Russian official held with a US counterpart on Syria was with former US envoy James Jeffrey in Vienna last July. Infected with the coronavirus, Jeffery was unable to attend the subsequent US-Russian meeting in Geneva last August.

The impromptu US-Russia track and consultations on Syria were launched by McGurk and the Kremlin’s Sergei Vershinin.

“I think that we see here an opportunity to work constructively with Russia on this issue of getting humanitarian assistance to Syrians all across the country, especially now that we have the Covid-19 pandemic to deal with and there has been virtually no assistance to battle Covid-19 that’s gotten into the northeast in particular,” said the Acting Assistant Secretary Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs Joey Hood.

“So, it’s a growing humanitarian problem and one that I don’t think anyone wants to see exacerbated,” added Hood.

Meanwhile, in Rome, Biden reaffirmed that the matter is of utmost significance to Washington.

“ISIS & TRUCE”

Washington’s second goal in Syria is to focus on eliminating ISIS, the only reason it is present east of Syria’s Euphrates Region.

“Together, we must stay as committed to our stabilization goals (in the east of the Euphrates Region) as we did to our military campaign that resulted in victory on the battlefield,” Blinken told reporters.

He pointed out the pressing need to resolve the issue of tens of thousands of ISIS captives in prisons operated by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

“This situation is simply untenable. It just can’t persist indefinitely. The US continues to urge countries of origin, including coalition partners, to repatriate, rehabilitate, and, where applicable, prosecute their citizens,” said Blinken.

Similarly, a joint communique by the ministerial meeting of the Global Coalition against ISIS said reaffirmed that “the Coalition stands with the Syrian people in support of a lasting political settlement in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254.”

“The Coalition must continue to be vigilant against the threat of terrorism, in all its forms and manifestations, to build on the success it has achieved and continue to act together against any threats to this outcome and to avoid security vacuums that ISIS may exploit,” the joint statement added.

As for Washington’s third goal, it is related to the necessity of “continuing the implementation of the ceasefire in Syria” despite Blinken having recognized that the armistice on the ground did not prevent human rights violations, stop arrests or end the displacement of refugees.

“FUTURE GOALS”

On top of these core goals, which no longer include broader objectives such as “taking out Iran,” as was the case during the Trump administration, Blinken set a long-term goal, which is reaching a “political settlement” as the only way for reconciliation, peace and the reconstruction of Syria.

At this point, it must be noted that an expanded paragraph was added to the final statement of the Rome meeting. In it, ministers recalled the importance of a political solution to the Syria crisis in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. They expressed strong support for UN Special Envoy Geir Pedersen.

Participants also strongly insisted on the need to renew and expand the UN Security Council’s authorization for cross border deliveries to Syria as an essential humanitarian lifeline for millions of Syrians, as well as continuing support for a nationwide ceasefire, fighting all forms of terrorism, and backing the work of the Constitutional Committee.

“We welcomed UN Special Envoy Geir Pedersen’s briefing and reaffirmed strong support for UN-led efforts to implement all aspects of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, including continued support for an immediate nationwide ceasefire, the unimpeded and safe delivery of aid, and the Constitutional Committee, as well as fighting against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations,” said the statement.

“Reaffirming the unity and territorial integrity of Syria, we remain committed to continue working actively to reach a credible, sustainable, and inclusive political solution based on Resolution 2254. This is the only solution that will bring an end to Syria’s decade-long conflict and guarantee the security of the Syrian people and fulfill their aspirations.” It added.

Arab ministers who partook in the Rome meeting found consensus on supporting a political settlement according to the parameters of Resolution 2254 and other relevant resolutions.

However, they warned that the absence of an effective international will to resolve the crisis had allowed some parties to implement expansionist, sectarian, and demographic change projects to change Syria’s identity.

This, according to the Arab ministers, protracted the Syrian crisis and its regional and international effects.

Arab ministers also reviewed the need to achieve stability and combat terrorism in southern Syria and the importance of removing Iran-affiliated militias affiliated there.

They highlighted the need to restore the role played by Arab countries in Syria. Still, They reminded that the consensus needed for Damascus returning to its seat at the Arab League does not currently exist.

Moreover, Washington’s “Caesar Act” limits the possibilities of Arab states contributing to reconstruction in Syria. Any help needs to remain limited to humanitarian and medical affairs.

For now, the US position is to hold out on Pedersen’s “step for step” proposal, which stipulates forming an international-regional contact group for Syria. It is also centered around urging Arab countries to wait on the “normalization of ties” with Damascus by reminding them of the imposed sanctions and the need for accountability.

Any move by Washington will be pending the results of the US-Russia meeting in Geneva, the outcomes of the “Astana Talks” slotted for July 7, and the UN Security Council’s vote on cross-border aid delivery before July 10.



Israel Wary of Egypt's 'Military Infrastructure' in Sinai: Peace Treaty at Risk?

Egyptian army chief Ahmed Khalifa inspects troops near Israel's border late last year. (Military spokesman)
Egyptian army chief Ahmed Khalifa inspects troops near Israel's border late last year. (Military spokesman)
TT
20

Israel Wary of Egypt's 'Military Infrastructure' in Sinai: Peace Treaty at Risk?

Egyptian army chief Ahmed Khalifa inspects troops near Israel's border late last year. (Military spokesman)
Egyptian army chief Ahmed Khalifa inspects troops near Israel's border late last year. (Military spokesman)

Israel has voiced growing concerns over Egypt’s military presence in the Sinai Peninsula, fearing a potential escalation between the two sides amid the ongoing Gaza war.

Israeli media reports said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has asked both Washington and Cairo to dismantle what it describes as a “military infrastructure” established by the Egyptian army in Sinai.

However, an informed Egyptian source and experts cited by Asharq Al-Awsat insisted that Egypt has not violated its peace treaty with Israel. They argued that Cairo’s military movements are a response to Israeli breaches of the agreement.

Israel’s Israel Hayom newspaper, citing a senior Israeli security official, reported that Egypt’s military buildup in Sinai constitutes a “major violation” of the security annex of the peace treaty.

The official said the issue is a top priority for Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, stressing that Israel “will not accept this situation” amid what it views as Egypt’s growing military footprint in the peninsula.

The official added that the issue goes beyond the deployment of Egyptian forces in Sinai exceeding the quotas set under the military annex of the Camp David Accords.

The real concern, he said, lies in Egypt’s continued military buildup in the peninsula, which Israel views as an irreversible step.

Moreover, he stressed that while Israel is not seeking to amend its peace treaty with Egypt or redeploy troops along the border, it believes the current situation requires urgent action to prevent a potential escalation.

Egypt-Israel relations have not seen such tensions since the outbreak of the Gaza war, particularly after Israel violated a ceasefire agreement with Hamas brokered primarily by Egypt. Israeli forces resumed airstrikes on Gaza last month and failed to fulfill their commitments to withdraw from the Philadelphi Corridor and Palestinian border crossings.

A senior Egyptian source dismissed Israel’s accusations, telling Asharq Al-Awsat that “these repeated Israeli pretexts ignore the fact that Israeli forces have violated the peace treaty, seizing control of areas where Egypt objects to their presence without the necessary coordination with Cairo.”

Egypt has the right to take all necessary measures to safeguard its national security against any threats, emphasized the source.

“Nevertheless, Cairo remains fully committed to the peace treaty and has no intention of aggression against any party,” it added.

Israeli forces seized control of the Gaza-Egypt border, including the Philadelphi Corridor and the Rafah crossing, in May 2024. Israel has accused Egypt of not doing enough to stop weapons smuggling into Gaza through border tunnels—an allegation Cairo has denied.

Under the terms of the ceasefire agreement with Hamas, which Israel later broke, Israeli forces were supposed to begin withdrawing from the Philadelphi Corridor on March 1, completing the pullout within eight days. However, Israel failed to do so and instead resumed airstrikes on Gaza.

Israel also announced the creation of an administration aimed at facilitating the “voluntary departure” of Gaza residents, a move Cairo strongly rejected and formally condemned.

Egypt has insisted that Palestinians must remain in their homeland and has put forward a reconstruction plan for Gaza and called for the implementation of the two-state solution. The plan was endorsed at an emergency Arab summit three weeks ago.

Media reports have indicated that Egypt responded to Israel’s control of the Gaza border by increasing its military presence near the frontier—an act that some Israeli officials claim violates the peace treaty and threatens Israel’s security.

Former Egyptian intelligence official Gen. Mohammed Rashad told Asharq Al-Awsat that Israel itself violated the peace treaty by seizing the Philadelphi Corridor, controlling border crossings, and blocking aid to Gaza while seeking to forcibly displace Palestinians into Egypt.

“Every Israeli action along Gaza’s border with Egypt constitutes hostile behavior against Egypt’s national security,” said Rashad, who previously headed the Israeli military affairs division in Egypt’s intelligence service.

“Egypt cannot sit idly by in the face of such threats and must prepare for all possible scenarios.”

The Philadelphi Corridor is a strategically sensitive buffer zone, serving as a narrow 14-kilometer passage between Egypt, Israel, and Gaza, stretching from the Mediterranean Sea in the north to the Kerem Shalom crossing in the south.

Military expert General Samir Farag insisted that Egypt has not violated the peace treaty or its security annex in over 40 years, arguing that Israel has repeatedly breached the agreement and is attempting to shift blame onto Cairo.

“Israel is doing this to distract from its internal problems, including public discontent over its ballooning defense budget,” Farag told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“It also wants to deflect attention from Egypt’s reconstruction plan for Gaza and leverage its claims to pressure the United States for more military aid by portraying Egypt as a threat.”

Farag emphasized that Egypt’s actions are solely aimed at protecting its national security, adding: “There is no clause in the peace treaty that prevents a country from defending itself.”

“The so-called ‘military infrastructure’ Israel refers to consists of roads and development projects in Sinai.”

“The US has satellite surveillance over the region—if Egypt had violated the treaty, Washington would have flagged it. Moreover, security coordination between Egypt and Israel continues daily,” he explained.

Egypt and Israel signed their landmark peace treaty on March 25, 1979, committing to resolving disputes peacefully and prohibiting the use or threat of force. The agreement also established military deployment guidelines and a joint security coordination committee.

Meanwhile, US Republican Party member Tom Harb told Asharq Al-Awsat that Washington has received intelligence from multiple sources indicating that Egypt has amassed a significant military force in Sinai.

Israel considers this a breach of the peace treaty, which designates Sinai as a demilitarized zone to prevent surprises like the 1973 war, Harb said.

While the US fully supports Israel’s concerns, it also wants to prevent further escalation, as that would destabilize the region, he added.

Ultimately, Egypt must clarify whether its troop movements are aimed at threatening Israel or preventing Palestinians from crossing into Egyptian territory, he stated.