Damascus ‘Thwarts’ Settlement as it Eyes Reconstruction

UN special envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen holds a press conference at the United Nations Offices in Geneva. (AFP)
UN special envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen holds a press conference at the United Nations Offices in Geneva. (AFP)
TT
20

Damascus ‘Thwarts’ Settlement as it Eyes Reconstruction

UN special envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen holds a press conference at the United Nations Offices in Geneva. (AFP)
UN special envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen holds a press conference at the United Nations Offices in Geneva. (AFP)

Damascus is set to host in the coming hours United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Martin Griffiths.

UN special envoy, Geir Pedersen, meanwhile, is being made to wait for an invitation to visit the Syrian capital as it mulls its priorities for the coming phase. Damascus will welcome international aid and push forward the implementation of the UN resolution on cross-border aid with its new phrasing. The resolution was extended in early July.

Damascus is setting its sights on the reconstruction and relief funds, while delaying negotiations over a political settlement and the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva related to the constitutional committee.

In July, the United States and Russia reached a “historic settlement” that was extension of the cross-border aid resolution. Washington was forced to make concessions over the duration of the resolution and the finer details an accept Moscow’s introduction of new phrasing to the resolution.

The resolution now speaks of “early recovery”. The resolution reads: “The Security Council welcomes all efforts and initiatives to broaden the humanitarian activities in Syria, including water, sanitation, health, education, and shelter early recovery projects, undertaken by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and other organizations, and calls upon other international humanitarian agencies and relevant parties to support them.”

“The Security Council requests the Secretary-General to brief the Council monthly and (…) to include in his reports overall trends in United Nations cross-line operations, in particular on the implementation of the above mentioned activities on improving all modalities of humanitarian deliveries inside Syria and early recovery projects, and detailed information on the humanitarian assistance delivered through United Nations humanitarian cross-border operations, including the distribution mechanism, the number of beneficiaries, operating partners, locations of aid deliveries at district-level and the volume and nature of items delivered.”

Griffiths’ meeting with Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal al-Miqdad in the coming hours will be an opportunity for Damascus to offer its interpretation of the resolution and its priorities in regards to “cross-line” operations between the three zones of influence inside Syria and the contributions to the “early recovery projects” that take the country closer to reconstructions.

Damascus will likely also pressure Griffiths to take a clearer position on the “unilateral” western sanctions and Ankara’s closure of a water pumping station east of the Euphrates River.

Damascus’ stances are pushing it closer from those of Moscow and Tehran that stand in contrast to Washington and the West that are prioritizing cross-border aid. The US and western countries view the aid as a matter of life or death and have accused Damascus of obstructing deliveries of aid to northeastern regions that are held by Washington’s allies.

Furthermore, western countries refuse to take part in any reconstruction project in Syria before making sure that irreversible progress is achieved in the political process. This position implicitly agrees that sanctions, isolation and pledges to contribute in reconstruction are “means to pressure” Damascus to make internal and geopolitical concessions.

The clash in positions between Damascus and the West over aid will not extend to the political arena as the government continues to refuse to welcome Pedersen despite Russia’s intervention to facilitate such a visit.

Damascus is “angry” with the envoy for helping mediate a meeting between Daraa representatives and his issuing of a statement expressing his concern over the deteriorating situation there. It is also upset with the way negotiations have been held with the head of the government delegation to the constitutional committee talks in Geneva. The negotiations have focused on the agreement on the working mechanism of the committee and working paper that the envoy had presented at the beginning of the year.

Pedersen, meanwhile, wants to head to Damascus to “negotiate” over the UN constitutional mechanism. In April, he had sent a document to government delegation head, Ahmed al-Kuzbari, and opposition “negotiations committee” delegation head, Hadi al-Bahra, tackling the steps to kick off the committee’s work in drafting the constitution. Bahra agreed to the document despite his reservations, while Kuzbari had instead proposed discussing the constitution rather than draft it.

President Bashar Assad had made his position clear over the drafting of the constitution during his swearing in ceremony in July. He said: “You have proven once again the unity of the battle of the constitution and nation. You have proven that the constitution is a priority that is not open to debate or compromise.”

He said that efforts to draft the new constitution aim to put the country “at the mercy of foreign forces”, citing “Turkish agents” at the committee talks – a reference to the opposition negotiations committee delegation.

Moscow will be pleased with Damascus’ presentation to Griffiths of its interpretation of the aid resolution extension.

Sights are now set on Moscow to act to persuade Damascus to welcome Pedersen, who had recently met with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Russia. Perhaps he would meet with Miqdad on the sidelines on the UN General Assembly in New York in September.



Report: Trump Opposed Planned Israeli Strike on Iranian Nuclear Sites

In this photo provided by the Israeli army, armed Israeli Air Force planes depart from an unknown location to attack Iran on Oct. 26, 2024. (Israeli Army via AP, File)
In this photo provided by the Israeli army, armed Israeli Air Force planes depart from an unknown location to attack Iran on Oct. 26, 2024. (Israeli Army via AP, File)
TT
20

Report: Trump Opposed Planned Israeli Strike on Iranian Nuclear Sites

In this photo provided by the Israeli army, armed Israeli Air Force planes depart from an unknown location to attack Iran on Oct. 26, 2024. (Israeli Army via AP, File)
In this photo provided by the Israeli army, armed Israeli Air Force planes depart from an unknown location to attack Iran on Oct. 26, 2024. (Israeli Army via AP, File)

Israel had planned to strike Iranian nuclear sites as soon as next month but was waved off by President Trump in recent weeks in favor of negotiating a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program, according to administration officials and others briefed on the discussions, reported the New York Times.

Trump made his decision after months of internal debate over whether to pursue diplomacy or support Israel in seeking to set back Iran’s ability to build a bomb, at a time when Iran has been weakened militarily and economically.

The debate highlighted fault lines between historically hawkish American cabinet officials and other aides more skeptical that a military assault on Iran could destroy the country’s nuclear ambitions and avoid a larger war. It resulted in a rough consensus, for now, against military action, with Iran signaling a willingness to negotiate.

Israeli officials had recently developed plans to attack Iranian nuclear sites in May. They were prepared to carry them out, and at times were optimistic that the United States would sign off. The goal of the proposals, according to officials briefed on them, was to set back Tehran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon by a year or more.

Almost all of the plans would have required US help not just to defend Israel from Iranian retaliation, but also to ensure that an Israeli attack was successful, making the United States a central part of the attack itself.

For now, Trump has chosen diplomacy over military action. In his first term, he tore up the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration. But in his second term, eager to avoid being sucked into another war in the Middle East, he has opened negotiations with Tehran, giving it a deadline of just a few months to negotiate a deal over its nuclear program.

Earlier this month, Trump informed Israel of his decision that the United States would not support an attack. He discussed it with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when Netanyahu visited Washington last week, using an Oval Office meeting to announce that the United States was beginning talks with Iran.

In a statement delivered in Hebrew after the meeting, Netanyahu said that an agreement with Iran would only work if it allowed the signatories to “go in, blow up the facilities, dismantle all the equipment, under American supervision with American execution.”

The New York Times based its report on conversations with multiple officials briefed on Israel’s secret miliary plans and confidential discussions inside the Trump administration. Most of the people interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss military planning.

Israel has long planned to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, rehearsing bombing runs and calculating how much damage it could do with or without American help.

But support within the Israeli government for a strike grew after Iran suffered a string of setbacks last year.

In attacks on Israel in April, most of Iran’s ballistic missiles were unable to penetrate American and Israeli defenses. Hezbollah, Iran’s key ally, was decimated by an Israeli military campaign last year. The subsequent fall of the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria eliminated a Hezbollah and Tehran ally and cut off a prime route of weapons smuggling from Iran.

Air defense systems in Iran and Syria were also destroyed, along with the facilities that Iran uses to make missile fuel, crippling the country’s ability to produce new missiles for some time.

Initially, at the behest of Netanyahu, senior Israeli officials updated their American counterparts on a plan that would have combined an Israeli commando raid on underground nuclear sites with a bombing campaign, an effort that the Israelis hoped would involve American aircraft, reported the New York Times.

But Israeli military officials said the commando operation would not be ready until October. Netanyahu wanted it carried out more quickly. Israeli officials began shifting to a proposal for an extended bombing campaign that would have also required American assistance, according to officials briefed on the plan.

Some American officials were at least initially more open to considering the Israeli plans. Gen. Michael E. Kurilla, the head of US Central Command, and Michael Waltz, the national security adviser, both discussed how the United States could potentially support an Israeli attack, if Trump backed the plan, according to officials briefed on the discussions.

With the United States intensifying its war against the Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen, Kurilla, with the blessing of the White House, began moving military equipment to the Middle East. A second aircraft carrier, Carl Vinson, is now in the Middle East, joining the carrier Harry S. Truman in the Red Sea.

The United States also moved two Patriot missile batteries and a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, known as a THAAD, to the Middle East.

Around a half-dozen B-2 bombers capable of carrying 30,000-pound bombs essential to destroying Iran’s underground nuclear program were dispatched to Diego Garcia, an island base in the Indian Ocean.

Even if the United States decided not to authorize the aircraft to take part in a strike on Iran, Israel would know that the American fighters were available to defend against attacks by an Iranian ally.