Secret Document for Normalization of Ties with Damascus Includes Exit of Foreign Forces

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad receives UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed in Damascus (EPA)
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad receives UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed in Damascus (EPA)
TT

Secret Document for Normalization of Ties with Damascus Includes Exit of Foreign Forces

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad receives UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed in Damascus (EPA)
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad receives UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed in Damascus (EPA)

Jordan’s document and its confidential addendum for normalizing ties with Damascus display that the final goal for Arab countries restoring their relationship with the Syrian capital is that foreign forces and fighters exit Syria.

According to the document, which Asharq Al-Awsat reviewed, US and International Coalition forces in northeastern Syria and Al-Tanf military base near borders with Jordan and Iraq would also need to withdraw from the war-torn country.

However, the rolling back of forces will take place according to a “step-by-step” approach that works to “curb Iranian influence in certain parts of Syria and recognizes the legitimate interests of Russia.”

The Jordan-sponsored document, which does not include a timetable, underpins the steps taken by Arab countries towards Damascus.

It covers Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal Miqdad’s meetings with nine Arab ministers in New York, official Jordanian-Syrian visits, contacts between Arab leaders and President Bashar al-Assad, and Assad’s meeting with UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed in Damascus on Tuesday.

Jordan had prepared this plan months ago, and Jordan’s King Abdullah II discussed it with US President Joe Biden, Russian Vladimir Putin, and with Arab and foreign leaders.

The six-page document included a revision of the last decade and the policy of “regime change” in Syria.

It later proposes “a gradual change in the behavior of the Syrian regime” after noting that “regime change” policies had failed in Syria.

In an interview with CNN, Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman al-Safadi stated that coexistence with the current situation in Syria is not a good option.

A political solution in accordance with international law is still needed in Syria, and Jordan is in talks with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for “failing to see an effective strategy for resolving the Syrian conflict,” al-Safadi told CNN.

“11 years have passed since the crisis and no results have been achieved,” added the minister, highlighting that Jordan had suffered gravely because of the Syrian civil war.

Besides drugs and terrorism crossing borders, al-Safadi noted that Jordan is hosting 1.3 million Syrian refugees without global support.

“We have talked with the US about the efforts made to get closer to Syria,” affirmed al-Safadi.

Matching al-Safadi’s statements, the Director of Jordanian General Intelligence, Major General Ahmed Hosni Hatouqi, announced that Jordan was dealing with the Syrian file as a “fait accompli.”

Above all, the document comes to reflect al-Safadi’s statements.

“After 10 years passing since the outbreak of the Syrian crisis, there are no real prospects for its resolution,” reads the document.

While it adds that there is “no comprehensive strategy for a clear political solution in Syria,” the document points out that “narrow approaches” cannot resolve different aspects of the crisis.

“Everyone agrees that there is no military end to the current crisis. Changing the ruling Syrian regime is not an effective goal in and of itself. The stated goal is to find a political solution based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254.”

“However, there is no significant progress on this path. The current situation results in more suffering for the Syrian people and strengthens the positions of the opponents. The current approach to dealing with the crisis has proven a costly failure.”

Syrians
According to the latest UN data, some 6.7 million Syrians have fled their homes with 6.6 million internally being displaced. At least 13 million Syrians need humanitarian assistance.
While six million Syrian citizens are in extreme need, 12.4 million are suffering from food insecurity, and more than 80% of Syrians are living below the poverty line.
As it stands, 2.5 million children have been cast outside the education system in Syria, in addition to 1.6 million children that are at risk of dropping out of school.

Terrorism
The terrorist organization ISIS has been defeated but not completely eradicated. Its members are trying to rearrange their ranks and are re-emerging in parts of the country from which ISIS has been expelled, such as southwest Syria.
ISIS elements are also working to consolidate their presence in other regions such as southeast Syria. Other terrorist organizations continue to operate in different parts of Syria, taking advantage of safe havens in the country’s northeast.

Iran
Iran continues to impose its economic and military influence on the Syrian regime, and on several vital parts of Syria.
Besides exploiting the suffering of the people to recruit militias, Iranian proxies are growing in strength in key areas, especially south of the country. Moreover, smuggling drugs is generating significant income for these groups and poses a growing threat to the region and beyond.

Refugees
None of the refugees – except a select few - are returning to Syria due to the lack of improvement in the security, economic and political conditions in the country. International funding for refugees, as well as host communities, is diminishing, threatening the infrastructure supporting refugees.

What Should be Done?
The document proposes a new approach that could refocus attention on the political solution in Syria and address the humanitarian crisis and its security impact on the country and the region.

The approach would adopt a series of accumulative steps that would focus on “combating terrorism and containing Iran’s growing influence,” and halt further deterioration that is detrimentalto to our collective interests.

In return, Damascus would be offered incentives that would reflect positively on the Syrian people and allow the return of refugees and the displaced.
According to the document, five steps are required to move forward:
Developing a phased approach to a political solution based on UNSC Resolution 2254
Gathering needed support from like-minded regional and international partners
Seeking to agree on this approach with Russia
Deciding on a mechanism to engage the Syrian regime

Implementation

Ultimately, the document tables a “step-by-step approach for all partners and allies to encourage positive behavior and leverage collective influence.”

This approach provides incentives to the Syrian regime in exchange for it taking desired measures and implementing required political changes that will directly impact the Syrian people.

The initial focus will be on humanitarian issues with gradual progress towards political matters.

The culmination of the process will lead to the full implementation of Security Council Resolution 2254.



Lebanese Army Chief Faces Labeling Dispute During Washington Visit

Lebanese Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal during his visit to Washington (Lebanese Army Command)
Lebanese Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal during his visit to Washington (Lebanese Army Command)
TT

Lebanese Army Chief Faces Labeling Dispute During Washington Visit

Lebanese Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal during his visit to Washington (Lebanese Army Command)
Lebanese Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal during his visit to Washington (Lebanese Army Command)

What was meant to be a routine visit by Lebanese Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal to Washington to discuss military support and aid coordination turned into a political flashpoint, after a brief meeting with US Senator Lindsey Graham ignited a dispute over whether the army chief would describe Hezbollah as a “terrorist organization.”

The controversy was sparked by a brief meeting with hardline Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who publicly said he cut the meeting short after Haykal declined to use the designation in what he called the “context of Lebanon.”

What happened in the Graham meeting

In a post on X, Graham said: “I just had a very brief meeting with the Lebanese Chief of Defense General Rodolphe Haykal. I asked him point blank if he believes Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. He said, “No, not in the context of Lebanon.” With that, I ended the meeting.”

“They are clearly a terrorist organization. Hezbollah has American blood on its hands. Just ask the US Marines,” he added.

“They have been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by both Republican and Democrat administrations since 1997 – for good reason.”

“As long as this attitude exists from the Lebanese Armed Forces, I don’t think we have a reliable partner in them.”

“I am tired of the double speak in the Middle East. Too much is at stake,” Graham concluded.

The reaction went beyond expressions of displeasure. Some US coverage suggested Graham effectively raised questions about the “usefulness” of continuing support for the Lebanese army if such a gap persists between the US position and Lebanon’s official language.

Haykal’s answer raises its cost in Washington

Inside Lebanon, the issue is not limited to the stance on Hezbollah. Still, it extends to the army’s role as a unifying institution in a country whose political balance rests on sectarian arrangements and deep sensitivities.

Adopting an external designation, even a US one, in official language by the head of the military could be interpreted domestically as a move that risks triggering political and sectarian division or drawing the army into confrontation with a component that has organized political and popular representation.

That explains why Lebanese voices, including some critics of Hezbollah, defended the logic that “the state does not adopt this classification.” Therefore, the army commander cannot formally do so.

In other words, Haykal sought to avoid two conflicting languages: Washington’s legal and political framing of Hezbollah, and the Lebanese state’s language, which walks a fine line between the demand for exclusive state control over arms and the avoidance of reproducing internal fractures.

US State Department position

Amid the controversy surrounding the Graham meeting, an official US position emerged on Tuesday through the US Embassy in Beirut, welcoming the visit and focusing on the core US message.

The statement said that “the Lebanese Armed Forces’ ongoing work to disarm non-state actors and reinforce national sovereignty as Lebanon’s security guarantor is more important than ever.”

The wording was notable because it separated two levels: continued US reliance on the army as a state institution, and, in practice, linking that reliance to the issue of disarming non-state actors.

The phrase avoids direct naming but, in the Lebanese context, is widely understood to refer primarily to Hezbollah.

The visit’s broader track

Despite the political awkwardness, Haykal’s visit was not reduced to a single meeting. He held senior-level military talks, including meetings with US Central Command chief Admiral Brad Cooper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine.

According to a statement from a Joint Chiefs spokesperson, the meeting “reaffirmed the importance of enduring US defense relationships in the Middle East.”

The visit coincided with broader discussions in Washington on support for the Lebanese army and plans to extend state authority, as international reports spoke of Lebanon entering new phases of a plan to dismantle illegal weapons structures in the south and north.

The army commander’s visit had initially been delayed for reasons that add another layer to understanding Washington’s sensitivity to the military’s language.

In November 2025, sources quoted the US State Department as saying Washington canceled scheduled meetings with the Lebanese army commander after objecting to an army statement on border tensions with Israel, prompting the visit to be postponed to avoid a pre-emptive political failure.


Egypt Steps Up Efforts to Support Gaza Administration Committee After Entry Stalled

Displaced Palestinians inspect the damage after Israeli aircraft targeted a five floor house last night, in Khan Younis southern Gaza Strip on February 6, 2026. (AFP)
Displaced Palestinians inspect the damage after Israeli aircraft targeted a five floor house last night, in Khan Younis southern Gaza Strip on February 6, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Egypt Steps Up Efforts to Support Gaza Administration Committee After Entry Stalled

Displaced Palestinians inspect the damage after Israeli aircraft targeted a five floor house last night, in Khan Younis southern Gaza Strip on February 6, 2026. (AFP)
Displaced Palestinians inspect the damage after Israeli aircraft targeted a five floor house last night, in Khan Younis southern Gaza Strip on February 6, 2026. (AFP)

Egypt is intensifying efforts to back the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, hoping it can begin operating inside the enclave to implement commitments under the second phase of the ceasefire agreement, which started about two weeks ago but has yet to take shape on the ground.

Experts told Asharq Al-Awsat that those Egyptian efforts, through phone calls and meetings with international partners, are focused on two main objectives: pushing for the deployment of police forces and an international stabilization force on the one hand, and securing a gradual Israeli withdrawal on the other, increasing pressure on Israel to move the agreement forward.

A member of the administration committee said in a brief phone statement to Asharq Al-Awsat, speaking on condition of anonymity, that there is still no specific date for entering the enclave.

In the Slovenian capital, Ljubljana, Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty stressed Cairo’s full support for the work of the committee headed by Dr. Ali Shaath.

He made the remarks during a dialogue session of the Arab-Islamic committee on Gaza with Slovenian Foreign Minister Tanja Fajon.

The foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Bahrain attended the meeting. Abdelatty stressed the importance of the committee’s role in managing the daily affairs of Gaza’s residents and meeting their basic needs during the transitional phase.

He underscored the need to ensure the continued flow of humanitarian and relief aid into the enclave, as well as the formation and deployment of an international stabilization force to monitor the ceasefire.

Abdelatty reiterated his stance during a phone call on Friday with British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper.

The Gaza committee, established under the ceasefire agreement, operates under the supervision of the Board of Peace, chaired by US President Donald Trump. The committee has been holding meetings in Cairo since it was announced last month and has yet to enter Gaza.

Ahmed Fouad Anwar, a member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs and an academic specializing in Israeli affairs, said Egypt is making significant efforts to facilitate the committee’s mission as quickly as possible and enable it to operate.

He said this would limit Israeli obstacles, increase pressure on Israel, and place it under the obligations set out in the plan, particularly withdrawal from Gaza. This would counter intense pressure from Tel Aviv to accelerate the disarmament of Hamas without implementing its Gaza agreement commitments.

Palestinian political analyst Abdel Mahdi Motawea said Israel objected not only to the committee’s work but even to its emblem.

He noted, however, that Israel is not the only party hindering the committee. Hamas and other factions want to impose conditions on the committee’s work.

He warned of serious concerns that the committee could be marginalized, stressing that Egypt’s extensive efforts to support it are crucial at this critical stage of the Gaza agreement.

Hamas announced days ago that it was ready to hand over management of the enclave to the committee, while Israel continues to obstruct it.

Anwar expects the committee to begin operating in the enclave soon if Egypt’s efforts and those of international partners succeed and Washington responds positively.

He warned that the committee's failure would threaten the ceasefire agreement.


Gaza Deal Mediators Have Few Options on Hamas Disarmament

Hamas fighters in Gaza City. (AFP)
Hamas fighters in Gaza City. (AFP)
TT

Gaza Deal Mediators Have Few Options on Hamas Disarmament

Hamas fighters in Gaza City. (AFP)
Hamas fighters in Gaza City. (AFP)

Israel’s demand for the disarmament of Hamas has become the top priority since the second phase of the Gaza agreement began 10 days ago.

It exposed deep uncertainty over how such a step could be enforced amid firm resistance from the movement, which says it will not relinquish its weapons unless progress is made toward establishing a Palestinian state.

Analysts speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat said the issue has left mediators with minimal options, ranging from complete disarmament to freezing weapons, either by persuading Hamas or applying pressure.

The demand has become a political pressure tool that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and others in Israel are likely to use increasingly in the run-up to elections, they added.

Israeli opposition figure Benny Gantz, who is preparing for elections, called on Thursday in a post on X for the “disarmament of Hamas.”

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said on Wednesday that Israel will dismantle Hamas if it does not agree to lay down its arms.

Netanyahu, following a meeting on Tuesday with US envoy Steve Witkoff, said he was insisting on the non-negotiable demand to disarm Hamas before any step toward rebuilding Gaza.

Military and strategic analyst Brig. Gen. Samir Ragheb said mediators have few options other than reaching understandings or exerting pressure, noting that the demand to disarm Hamas has been echoed by Israel, Washington, the EU, and donors, and has become an obstacle to ending the war and launching reconstruction.

He said Netanyahu and others would use the issue electorally and as a pretext to collapse the agreement at any time, adding that the second phase is filled with “landmines,” particularly those related to the Israeli withdrawal, which Netanyahu does not want to address.

Strategic and military expert Maj. Gen. Samir Farag said available options are now limited, suggesting that freezing weapons may be more likely than complete disarmament, mainly since Hamas’ arsenal does not consist of missiles or drones and could be handed over.

He said there is US and Israeli insistence on implementing the weapons clause, but that it must coincide with an Israeli withdrawal and guarantees to prevent a new war.

By contrast, sources in Hamas told Reuters on Wednesday that the group had agreed to discuss disarmament with other Palestinian factions, but that neither Washington nor regional mediators had presented it with any detailed or concrete proposal on disarmament.

Israel’s Channel 13 reported in late January that the US was preparing a document granting Hamas several weeks to hand over its weapons to multinational forces within a set timeframe. Failure to comply would give Israel the green light to “act as it sees fit,” the channel said.

Farag stressed that Hamas’ room for maneuver is extremely limited and that it must quickly reach understandings with mediators, particularly Egypt, Qatar, and Türkiye, to resolve what he described as the most significant obstacle currently being created by Israel.

Ragheb said Hamas has no option but to implement US President Donald Trump’s Gaza plan and the disarmament clause, warning against delaying or circumventing it, as “every day lost poses a threat to the ceasefire agreement.”

He added that police forces in the enclave would be deployed within days or weeks, along with a possible stabilization force, leaving little space for further maneuvering.