عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

Syrian War Brought Together Putin, Khamenei, Will 'Normalization' Pull them Apart?

Syrians wave the national, Iranian and Russian flags in Damascus in April 2019. (AP)
Syrians wave the national, Iranian and Russian flags in Damascus in April 2019. (AP)
TT
20
TT

Syrian War Brought Together Putin, Khamenei, Will 'Normalization' Pull them Apart?

Syrians wave the national, Iranian and Russian flags in Damascus in April 2019. (AP)
Syrians wave the national, Iranian and Russian flags in Damascus in April 2019. (AP)

One of the main drivers of the initiatives, raids and pressure on Syria is the Iranian presence there and questions about the future of its military entrenchment there.

Iran is largely present, both directly and indirectly, in the recent contacts and disclosed and undisclosed meetings that have been held with Damascus and Syrian president Bashar Assad.

Damascus and Tehran have formed a "strategic relationship" since Iran's 1979 revolution and it has developed even further in wake of the eruption of the conflict in Syria in 2011. Iran's intervention in the war has helped keep the regime alive before Russia's military intervention in 2015 swooped in to play the role of "savior and victor".

Iran has sought to entrench itself further in the Middle East through the Syrian "gate" in order to protect its "backyard" in Iraq, link Baghdad to Beirut through Damascus and establish an opening to the Mediterranean. It also sought to establish a foothold that would put Israel within the range of its weapons.

The United States sought to confront Iran's entrenchment by establishing its own military presence in northeastern Syria and in the al-Tanf military base, to block the Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus-Beirut route.

Iran responded to that move by opening an alternate land route between Tehran, Damascus and Beirut through the Alboukamal and Deir Ezzor regions in Syria.

Israel, meanwhile, set its own red lines against Iran's entrenchment and delivery of sophisticated and advanced weapons to its ally Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Turkey, which is also involved militarily in Syria, has sought to confront Iran's presence south of its border. It did so by coexisting with it in line with the 2017 Astana process that Moscow was also party to.

The Astana process, with Ankara, Tehran and Moscow, led to understandings between the parties over the division of influence in Syria against the other main foreign parties involved in Syria, namely the US and Israel.

Some Arab countries, meanwhile, had banked on Russia in reining in Iran's influence, while others had turned to Washington when Donald Trump was still in the White House. Western countries have in the meantime insisted that all foreign forces, except Russia's, withdraw from Syria as a condition to normalizing ties with Damascus or helping in reconstructing the war-torn country.

The calculations have all changed now give the changes in Syria and the region and the arrival of Joe Biden to the White House.

Biden has adopted a different approach than Trump and like Barack Obama, has pitted high hopes on the nuclear negotiations with Iran in Vienna. When Tehran tests the waters by attacking the al-Tanf base or stokes tensions in the Gulf waters, Washington weighs its response by assessing how much its retaliation may impact the negotiations.

As it stands, the room for confrontation is now limited between two options: the first is engaging Assad and ending Damascus' isolation with the hope of easing Iran's influence. The purpose would not be to immediately shift Syria from the "resistance alliance", led by Iran, to the "moderate camp". Rather, the aim is for Damascus to be open between the two camps because this is the realistic option and because some Arab countries have signed normalization deals with Israel and left the door open for dialogue with Iran.

Some Arab countries have indeed forged ahead with normalization based on this assumption, while others believe the conditions are not ripe yet. They are instead demanding that Damascus take "tangible steps" and begin reining in Iran in Syria and the region.

The second option lies in banking on the leadership of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his ability to rein in Iran. This option stems from the position that the war had brought together Putin and Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei in Syria, but peace and normalization will pull them apart. Iran wants to support the militias, establish a regime that is subordinate to it and divide Syria. Russia, on the other hand, wants to strengthen the Syrian army and preserve the unity of the state. In other words, it supports the "Russian Syria" against the "Iranian Syria".

Israel also figures in the picture. It wants to receive logistic and intelligence support from the US as it raids Iranian positions in Syria. It wants to sever the Tehran-Damascus-Beirut route. It is also hoping that its normalization of relations with Arab countries would open Damascus' eyes to other opportunities that would end its isolation. It is also relying on its military strikes on Syria and military understandings with Russia.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had struck a deep understanding with Putin that prioritizes Israel's security. This understanding had also received the blessing of Trump and his team. This allowed Israel free reign in striking Iran in Syria to prevent its entrenchment.

Netanyahu's successor, Naftali Bennett, met with Putin in Sochi on October 22 and largely received the same reassurances over Syria that his predecessor did. He appeared to have received approval to expand attacks on Iranian targets as evidences in strikes on the outskirts of Damascus and the intensification of raids, whether from Lebanese airspace or from above the al-Tanf base of occupied Golan Heights.

The nuclear negotiations are significant for the fate of Syria and Iran's presence there. One must monitor the course of Israeli strikes on Syria and the various diplomatic visits to Damascus to determine just how much Iran will remain entrenched there or not.

Most Viewed

 
Features

The 911 Presidency: Trump Flexes Emergency Powers in His Second Term

FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
TT
20
TT

The 911 Presidency: Trump Flexes Emergency Powers in His Second Term

FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

Call it the 911 presidency.
Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors.
Whether it’s leveling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion.
An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump’s 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors.
The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress’ authority and advance his agenda.
“What’s notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,” said Ilya Somin, who is representing five US businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs.
Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it.
Growing concerns over actions
The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump’s strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there’s growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the US is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address.
“The temptation is clear,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. “What’s remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we’re in a different era now.”
Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy.
“It’s the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,” Bacon said of Congress’ power over trade. “And I get the emergency powers, but I think it’s being abused. When you’re trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that’s policy, not emergency action.”
The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority.
“President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.
Trump frequently sites 1977 law to justify actions
Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports.
The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces “an unusual and extraordinary threat” from abroad “to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.”
In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on US soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the US economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.
The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion.
Congress has ceded its power to the presidency
Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice.
Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The US Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals.
Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II.
Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump’s eventual veto.
“Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,” said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. “Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.”
Trump, Yoo said, “has just elevated it to another level.”
Trump's allies support his moves
Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump’s actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy.
“We believe — and we’re right — that we are in an emergency,” Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax.
“You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,” Vance said. “I’m not talking about toys, plastic toys. I’m talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I’m talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.”
Vance continued, “These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.”
Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president’s emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance.
Similar legislation hasn’t been introduced since Trump’s return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency.
“He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there’s oversight and safeguards,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a “path toward autocracy and suppression.”