عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

Int’l Resolution to Help Syrians. Is a Russian-American Settlement Possible?

A member of the "Emergency Response Team" volunteer group hands out meat freshly-butchered and packaged as part of the commemoration for the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha to people at a camp for Syrians displaced by conflict, in the village of Killi in the Syrian opposition-held northwestern city of Idlib on July 10, 2022. (AFP)
A member of the "Emergency Response Team" volunteer group hands out meat freshly-butchered and packaged as part of the commemoration for the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha to people at a camp for Syrians displaced by conflict, in the village of Killi in the Syrian opposition-held northwestern city of Idlib on July 10, 2022. (AFP)
TT
20
TT

Int’l Resolution to Help Syrians. Is a Russian-American Settlement Possible?

A member of the "Emergency Response Team" volunteer group hands out meat freshly-butchered and packaged as part of the commemoration for the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha to people at a camp for Syrians displaced by conflict, in the village of Killi in the Syrian opposition-held northwestern city of Idlib on July 10, 2022. (AFP)
A member of the "Emergency Response Team" volunteer group hands out meat freshly-butchered and packaged as part of the commemoration for the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha to people at a camp for Syrians displaced by conflict, in the village of Killi in the Syrian opposition-held northwestern city of Idlib on July 10, 2022. (AFP)

Last-gasp negotiations are underway to salvage the international resolution that allows cross-border aid to reach Syria.

Russia had last week vetoed the extension of the resolution when it was put to a vote at the United Nations Security Council. The resolution expired on Sunday.

What is the resolution?

Issued in 2014, the resolution allows the delivery of aid to Syrians through four crossings from Jordan, Iraq and Turkey.

With the military changes in the ground in Syria, the region and the world over the years, the United States and Russia agreed in 2021 on resolution 2585. It allowed the delivery of aid through only a single crossing at Bab al-Hawa on the Turkish border. The aid would go to over 2.4 million people in the Idlib province, the last remaining opposition stronghold.

What are the American concessions?

Damascus and Moscow have always been critical of the 2014 resolution, which they deemed a violation of Syria’s sovereignty.

When he came to office, US President Joe Biden set the delivery of aid as a priority for his administration.

A meeting he held with Russian President Vladimir Putin in June 2021 was followed by secret negotiations that were held by their respective envoys, Brett McGurk and Alexander Lavrentiev.

Their talks led to a series of American concessions to Russia that shocked western powers that were not consulted by Washington during the negotiations.

The concessions included an agreement to fund “early recovery” projects in Syria that covered health, education, and sewage systems; increasing aid across the borders of the zones of influence inside Syria; and renewing the resolution for another six months, which hinged on a report on the “early recovery” and cross-border deliveries submitted by UN chief Antonio Guterres.

In return, Washington believed that it received a verbal agreement from Moscow that the resolution would be renewed automatically every six months.

What are the differences between Russia and the US?

The resolution expired as the world remains gripped by the Russian-Western conflict in Ukraine. Moscow attempted to hold expanded political negotiations from Syria, but Washington turned them down. It tasked its embassy in New York to follow up on the extension of the resolution, believing it was a done deal.

Washington and its allies believed the extension would have taken place in line with the understandings reached between McGurk and Lavrentiev. Moscow, meanwhile, had expressed its disappointment over the lack of progress in the “early recovery” and “cross-border” files.

Russia believes western countries did not agree to discuss Guterres’ report on these issues, while Washington charges that Moscow did not commit to its pledges and that it wants the US to make concessions with every extension.

Four Russian demands

Norway and Ireland had submitted the draft to extend the resolution for a year, but it was vetoed by Russia, which handed in four demands in return for its vote:

1- Extending the resolution for six months only.

2- Adding electricity to the projects covered in the “early recovery”. The word “electricity” was mentioned at least twice in the Russian draft.

3- Forming a mechanism to monitor the implementation of the resolution, especially the “early recovery” and “cross-border” deliveries.

4- The extension of the mechanism-resolution must require a new international resolution in line with a report from Guterres about actual progress.

Is there a settlement from either side?
Russia used its veto to turn down the western draft, while Moscow’s proposal did not receive enough votes in favor, with ten non-permanent members, including India and the United Arab Emirates, abstaining.

Countries are now confronted with two options: Failing to issue a resolution, which Moscow and Washington want to avoid, or searching for middle ground between the two resolutions.

Western countries believe they have made several new concessions by including the electricity file and monitoring mechanism in the resolution in return for extending the resolution for a year.

Washington believes that Moscow and Damascus are desperate enough for the electricity file to be included in the resolution that they would agree to a settlement over extending the resolution for a year, rather than six months.

Including the electricity file would save Syria from darkness, keep this file away from western sanctions and encourage energy projects with Jordan.

From Russia’s perspective, Moscow no longer trusts the West’s intentions and wants the resolution extended for only six months so that negotiations could again be held when the resolution expires.

It is hoping that the West wants to avoid strengthening Turkey’s position, which should the resolution fail to be extended, will be in charge of aid deliveries to northern Syria. Ankara could exploit the Syrian file for its own goals related to immigration and terrorism files.

A settlement is possible. Discussions have spoken of an extension for nine months, followed by three more. Over the Eid Al-Adha holiday, Arab and foreign diplomats sat together to search for last-gasp settlements as millions of Syrians held their breath.

Most Viewed

 
Features

Will Israel’s Interceptors Outlast Iran’s Missiles?

The Israeli Iron Dome air defense system fires to intercept missiles during an Iranian attack over Tel Aviv, Israel, early Wednesday, June 18, 2025. (AP Photo/Leo Correa)
The Israeli Iron Dome air defense system fires to intercept missiles during an Iranian attack over Tel Aviv, Israel, early Wednesday, June 18, 2025. (AP Photo/Leo Correa)
TT
20
TT

Will Israel’s Interceptors Outlast Iran’s Missiles?

The Israeli Iron Dome air defense system fires to intercept missiles during an Iranian attack over Tel Aviv, Israel, early Wednesday, June 18, 2025. (AP Photo/Leo Correa)
The Israeli Iron Dome air defense system fires to intercept missiles during an Iranian attack over Tel Aviv, Israel, early Wednesday, June 18, 2025. (AP Photo/Leo Correa)

Israel has a world-leading missile interception system but its bank of interceptors is finite. Now, as the war drags on, Israel is firing interceptors faster than it can produce them.

On Thursday, The New York Times reporters spoke to current and former Israeli officials about the strengths and weaknesses of Israeli air defense.

Aside from a potentially game-changing US intervention that shapes the fate of Iran’s nuclear program, two factors will help decide the length of the Israel-Iran war: Israel’s reserve of missile interceptors and Iran’s stock of long-range missiles.

Since Iran started retaliating against Israel’s fire last week, Israel’s world-leading air defense system has intercepted most incoming Iranian ballistic missiles, giving the Israeli Air Force more time to strike Iran without incurring major losses at home.

But now, as the war drags on, Israel is firing interceptors faster than it can produce them. That has raised questions within the Israeli security establishment about whether the country will run low on air defense missiles before Iran uses up its ballistic arsenal, according to eight current and former officials.

Already, Israel’s military has had to conserve its use of interceptors and is giving greater priority to the defense of densely populated areas and strategic infrastructure, according to the officials. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak more freely.

Interceptors are “not grains of rice,” said Brig. Gen. Ran Kochav, who commanded Israel’s air defense system until 2021 and still serves in the military reserve. “The number is finite.”

“If a missile is supposed to hit refineries in Haifa, it’s clear that it’s more important to intercept that missile than one that will hit the Negev desert,” General Kochav said.

Conserving Israel’s interceptors is “a challenge,” he added. “We can make it, but it’s a challenge.”

Asked for comment on the limits of its interceptor arsenal, the Israeli military said in a brief statement that it “is prepared and ready to handle any scenario and is operating defensively and offensively to remove threats to Israeli civilians.”

No Israeli official would divulge the number of interceptors left at Israel’s disposal; the revelation of such a closely guarded secret could give Iran a military advantage.

The answer will affect Israel’s ability to sustain a long-term, attritional war. The nature of the war will partly be decided by whether Trump decides to join Israel in attacking Iran’s nuclear enrichment site at Fordo, in northern Iran, or whether Iran decides to give up its enrichment program to prevent such an intervention.

But the war’s endgame will also be shaped by how long both sides can sustain the damage to their economies, as well as the damage to national morale caused by a growing civilian death toll.

Israel relies on at least seven kinds of air defense. Most of them involve automated systems that use radar to detect incoming missiles and then provide officers with suggestions of how to intercept them.

Military officials have seconds to react to some short-range fire, but minutes to judge the response to long-range attacks. At times, the automated systems do not offer recommendations, leaving officers to make decisions on their own, General Kochav said.

The Arrow system intercepts long-range missiles at higher altitudes; the David’s Sling system intercepts them at lower altitudes; while the Iron Dome takes out shorter-range rockets, usually fired from Gaza, or the fragments of missiles already intercepted by other defense systems.

The United States has supplied at least two more defense systems, some of them fired from ships in the Mediterranean, and Israel is also trying out a new and relatively untested laser beam. Finally, fighter jets are deployed to shoot down slow-moving drones.

Some Israelis feel it is time to wrap up the war before Israel’s defenses are tested too severely.

At least 24 civilians have been killed by Iran’s strikes, and more than 800 have been injured. Some key infrastructure, including oil refineries in northern Israel, has been hit, along with civilian homes. A hospital in southern Israel was struck on Thursday morning.

Already high by Israeli standards, the death toll could rise sharply if the Israeli military is forced to limit its general use of interceptors in order to guarantee the long-term protection of a few strategic sites like the Dimona nuclear reactor in southern Israel or the military headquarters in Tel Aviv.

“Now that Israel has succeeded in striking most of its nuclear targets in Iran, Israel has a window of two or three days to declare the victory and end the war,” said Zohar Palti, a former senior officer in the Mossad, Israel’s spy agency.

“When planning how to defend Israel in future wars, no one envisaged a scenario in which we would be fighting on so many fronts and defending against so many rounds of ballistic missiles,” said Palti, who was for years involved in Israel’s defensive planning.

Others are confident that Israel will be able to solve the problem by destroying most of Iran’s missile launchers, preventing the Iranian military from using the stocks that it still has.

Iran has both fixed and mobile launchers, scattered across its territory, according to two Israeli officials. Some of its missiles are stored underground, where they are harder to destroy, while others are in aboveground caches, the officials said.

The Israeli military says it has destroyed more than a third of the launchers. Officials and experts say that has already limited the number of missiles that Iran can fire in a single attack.

US officials said Israel’s strikes against the launchers have decimated Iran’s ability to fire its missiles and hurt its ability to create large-scale barrages.

“The real issue is the number of launchers, more than the number of missiles,” said Asaf Cohen, a former Israeli commander who led the Iran department in Israel’s military intelligence directorate.

“The more of them that are hit, the harder it will be for them to launch barrages,” Cohen added. “If they realize they have a problem with launch capacity, they’ll shift to harassment: one or two missiles every so often, aimed at two different areas simultaneously.”

The New York Times