Assad, Erdogan...and Putin’s ‘Goblet of Normalization’

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan during their meeting in Sochi (AFP)
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan during their meeting in Sochi (AFP)
TT

Assad, Erdogan...and Putin’s ‘Goblet of Normalization’

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan during their meeting in Sochi (AFP)
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan during their meeting in Sochi (AFP)

It is quite known that Russian President Vladimir Putin is pushing his Syrian and Turkish counterparts to drink from the goblet of “normalization.” This desire is as old as Russia's military intervention in Syria seven years ago.

But what is new is that conditions have become more favorable for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to shift from attending security meetings in Moscow and Tehran to normalizing political ties between Ankara and Damascus.

The “deposit” lodged by Putin in Erdogan’s pocket a few days ago at their meeting in the Black Sea city of Sochi proposed that instead of Turkey launching a new military operation in northern Syria, the Turkish president would call Assad and hold negotiations to meet Turkish security demands.

It is noteworthy that several meetings were held between the head of Syria’s National Security Bureau Ali Mamlouk and his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan. Some of the meetings were publicly held in Moscow at the start of 2020. Other meetings, especially those convened to discuss developing a new version of the 1998 Adana Agreement, were held in secret.

In fact, developing the Adana Agreement and security cooperation against the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) requires political normalization and the opening of diplomatic channels.

Putin's key is for Erdogan to communicate directly with Assad with the blessing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. However, each of the three presidents sees this move from a different angle. Here there are losses and there are risks.

The Russian president is ready for this step because it weakens the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) allied to the US, Britain, and France. These are the countries that are fighting Russia in Ukraine.

Moreover, such a move would strengthen the Russian role in Syria and give legitimacy to the regime in Damascus. It would do so by neutralizing the Turkish role in support of the Syrian opposition.

If successful, the normalization of ties between Damascus and Ankara would turn a key page of the last decade.

For Putin, such a step increases the chances of his “arch-friend” and “hostile partner” in many arenas, Erdogan, to win the elections in the middle of next year.

However, this expected “gift” from Putin completely contradicts the desire of Assad, who does not want a new presidential term for Erdogan, who has been giving military and political support to the Syrian opposition for the last decade.

For Assad, normalizing ties with Turkey could constitute an embarrassment that is difficult to navigate among his allies in Damascus and abroad –especially that Turkey continues to occupy large swathes of land in northern Syria that are twice the size of Lebanon.

Also, Erdogan has been the target subject of media campaigns, accusations, and criticisms by Syrian authorities.

Khamenei, the third partner in the Astana process and the control of Syrian territory, has complicated calculations as well.

Tehran wants to support Assad and weaken US allies and does not want Turkish incursions. It also agrees with Damascus and Ankara in rejecting Kurdish entities.

Indeed, the three countries coordinated against Iraqi Kurdistan in the 90s. But Iran also has rivalries with Turkey and Russia in Syria and elsewhere.

For his part, Erdogan wants to neutralize the Syrian refugee issue and to deal a blow to Syria’s Kurds before upcoming elections.

He also does not mind security and political coordination with Damascus to keep Kurds away.

However, he finds it embarrassing to switch stances on Assad and Damascus. For years, Erdogan had raised the ceiling of his stances and support for the opposition.

Most likely, Putin is pushing the relationship between Assad and Erdogan to new stages.

The first stage was after the protests in early 2011, when meetings were held to search for a political settlement to the Syrian crisis.

The second stage witnessed maximum hostility in the Turkish president’s rhetoric about Assad stepping down.

The third stage saw Erdogan’s focus shift from “regime change” in Syria to making deals with Putin for disbanding the Kurdish entity in northern Syria. Subsequently, Turkey spread its forces in several Syrian enclaves.

The fourth and newest stage includes political dealings under Putin's umbrella. Erdogan would deal with Assad as president. In turn, Assad would accept Erdogan as an interlocutor.

This may come as a shock or surprise to some. But it is okay to recall the fluctuations of the Damascus-Ankara line over the decades as there have been many upheavals in the Syrian-Turkish-Kurdish triangle.

In mid-1998, Turkey massed its army on Syria’s borders and demanded the expulsion of PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan.

Afterwards, the Adana Agreement, which established security cooperation against the PKK, was signed.

When Syrian President Hafez al-Assad died, Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer’s participation in the funeral inaugurated the transition to a new political dimension and the intensification of cooperation against the PKK.

After the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, relations gradually moved towards more cooperation and more visits and meetings between Assad and Erdogan.

This led to a “strategic partnership,” “eliminating borders,” and a tacit recognition of the annexation of Iskenderun (Hatay).

Indeed, Erdogan was among the few leaders who maintained a relationship with Assad after the US isolated Damascus over the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005.

Moreover, Erdogan mediated between Assad and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Erdogan talking about Putin asking him to contact Assad, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu recently recalling a “quick chat” he had with his Syrian counterpart last year, and Damascus holding back on its condemnation of Turkey are all factors likely signaling a new beginning whereby Assad and Erdogan drink from Putin’s “goblet of normalization.”



US-Iran Deal Leaves Major Lebanon Questions Unresolved

Displaced families drive past a man holding the Hezbollah party flag as they drive along the highway through the area of Jiyyeh as they return to their home villages in southern Lebanon on June 15, 2026. (AFP)
Displaced families drive past a man holding the Hezbollah party flag as they drive along the highway through the area of Jiyyeh as they return to their home villages in southern Lebanon on June 15, 2026. (AFP)
TT

US-Iran Deal Leaves Major Lebanon Questions Unresolved

Displaced families drive past a man holding the Hezbollah party flag as they drive along the highway through the area of Jiyyeh as they return to their home villages in southern Lebanon on June 15, 2026. (AFP)
Displaced families drive past a man holding the Hezbollah party flag as they drive along the highway through the area of Jiyyeh as they return to their home villages in southern Lebanon on June 15, 2026. (AFP)

A deal between Washington and Tehran that ends the Israel-Hezbollah war leaves many issues in Lebanon unresolved, failing to mention Israel withdrawing from the country or an end to Tehran's support for the armed group.

Under US pressure, Lebanese officials have been holding direct talks with Israel aimed at reaching a separate agreement on ending the hostilities, but Beirut appeared to have been sidelined with the overnight announcement on the regional conflict.

AFP looks at the deal and the questions it raises in Lebanon.

- What does the deal involve? -

Details of the agreement to end the Middle East war on all fronts have not been made public, but Iran and mediator Pakistan have both said it includes Lebanon.

Hezbollah drew the country into the Middle East war on March 2 with rocket fire at Israel to avenge the killing of Iran's supreme leader in US-Israeli strikes.

Israel responded with airstrikes and a ground invasion that Lebanon says have killed more than 3,700 people and displaced more than one million others.

An official source told AFP that "Lebanon was not informed of the terms of the agreement or the time of the ceasefire".

Influential Lebanese parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a Hezbollah ally and intermediary for the group, thanked Washington and Tehran for their "insistence on including... an essential and binding clause on halting the Israeli aggression on all of Lebanon".

Hezbollah on Monday had so far not claimed any fresh attacks on Israeli targets.

- Israeli withdrawal? -

Information circulating about the deal does not mention any Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon, and Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz on Monday said forces would remain in the country indefinitely.

Karim Bitar, a lecturer in Middle East Studies at the Sciences Po University in Paris, said that "the deal does not seem to involve Israel, which immediately meant that it wasn't a party to it... So it's very unlikely that there will be an Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon."

Israeli forces control a strip of Lebanese territory running along the entire border.

A Western military source told AFP that Israeli forces had crossed the Litani River at several points, referring to the waterway running about 30 kilometers (20 miles) from the frontier but closer in some areas.

"Tens of thousands of Israeli soldiers" are in south Lebanon where they hold some established positions, the source said, adding that Hezbollah still had a presence there.

"It's the biggest invasion since their withdrawal in 2000," the source said, referring to Israel's previous pullout after some two decades of occupation.

Hezbollah says it sent reinforcements south of the Litani after the latest war erupted.

Under a 2024 ceasefire that followed a previous round of hostilities, Hezbollah fighters were supposed to withdraw from the area.

- What future for Hezbollah? -

Washington has pressured Lebanese authorities to disarm Hezbollah for months, but the accord makes no mention of the group.

"Iran doesn't seem to have committed to ending its support and financing for Hezbollah," Bitar said.

Military expert Riad Kahwaji said that "Hezbollah will not agree to give up arms... and this crisis will be protracted."

He said this could lead to political instability and even unrest, "especially now Hezbollah believes that through Iran it has emerged victorious from this agreement, and therefore is going to try and dictate its terms on who rules."

- Lebanon-Israel negotiations? -

Lebanon and Israel have been holding direct talks in Washington since April, seeking to end the hostilities and to separate Lebanon from the regional war.

A new round is scheduled for later this month.

Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said Monday that "we will redouble our efforts" through the Washington negotiations "to secure a full Israeli withdrawal."

But after the Iran-US announcement, some cast doubt on the effectiveness of the bilateral negotiations.

Bitar said that "Lebanon could find itself once again as a scapegoat that pays the price both of American amateurism, Iranian cynicism, Israeli hubris and... the lack of a clear strategy from its own political class."


Lebanese Mourn Homes, Livelihoods Destroyed by Israel in Southern City

 People make their way through the rubble of a destroyed building as residents displaced by fighting return to Nabatieh in southern Lebanon on June 15, 2026. (AFP)
People make their way through the rubble of a destroyed building as residents displaced by fighting return to Nabatieh in southern Lebanon on June 15, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Lebanese Mourn Homes, Livelihoods Destroyed by Israel in Southern City

 People make their way through the rubble of a destroyed building as residents displaced by fighting return to Nabatieh in southern Lebanon on June 15, 2026. (AFP)
People make their way through the rubble of a destroyed building as residents displaced by fighting return to Nabatieh in southern Lebanon on June 15, 2026. (AFP)

When Kamal Kamal heard a ceasefire deal had been agreed between Iran and the United States, he rushed back to the southern city of Nabatieh only to find an Israeli strike had reduced his life's work to rubble.

The city, usually home to some 90,000 people before the latest war between Israel and Hezbollah erupted on March 2, was largely deserted as Israel pressed its military offensive in the area in recent days.

Kamal fought back tears as he stared stunned at the pile of rubble that used to be his roastery and warehouse for coffee and other products, after Israel pummeled the region with strikes and issued sweeping evacuation orders.

"When I opened it in the seventies, I was still a young man... now nothing is left," he said, leaning heavily on a walking stick and surveying the vast destruction.

"How my life has been spent in vain here!"

The war in Lebanon has been included in the framework deal to end the broader Middle East war.

But Lebanon's army on Monday urged displaced residents to delay their return to southern border villages, citing the "risk of Israeli violations and attacks".

Iran-backed group Hezbollah issued a similar warning.

Yet residents who have cautiously returned to Nabatieh have expressed dismay at the huge damage Israel inflicted on the city's neighborhoods and its famed market, where the roofing had collapsed and shops were devastated.

An AFP photographer also saw destruction to homes and businesses in the city, which has served as a hub of economic, social and services activity.

- 'Sorrow and grief' -

The city's municipality said in a statement that it had asked residents not to return "at the present time under any circumstances", citing the security situation.

The Lebanese army had set up a checkpoint at the entrance to the city, advising locals about the roads that they could take as intermittent artillery shelling rang out and smoke rose up.

The flow of residents to Nabatieh picked up later in the day, with people inspecting their homes and properties as heavy machinery worked to remove rubble and clear roads.

In one heavily damaged neighborhood, Rana Nasrallah surveyed her destroyed home, the rubble strewn with clothes, furniture and pot plants.

The 45-year-old had fled with her family to the coastal city of Sidon during the war.

"We grew up in this neighborhood. We used to play here as children. And here's where the older women used to sit and chat, the historic Nabatieh market before us... the landmarks that they perhaps wanted to erase," she said.

"As soon as the ceasefire was declared and before any official (Lebanese) announcement... we got going and came here. We couldn't wait any longer.

"We came to breathe in the scent of our land... even if there are no homes to shelter us and there is no work, still it's a relief for our souls."

In the face of the huge damage in Nabatieh and other south Lebanon towns and villages, including where Israeli forces have carried out sweeping demolitions, Nasrallah still expressed hope of returning permanently.

"Despite the sorrow and grief at seeing the city destroyed... we are filled with hope that we will rebuild," she said.

"Not once did we feel defeated or that we would not triumph, or that we would not return to rebuild Nabatieh."


Ghalibaf: Ambitious ‘Public Face’ of Post-Ali Khamenei Iran

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf (R) meets with Pakistan’s Army Chief Syed Asim Munir in Tehran, Iran, May 23, 2026. (AFP)
Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf (R) meets with Pakistan’s Army Chief Syed Asim Munir in Tehran, Iran, May 23, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Ghalibaf: Ambitious ‘Public Face’ of Post-Ali Khamenei Iran

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf (R) meets with Pakistan’s Army Chief Syed Asim Munir in Tehran, Iran, May 23, 2026. (AFP)
Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf (R) meets with Pakistan’s Army Chief Syed Asim Munir in Tehran, Iran, May 23, 2026. (AFP)

Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has emerged as the key negotiator and one of the most high-profile figures in the epublic's leadership as it enters a new phase after the US-Israeli war.

A pillar of the Iranian establishment for some three decades and one of its most prominent non-clerical figures, Ghalibaf, 64, had spearheaded the war effort and led the high-stakes negotiating process that culminated with an agreement announced Monday to halt the hostilities.

Ghalibaf survived more than five weeks of US-Israeli attacks on Iran that killed supreme leader Ali Khamenei, top security official Ali Larijani and a host of other key figures.

He came into public view for the first time in weeks in April to lead the Iranian delegation in talks in Islamabad with the United States, meeting Vice President JD Vance, the highest-level contact between the two foes since before the 1979 revolution.

An image published on social media by Iranian embassies abroad put Ghalibaf center stage in the Iranian negotiating team, looking animated and gesturing with his hand, as Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi busied himself with teacups.

The workings of the Iranian leadership without Khamenei, who dominated it for nearly four decades, remain unclear.

Khamenei's son Mojtaba was named as his successor but has yet to appear publicly after he was reportedly wounded in an airstrike.

"Following Larijani's assassination, Ghalibaf has emerged as the new public face of the regime's war effort and diplomacy," said Farzan Sabet, a managing researcher at the Geneva Graduate Institute.

"But we shouldn't overstate the extent to which he's in the driver's seat: He still answers to higher powers in Tehran," he added.

These include Mojtaba Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards, the ideological arm of Iran's military, where Ghalibaf was a key figure as aerospace forces commander, Sabet said.

- 'Professional bargainer' -

While the trip to Islamabad was Ghalibaf's first appearance in public since before the war, he has kept a high profile online with almost daily social media posts, mixing commentary on recent developments and the negotiations with threats of harsh retaliation should the fighting resume.

His posts on X in idiomatic American English have garnered wide attention and raised questions over who is actually writing them, given Ghalibaf is not known to be a fluent English speaker.

Referring to threats of a ground invasion, a post on Ghalibaf's X account said on April 1: "You come for our home... you're gonna meet the whole family. Locked, loaded and standing tall. Bring it on."

The IranWire news site has said the posts appeared to have been written by a former adviser based in the United States, but this has not been confirmed.

While the Islamabad talks failed, The Washington Post reported that Ghalibaf left a striking impression on the US delegation after years when Washington never dealt directly with key Iranian decision makers.

Ghalibaf "impressed the American team as a refined and professional bargainer -- and potential leader of a new Iran", said the Post.

In a sign of his expanding sway, he was appointed in May to oversee Iran's vital relationship with China, the biggest buyer of Iranian oil.

- 'Ambitious and opportunistic' -

Ghalibaf's varied experience, which spans military and civilian life, has seen him work as a commander in the Revolutionary Guards, Tehran police chief, Tehran mayor and now speaker of parliament.

It is unclear if he is fully trusted by the new hardline hierarchy of the Guards.

Known to be fiercely ambitious, he has stood for the Iranian presidency on multiple occasions but has never been successful, most notably in 2005 when ultra-conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, little-known at the time, took the job.

A qualified pilot, Ghalibaf is known for boasting that he is able to captain jumbo jets.

Human rights groups have accused Ghalibaf, in his various functions, of playing a key role in suppressing protests, from the 1999 student demonstrations to the 2009 Green movement that erupted after a disputed election, right up to the nationwide protests that peaked in January 2026, just before the latest war.

"As a politician, he's shown himself to be ambitious and opportunistic, but also cautious, a trait that has helped him advance his career to the top of the country's power structure without getting purged like so many others have been," said Sabet.