Iran Pressures Damascus on ‘Sovereign Concessions’

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during his meeting with the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, in the presence of Iranian President Ibrahim Raisi in Tehran in May 2022 (Syrian Presidency)
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during his meeting with the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, in the presence of Iranian President Ibrahim Raisi in Tehran in May 2022 (Syrian Presidency)
TT
20

Iran Pressures Damascus on ‘Sovereign Concessions’

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during his meeting with the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, in the presence of Iranian President Ibrahim Raisi in Tehran in May 2022 (Syrian Presidency)
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during his meeting with the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, in the presence of Iranian President Ibrahim Raisi in Tehran in May 2022 (Syrian Presidency)

When Syrian President Bashar al-Assad visited Tehran last May, one of the urgent requests he made was to send oil to contribute to resolving his country’s economic crisis. In the past years, it has become customary for ships to violate sanctions and waterways. Assad also discussed broader regional and international issues.

This was Assad’s second visit since 2011- he visited in 2019- to express his thanks to Tehran for standing militarily, economically, and financially on the side of the regime since the outbreak of protests and the crisis more than a decade ago.

During the visit, Assad met with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Ebrahim Raisi. Official media reported Assad saying that “strategic relations between Iran and Syria prevented Israel from extending its control over the region.”

For his part, Khamenei said that “Syria had won an international war, and that its credibility is much greater than it was in the past.”

Assad’s visit dealt with big issues. Among them was the American presence in Syria, the coordination between Ankara, Tehran, and Moscow, and the repeated Israeli raids against Iranian sites in Syria. Moreover, the Syrian leader reviewed agreements between Israel and Arab countries.

Iranian sources quoted Khamenei as saying that “some leaders of neighboring countries of Iran and Syria are sitting with the leaders of Israel, but the people of these countries fill the streets with anti-Israeli crowds and slogans.”

Khamenei’s statement was considered a veiled criticism of Damascus’ position on peace agreements between Tel Aviv and Arab capitals. Syria failed to issue critical statements about the accords. Moreover, Syrian officials held political meetings with their counterparts from these countries.

Away from these major headlines, Assad, during his meetings with Khamenei and Raisi, urged Iran to send oil and oil derivatives to save the economic situation in Syria.

Iran gave a “good word” and promised to send three ships. Nevertheless, these pledged ships are still docked in Iran and have not left for Syrian coasts yet.

Damascus made the request again during the visit of Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal al-Miqdad last July. Iran continued with its delay. The Syrian ambassador in Tehran tried to follow up on the issue a lot, but no answer came from Tehran.

Syria’s economic crisis is exacerbating, and the Iranian “procrastination” continues. Damascus was left bewildered by the delay because it is contrary to what has been the norm during the past decade.

Raisi was slated to visit Damascus on Tuesday.

During the visit’s arrangement, Syrian officials were stunned by Iranian demands and proposed draft agreements. Some of the drafts went back to previous agreements signed during a 2017 visit by Syrian Prime Minister Imad Khamis. Other drafts were new.

The new draft agreement, which surprised Damascus, related to how Iranians are to be treated in hospitals and scientific institutions as well as their ability to own property. In effect, Iranians want to be treated as Syrians, but if they commit a crime, Tehran requested they be tried by Iran’s justice system rather than Syrian judiciary.

This draft is like the agreement between Damascus and Moscow at the end of 2015 regarding the establishment of military bases in Hmeimim and Tartous. The Russians were given wide military, royal and diplomatic privileges, with the exception of the judiciary.

It is also reminiscent of those agreements that existed between Western countries and the Ottoman Empire after its collapse and the establishment of Turkey in the 1920s.

Tehran also insisted on obtaining “sovereign guarantees” for the money it spent. Damascus was surprised by the depth of the Iranian demands and Tehran was taken aback by Syria taking matters slowly. Contacts are still ongoing between the two countries in search of a way out of this “silent crisis” and to arrange a major visit to Damascus.

But this is not the first time that relations have gone through a crisis like this.

Tehran had suspended approval of the appointment of a new Syrian ambassador and froze the sending of oil derivatives in 2017 due to its annoyance at Damascus’ slow implementation of strategic agreements with Tehran and its acceleration with Moscow.

Khamis visited Tehran at the beginning of 2017 and signed strategic agreements. They related to an Iranian company backed by the Revolutionary Guard becoming a third mobile operator in Syria, investing in Syrian phosphate for 99 years, acquiring land for agricultural and industrial purposes, and establishing an “oil port” on the Mediterranean.

Moreover, Khamis signed an agreement for a new line of credit from Iran worth $1 billion, half of which will be used to finance the export of crude oil and oil products.

Since 2013, Tehran has provided direct and indirect support to Damascus. This includes lines of credit that exceeded $6.6 billion to finance the export of crude oil and its byproducts.

But Damascus had lost control of the oil and gas wells in northeast Syria. They are now run by US allies. Damascus’ oil production, which was about 380,000 bpd before 2011, decreased to about 90,000 bpd.

While Syrian businessmen close to Damascus and Iran worked on launching a third mobile phone network, Iran failed to get its hand on the ports in Tartus and Latakia. Rather, Russia assumed control of the ports to avoid repeated Israeli bombing.

Russian companies have also taken over phosphate investments in the center of Syria and are trying to pressure the Kurds into giving up control of oil facilities. They are trying to expand in Damascus airport and other airports. They are also involved in many economic projects.

According to a Western diplomat visiting Damascus, “Syria’s economic crisis is the worst in a decade, and Iran wants to exploit this to its advantage.”

“Tehran wants to obtain major sovereign concessions at the height of Damascus’ current need for them and Russia’s preoccupation with the Ukraine war.”

Iran wants those concessions to make up for the costs it paid during the war, amounting to about $20 billion over the past decade. It also wants to establish its influence for a long time in the face of the escalation of Israeli military pressure in Syria.



Sudan's Relentless War: A 70-Year Cycle of Conflict


Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
TT
20

Sudan's Relentless War: A 70-Year Cycle of Conflict


Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)

While world conflicts dominate headlines, Sudan’s deepening catastrophe is unfolding largely out of sight; a brutal war that has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and flattened entire cities and regions.

More than a year into the conflict, some observers question whether the international community has grown weary of Sudan’s seemingly endless cycles of violence. The country has endured nearly seven decades of civil war, and what is happening now is not an exception, but the latest chapter in a bloody history of rebellion and collapse.

The first of Sudan’s modern wars began even before the country gained independence from Britain. In 1955, army officer Joseph Lagu led the southern “Anyanya” rebellion, named after a venomous snake, launching a guerrilla war that would last until 1972.

A peace agreement brokered by the World Council of Churches and Ethiopia’s late Emperor Haile Selassie ended that conflict with the signing of the Addis Ababa Accord.

But peace proved short-lived. In 1983, then-president Jaafar Nimeiry reignited tensions by announcing the imposition of Islamic Sharia law, known as the “September Laws.” The move prompted the rise of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), led by John Garang, and a renewed southern insurgency that raged for more than two decades, outliving Nimeiry’s regime.

Under Omar al-Bashir, who seized power in a 1989 military coup, the war took on an Islamist tone. His government declared “jihad” and mobilized civilians in support of the fight, but failed to secure a decisive victory.

The conflict eventually gave way to the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, better known as the Naivasha Agreement, which was brokered in Kenya and granted South Sudan the right to self-determination.

In 2011, more than 95% of South Sudanese voted to break away from Sudan, giving birth to the world’s newest country, the Republic of South Sudan. The secession marked the culmination of decades of war, which began with demands for a federal system and ended in full-scale conflict. The cost: over 2 million lives lost, and a once-unified nation split in two.

But even before South Sudan’s independence became reality, another brutal conflict had erupted in Sudan’s western Darfur region in 2003. Armed rebel groups from the region took up arms against the central government, accusing it of marginalization and neglect. What followed was a ferocious counterinsurgency campaign that drew global condemnation and triggered a major humanitarian crisis.

As violence escalated, the United Nations deployed one of its largest-ever peacekeeping missions, the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID), in a bid to stem the bloodshed.

Despite multiple peace deals, including the Juba Agreement signed in October 2020 following the ousting of long-time Islamist ruler, Bashir, fighting never truly ceased.

The Darfur war alone left more than 300,000 people dead and millions displaced. The International Criminal Court charged Bashir and several top officials, including Ahmed Haroun and Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein, with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Alongside the southern conflict, yet another war erupted in 2011, this time in the Nuba Mountains of South Kordofan and the Blue Nile region. The fighting was led by Abdelaziz al-Hilu, head of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement–North (SPLM–N), a group composed largely of northern fighters who had sided with the South during the earlier civil war under John Garang.

The conflict broke out following contested elections marred by allegations of fraud, and Khartoum’s refusal to implement key provisions of the 2005 Naivasha Agreement, particularly those related to “popular consultations” in the two regions. More than a decade later, war still grips both areas, with no lasting resolution in sight.

Then came April 15, 2023. A fresh war exploded, this time in the heart of the capital, Khartoum, pitting the Sudanese Armed Forces against the powerful paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Now entering its third year, the conflict shows no signs of abating.

According to international reports, the war has killed more than 150,000 people and displaced around 13 million, the largest internal displacement crisis on the planet. Over 3 million Sudanese have fled to neighboring countries.

Large swathes of the capital lie in ruins, and entire states have been devastated. With Khartoum no longer viable as a seat of power, the government and military leadership have relocated to the Red Sea city of Port Sudan.

Unlike previous wars, Sudan’s current conflict has no real audience. Global pressure on the warring factions has been minimal. Media coverage is sparse. And despite warnings from the United Nations describing the crisis as “the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe,” Sudan's descent into chaos remains largely ignored by the international community.