Syrian File: Moscow, Damascus Disagree Over 10 Contentious Points

Russian President Vladimir Putin (R), Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (L) and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem (back to camera) attend a meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, June 29, 2015. REUTERS/Alexei Nikolsky/RIA Novosti/Kremlin
Russian President Vladimir Putin (R), Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (L) and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem (back to camera) attend a meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, June 29, 2015. REUTERS/Alexei Nikolsky/RIA Novosti/Kremlin
TT

Syrian File: Moscow, Damascus Disagree Over 10 Contentious Points

Russian President Vladimir Putin (R), Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (L) and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem (back to camera) attend a meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, June 29, 2015. REUTERS/Alexei Nikolsky/RIA Novosti/Kremlin
Russian President Vladimir Putin (R), Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (L) and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem (back to camera) attend a meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, June 29, 2015. REUTERS/Alexei Nikolsky/RIA Novosti/Kremlin

Many disagreements emerged between Moscow and Damascus on the Syrian file over the past five years. However, public statements, recently issued by official media outlets in the two countries, have shed light on substantial differences that sometimes reached the point of diverging approaches to core matters.

We present below 10 points of contention between the two sides.

1- The “Turning Point”

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told the Russian Novosti Agency a few days ago: “There are many turning points that I can mention, not one.”

He cited the liberation of many areas in 2013 before the emergence of ISIS and the arrival of the Russian forces in September 2015 when many regions were also liberated.

For his part, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu said on the anniversary of his country’s army intervention at the end of September: “On September 30, 2015, the Federation Council approved the President’s request to use the armed forces in Syria… At that point, the situation in Syria became critical, and there was a risk of the Syrian army defeat, and thus the collapse of the state’s sovereignty…”

2- The duration and reasons of the Russian presence

Assad said: “The term of the agreement regarding the Hmeimim base indicates long-term plans for cooperation.”

“Russia is not a small country. It is a great power, so it has duties, and it is responsible for the whole world, and part of this responsibility is its political and military presence in different regions,” he added.

For his part, Shoygu said: “Before the beginning of the operation, a formation of the Armed Forces was secretly established at the Hmeimim Air Base, consisting of 50 modern and developed war pieces (34 aircraft and 16 helicopters), in addition to the arrival of military units for combat support and special operations.”

3 & 4- War and understandings

Is the war over? “No, definitely not,” Assad said. “As long as there are terrorists occupying some areas of our country and committing all kinds of crimes, assassinations and other crimes, the war is not over.”

As for understandings, he noted: “The Russian-Turkish agreements are not effective. If the Moscow-Ankara agreement had been efficient, we would not have had to carry out attacks recently in many areas of Aleppo and Idlib.”

For his part, Lavrov said: “There is a Russian-Turkish memorandum that is still fully implemented, and patrols on the Aleppo-Latakia road have been stopped for security reasons.”

5 – The solution in Idlib and east of the Euphrates

Assad talked about “launching a popular resistance to confront the American and Turkish occupations.” In mid-November, the Syrian president said: “The US presence in Syria will generate military resistance that will inflict losses on the Americans, and thus will force them to leave.”

Lavrov, for his part, pointed to the US illegal presence in the eastern side of the Euphrates, saying that the Americans were “playing with the Kurds in an irresponsible way.”

6 – Iran and Israel

Is there an Iranian presence in Syria? “We don’t have Iranian forces,” Assad said. “They support Syria. They send military experts and work with our forces on the ground, and they are there with the Syrian army.”

At the beginning of August 2018, Tass Russian news agency quoted the Russian president’s envoy to Syria, Alexander Lavrentiev, as saying: “The (Hezbollah) and Iranian-backed militias have all withdrawn from there.”

Russia remains silent about the Israeli raids on “Iranian sites.”

7 – The Geneva Process

Assad said: “We have changed the constitution in 2012. And now we are discussing the constitution in the Geneva talks (...). In the end, the Geneva negotiations (sponsored by the United Nations to implement UN Resolution 2254) are a political game, and it is not what most Syrians focus on. The Syrian people do not think about the constitution, and no one talks about it. Their concerns are related to the reforms that we must undertake and the policies that we need to change to ensure that their needs are met. This is what we are focusing on now. ”

Following his meeting with his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif in Moscow on September 24, Lavrov said that the troika of the Astana process “is the author of the initiative of the Syrian National Dialogue Conference in Sochi, at the end of which the government and the opposition expressed their commitment to forming the constitutional committee and launching constitutional reform.”

8- The constitution and the elections

Lavrov was quoted as saying that he was “not satisfied with the pace of the commission process.” On the other hand, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said in a press conference with Lavrov in Damascus, on September 7: “There is no timetable for implementing the constitution; it has special importance… and cannot be formulated hastily.”

The two sides, however, have agreed on holding the presidential elections in mid-2021.

9- The Kurdish Administration

During his meeting with two delegations from the Syrian Democratic Council and the Popular Will Party in early September in Moscow following the signing of a memorandum of understanding, Lavrov expressed “his country’s readiness to continue working to create favorable conditions for harmonious coexistence and progress for all religious and ethnic components in Syrian society.”

In response to the MoU, Moallem said: “We do not support any agreement that contradicts the Syrian constitution.” Damascus had rejected a Russian draft of the constitution.

10 – Incentives and sanctions

Damascus and Moscow both reject the US and European sanctions. They also oppose the Syrian Democratic Forces’ control of natural resources and oil in the east of the Euphrates.

A consortium was established to circumvent the sanctions, and Russian companies obtained contracts to invest in oil and gas. But economic cooperation remains far below the Russian military cooperation.

For this purpose, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Yury Borisov visited Damascus on September 7 to enhance cooperation. Borisov said that the two parties have reached agreements to rehabilitate 40 Syrian installations and rebuild energy infrastructure.

He said that the two sides have discussed pushing forward the “roadmap” signed in 2018 to develop economic cooperation.

Syrian Minister of Presidential Affairs Mansour Azzam visited Moscow recently to speed up the signing of the “road map” next December, and to obtain loans and grants worth up to USD three billion.

Observers believe that Moscow did not rush to assist Damascus in solving the fuel and wheat crisis, pending a fresh approach by Syria on political files.



How Far Will He Go? Trump’s Options for US Action Against Iran

An Iranian woman walks next to an anti-US mural in Tehran, Iran, 29 January 2026. (EPA)
An Iranian woman walks next to an anti-US mural in Tehran, Iran, 29 January 2026. (EPA)
TT

How Far Will He Go? Trump’s Options for US Action Against Iran

An Iranian woman walks next to an anti-US mural in Tehran, Iran, 29 January 2026. (EPA)
An Iranian woman walks next to an anti-US mural in Tehran, Iran, 29 January 2026. (EPA)

US President Donald Trump has threatened military action against Iran over its crackdown on protesters, while still for now appearing to leave the door open for negotiations over the country’s controversial nuclear program.

But should Trump, after weeks of American threats and counter-threats from Tehran, finally decide to order military action after already sending a US aircraft carrier to the region, he faces another dilemma over what form the intervention should take.

Such action could replicate American strikes during Israel's June war against the country, enforce economic strangulation by targeting the energy sector or amount to a bid to replace the theocratic system under supreme leader Ali Khamenei.

- Venezuela economic pressure scenario

Trump's relatively cautious stance so far has sparked speculation he could target Iranian energy infrastructure and squeeze its oil exports, mimicking a strategy Washington used over Venezuela.

This policy earlier this month led to the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, with Trump then working with the remnants of his former administration.

The US naval group in Middle East waters could look to block "dark fleet vessels" carrying Iranian oil and put pressure on Iran's oil exports, said Farzan Sabet, managing researcher of the Sanctions and Sustainable Peace Hub at the Geneva Graduate Institute.

"And that pressure can be gradual, similar to what we saw in Venezuela. It could play out over days, weeks, months, it's hard to foresee, but possibly longer," he said, while acknowledging that Trump was playing "his cards very close to his chest".

The naval group, repeatedly described as an "armada" by Trump, consists of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and its more than 80 aircraft, as well as its escort of three destroyers, equipped with anti-missile capabilities and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

- Strikes on military and IRGC targets

If Trump decides on a course of military action, prime targets would be bases of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and its youth militia, the Basij, which are accused by rights groups of taking a frontline role in the deadly crackdown on the protests that according to rights groups left thousands dead.

Using Tomahawk missiles and combat aircraft, the United States could strike positions of the Basij and the IRGC forces, "particularly those forces that participated and continue to participate in targeting Iranian protesters", said independent military researcher Eva J. Koulouriotis.

She said US intelligence, helped by Israel's Mossad spy agency, has "a clear picture" of those forces and their location nationwide.

"Such a strike would serve as a direct warning to the Iranian regime," she said.

During its June war against Tehran, Israel showed its deep intelligence penetration of Iran by killing senior security officials including the IRGC's chief and the armed forces chief of staff in targeted strikes based on location intelligence.

In a "harsh but measured strike", the United States could target "operations command and senior officers involved in mass killings carried out by the Iranian regime", she said.

- Massive strikes and regime change bid -

Iran's theocratic system has been in place since the 1979 revolution led by Khomeini that ousted the largely pro-Western shah.

Relations with the United States were cut in the wake of the hostage siege of the US embassy in Tehran that began that year and have remained severed ever since.

Under Khomeini, the revolution survived the war with Iraq in the 1980s. Since Khamenei took over in 1989, he has managed to keep the system in place despite economic sanctions and repeated protests.

As well as the so-called "armada", Washington already has a heavy deployment of military resources in the region with dozens of aircraft deployed at the air bases of Al Udeid in Qatar and Al Dhafra in the United Arab Emirates.

"The American objective is to destabilize the regime," said David Khalfa, co-founder of the Atlantic Middle East Forum (AMEF) think-tank.

"So there is really a strategy that will aim to paralyze it, to disrupt the chain of command" marked by the physical "elimination" of Khamenei, his close advisors and senior IRGC generals, he added.

But he said: "The regime is still relatively solid and resilient, it will not be an easy task", especially as "the Guards have anticipated this scenario".

Sabet said it would appear for now that Washington "would prefer something limited, where they can continue the process of weakening the system while minimizing the country's desire -- and to some extent its ability, but mostly its desire -- to carry out larger-scale retaliation".


Deal or Strike: Is Military Action Against Iran Drawing Closer?

Military equipment, including helicopters, on board the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (AP)
Military equipment, including helicopters, on board the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (AP)
TT

Deal or Strike: Is Military Action Against Iran Drawing Closer?

Military equipment, including helicopters, on board the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (AP)
Military equipment, including helicopters, on board the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (AP)

Despite reports of mediation and back-channel exchanges between Washington and Tehran, what is being described as “negotiations” so far looks more like a bid to keep tensions from boiling over than a diplomatic process.

Signals emerging from Western officials and media indicate the two sides have yet to engage in direct, substantive talks, with the dispute over the very terms of entry itself carrying a political message.

US President Donald Trump’s administration is pressing for an agreement that encompasses Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and regional influence. At the same time, Tehran insists that any dialogue be confined strictly to the nuclear file.

That gap has reinforced suspicions in Tehran that Trump’s offer of a deal is little more than a tactical feint, masking serious preparations for military action. This scenario would echo the US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025.

As Trump sharpens his rhetoric, the stalemate revives a central question: Is diplomacy becoming a pretext for war, or a narrowing window to avert it?

A different escalation

The key difference this time lies in the scale and nature of the military posture.

It is not a mere show of force, but a combined offensive-defensive package signaling readiness for multiple scenarios, following the arrival of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and its strike group in the US Central Command area of operations, enabling support for strikes or protection of allies against retaliatory attacks.

This has been accompanied by strengthened air defenses, including Patriot and THAAD systems, as well as air drills focused on deployment, operations, and sortie generation under challenging conditions, according to US Central Command.

Such a pattern is typically associated with raising readiness for potential reciprocal responses.

At the same time, Washington is aware that any operation against Iran would not be a “precision operation” like what occurred in Venezuela, where the US previously amassed large forces in the Caribbean in a campaign that ended with the arrest of President Nicolas Maduro in early January 2026.

Iran’s geography is more complex, and its missile capabilities and layered defenses make a “decisive strike” more complicated, even if the US enjoys overwhelming superiority.

Trump’s options

Earlier leaks pointed to the end of this month as a possible date for a US strike, though this remains unconfirmed publicly.

The danger in circulating such reports lies in the political-military dynamic they create. When a force of this size is mobilized, internal and external pressure on the White House grows to justify the cost by achieving some result, even if limited.

At the same time, the leaks may be part of psychological warfare aimed at forcing Tehran to make concessions before the window for de-escalation “closes.”

Accordingly, the practical rule is that absent a clear political decision, the scenario remains open to three graduated possibilities: a limited strike to impose new rules of engagement; a broader campaign targeting nuclear and missile infrastructure and security nodes; or continued military pressure as a negotiating lever without opening fire.

According to the Financial Times, Trump’s options, should he decide to carry out military action, range from a limited punitive strike targeting missile sites, drones, or facilities linked to the Revolutionary Guard, aimed at raising the cost of Iranian refusal without seeking regime change.

Another option would expand the target bank to include nuclear facilities that are being hardened and rebuilt, particularly after Western talk of Iranian attempts to resume work at deeper underground sites.

There is also a set of non-traditional pressure options, such as tightening a maritime blockade or striking state infrastructure as a political message.

These options carry higher risks, as they raise the likelihood of retaliation outside established rules of engagement.

The decisive issue, however, is the “endgame.”

The US administration itself implicitly acknowledges that removing the regime's head does not guarantee its collapse, and that the question of “who comes next” has no ready answer.

This explains repeated warnings in assessments leaked to the media and in statements by US officials that the regime is weaker than ever, but that a decisive blow is not guaranteed.

How might Iran respond?

Tehran has warned in advance that any attack would mark the start of a war, and that retaliation could extend to Israel, particularly Tel Aviv, as well as anyone who supports the aggressor.

Operationally, Iran has a ladder of response, starting with strikes on US bases in the region using missiles or drones, moving through the activation of regional proxies, and culminating in threats to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, the scenario with the most severe global impact.

The latter possibility may be among the main reasons regional states have sought to avoid war and continue diplomatic efforts while stressing neutrality.

This stance could increase US logistical demands in any large-scale operation and heighten reliance on distant naval platforms.

Markets, however, have already issued an early warning. Oil prices have risen for three consecutive sessions amid fears of supply disruptions, with Brent crude nearing the $ 70-a-barrel threshold and a rise in the geopolitical risk premium, while gold has climbed as a safe-haven asset.

If a strike does occur, the potential fallout would be threefold. Economically, a spike in oil prices, pressure on shipping and insurance, and volatility in Gulf markets. Security-wise, an expansion of theaters of engagement to include Iraq, Syria, the Gulf, and Israel, with heightened risks of miscalculation.

Politically, a narrowing of prospects for any near-term negotiations, or conversely, a limited strike used to force talks under harsher terms.


Unmentioned but Present, Trump is a Common Denominator in Efforts to Strengthen Asia-Europe Ties

US President Donald Trump waves as he walks upon arrival on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, US, January 27, 2026. REUTERS/Annabelle Gordon
US President Donald Trump waves as he walks upon arrival on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, US, January 27, 2026. REUTERS/Annabelle Gordon
TT

Unmentioned but Present, Trump is a Common Denominator in Efforts to Strengthen Asia-Europe Ties

US President Donald Trump waves as he walks upon arrival on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, US, January 27, 2026. REUTERS/Annabelle Gordon
US President Donald Trump waves as he walks upon arrival on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, US, January 27, 2026. REUTERS/Annabelle Gordon

Stability. Consistency. Ever-changing complexity.

With language like that, deployed in separate meetings in three Asian capitals this week, government leaders forged closer ties driven in part by a figure halfway around the world: the president of the United States. And much of the time, they didn't even mention Donald Trump's name.

IN BEIJING: The UK and Chinese leaders called Thursday for a “long-term, stable, and comprehensive strategic partnership” between their two countries. The important words are long-term and stable. The two countries committed a decade ago to building a comprehensive strategic partnership but progress has been halting at best.

IN HANOI: About 1,100 kilometers (700 miles) to the south, Vietnam and the European Union used the same phrasing on the same day. They upgraded ties to a comprehensive strategic partnership. The agreement places Vietnam on the same diplomatic footing with the EU as the United States, China and Russia.

IN NEW DELHI: Two days earlier, the EU and India reached a major free trade accord that had been mired in negotiations for years. It covers everything from textiles to medicines and will bring down India's high tariffs on European wine and cars.

Trump was not the only factor behind the agreements, but his shaking up of the global order is worrying friends and foes and driving them closer. From a purely economic perspective, his import tariffs have sent countries seeking new markets to reduce their dependency on the American consumer.

More broadly, all the agreements have been accompanied by words from the leaders referring to the uncertainty that Trump has introduced to global affairs, though mostly without mentioning his name. The systems they have relied on to manage the world since the end of the Cold War and, in some cases since World War II, appear at risk.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called for working with China on global stability “during challenging times for the world." Chinese leader Xi Jinping described the international situation as “complex and ever-changing.” In New Delhi, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the partnership with the EU “will strengthen stability in the international system” at a time of ”turmoil in the global order.”

European Council President António Costa summed up the sentiment Thursday in the Vietnamese capital: “At a moment when the international rules-based order is under threat from multiple sides, we need to stand side by side as reliable and predictable partners.”