The Turkish military operation in Afrin marks a new phase of the Syrian issue in which regional and international intentions and willpowers criss-cross, and major projects and deals concerning the heart of the future of the Arab Mashreq for decades to come are surfacing
Contents Introduction First: The most important stages of Russian-Western relations Second: Structural development of NATO Third: Renewing the Russian tendency to control Fourth: What about START Fifth: the Russian entry in the Syrian issue Sixth: Conclusion Introduction During a speech at a NATO summit on May
Two Years of Intervention, Paving the Way for an Occupation that Could Last for Up to Half a Century29 October 2017Policy Studying Unit
It’s been two years since the direct Russian military intervention in Syria, which was launched under the pretext of controlling the military situation, preparing for a political process and, of course, "fighting terrorism." In fact, its main objective was to support the forces of the Syrian regime, establish a Russian foothold on the east of the Mediterranean, and end the single polarity that controlled the international community.
The comparison seeks to pursue two contradictory examples in the Iranian-Turkish relations, the first one based on conflict and competition while the other based on cooperation and dialogue since one cannot assume a permanent friendship or eternal enmity between the two countries. The reality of their relations has been thus fluctuating for the last three centuries since they signed the Palace of Shirin Treaty between in 1639 after irregular and harsh wars. Since then, whenever the region experienced unrest, the attention would turn to Tehran and Ankara to see the effects of such incidents on the bilateral relations.
On August the third, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir met with the delegation of the Higher Committee for Negotiations of the Syrian opposition. The meeting could be considered a major turning point in the Syrian issue, not because of its importance, but for the new significant positions declared by the Saudi minister and conveyed to the delegation
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the end of the Cold War, which prevailed after World War II between two politically, ideologically, and productively contradicting worlds, the Western-led world of the United States and the Soviet-led world of the East, each with its defensive military arm, the NATO and the efficiently parallel Warsaw Pact
The meeting of the Russian and US president meeting on 8 July 2017, which was held on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Hamburg received a lot of attention world wide. Being the first meeting between the two leaders since Trump received his duties in the White House is not what attracted the uproar, but the volume of the outstanding issues between the two countries, and the distrust and strategic rivalry, which defines the relationship between them at this critical stage.
Unexpectedly, without warning, on the 21st of last June, the new elected French president issued a press statement, which was unsymmetrical to the official French position on the Syrian issue, particularly on the Syrian regime, if not contradicted it. The given statements worried the Syrian opposition and led to further problematic interpretations of how relevant, such sudden statements were to the French policy towards Syria in the foreseeable future.
The battle to seize control of Al-Raqqa city has entered a new phase, following the domination of the US-backed "Syrian Democratic Forces" (QSD). After tightening the cordon on the militants of (Daesh) organisation, as they engage in battles since 6 June inside the city of Raqqa as a part of a massive military campaign that was launched eight months ago. However, the Syrian citizens, who have fled the battlefield, are concerned about what will happen after the battle.
Iran declared the return of the Persian Empire, claiming to be the master of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain, and blatantly threatening the Arabs with its willingness to crush them if they do not bow to the rule of the new Xerxes. Undoubtedly, this Iranian frankness affirmed the nationalist dimension of the Iranian project,