From the very first day Al-Shara’s forces entered Damascus, it became evident that the new regime had chosen to shed the cloak of jihadist Salafism and embrace the concepts of a national state. The aim was to align with the Arab environment working to consolidate the foundations of Al-Shar’s rule, fill the Iranian and Russian vacuum on Syrian soil, and prepare for integration into the western camp that seeks to use Syria’s geopolitical position to resolve complex international issues.
Clearly, Ahmad Al-Shara’s regime is attempting to break away from its past by opening up to the west and avoiding a repetition of the Taliban’s experience in Afghanistan. It seeks to provide political assurances that can stabilise the region, creating flexible political margins that allow for accepting the principle of negotiating with Israel. This would open the way for a peace agreement that builds on the atmosphere of peaceful coexistence initiated by regional states and reinforced recently through the Abraham Accords.
For some observers, the wager on the Ahmad Al-Shara’s model in Syria – if it manages to endure and succeed in building the foundations of a state based on equal citizenship for all components of Syrian society through democratic means – offers a credible path to regional stability. By adopting peaceful methods in addressing both Syria’s internal complexities and wider regional issues, this model could become a genuine entry point for burying the ideologies that relied on jihadist Salafism as a political tool to control nations and peoples.
[by Hameed Qaraman in Al-Arab]
Iran’s Nuclear Ambiguity A Tactic
Until now, Iran officially maintains its declared nuclear stance: it says it is not moving toward manufacturing a nuclear weapon, nor is it abandoning its nuclear programme; instead, it continues to strengthen and expand it.
The Iranian government’s spokesperson explains this position by saying:“We will never move toward manufacturing a nuclear bomb for three fundamental reasons: first, because it contradicts our cultural and historical principles; second, because of our firm belief – based on an explicit fatwa – that producing and using nuclear weapons is forbidden; and third, because the logic of the Iranian nation is rooted in humanity and ethics.”
In this way, Tehran continues to hold the stick from the middle: no shift toward nuclear weapons, no abandonment of enrichment; no withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and no leniency with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
During the 12-day war on Iran, major nuclear facilities were destroyed and several nuclear scientists were assassinated. Yet Iran’s “nuclear will,” as Tehran describes it, did not falter.
At the same time, Iran avoids revealing precise details about its nuclear activities. It has linked access for IAEA inspectors to the approval of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council. In this context, IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi says:“We no longer have full access to Iran’s nuclear materials, but we do not see a need to file a complaint with the Security Council. Iran still retains all the quantities of enriched uranium it possesses.”
[by Hazem Kallas in Al-Araby TV]
Compiled and translated by Faizul Haque