SYRIA

The West Gambles Without Assurances – Analysis

 May 29, 2025

By Fernando Carvajal

The recent massacre at Latakia by pro-Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) security forces and militia, which left at least 1,300 dead, not only failed in establishing order but also exacerbated a number of security challenges for Damascus. Militants continued to threaten Alawites in the area, while Damascus appointed members of terrorist organizations such as Jabhat al-Nusrato prominent posts.

Currently, the vacuum beyond Damascus remains open to the Islamic State (ISIS) and its affiliates, who are threatening to target Kurds and further destabilize the transition. Consequently, as Masood Al Hakari from Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF) puts it, extremist militants remain “far from defeated” across Syria; as the US withdraws, the jungle continues to showcase its limits to HTS governance, as well as the potential resurgence of terrorist groups.

Five months have passed since the capture of Damascus by al-Qaeda affiliated HTS militants, and still the charm offensive remains in full swing– much to the surprise of world leaders. Transitional president Abu Mohammed al-Jawlani (now Ahmed al-Shar’a) has managed to charm Western and regional governments through a number of superficial moves, in order to assume a non-threatening stance, in light of his past affiliations with ISIS and al-Qaeda. The obvious contradiction to this mirage arises from the number of extremists incorporated into governmental institutions, as well as security and military forces within Damascus and the periphery- all in plain view of Western and regional intelligence agencies, and at a time when social media activists are keeping global audiences fully educated about the situation.

Many remain highly skeptical over the process, leading HTS to change their approach, from global jihadist militants to a responsible government controlling an Arab capital. Questions remain over al-Jawlani’s ability to control jihadist elements within his new government, and his ability to contain and possibly eliminate those outside of his control. Jawlani may have committed to denounce and oppose terrorism, but does he have that capacity? Can al-Jawlani and his Cabinet contain jihadist within their ranks? How will the Transitional government deal with jihadist elements identified by Western governments across Syria’s periphery? These questions are vital as Jawlani seeks international legitimacy, and demands Western governments lift sanctions and assist in weapon procurement, so as to impose a monopoly over security forces beyond Damascus. An inability to prevent a resurgence of jihadist groups would represent a major threat for the US and European governments at a time when conflicts in the Middle East overstretch capabilities to deter threats to European territories. 

Urgency to lift sanctions 

While the EU and the UK government have rushed to lift sanctions on various Syrian entities, under the guise of facilitating development aid, the US awaits a response over vital concerns. Destruction of chemical weapons stockpile remains a regional and global concern, as much as the role of foreign fighters beyond the transition period. According to the UN, the “situation in Syria [remains] extremely fragile,” and lifting sanctions without a clear track record under the HTS government may prove regrettable in the short run. 

Soon after announcing a new transitional Cabinet, the HTS-led government in Damascus supported by Turkiye launched another charm offensive focused on sanctions and relations with international finance institutions. Al-Jawlani’s government has prioritized a focus on revenue generating industries, beyond tax collection, with oil and gas production as a top priority. This was primarily behind the rush to reach an agreement with Kurds in the northeast. The unpredictability beyond Damascus, weak control over security forces, and radical militant groups cannot assure sustainable flow of fuel toward Damascus, who reached out to Iraq and Russia to fill the void- moves that are likely to raise further concerns among Western governments.

The rush to generate government revenue results from a need to pay government salaries and maintain public services. This primarily depends on al-Jawlani’s ability to govern. Without a proven record beyond the superficial ceremonies and choreographed walk-abouts in friendly neighborhoods, Western governments risk empowering a group of militants espousing jihadist ideologies and have yet to publicly denounce al-Qaeda or ISIS. Al-Jawlani and his lieutenants are carefully maneuvering amid the jungle encircled by militant factions allied with al-Qaeda and ISIS that do not share HTS goals and retain an anti-West jihadist ideology. 

Al-Jawlani has incorporated HTS and Jabhat al-Nusra elements across police and security forces, but other factions beyond his reach continue to operate independently. New splinter groups likely seek to destabilize the fragile political transition in efforts to advance extremist ideologies, potentially challenging al-Jawlani’s version of a religious state.   

Militants and monopoly on violence 

In recent weeks, as Jawlani advanced his political and religious appointments, conflicts erupted in Hama and Homs. Some religious leaders are fueling sectarian and doctrinal conflicts, while militia continue attacks against Alawites beyond pursuit of Assadist loyalists. The extra-judicial killings have spread outside Latakia, exacerbating stability and challenging Jawlani’s efforts to establish a monopoly on weapons.  

Following the massacre in Latakia in early March, residents reported kidnappings involving foreigners. Women have disappeared and been tortured according to recent reports. In areas like Homs, clerics were heard cursing non-believers on a university campus and civilians trying to ignite sectarian conflict. Whether crimes are committed by government security forces or militia, it is clear the HTS leadership does not have control outside Damascus and reality contradicts the media narrative aimed at Western capitals. 

Jawlani’s charm offensive– hosting hundreds of diplomats to present an image of security– is contradicted by tensions and crimes along the coast and western regions. While groups linked to al-Qaeda and ISIS remain active across Syria, the crimes they commit against Alawite and Christians come along with concerns over potential attacks against security and military installations under control of HTS army. This was a tactic used by HTS forces who attacked Syrian military bases and seized weapons. Chemical weapons may be a priority to the US, but conventional arsenals are just as vital, especially for Syria’s neighbors.   

The number of militants currently operating across Syria is unclear, but the number of foreign militants in detention camps as reported in March 2025 is about 23,000. According to the International Centre For Counter-Terrorism, in camps under Kurdish control alone there are about 5,400 Syrian nationals, with over “38,000 detainees…held in two heavily guarded camps, al-Hol and Roj”. Among the detainees there are about 8,000 militants from nearly 60 different countries as dispersed as Australia, China, France, Indonesia, Russia, Trinidad, Tunisia, the UK, and South Africa. A failure by Damascus to provide effective measures to secure these camps, and provide assistance to Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) amid US withdrawal can spell disaster for Syria and its neighbors.

Western governments may be moving too fast with Damascus without the assurances needed to prevent a resurgence of global jihadist groups. The HTS-led government has yet to gain the capacity to provide such assurances, and while Turkiye has offered assistance, there is no concrete evidence of the capacity to deprive jihadists of a new safe haven. Tensions remain along the border with Lebanon, smuggling from Iran continues, all while Iraq has limited resources to assist a former security threat.

• The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy where this article was published.

Fernando Carvajal

Fernando Carvajal served on the UN Security Council Panel of Experts on Yemen from April 2017 to March 2019 as a regions and armed groups expert. He has nearly 20 years of experience conducting fieldwork in Yemen and is a specialist in Yemeni politics and tribal relations.

REAGAN STAR WARS REDUX

Golden Dome: The Next Theater Of Strategic Conflict? – Analysis

US President Donald Trump announces plans for Golden Dome in the Oval Office. Photo Credit: White House, X

 May 28, 2025

By Arab News

By Dr. Amal Mudallali

US President Donald Trump unveiled his long-promised missile defense shield initiative in early 2025, codifying what was then known as the “Iron Dome for America” through an executive order shortly after returning to office. The initiative, which Trump repeatedly touted during his campaign, represents a bold and controversial shift in American national security policy.

At a press conference at the White House last week, flanked by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Gen. Michael A. Guetlein, the US Space Force’s vice chair of space operations and the newly appointed head of the project, Trump described the initiative — now branded as “Golden Dome” — as a major leap forward in American missile defense and a historic breakthrough in space-based deterrence.

Trump framed it as the completion of President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, which was introduced more than 40 years ago. Whereas Reagan’s vision in the 1980s was aspirational — described at the time as a long-term research and development program — Trump’s is the real deal because the technology now exists to realize that vision. The president noted that space-based sensors and interceptors will be deployed and operational before the end of his term in 2029.

The president said the Golden Dome would serve as an integrated defense shield against “any and all missile threats,” promising protection from projectiles launched from across the globe — or from space itself. The objective, as Hegseth said, is to “rebuild our military capability and reestablish deterrence.” The architecture will incorporate land, sea, air and space-based platforms, and Canada will be part of it. As Politico noted, Trump’s reliance on Canada is crucial, especially to track and neutralize potential missile launches from Russia or China.

But as bold as the announcement was, it immediately drew fierce criticism from scientists, arms control advocates and US rivals, as did the Strategic Defense Initiative under Reagan. While the Trump administration heralded the initiative as a technological breakthrough and a national security imperative, its critics warned of potentially devastating implications: an escalation of great power competition, the erosion of global arms control frameworks and an arms race in space.

The central legal question is whether the Golden Dome violates the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the foundational international agreement governing space activities. This treaty explicitly prohibits the placement of “nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction” in orbit or on celestial bodies. However, the treaty does not ban conventional weapons — an omission that arms control experts now regard as a critical loophole.

China’s Foreign Ministry voiced its “grave concern” over the Golden Dome, accusing Washington of undermining the principle of peaceful use of space enshrined in the Outer Space Treaty. A spokesperson warned that the initiative could “heighten the risk of turning space into a war zone and creating a space arms race, shaking the foundations of the international arms control system.”

Russia’s response was more measured, reflecting the delicate timing of US-Russia negotiations over the war in Ukraine. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov suggested the project might provide an opening for renewed strategic arms talks. “The very course of events requires the resumption of contacts on issues of strategic stability,” he said.

At the UN, recent efforts to forestall an arms race in space have faltered. In the fall of 2024, a draft resolution introduced at the UN Security Council by the US and Japan — to ban nuclear and mass destructive weapons in space — was blocked by Russia and China. Ironically, both powers argued that the resolution did not go far enough, as it excluded conventional weapons.

Though Trump did not explicitly mention China or Russia during his Golden Dome announcement, the initiative is widely viewed as targeting these two adversaries. With tensions with Beijing rising over Taiwan and Moscow’s global influence diminished by war and sanctions, Washington appears to be recalibrating its defense posture with China as the primary long-term competitor.

Nonetheless, Russia remains a concern. Despite its weakened geopolitical position, it maintains a powerful nuclear arsenal and significant space capabilities. As one arms control expert put it, “Russia may be the junior partner in the threat equation, but it’s still a partner.”

While the Trump administration insists that the Golden Dome is purely defensive, opponents say the deployment of space-based interceptors effectively weaponizes space, destabilizes deterrence and encourages adversaries to develop or deploy similar capabilities. The Arms Control Association has condemned the plan as a costly “strategic blunder,” calling it “deeply flawed, technically complex and counterproductive.” The group urged the administration to negotiate a follow-on agreement with Russia to maintain New START limits until a broader treaty can be secured.

The initiative has stirred controversy in Congress. Democrats have slammed the project as wasteful and misaligned with national priorities. With $25 billion allocated in the 2025 budget and estimates ranging from $161 billion to more than $540 billion over two decades (according to the Congressional Budget Office), critics are questioning the cost-benefit ratio.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, backed by 42 Democratic lawmakers, called for an investigation into the defense contracts awarded for the project. Accusations of profiteering have surfaced, particularly involving Elon Musk and his company SpaceX and its investors.

Some defense analysts argue that the declining cost of space launches has made space-based defense more feasible than in the Reagan era. Others, including scientists from the American Physical Society, argue that, even with modern technology, the fundamental challenge remains: hitting a fast-moving missile with another object in space is akin to “hitting a bullet with a bullet.” Victoria Samson of the Secure World Foundation acknowledged technological advances but noted, “the laws of physics have not changed.”

The Golden Dome arrives at a moment of deep uncertainty in global arms control. The Cold War-era architecture painstakingly built over decades has all but crumbled. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is gone, as is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The last remaining agreement — New START — is set to expire in 2026. The US and Russia have suspended participation in most of these agreements and China has never been a party to any of them.

By introducing a space-based missile shield, Trump risks opening a Pandora’s box. With space already declared a warfighting domain by both NATO and the US, and with the emergence of powerful new space actors, the Golden Dome may fundamentally alter the character of space security.

Trump’s Golden Dome may be technologically ambitious and politically bold, but its implications are profound and far-reaching. It challenges long-standing international norms, stirs geopolitical tensions and threatens to accelerate the weaponization of space.

As arms control frameworks erode and space becomes the next frontier of competition, the world faces a stark choice: will space remain a shared, peaceful domain or will it become the next theater of strategic conflict? If Trump truly wishes to cement his legacy not just as a protector but as a peacemaker, he may need to extend his diplomatic ambitions skyward — into the final frontier.

• Dr. Amal Mudallali is an international affairs adviser for Think and a former Lebanese ambassador to the UN.

Arab News

Arab News is Saudi Arabia's first English-language newspaper. It was founded in 1975 by Hisham and Mohammed Ali Hafiz. Today, it is one of 29 publications produced by Saudi Research & Publishing Company (SRPC), a subsidiary of Saudi Research & Marketing Group (SRMG).

 

Mad Money: Why The Markets Are Angry At Trump – OpEd

 May 29, 2025  

By Dean Baker

When he was elected last fall, Donald Trump was the darling of the business community. He promised to get rid of pesky regulations that protect consumers from fraudulent business practices. His sidekick, Elon Musk, even pledged to “delete” the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Trump also promised to get rid of annoying environmental regulations. If companies want to put cancer-causing substances in people’s food, air, and water, his administration would not stand in their way.

Trump also promised to be firmly on the side of management in dealing with workers. Just as he had made a practice of ripping off workers in his business dealings, he was committed to extending this opportunity to employers across the country.

Business leaders didn’t care if Trump lived largely in a fantasy world where global warming isn’t happening and he won the 2020 election. Nor did it matter to them that Trump was committed to using the power of the government to punish the people he considers enemies.

None of this mattered. Trump promised big tax cuts and to use the government to strengthen business’s hand at every opportunity.

But the world seems to have changed. Despite Trump’s pledge to turn the government over to the corporate world, the financial markets seem unhappy. Since Trump took office in January, the S&P 500 is down a bit more than 3.0 percent.

The index plummeted by more than 12 percent following Trump’s announcement of his “Liberation Day” tariffs, although it regained most of this ground after he reversed course a week later. It started to dip again in May, as Trump’s 154 percent tariff on imports from China was bringing trade to a halt. He then reversed course again and left his taxes at a still very high (but not completely prohibitive) 30 percent.

That calmed the markets, but they got angry again at the prospect of a big increase in the deficits associated with Trump’s tax cuts, which led to a ratings downgrade by Moody’s. It probably doesn’t help matters that Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, insists that Trump’s tax cuts will reduce the deficit.

And it’s not just the stock market, the dollar is down by almost 10 percent against the euro since Trump took office. And interest rates on long-term government bonds have been jumping. Unlike the fall in the stock market, the rise in interest rates will have very real effects on the economy if it is not soon reversed, since it will further slow housing construction and home sales.

I will be the last person to attribute great wisdom to financial markets. I remember stocks like Pets.com and Priceline.com hitting market capitalizations in the tens of billions in the late 1990s. I also remember the wizards of Wall Street sending the stock price of investment banks soaring as they mass produced mortgage-backed securities based on subprime mortgages that soon became nearly worthless.

Markets can be very wrong, but one thing they are definitely right about is the sentiment of investors, and right now that sentiment looks pretty damn negative. Trump can spin endless nonsense to the media and his supporters, but for now at least investors aren’t buying it.

As much as Trump seems to want to do everything to increase corporate profits at the expense of everyone and everything else, Wall Street investors seem to think his incompetence will outweigh his intentions when it comes to their future profits. Given what we have seen from his administration in its four months, it would be hard to argue with the financial markets on this one.

• This article first appeared on Dean Baker’s Beat the Press blog.

Dean Baker

Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy.

Chief Economists Warn Global Growth Under Strain From Trade Policy Shocks And AI Disruption

 May 28, 2025  

By Eurasia Review

The global economic outlook has worsened since the start of the year, as rising economic nationalism and tariff volatility fuel uncertainty and risk stalling long-term decision-making, according to a World Economic Forum report released Wednesday.

The latest Chief Economists Outlook reveals that a strong majority (79%) of surveyed economists view the current geoeconomic developments as signs of a significant structural shift for the global economy rather than a temporary disruption.

“Policymakers and business leaders must respond to heightened uncertainty and trade tensions with greater coordination, strategic agility and investment in the growth potential of transformative technologies like artificial intelligence,” said Saadia Zahidi, Managing Director, World Economic Forum. “These steps are essential for navigating today’s economic headwinds and securing long-term resilience and growth.”

Geopolitical and policy uncertainty clouds outlook

Global uncertainty is seen as exceptionally high by 82% of the chief economists. While a narrow majority (56%) expect conditions to improve over the next year, concerns persist. Nearly all the chief economists (97%) place trade policy among the areas of highest uncertainty, followed by monetary policy (49%) and fiscal policy (35%). This uncertainty is expected to weigh on key economic indicators, including trade volumes (70%), GDP growth (68%) and foreign direct investment (62%).

Most chief economists (87%) anticipate that businesses will respond to uncertainty by delaying strategic decisions, increasing recession risks. Debt sustainability is also a rising concern, cited by 74% of respondents for both advanced and developing economies. An overwhelming majority (86%) expect governments to meet rising defence spending needs through increased borrowing, potentially crowding out investment in public services and infrastructure.

Growth expectations diverge sharply by region

In early April, at the peak of uncertainty, most chief economists (77%) were anticipating weak or very weak growth through 2025 in the US, alongside high inflation (79%) and a weakening dollar (76%). By contrast, they were cautiously optimistic about Europe’s prospects for the first time in years, mainly because of expectations of fiscal expansion, notably in Germany. The outlook for China remains muted, and the chief economists were divided over whether it will reach its target of 5% GDP growth this year. Optimism remains highest for South Asia, where 33% expect strong or very strong growth this year.

AI as a growth catalyst but potential economic risk

Artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to drive the next wave of economic transformation, unlocking significant growth potential but also introducing serious risks. Nearly half (46%) of chief economists expect AI to deliver a modest global real GDP boost of 0-5 percentage points over the next decade, with a further 35% projecting gains of 5-10 points. Key growth drivers include task automation (68%), accelerated innovation (62%) and worker augmentation (49%). Despite its potential, concerns persist: 47% expect net job losses over the next decade, compared to just 19% who expect gains.

Above all, respondents highlighted the misuse of AI for disinformation and societal destabilization as the top risk to the economy (53%). Other key risks include rising concentration of market power (47%) and disruption of existing business models (44%).

To fully harness AI’s potential, the chief economists emphasized the need for bold action from both governments and businesses. For governments, top priorities include investing in AI infrastructure (89%), promoting adoption across key industries (86%), facilitating AI talent mobility (80%), and investing in upskilling and redeployment (75%). For businesses, the focus is on adapting core processes to integrate AI (95%), reskilling employees (91%) and training leadership to steer AI-driven transformation (83%).

Eurasia Review

Eurasia Review is an independent Journal that provides a venue for analysts and experts to disseminate content on a wide-range of subjects that are often overlooked or under-represented by Western dominated media.

Collateral Damage Of Trump’s Tariff Strategy – OpEd

 May 28, 2025

By Dr. Imran Khalid

By the time Washington and Beijing released their latest joint statement on May 12 – ostensibly pressing pause on a spiraling tariff war – much of the world exhaled in cautious relief. But beneath the performative diplomacy and sterile communiqués, a quieter suffering has gone largely unheard. For the world’s most vulnerable economies, the damage is neither paused nor negotiable. It is metastasizing.

At the centre of the storm lies the United States’ renewed enthusiasm for tariffs – an economic instrument once discarded by the apostles of neoliberal globalization, now being redeployed with almost missionary zeal. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has sounded the alarm: America’s recent wave of tariff hikes, far from being a targeted effort to recalibrate great-power competition, threatens to rupture the already fragile prospects of the least developed countries (LDCs) and small island states.

Rebecca Greenspan, the head of UNCTAD, has put it bluntly: the poorest nations on earth – those who have played little to no role in ballooning the U.S. trade deficit – should be exempt. Her case is unimpeachable. The 44 least developed countries contribute less than 2% to America’s trade imbalance. Their exports are, in most cases, inconsequential in value and unthreatening in scope. Take Madagascar, whose prized export is vanilla. Punitive tariffs on such economies amount not to economic policy, but economic vandalism.

But the ideology of economic nationalism, like its military counterpart, rarely pauses to interrogate the collateral damage. The numbers speak with a clarity that policymakers prefer to ignore. According to UNCTAD, vulnerable economies currently account for just 0.3% of the U.S. trade deficit. Yet in the next round of planned tariff escalations – set to take effect by July 2025 – some of these very nations are slated to face rates exceeding 25%. Seven of them are LDCs. Many are in Asia and the Pacific, regions already groaning under the triple burden of climate crisis, debt overload, and post-pandemic recovery.

Even the arithmetic of injustice is startling. In April alone, the average U.S. tariff on LDCs in Asia and Oceania doubled, with projections suggesting it may triple by July. Tariffs on Latin American and Caribbean nations have surged more than 40-fold. The worst hit? Agriculture and textiles – the sectors that not only anchor these economies but also employ the largest swath of their working populations.

One might ask, what rationale underpins this? Officially, Washington claims it is “protecting domestic industries.” But in practice, it resembles an exquisitely precise sniper attack on economies too weak to retaliate. These are not the high-tech sectors threatening Silicon Valley’s dominance. They are the labour-intensive, low-margin industries that are the difference between subsistence and survival for millions.

Nowhere is the contradiction more grotesque than in America’s expectations from the very nations it punishes. As Washington tightens its own trade borders, it insists that others dismantle theirs. The asymmetry is breathtaking.

This hypocrisy is neither accidental nor new. As Joseph Stiglitz – one of the few economists in the West willing to pierce the veil – once observed, “Those who build walls will eventually be surrounded by them.” That moment may be closer than many in Washington dare admit.

The backlash is already underway. Developing countries are turning away from the dollar, forming new trade blocs, and exploring alternatives to Bretton Woods institutions. The expansion of BRICS to include 45 countries is not merely a diplomatic maneuver; it is a symptom of a deeper malaise. The edifice of post-war economic order, built on U.S. hegemony and free-market orthodoxy, is visibly cracking.

None of this is unfamiliar. America has been here before – most famously in 1930, with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. That infamous legislation turned a stock market crash into a global depression. Markets shrank, trade collapsed, and beggar-thy-neighbour became the default mode of international relations. The parallels with the present are chilling.

Already, small U.S. businesses are warning of spiralling costs for imported parts. Soybeans lie rotting in Midwestern silos as global buyers turn elsewhere. Even the International Monetary Fund now projects the U.S. as the slowest-growing economy in the developed world. The irony is almost biblical: in trying to weaponize trade, Washington is gradually wounding itself.

The tragedy, however, lies not in America’s self-inflicted harm but in the suffering it outsources. The textile workers in Phnom Penh, the cassava farmers in Malawi, the vanilla growers in Antananarivo – these are not collateral damage. They are deliberate victims of a policy that refuses to acknowledge their humanity.

Economic warfare, like its military cousin, often hides its blood. There are no explosions on electronic media, no satellite imagery of ruined cities. But the wreckage is real: shuttered factories, malnourished children, political instability. And it is happening not in battlegrounds of ideology, but in the quiet hinterlands of a system that has long treated the global South as expendable.

If there is an alternative, it lies in the resuscitation of inclusive multilateralism – one that listens as well as lectures, that redistributes as well as reforms.  It must be demanded, built, and led by the very countries that have borne the brunt of an unjust order. Washington’s tariff tantrum is not merely a failure of policy – it is a moral failure. And as the global South begins to reclaim its voice, the question confronting the North is no longer how to lead, but whether it is willing to share.

In a world inching toward polycentric power, the choice is no longer between open markets and protectionism. It is between economic justice and continued imperialism. The sooner we recognize this, the fewer casualties there will be.

Dr. Imran Khalid

Dr. Imran Khalid is a geostrategic analyst and columnist on international affairs. His work has been widely published by prestigious international news organizations and journals.