Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Introduction The Ansar Allah "Houthis" group announced the resumption of its ban on Israeli ships passing through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait on Tuesday, March 11, 2025, following the expiration of the deadline it had given Israel to allow humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip. This was stated in a recorded speech by the group's military spokesperson, Yahya Saree, posted on his account on the X platform, where he declared that their forces "confirm the resumption of the ban on all Israeli ships in the designated operational areas in the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea, Bab el-Mandeb, and the Gulf of Aden, following the expiration of the deadline granted by the group's leader, Abdul Malik al-Houthi, to mediators to pressure the Israeli enemy into reopening the crossings and allowing aid into the Gaza Strip." In response, U.S. Secretary of  Defense Pete Hegseth vowed on Sunday, March 16, 2025, that the United States would carry out "relentless" strikes against the Houthi rebels in Yemen until the group ceases its military operations targeting American assets and global shipping routes. In this context, Houthi-affiliated media outlets reported on Sunday, 16March 2024, that approximately 40 American airstrikes on the capital, Sanaa, as well as Saada and Al-Bayda, resulted in a preliminary toll of 32 casualties and over a hundred injuries. These operations take place amid escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran and signs that U.S. strikes are focused on the tactical deterrence of the Houthis, making them part of a broader American strategy aimed at containing Iranian influence. This escalation coincides with the collapse of the ceasefire agreement in Gaza, reinforcing the possibility that the region may be heading toward a new phase of entangled military confrontations. This paper examines the objectives and messages underlying this military campaign, focusing on the prospects of continued escalation between the United States and the Houthis and the possibility of it extending into a direct confrontation with Iran. It also seeks to answer a critical question: Will Washington succeed in deterring the Houthis through these operations, or will this strategy lead to a greater escalation that could involve a broader confrontation with Iran? This is especially relevant given the growing indications that Israel is intensifying pressure on the United States to push it toward direct conflict with Tehran. Amid the complexities of the regional landscape, the paper considers the strategic dimensions of these operations, including U.S. messaging toward Iran, Israel’s efforts to expand the scope of confrontation, and the role of international allies in shaping the escalation pathways. It also explores possible scenarios for future developments, ranging from continued limited strikes to the potential outbreak of a large-scale regional confrontation. From this perspective, the paper will highlight the key American messages and underlying objectives of this military campaign, which should be taken into account when discussing the primary goals of this campaign at this critical juncture. These can be interpreted as follows: American Messages; During his first term, U.S. President Donald Trump adopted a "maximum pressure" policy on Iran, which manifested in the imposition of a broad set of economic sanctions that significantly impacted the Iranian economy, along with the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal on May 8, 2018. Continuing this approach, Trump reaffirmed his hardline stance on Iran's nuclear program even before officially assuming office again in January 2025. Since announcing his candidacy for the presidential elections in July 2024, he has emphasized the need for a "new nuclear deal" with Iran. On September 26, 2024, he stated: "We must reach an agreement, because the consequences are impossible. We must reach an agreement." As part of his escalating position toward Tehran, upon taking office, Trump signed a presidential memorandum on February 5, 2025, reinstating the maximum pressure policy on the Iranian government, aiming to block Tehran’s path to acquiring a nuclear weapon and counter its destabilizing influence abroad, according to a White House statement at the time. In a further escalation against what is known as Iran’s "proxies" in the region, the United States launched large-scale airstrikes on the Houthis in Yemen. The Pentagon announced that since Saturday, March 15, 2025, it had targeted 30 Houthi sites in the largest U.S. military operation in the Middle East since Trump's return to the White House.  This ongoing military campaign cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader U.S. approach toward Iran, which is characterized by stringent economic sanctions and firm official statements underscoring Washington’s determination to exert maximum pressure on Tehran. These military strikes are part of a wider American strategy aimed at delivering clear and direct messages to Iran: that the United States is not only capable of countering any Iranian threat but is also resolute in defending its interests and allies in the region. Reinforcing this stance, U.S. President Donald Trump  declared on March 17, 2025, that Iran would be held accountable for any future attacks carried out by the Houthis, a clear indication that the Trump administration might consider direct strikes against Iran if the Houthis continue targeting American interests—especially if evidence emerges of military or intelligence support from Tehran. This statement reveals the potential for U.S. military strikes against Iranian targets or Iran’s affiliated groups in the region as part of an escalatory strategy designed to deter Tehran—not only in response to proven arms support for the Houthis in the future but also concerning its nuclear program. This comes within the context of Trump’s threats before launching the military campaign against the Houthis. On March 13, 2025, Washington delivered an official message to Iran, giving it a choice between negotiating a new agreement or facing direct military action. However, Tehran rejected negotiations under threat, further increasing the likelihood of escalation in the coming period. Israel’s Efforts to Open the Iran Front; The recent U.S. strikes on the Houthis in Yemen are part of an escalating military confrontation in the Middle East, coinciding with Israeli attempts to drag the United States into a broader conflict with Iran. Since the outbreak of Israel’s war on Gaza in October 2023, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government has been pushing Washington toward a more aggressive stance against Iran. This was highlighted by The Washington Post on October 14, 2025, which noted Israel’s readiness to launch military strikes against Iranian targets, necessitating U.S. support and backing. Israel seeks to expand the scope of regional conflict by urging Washington to respond militarily to Houthi threats in the wake of the Gaza war. It appears that Tel Aviv is attempting to lure the United States into escalating tensions with Iran, particularly given Tehran’s logistical and military support for the Houthis. Thus, targeting the group could serve as a preliminary step toward broadening military operations to include direct Iranian targets, increasing the likelihood of escalation with Iran. Israel is betting on escalation, as suspicions grow over Netanyahu’s intentions to widen the war with Iran by exploiting ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Yemen. Israel views continued military pressure on Tehran and its proxies as a means to weaken Iran’s regional position and potentially push the U.S. toward more confrontational steps. This comes at a time when the influence of Iran’s allied factions has waned—particularly in Syria, where Bashar al-Assad’s regime collapsed on December 8, 2024, and in Lebanon, following Israel’s extensive strikes on Hezbollah, which resulted in the deaths of most of its senior leadership, including Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah. Therefore, targeting the Houthis carries a direct message to Tehran: Washington is prepared to expand its operations against regional threats, which may provoke escalatory responses from Iran. This scenario aligns with Israel’s objectives of reinforcing its stance against Iran. Since the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas in Gaza in January 2025,  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been retreating from the deal under intense criticism from Israel’s far-right factions. In this context, Israel has resumed and expanded its attacks on Gaza. On Tuesday, March 18, 2025, Netanyahu’s office announced that Israeli forces had targeted Hamas positions across the Gaza Strip. This move is part of an escalatory policy aimed at keeping the war ongoing and preventing any long-term truce, as Israel considers continued military operations necessary to impose its political and security conditions. Furthermore, Israel is seeking to shift the confrontation to broader fronts. The Israeli military is expanding its presence in Syria, continuing airstrikes against Iranian targets and affiliated militias, while maintaining its military foothold in southern Lebanon despite the ceasefire agreement with Hezbollah in November 2024. This indicates that Tel Aviv is not only intensifying its military operations in Gaza but is also pushing for a larger escalation against Iran, which is the main backer of Hezbollah and Palestinian armed factions. This reflects Israel’s intent to keep regional tensions high and reshape the rules of engagement in the Middle East. In light of this, Israel is expected to cooperate with the United States in conducting precision strikes against the Houthis in Yemen in the near future, as well as in potential assassination operations targeting Houthi leaders. Additionally, it may participate in military actions against nuclear and military sites inside Iran, potentially triggering Iranian retaliation and further regional tensions. This escalation would serve to appease Israel’s far-right factions and the ruling coalition, which has repeatedly threatened to withdraw from the government and topple Netanyahu over his handling of Gaza and Iran. The escalation opportunities with Iran U.S. strikes may push the Houthis to intensify their attacks, especially in parallel with Israel’s escalation of airstrikes on Gaza at the moment. In his latest speech, the leader of Ansar Allah linked the cessation of attacks on Israeli ships in the Red Sea to the entry of aid into Gaza, which is not expected at this stage "despite mediators calling for a return to negotiations," given Israel’s resumption of the war on Gaza alongside the American military campaign against the Houthis in Yemen. This may necessitate additional American escalation, particularly after Trump held Iran responsible for any future Houthi attacks. On March 16, 2025, the commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hossein Salami, vowed to respond to any attack following threats from U.S. President Donald Trump against Tehran over Washington’s strikes on the Houthis in Yemen. In statements broadcast on state television, Salami said, "Iran will not start a war, but if anyone threatens it, we will respond appropriately, decisively, and firmly." This statement reflects Iran’s deterrence policy while also keeping the door open for a potential escalation if Washington decides to attack Iran by directly targeting Iranian sites. Hossein Salami’s statement carries a dual message: Tehran affirms that it does not seek war, but at the same time, it brandishes the threat of a strong response if it faces any direct threat. This message primarily targets the United States and serves as a means to deter any further escalatory measures by Israel regarding the Iranian nuclear file.  Salami's statement also aims to rely on escalatory rhetoric to reinforce his image domestically, especially amid the ongoing economic and military pressures on Iran. These statements also seek to reassure the Iranian public that the regime remains strong and capable of defending its interests against both the United States and Israel. Despite Iran’s statements affirming that it does not seek war, it simultaneously adopts the approach of "flexible deterrence," leaving the door open for escalatory options if Tehran is subjected to direct strikes. This keeps the region facing open-ended scenarios, ranging from the continuation of indirect confrontation through proxies to the possibility of events spiraling into a broader confrontation if Washington and Tel Aviv decide to go beyond limited strikes to directly targeting Iran. The Limits of U.S. Effectiveness in Deterring the Houthis Since the escalation of Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, the United States has adopted a dual military and political strategy in an attempt to restore lost deterrence. However, questions remain about the effectiveness of this policy in achieving its desired objectives, particularly given the Houthis' ability to adapt to U.S. pressure and continue their escalatory maritime operations. As part of these efforts, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announced the formation of a multinational naval force in December 2023 to protect navigation in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden under Operation "Prosperity Guardian." While this force has enhanced security measures, Houthi attacks have persisted, indicating that military deterrence alone has not been sufficient to completely halt the attacks.So far, the Houthis have divided their maritime campaign into five phases, which can be outlined as follows:• Phase One: Attacks focused on missile strikes targeting Israel, beginning in October 2023 with the Gaza war, and on Israeli-linked ships in the Red Sea starting in November 2023.• Phase Two: In December 2023, attacks expanded to include all ships heading to Israeli ports. Vessels with direct or indirect ties to Israel, as well as those that had previously visited Israeli ports, became targets.• Phase Three: In January 2024, attacks expanded further to target ships linked to the United States and the United Kingdom.• Phase Four: In May 2024, the scope widened again to include ships owned or operated by entities that also own vessels visiting Israeli ports.• Phase Five: This phase was announced after the Houthis launched the "Yafa" drone at Tel Aviv on July 19, 2024, marking a continuation of the previous phases. In each phase, the group managed to force more vessels to avoid the southern Red Sea. By the fourth phase, from at least late April 2024, additional shipping companies engaged in trade with Israeli ports had started avoiding the Bab al-Mandeb Strait. At the same time, on certain occasions, the attacks drew attention to other regional activities, such as Russia’s oil trade. U.S. efforts to restore deterrence against the Houthis face complex challenges, as limited military strikes and political sanctions have not decisively curbed the group’s escalation. While Washington seeks to strike a balance between applying military pressure and maintaining regional stability, the Houthis have demonstrated their ability to adapt to these pressures and expand their maritime operations, benefiting from Iranian support and escalating geopolitical tensions. In this context, the airstrikes launched by the Trump administration in Yemen marked the first time the U.S. had explicitly targeted Houthi leaders, in addition to their military centers and command-and-control hubs. The success of American deterrence against the Houthis may largely depend on adopting more aggressive strategies, such as the targeted assassination of key Houthi leaders—similar to Israel’s approach against Hezbollah commanders. This tactic could weaken the group's central leadership and disrupt its organizational structure, potentially limiting its ability to coordinate maritime attacks. However, this approach carries significant risks, as it may provoke the Houthis into even more aggressive retaliatory actions and potentially increase the likelihood of direct Iranian involvement in the confrontation. Possible Scenarios Iran Avoiding Direct Support for the Houthis to Prevent a Confrontation with Washington: Iran's lack of direct response to Israel’s escalation against Hezbollah in Lebanon—despite its declared "Unity of Fronts" doctrine—suggests a likely pattern that could also apply to its handling of U.S. escalation against the Houthis in Yemen. While Iran utilizes proxy groups to expand its regional influence, its direct military involvement remains constrained by complex strategic calculations related to the balance of power, the cost of escalation, and the ability to deter adversaries without being drawn into an open confrontation. In the case of Hezbollah, despite Israel’s recent military actions, Iran chose to regulate the intensity of the confrontation rather than push for a full-scale war. This reflects a strategy of "remote management," where Tehran supports its allies without direct engagement. The same approach may apply to the Houthis, particularly since the U.S. escalation occurs within the broader context of the Washington-Tehran standoff over the nuclear issue and aims to deter Houthi threats to international shipping. This perspective is reinforced by a statement from Hossein Salami, the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), on March 16, 2025, in which he asserted that "Iran will not start a war, but it will respond appropriately, decisively, and resolutely if threatened." This statement indicates that Tehran prefers to maintain a defensive stance rather than an offensive one that could lead to full-scale military escalation. At the same time, it does not want to appear weak in the eyes of its adversaries, meaning it may scale back its support for the Houthis in the short to medium term. It can be argued that U.S. military action against the Houthis is unlikely to trigger direct Iranian intervention unless Iran itself comes under direct attack. Should Iran face large-scale strikes on military sites within its borders, it may respond by expanding support for its regional proxies—despite their declining influence—through the provision of more advanced military technology or by mobilizing other militias in the region to divert pressure away from Iran. This scenario reflects a recurring pattern in Iranian strategy, wherein Tehran employs a "brinkmanship" approach without crossing red lines that would provoke a direct U.S. military response. Regional Escalation: The recent escalation—marked by the Houthis’ announcement of targeting the U.S. aircraft carrier Harry Truman and a U.S. destroyer in the Red Sea on March 18, 2025—signals a critical phase in the ongoing confrontations, particularly under the hardline Trump administration. Unlike the Biden administration's more restrained approach, Washington may push for a broader escalation against the Houthis' capabilities in Yemen, especially if Tehran's continued involvement in supplying the group with advanced weapons and technology is confirmed. The Trump administration is likely to view sustained attacks on its forces and naval assets as crossing a red line, potentially prompting an expansion of retaliatory measures. This could include intensified airstrikes on Houthi military sites within Yemen and targeting the infrastructure Iran uses to transfer weapons to the group. U.S. actions may also escalate to the point of considering direct strikes against Iran itself. However, given the geopolitical complexities, American strikes may not be limited to Yemen and Iran alone. They could extend to Iran’s regional proxies in Iraq and Lebanon, particularly if Iran-aligned factions target U.S. interests in the region. These factions have the capability to pose direct threats to American assets, which may prompt Washington to expand its military responses beyond the immediate Houthi threat.The Most Likely Scenario:  Given the current circumstances, the most probable scenario is the first one—where Iran avoids directly supporting the Houthis or engaging in a full-scale war with Washington, while the U.S. expands its military strikes against the Houthis' infrastructure. This stems primarily from Iran’s strategic caution in avoiding a direct confrontation with both Tel Aviv and Washington, aligning with its broader approach to regional crises, as seen in its management of the escalation between Israel and Hezbollah. However, Iran is likely to enter the conflict only in one case—if it faces a direct military attack. Conclusion The recent escalation in the Red Sea reflects the complexity of the regional landscape, where international and regional interests intersect, keeping the crisis open to further developments in the near future. While global powers seek to contain tensions and prevent a full-scale escalation, striking a balance between deterrence and containment remains a crucial factor in shaping the region’s security strategy. In this context, the United States faces significant challenges in deterring the Houthis, as the group has demonstrated a high degree of adaptability to military and political pressures. On the other hand, Iran’s approach to the U.S. escalation against the Houthis reflects a cautious strategic stance, as Tehran prefers to avoid direct confrontation with Washington while continuing to support its allies indirectly. Given the ongoing tensions, the Red Sea remains a key focal point in global security and economic calculations, necessitating more comprehensive approaches to address the escalating challenges.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Whether French or European, the strategy of nuclear deterrence is governed by one absolute rule: it is not an end in itself, but means to an end, so that we cannot put the atomic cart before the political horse. To avoid getting bogged down for the umpteenth time in futile discussions about a European nuclear deterrent, let's recall the fundamental principles of this strategy. Deterrence is a mode of operation with a negative goal as old as war itself. Aimed at preventing an adversary's offensive intentions, it has been used with varying degrees of success due to its random nature. It is based on the calculation of probabilities. Usually, if an aggressor takes the risk of transgressing deterrence based on conventional forces and its venture goes wrong, the aggressor has gambled and lost, suffering at worst the humiliation of defeat. With nuclear weapons, deterrence now takes on a whole new dimension, since the probability of nuclear retaliation entails the risk of an exorbitant loss, said to be unbearable, exceeding the value of what is at stake. The strategy of nuclear deterrence is not peace. It cannot prevent limited regional conflicts or suppress terrorist action. It can only be applied in the event of a massive attack of any kind against the vital interests of the country under attack. This “perimeter of vitality” does not have to be precisely defined, but is left to the discretion of the Head of State, so as to create uncertainty for the would-be aggressor. The strategy of nuclear deterrence is based on five identified principles, theorized in France by Generals Gallois [1] and Poirier. [2] Principle of credibility: nuclear deterrence requires the creation and demonstration of technical capabilities. This was the role of the tests suspended indefinitely in 1994 and prohibited by treaty (CTBT). Principle of permanence: the SDN is ensured by the Head of State, who is the sole decision-maker, with 24-hour access to electronic codes and means of transmission to strategic air forces on standby and submarines on patrol. Principle of uncertainty: “the deterrent effect results from the combination of certainty and uncertainty in the mental field of a would-be aggressor: certainty as to the existence of an unacceptable risk... uncertainty as to the exact conditions of application of the model in the event of the outbreak of hostilities.” Principle of sufficiency: for a medium-sized power like France, in terms of quantity and quality, neither too much nor too sophisticated. During the Cold War, this was known as “deterrence of the weak by the strong” (the strong being the Soviet Union, which French leaders wisely never named explicitly). To avoid embarking on a ruinous arms race, two conditions need to be met: A. An invulnerable nuclear force capable of retaliating in the event of aggression (nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines - SNLE - are permanently undetectable). It is essential to provide redundancy in the event of human or technical failure. B. Ability to penetrate enemy defenses. There is no such thing as 100% interception. The damage remains tolerable if the explosive charges are conventional, but if they are nuclear, the problem changes completely. An SSBN salvo sends 96 charges that can “vitrify” potentially as many targets. No defense system would be able to intercept them, no matter how much progress is made. All the more so as these warheads are surrounded by decoys, maneuverable (change of trajectory) and stealthy (low radar signature). This lasting superiority of aggression over protection means that the SDN is the only response. Principle of proportionality: the amount of “unbearable” destruction is related to the value of what is at stake. In this case, is the invasion and conquest of France worth the annihilation of one or more of the aggressor's vital centers?  So what should be the target? “Anticité” (men) or antiforces (weapons)? Progress in precision has made it possible to target smaller areas with greater precision. The official line is that France is no longer targeting cities, but rather the command centers of nuclear forces and political decision-making centers. However, such targets are rarely located in the heart of deserts, but have the bad taste of being buried deep in the middle of densely populated areas. The creation of a European strategic nuclear deterrent will therefore have to go along with all these principles. How and with what facilities? The stakes for the aggressor would change dimension. From the vital interests of France alone, we would move on to those of all the member states of the European Union, or at the very least, of those who would agree to join us. The calculation of proportionality would be affected, with ipso facto repercussions on the principle of sufficiency. Given its flexibility and visibility, should the air component be expanded? Should the number of nuclear weapons be increased? Should territorial positioning be extended, where and how far? Could France extend its nuclear deterrent to cover the interests of its European partners?  The nuclear “umbrella” declared by U.S. leaders since Kennedy's Defense Secretary McNamara has often been the subject of skepticism about its credibility, starting with General de Gaulle. Donald Trump openly exposes the eminently selfish nature of nuclear weapons. Who can still believe today that this President and his successors would sacrifice New York for Warsaw, Berlin or Paris? A fortiori, are the citizens of the countries of Europe prepared to make their existence dependent on the decision of the French President alone? Who could believe that he would sacrifice Paris for Tallinn? In truth, if the allies (European and Asian) thought they could rely on the commitment of the United States, it was because of the growing strength of American conventional forces capable of effectively opposing non-nuclear aggression. Any comparison with the USA is therefore absurd. Together, do the EU states have 11 aircraft carriers? 14 strategic nuclear submarines? Do their navies lock up world trade routes? Do they control Space? The little European frog won't reach the enormity of the American ox. But would this be necessary if their governments were to make an objective assessment of the real threat, free from ideological prejudices and corporatist interests? Let's move on to the crux of deterrence: the cost of “burden-sharing”, NATO's constant worry. Are states like Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland prepared to pay for the construction of a so-called European nuclear deterrent, without having access to the ultimate decision? Money is also time. A single multi-state nuclear strategy cannot be improvised overnight. Are we forgetting that some EU members do not perceive Russia as a threat; that others, like Austria, are leaders in favor of a ban on nuclear weapons? Last but not least, where would the post-Brexit United Kingdom fit into this scheme? Even if the will is strong and widely shared, the political, financial and technical development of a nuclear deterrent involving a number of European states will take time, on the order of several years. What will the Russian Federation look like, and how will US-China competition have evolved in five to ten years' time? Peacetime declarations (Franco-German, Franco-British) often express only grand illusions or pious hopes that cost nothing. The true ally is seen at the foot of the war, when egoistic realism reclaims its icy rights.  Yet for the past twenty years, in every crisis (financial, migratory, health - Covid- and military - Ukraine-), the EU has shown itself to be unprepared, slow to react and, above all, divided. The creation of a credible NED is therefore in flagrant contradiction with the very existence of the EU in its current form and operation. We need to return to the foundations of the Community project. Those countries of Europe which share a rigorously identical conception of their global situation, to the point of merging their vital interests, will have to agree on a lasting political framework defining common goals, in a sort of Charter; to equip themselves accordingly with a military alliance such as a European Defense Society for as long as deemed necessary; to guarantee themselves by a European Intelligence Community. Whether French or European, the strategy of nuclear deterrence is subject to one absolute rule: it is not an end in itself, but means to an end, so that we cannot put the atomic cart before the political horse. Copyrights for his picture : Copyright Mars 2025-Géré/Diploweb.com Marie-France Géré

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Escalating Baloch insurgency challenges Pakistan’s authority, as militant coordination grows and state repression deepens regional instability The insurgency in Balochistan is becoming ominous and has been palpable for a couple of years. But the gravity of the situation in Pakistan's biggest province failed to register in the Byzantine corridors of power in Islamabad. In Pakistan's capital city, the only thing that mattered was controlling and manipulating the state’s institutions to ensure the survival of the hybrid regime controlled by the military junta of General Syed Asim Munir and fronted by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. The fires in Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Sindh, and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK) received cursory coverage in the media. The public discourse has predominantly revolved around Imran Khan and his trials and tribulations in prison, and the regime’s machinations in countering his narrative, and his popularity. Balochistan was too distant from Islamabad and even Lahore for anyone to bother about what was happening in the restive province. Latelast month, after Maulana Fazal-ur Rehman’s speech in the National Assembly where he said that “five to seven districts in Balochistan were in a position to announce independence” and the “United Nations (UN) would recognise them the next day,” Pakistani people and beyond started taking notice of the sharply deteriorating security situation in the province. Although Maulana may have gone a bit overboard over the UN recognising a declaration of independence in Balochistan, he has his ears and eyes on the ground in the province and has a very good understanding of how bad things are. Following the Maulana, the Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the National Assembly, Omar Ayub, said that the Pakistani state had virtually ceased to exist in more than half a dozen districts of Balochistan. According to Ayub, the Pakistani flag was not flying in these districts. Nonetheless, it was not only political leaders opposed to the hybrid regime who were flagging the alarming situation in Balochistan. One of the closest advisors of PM Sharif, Rana Sanaullah, warned that armed groups could descend from the mountains and seize control of Balochistan. After initially trying to deny that things were spiraling out of control in the province, the Chief Minister, Sarfraz Bugti, finally admitted the situation was alarming. However, the insurgents could not hold any area for longer than a few hours. That the insurgents could strike at will and seize control of major highways and small towns for even a few hours was hardly something that any responsible administrator could be sanguine about. If anything, the rising frequency of high-profile, high-impact strikes by the Baloch insurgents has completely undermined the authority of the state. Worse, it has fuelled so much uncertainty that it has put paid to ambitious plans to attract foreign investment in infrastructure and mining projects. It was against this backdrop that the Baloch Raaji Aajoi Sangar (BRAS), an umbrella group of four militant insurgent groups namely Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF), Balochistan Republic Guard (BRG) and Sindhudesh Revolutionary Army (SRA) announced the formation of a Baloch National Army with a unified command structure and a shift of focus from "Scattered operations to an organised, coordinated and decisive force”. BRAS declared its intent to intensify the war against both Pakistan and its main patron, China and bring greater lethality in its guerilla operations. To hit Pakistan and China where it hurts, the BRAS decided to ‘intensify the blockade on all important highways of Balochistan to disrupt the logistical, economic, and military interests of the occupying state.’ Within days of the BRAS announcement of ramping up its operations, the guerillas hit the strategic Coastal Highway and set six gas tankers and police vehicles on fire. There was also a sudden uptick in Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and suicide attacks on Pakistani security forces and Baloch collaborators. The sheer expanse of geography where these attacks took place was particularly notable–a suicide attack in Kalat city, an IED blast in Quetta, another IED in Khuzdar against a pro-regime tribal leader, targeted killings of two clerics in Zehri, the same town that was stormed and occupied for a few hours by nearly a 100 insurgents in January last. According to data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal, in just the first nine weeks of 2025, there have already been 70 incidents, in which around 135 Pakistani security forces personnel have been killed as against 66 insurgents/extremists–a ratio of 2:1 which reflects the enormity of the problem. Some of these insurgent attacks caused serious damage in men and material to the Pakistani security forces. In early February last, insurgents ambushed a van carrying troops, killing 17 Pakistani soldiers in the Kalat district. Two weeks later, in attacks on a Pakistan army checkpoint and a convoy in the Mand area, another 17 Pakistani soldiers were killed. The insurgents also attacked a bus carrying mine workers in Harnai, killing 11. Although the  Pakistani media presented this as an extortion racket run by the insurgents, the fact that it was an attack on an economic target–the insurgents call it exploitation of Balochistan’s resources by Punjab–made it a legitimate target in their view. Similarly, the targeting of Punjabi businessmen and settlers the Baloch call them spies and collaborators–is also a part of the strategy of the Baloch fighters against the Pakistani state. Perhaps the most devastating attack was carried out in August 2024 when the Baloch insurgents launched Operation Herof, in which they carried out coordinated attacks across the length and breadth of the province. In 2024 alone, over 900 attacks were carried out by the insurgent groups, the bulk of them by BLA, BLF and under the label of BRAS. Except for the Pashtun-dominated districts of Northern Balochistan, the Baloch insurgents have been active in every district of Balochistan. This is a qualitative change from past insurgencies when the fighting was restricted to a few districts and tribes. Now, it is pan-Balochistan and cutting across tribal, linguistic, and gender divide. While the Baloch insurgents have upped their game, not just in terms of the ferocity, intensity, and organisational capability, the Pakistani state—which is a euphemism for the Pakistan Army—has not been able to evolve to respond effectively. Its playbook is the same decades-old one: increase brutality, offer blandishments to tribal chieftains, bribe influential politicians, browbeat the people, stifle all dissent, keep a very tight leash over the media, install puppets and Quislings to run the province under the garb of democracy. But it is proving counterproductive, and the more the Pakistan Army doubles down on its repressive rule, the more it alienates the Baloch people and swells the ranks of the insurgent groups with recruits, including women and young people from educated middle-class. Finding itself losing the narrative war, the Pakistan Army has responded predictably. It has started raiding universities and abducting Baloch students, keeping them in illegal custody and, in some cases, killing them and dumping their bodies on the roadsides or in the wilds. In just the first few weeks of this calendar year, over 250 students have forcibly disappeared. This enforced disappearances issue has only fuelled disgust and alienation against the Pakistani state, arguably becoming one of the central pillars around which Baloch public opinion has been mobilised. Apart from the brutal repression that has been unleashed, the Pakistan Army is trying to play catch up in the narrative game by using tactics which are now anachronistic. For instance, authorities often parade a ‘surrendered militant’ who recites a predictable narrative – accusing commanders of greed, claiming India funds them, and asserting they work against Baloch interests. The Pakistani media then plays up these stories to amplify them. But no one except perhaps people in Punjab are buying what the Pakistan Army’s disinformation wing is selling. Similarly, exaggerated and often utterly fictitious claims of the Pakistan Army’s operations either to repel an attack or to raid insurgent hideouts are not impressing anyone. In most cases, the Pakistan Army conjures up an imaginary number of insurgents killed just to show that it is fighting back, and hard. The BRAS declaration to restructure its organisation and intensify its operations makes it clear– the insurgents believe the struggle in Balochistan has entered a decisive phase. The political narrative is dominated by young leaders of the Baloch Yakjheti Council, such as the indomitable Mahrang Baloch, Sami Deen Baloch and other members spearheading massive protests across the province. Members of the legislative assembly and the ‘elected’ government in the province have become political pigmies who are in power only because they have been foisted on the people of Balochistan by the Pakistan Army. The political and democratic processes in Balochistan have become redundant because they have been completely compromised and rigged by the Pakistan Army, all of which feeds into the narrative of pro-independence voices. Militarily, the Baloch insurgents have demonstrated their reach, capability and ability to coordinate complex attacks. While there is some skepticism about how much the Baloch can achieve because they constitute less than 5 percent of Pakistan's 250 million population, the insurgents believe that they have the critical mass required to win against the Pakistani state. What they lack in sheer numbers, they make up because of the raging Taliban insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province and the Pashtun belt of Balochistan, which is bogging down and bleeding the Pakistan Army. Add to this the sharp deterioration in relations between the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban appear to be giving space to the Baloch as it gives them a certain leverage over Pakistan, which they suspect of flirting with Islamic State Khorasan (ISK) to undermine the Islamic Emirate. The situation in Sistan-Balochistan province of Iran is also proving conducive for the Baloch insurgents in Pakistan. Faced with the audacity and ferocity of attacks being carried out by the Baloch freedom fighters, and given that Pakistan’s antediluvian approach to tackling the restiveness in the province is not working, there are limited options available to the Pakistan Army. It can continue doing what it has been over the last 25 years since this fifth insurgency has been raging in Balochistan, perhaps intensify what it has been doing. But the result is unlikely to be any different. The Pakistan Army could also decide to carry out a scorched earth steamroller operation in Balochistan. Managing the operation’s political, military and diplomatic consequences could prove disastrous. A third option is to try reconciliation. This is, however, a long and difficult path to take and beyond the intellectual ability of Pakistan's Punjabi military elite because it militates against the colonial control fetish of Pakistan's ruling class. But regardless of what policy Pakistan adopts, the situation in Balochistan will continue to be fraught for the foreseeable future. And while intimations of Balochistan shaking off the ‘shackles of slavery’ (to use the evocative phrase of Imran Khan) might be highly premature and overly optimistic, Balochistan will remain the bone stuck in Pakistan's throat—one it cannot expel, yet one it struggles to swallow.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском To better understand the current situation in Turkey, where massive demonstrations have been taking place non-stop since the arrest of Istanbul mayor Ekrem Imamoglu on March 19, we need to take a look at some Turkish words - with no real French translation - that have made their appearance, or reappearance, in the public sphere, and which reflect the rewriting of political rules that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government is currently enforcing. Arrested on March 19, along with dozens of his partners, elected representatives and members of the Republican People's Party (CHP, Kemalist), on charges of “corruption”, “terrorism” and “helping the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)”, Istanbul mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, 53, elected in 2019 and re-elected in 2024, was stripped of his mandates and imprisoned on March 23. The authorities have also set about challenging his academic credentials, since, according to the Constitution, the President of the Republic must be a university graduate. However, Imamoglu's university degree, obtained 32 years ago at Istanbul University, has just been cancelled under pressure from the authorities. Ironically, Recep Tayyip Erdogan himself is suspected of not having actually obtained the university degree he claims to have, and cannot produce any proof of university attendance (photos, testimonials, etc.), even though the university from which he claims to have graduated asserts that he was indeed a student there. This brutal dismissal of a key political figure in Turkey, who appealed to both the secular electorate and conservative circles, and who was expected to be the opposition candidate against Erdogan in the 2028 presidential election, immediately sparked a widespread reaction. For the past week, the country has been swept by a wave of huge demonstrations, bringing together hundreds of thousands of people expressing their solidarity with the imprisoned leader. They range from young people and academics to citizens from towns traditionally loyal to the AKP. While the mainstream media remain strangely silent, and X has already blocked numerous opposition accounts at Ankara's request, figures put forward by the CHP General Secretary put the number of demonstrators at one million. Against this explosive backdrop, it's worth taking a closer look at some of the specific terms used in current Turkish public debate, which reflect the current situation in a country in turmoil. The “secret witness” (Gizli tanık) First term: Gizli tanık, French for “secret witness”. In Turkey, the use of “secret witnesses” was legalized by Law no. 5726 on Witness Protection, adopted on December 27, 2007 and published in the Official Gazette on January 5, 2008, at a time when the Gülenist movement dominated the judiciary in agreement with the ruling AKP. This system of Gizli tanık prevents the cross-examination of witnesses and facilitates the pre-trial detention, and subsequent conviction, of all suspects in political cases: all it takes is for a secret witness to testify against them. This practice was first introduced in 2007 in the Ergenekon trials. It was subsequently used against Kurds in the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK) trials in 2009. It continues to be used in various court cases today. It was this “secret witness” that was used by the authorities to bring charges of corruption and terrorism against Imamoglu. Mayors dismissed and replaced by power-appointed administrators (Kayyum) Our second term, kayyum, refers to the crucial figure of the “guardian”. In Turkey, it refers to a person appointed by a court or civil authority to manage property, particularly real estate, or an institution. This measure comes into play when the head of an institution is unable to perform his or her duties or is removed from office for reasons defined by law. The application of kayyum appointments to municipalities in Turkey was legalized by decree-law no. 674, published on September 1, 2016, during the state of emergency instituted after the attempted putsch of July 15, 2016. This decree gave the Ministry of the Interior the power to remove mayors accused of being linked to terrorist organizations and appoint administrators in their place. Following the adoption of this regulation, many municipalities, particularly those run by the pro-Kurdish HDP party, were placed under administrative guardianship. Since 2016, a total of 160 kayyum appointments have been made. Among the charges against Imamoglu is the existence of an electoral agreement, dubbed the “Urban Pact”, concluded with the HDP ahead of the 2024 municipal elections. Paradoxically, this accusation comes at a time when the government is conducting behind-the-scenes negotiations with Abdullah Öcalan, the historic leader of the PKK, with a view to disarming the Kurdish movement. At dawn on March 23, 2025, the judge ordered that Ekrem Imamoglu be remanded in custody on the charge of “corruption”, while the charge of “terrorism”, the only one that would allow the appointment of a kayyum in Istanbul, remained under discussion. Gezi Park: reminiscences of the 2013 mobilization Our third term is Gezi, which literally means “promenade”. It refers to a park in the heart of Istanbul, adjacent to Taksim Square, a mecca for political mobilization. The “Gezi movement” refers to a wave of protest that erupted in Turkey in May 2013 following an urban redevelopment project threatening this park, one of the few green spaces in central Istanbul. Initially led by environmentalists, the mobilization quickly turned into a vast protest movement against the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, accused of authoritarianism and increasing interference in public life, with the desire to demolish the park being equated with a desire to deprive the opposition of a traditional gathering place. The protest was violently repressed by the police, and Gezi became a symbol of democratic resistance in Turkey, marking a lasting rift between the authorities and a section of civil society. The current protests are reminiscent of this movement in certain respects, but this time the motivation is strictly political. The aim is to denounce, above all, the manipulation of democratic rules by those in power. The participation or otherwise of Kurdish circles in these events is not insignificant. Whereas in 2013, Kurds only mobilized individually, in the context of the peace process with the AKP, today, the pro-Kurdish DEM party (which replaced the HDP in 2023), could officially lend its support to the pro-Imamoglu rallies. With its former leader Selahattin Demirtas, behind bars since 2016, sentenced last year to 42 years in prison, and Öcalan himself recently calling for the PKK's self-dissolution, DEM's position is being closely scrutinized. If the Kurds, in an organized way, join the protests in favor of Ekrem Imamoglu, the new movement has a chance of succeeding. On the other hand, if, as in Gezi, Kurdish political organizations - first and foremost the DWS and PKK - are reluctant to interfere with the ongoing peace process with Ankara, then the disorganized youth will once again find themselves helpless in the face of tear gas. Of course, it's up to the CHP to lead the movement. But the militant experience of the Kurdish movement far exceeds that of the middle-class youth who support the CHP; too individualistic, insufficiently committed, these citizens have much to learn in terms of mobilization from the Kurds, who have been fighting for decades. Bad loser (Mızıkçılık) Translation: “Refusing defeat, changing the rules during the game and using bad faith to consolidate power.” In plain English, it's the sore loser who doesn't accept defeat even before being defeated! This term is widely used by demonstrators to refer to the AKP's behavior - behavior reminiscent of that of the same party almost ten years ago. After the June 2015 parliamentary elections in Turkey, the AKP had lost its absolute majority, but violence provoked by both the PKK and military forces, notably linked to the Kurdish question, had disrupted the political process. This situation had created a climate of insecurity and instability, leading to early elections in November 2015; these would enable the AKP to regain an absolute majority, strengthening Recep Tayyip Erdogan's position. Today, this tactic can be applied again to remove a potential opponent before the next elections. A new element has been added to this complex picture: the solidarity with Imamoglu shown by many Western mayors, who publicly denounce the attack on democratic principles and respect for the rule of law in Turkey. But could this support be manipulated by the Turkish government for propaganda purposes? In a climate where every gesture of international support is scrutinized, it is clear that this solidarity could be misused to reinforce the image of an isolated country, or to distract attention from the real domestic issues at stake. Ultimately, the situation in Turkey remains extremely fragile. In Istanbul, a metropolis of over 15 million inhabitants, the gamble of neutralizing a political opponent of this caliber entails considerable risks, especially in a context where youth and academics are mobilizing with vigor. Marked by unpredictable reversals, Turkey's trajectory leaves open the possibility that popular resistance will eventually force the government to back down, allowing Imamoglu to retain a promising political future beyond his current goals. But we said the same for Selahattin Demitas, who has been in prison for almost... ten years.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Since independence on June 25, 1975, Frelimo has made Mozambique its private preserve for 50 years. After having been the only authorized party in the country (from 1975 until the introduction of a multi-party system in 1992), it then systematically defrauded all elections, with the partial exception of the very first ones organized by the UN in 1994. But after the last general elections in October 2024, the fraud provoked a real popular revolt. The authorities reacted by unleashing a ruthless crackdown on the protesters, which continues to this day, without any notable reaction from the international community. On October 9, 2024, Mozambique held its seventh general elections (provincial, legislative and presidential) since the introduction of a multi-party system in 1992. Official results gave a clear victory to Frelimo (Mozambique Liberation Front) candidates, including presidential candidate Daniel Chapo, elected with 70% of the vote (later reduced to 65%). According to international and independent national observers, these were the most fraudulent elections the country had ever seen. A large part of the population is convinced that, in reality, it was the opposition candidate Venâncio Mondlane, officially credited with 20% of the vote (then 24%), who won the election. Admittedly, this is not the first time that Frelimo, in power without interruption since 1975, has maintained itself through fraud and, beyond that, through the complete fusion of party and state, as in the days of the single party (1975-1992), through the systematic practice of authoritarian clientelism (people live much better with a Frelimo card than without it or with another party's card!) and, finally, through the assassination of opponents. This time, however, there was a genuine revolt, rather than resignation, against the lack of respect for the people's dignity shown by electoral fraud. Fifty years of authoritarian paternalism In 1975, Mozambique gained independence and the Frelimo, officially of “Marxist-Leninist” orientation, which drew its legitimacy from its struggle against Portuguese colonial rule, came to power. This was followed by a long civil war (1977-1992) between Frelimo and the Mozambique National Resistance (Renamo), which shaped the country's political life for a long time to come. Although the conflict had internal roots in the authoritarian, anti-peasant modernization policies of the government, the Renamo guerrilla movement was supported by the apartheid regime of neighboring South Africa. The violence was terrible, on both sides, but after the war, particularly in the cities (and especially in the South), even disgruntled people would never have voted for Renamo, seen in the hegemonic discourse as the party of “armed bandits”. However, particularly in the inner cities, the middle-class electorate began to vote for a third party, the Democratic Movement of Mozambique (MDM), which emerged from a split in Renamo and would very likely have won the 2013 municipal elections in the capital Maputo - were it not for a timely power cut when the ballots were being counted. The head of the list was Venâncio Mondlane, then a popular TV and radio commentator. In the 2014 legislative elections, against a backdrop of renewed internal warfare, Renamo doubled its number of votes (from 16 to 36.61%) and deputies (from 49 to 89 out of 250) compared to the 2009 ballot. But in 2018 (municipal elections) and 2019 (general elections, 21.48% of the vote and 60 deputies), this boom was shattered by the machinery of the state apparatus. The fraud took place well before the elections: the electoral census counted more voters than inhabitants in the pro-power Gaza province, but far fewer in some others. The systematic intimidation of voters (by collecting their voter card numbers) was highly effective. Non-Frelimo observers were rarely accredited, while Frelimo observers flocked to polling stations in their thousands, and so on. Even so, it was clear that this time Renamo had actually won the elections in Maputo and Matola, the other major southern city and historic Frelimo stronghold. But Renamo didn't really organize any protests, despite spontaneous youth marches, playing the legalism card and awaiting the results of its appeals to appeal institutions totally controlled by Frelimo. The Venâncio Mondlane phenomenon and the revolt of Mozambican society With the passing of the years and the passing of generations, we could see that, even in the cities of the South, disaffected voters no longer hesitated to vote for Renamo: memories of the civil war were no longer politically structuring. But Renamo was weakened by the death of its historic leader, Afonso Dhlakama, in 2018, and by the appointment as new president of a former guerrilla general, Ossufo Momade, who proved to lack initiative and leadership. Momade prevented Venâncio Mondlane from being Renamo's candidate in the presidential election of October 2024, but Mondlane ran as an independent, as a new type of candidate, a civilian, an educated man from the city, and also an evangelical (a religious current on the rise in the country). Massively, the Renamo and MDM electorates switched to this new candidate, all the more easily as their previous votes were not so much in favor of these two parties as, above all, against Frelimo. They changed tools. Venâncio Mondlane's campaign, though without a seasoned party to back him, was far better organized than Renamo's had been before. He set up a systematic parallel vote-counting system, with computer equipment, etc., in charge of collecting the thousands of minutes as soon as the counting was completed. This enabled him to claim that he had won the elections with 70% of the vote, whereas the official results gave him around 20%. What is certain is that the frauds were innumerable and that the popular conviction of a totally biased result was widespread. Venâncio Mondlane immediately called for “victory parades”, which were hardly tolerated by the authorities, who were claiming victory for their candidate, Daniel Chapo, an apparatchik who was virtually unknown before the election campaign.  The turning point came on October 19, 2024, when two leaders of Venâncio Mondlane's campaign, Elvino Dias and Paulo Guambe, were murdered in the street and in their car, most probably by members of the Special Operations Group of the Rapid Intervention Unit (UIR, militarized police), known locally as the “death squads”. This was a warning to Venâncio Mondlane, who had just called a general strike. From then on, the situation shifted from demonstrations against electoral fraud, such as often occur in various African countries, to a revolutionary process. The permanent mobilization of very poor people, young boys leading demonstrations, young girls organizing prayers in the streets, was observed all over the country, including the small bush towns, where they receive the news from time to time. The middle classes in the “cement districts” were not to be outdone: although they didn't take part in the demonstrations, they did “casserolades” (banging pots during protests) from their windows for hours on end. A very important feature was the complete absence of any ethnic dimension: of course, the civil war had never been inter-ethnic, but Frelimo tended to be the party of the south and the cities, and Renamo the party of the north and the bush. The fact that Venâncio Mondlane was from the South did not prevent demonstrations from taking place everywhere, including in the North, which had already been affected by jihadist guerrilla warfare. The authorities accused the demonstrators of looting stores, but the police were also seen looting... and real shots were fired multiple times. The official proclamation of the results and the announced failure of the last appeals, followed by the inauguration of the official president, Daniel Chapo, on January 15, 2025, did not weaken the mobilization. Venâncio Mondlane, who now considered himself to be the “people's president” and “elected president” rather than the “invested president”, began a tour of the country, gathering large crowds even in the regions most loyal to Frelimo. A new turning point in the revolutionary process began to emerge: people were no longer demonstrating against fraud, but rather against the high cost of living - Mondlane had issued a “decree” to lower the price of cement and other products, and people were mobilizing to enforce it. Communities revolted against the international companies that had set up in the country at the behest of the authorities, because compensation for lost land and homes, mentioned in “contracts” accepted under great pressure, was not respected; protests against the enormous pollution of the Moatize open-cast coal mines regained vigor; the destruction of sacred woods -cut down to avoid interfering with oil sands exploitation- was no longer forgiven. More or less, the entire Frelimo state was challenged, and the revolution underway went from being simply democratic to being social. And the price already paid is heavy: 353 proven deaths, including children or very young boys, or simple passers-by; no doubt at least 40 deaths among Venâncio Mondlane's local executives, like these two young men murdered in their car, at that time, outside any demonstration, in Massinga (Inhambane province), on the night of March 8, 2025, having fallen into an authentic ambush. Massinga had been a hotbed of opposition to the government in the south of the country for the previous few days. Thousands wounded (the number is put at 3,000, but this figure mainly concerns the wounded in the major cities), thousands arrested, many missing (including journalists)... Silence, we kill This revolutionary process took place without any involvement from the opposition parties, who agreed to send their elected deputies to sit in Parliament, while Mondlane called for a boycott. Another notable development was the remobilization of the Naparamas in the provinces of Nampula and Zambézia. The Naparamas are a historic phenomenon in Mozambique, magical peasant militias (vaccinated against bullets) armed with bows and arrows. At the end of the civil war, in exhausted societies, they acted mostly in favor of Frelimo against Renamo. But although they never completely disappeared, this time they have remobilized to serve the mobilized people, whom they seek to protect from the militarized police. Despite their “vaccinations”, they are harshly repressed by the heavily armed police. Faced with this outpouring, the authorities signed a reconciliation agreement with all the political currents... except Mondlane. On the very day the agreement was signed, March 5, 2025, a demonstration in Maputo attended by Mondlane was attacked with live ammunition by the UIR, killing four people and wounding others. At the same time, the official president has hardened his rhetoric. At his first public meeting after his investiture, in Pemba (north) on February 24, 2025, he proclaimed that “even if blood has to be shed to defend the homeland against demonstrations, we will shed blood. We will fight terrorism, fight the Naparamas and fight the demonstrations”, equating any form of challenge to power with jihadism, which has been rampant in the North since 2017. It's important to understand that, in the context of a state that has been totally fused with the party for fifty years, an authoritarian party ready to do anything to keep power, when a president publicly says “we will spill blood”, he then has no need to give the order to kill to the intermediate and local echelons of his forces of repression. They've heard the order. Power is ready for a bloodbath to defeat the social revolution in progress. Who will stop it? What is the international community saying, what are the foreign embassies in Maputo saying?

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском ' Germany and Europe must invest more in defense and deterrence capabilities to assert and maintain themselves. This requires substantial and long-term investment in our armed forces, in research and development, in infrastructure, material and personnel. ' Various analyses indicate that the upcoming significant increase in defense spending is a fantastic opportunity for German industry. However, despite the high demand, it is very hesitant to transfer its partially idle capacities to the lucrative defense sector. ' To strengthen the competitiveness of the German defense industry and thus benefit from lower prices through mass production, better use should be made of the advantages of the EU internal market. ' Germany has globally unique knowledge and unparalleled production networks in many sectors that are needed to produce defense equipment. At the same time, many of these sectors are currently in crisis and have spare capacity. ' At the same time, sustainable and long-term financing of military procurement is essential, which is primarily achieved through long-term contracts or purchase guarantees. ' Such measures should also contribute to a change in mentality so that employees, customers, and financiers increasingly perceive the defence industry as a positively valued industrial sector. Defense capabilities: Investment is essential. President Donald Trump has made it clear that the United States no longer sees itself as a security guarantor for Europe. While the USA is scheduling talks with Russia on the future of Ukraine, there is great concern in Europe about new arbitrary border demarcations: a division of Europe. The Munich Security Conference has ruthlessly exposed the USA's disengagement from Europe and the breakdown in values between the EU and the Trump administration. Since then, developments have become thick and fast. There are fears of the end of the transatlantic partnership and the US reneging on its NATO commitment. However, it has long been clear that Germany and Europe must invest more in deterrence and defense capabilities to assert and maintain themselves and can no longer be free riders for the USA. The EU is not helpless: the accumulated economic power of the EU states is equal to that of the US and ten times that of Russia. However, defense capability requires considerable and long-term investment in the armed forces, in research and development, in infrastructure, material and personnel. Closing capability gaps is the top priority. With this goal in mind, the procurement of fighter jets, drones, transport and combat helicopters, air defense systems, infantry fighting vehicles, transport vehicles, submarines, corvettes and much more has been commissioned over the past three years. So far, however, only the essentials have been ordered and made up for, which have been neglected for years. The defense industry: fragmented and underfunded Despite clear analyses, good plans and declarations of intent, the European defense industry remains underfunded and fragmented, according to the Draghi Report1. As of 2023, for example, the European NATO states were operating nineteen different battle tanks, twenty different fighter aircraft and ten diverse types of submarines. Projects for joint development and production revealed some insurmountable hurdles, as the FCAS example shows. Europe has so far benefited little from the additional funds for defense: between mid-2022 and mid-2023, 78% of total procurement expenditure went to non-EU companies, 63% of which went to the USA. In this respect, it is particularly important to strengthen domestic and European industry. To remain competitive, investments must be made at increasingly shorter intervals. Development cycles are becoming shorter and shorter - as can be seen in drone production, for example. The potential of an integrated European defense is huge! The new and first-time EU Commissioner for Defense and Space, Andrius Kubilius, has set himself the goal of exploiting this potential. In March 2025, he will present the first White Paper on the future of European defense. Various analyses indicate that the upcoming significant increase in defense spending is a terrific opportunity for German industry. It has been calculated that an increase in defense spending to 3 percent of GDP would increase economic output by 1 to 1 ½ percent.2 It is clear that economic output in Germany will only increase as a result of defense spending if domestic manufacturers or suppliers are involved in the production of the goods in question. However, despite the high demand, German industry is very hesitant to shift its partially idle capacities into the lucrative armaments sector. Why is that? Germany: in a particularly good technological position In terms of technical capabilities and the necessary production capacities, Germany is fundamentally in a particularly acceptable position. Traditional companies as well as young, agile start-ups are thriving on the market. The country has unique expertise and unparalleled production networks in many sectors that are needed to produce defense equipment. This applies, for example, to vehicle construction, mechanical engineering, the chemical industry, the metal industry, the aerospace industry, and automation technology. At the same time, many of these sectors are currently in crisis - primarily due to the transformation in the automotive industry - and have spare capacity. With a view to the goal of expanding the production of defence equipment in Germany quickly, resiliently, and efficiently, there is immense potential here that can be realized quickly and operated economically. In December 2024, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) showed that the global defense industry will continue to grow by 4.2 percent in 2023. Four German companies are among the top 100 companies worldwide: Rheinmetall (26), ThyssenKrupp (66), Hensoldt (73) and Diehl (83), as well as three European companies: Airbus (12), MBDA (33) and KNDS (45).3 At the top of the global list are companies from the USA, the UK, Russia and China. Some of them focus entirely on armaments or on dual use, as the example of Boeing shows. There is potential in Germany and Europe that needs to be tapped into now to secure the continent. However, many details have so far stood in the way from the point of view of the private sector. Defense industry: obstacles Industry often waited a long time for contracts, sometimes in vain. While Russia switched to a war economy, Germany missed a real turning point. There is a lack of reliable commitments from the German government regarding long-term financing for procurement. This is because companies only invest in new capacities if they can assume that these can be utilized profitably for at least ten years. In addition, social acceptance of the arms industry remains low. Companies not previously active in the armaments sector - for example in the automotive industry - fear that employees, customers, and investors will be skeptical about a shift towards weapons production. However, tank manufacturer KNDS has shown that there is another way with its takeover of Alstom's former locomotive plant in Görlitz. The financing of armaments projects is still more expensive than for civilian projects. This is also due to the EU's taxonomy, which, despite a recent weakening, still makes investment in armaments more difficult. This increases financing costs and may make projects completely unprofitable. The production of armaments is also subject to significantly more regulations than civilian production, which is justified. However, it should be possible to significantly reduce the regulations to the absolute minimum necessary without reducing safety. It is also often overlooked that the defence industry can hardly take advantage of cross-border supply chains - the core of German industry's high competitiveness. This is due to different export licenses in European countries. As a result, there is an incentive to keep supply chains in one's own country. Synergies from mass production based on the division of labor cannot be promoted in this way, and as a result, armaments are still often manufactured products with correspondingly soaring prices. Finally, there are still civilian clauses that prohibit universities from conducting research on military issues and purposes and from cooperating with the arms industry. This cuts the arms industry off from the traditional path of innovation. Seven viable solutions The following measures could enable the arms industry to ramp up its production capacities quickly and become much more competitive: 1. The immense economic advantages of the EU internal market can only be exploited if there is a significant simplification and standardization of export rules for the arms industry. Up to now, most German-made systems used in the Bundeswehr can only be exported to other NATO or EU partners without any problems. However, it is desirable for European producers to be able to specialize and focus on the global market so that they can achieve the competitiveness that otherwise characterizes the German export industry. This requires European supply chains, which has hardly worked in the military sector to date due to the strict German export regulations, as the participation of a German company is tied to strict arms export regulations. The term german-free has been a selling point at international arms fairs to date, as this is the only way to guarantee smooth deliveries and maintenance of military equipment. The possibility of exporting to third countries such as Israel, Japan or South Korea would bring advantages: Bundeswehr weapons systems and spare parts would become cheaper due to economies of scale. 2. Further European and German regulations should be revised immediately. These include the sustainability directive in the financial taxonomy, the dual-use regulation and many particularly stringent requirements for the arms industry, whose production in many cases hardly differs from other branches of industry (only a few companies work with explosives or other hazardous materials). Special economic zones for arms production would also be conceivable, in which selected regulations and rules would not apply or would apply differently than otherwise. 3. Long-term contracts of the federal government for arms purchases should be secured by a robust and sustainable regular defense budget. 4. For other equipment (ammunition, protective equipment, light vehicles, etc.), Europe-wide tendered purchase guarantees are a much better means than "priority procurement in Germany". Ideally, the Bundeswehr would conclude a contract with more than one company that stipulates that a certain quantity of military equipment must be purchased at a minimum price - even if the item in question can be bought more cheaply on the world market. On the other hand, the company guarantees a maximum price at which it must sell the specified quantity to the Bundeswehr - even if the prices on the world market are higher. It is right to put such contracts out too tender throughout Europe and to take advantage of the EU single market. The German (supplier) industry is so strongly positioned in Europe that it participates in a substantial proportion of production. With reference to the safety aspects that apply here, the associated exclusion of non-European producers is WTO-compliant. 5. In view of the above, regulations that stipulate procurement only from Germany or provide for quotas of domestic production should be dispensed with. 6. KfW should provide credit lines for the conversion of existing industrial plants into defense plants. 7. Civil clauses should be abolished. This should ensure for all researchers at universities and colleges that third-party funding and other sources of financing will not be reduced or completely cut if they decide to cooperate in research with the defense industry. Conclusion The measures would strengthen the competitiveness of the German defense industry and deepen cooperation between EU states. They should also contribute to a change in mentality so that employees, customers, and financiers increasingly perceive the defense industry as a positively valued industrial sector. This should be flanked by political communication and, if necessary, marketing measures. With an appropriate policy that focuses on incentives and not on detailed regulations, several goals could be achieved at the same time: German industry could grow again in its traditional sectors, the Bundeswehr would be able to procure urgently needed equipment and material for its defense and deterrence capabilities faster and more cheaply, the European Union could grow closer together and Europe's security in these turbulent times would be strengthened. References 1 The Draghi report on EU competitiveness, 9. September 2024. 2 Vgl. EY, Dekabank: Wirtschaftliche Effekte europäischer Verteidigungsinvestitionen. Februar 2025 und Ethan Ilzetzki: Guns and Growth: The Economic Consequences of Defense Buildups. Kiel Reports Nr.2/2025, Kiel Institute for World Economy. 3 The SIPRI Top 100 Arms-producing and Military Services Companies, 2023 | SIPRI, Dezember 2024.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The plans of the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel can only weaken the Hebrew State's last regional allies. The expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza -which the breakdown of the truce by Israeli forces on 17 March is intended to provoke- could lead, by a domino effect, to the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in Egypt, while the annexation of the West Bank could have the same consequences in Jordan. The warmongering policy of the Netanyahu government has profoundly altered the strategic balance of power in the Middle East in favour of the Jewish state. Operation ‘Iron Swords’ in Gaza has considerably reduced the military capabilities of Hamas, which is said to have lost between 15,000 and 20,000 men and almost all its leaders. Hezbollah, decapitated, deprived of thousands of fighters and of its anchorage points south of the Litani river, is no longer able to maintain a sufficient threat to dissuade Israel from directly attacking its Iranian sponsor. And the collapse of Bashar Al-Assad's regime has completed the Iranian-led ‘axis of resistance’. Against this backdrop of a reversal of the strategic balance of power totally in Israel's favour, the Netanyahu government, spurred on by its radical wing embodied by Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, could consider ‘settling’ the Palestinian question once and for all. To do so, he would have to continue the process of colonising the West Bank and force the Palestinians to abandon the Gaza Strip, in line with Donald Trump's announcements. Assured of the support of the White House, with no regional adversaries capable of standing up to him militarily, Netanyahu could, driven by a certain hubris, lay the foundations for the realisation of a ‘Greater Israel’ extended to Gaza and the biblical ‘Judea-Samaria’, that is the West Bank. Nevertheless, this apparently beneficial dynamic for Israel could, in the medium and long term, position the Hebrew State in a strategic impasse, seriously compromising its security and its chances of building a lasting peace with its neighbours. The resumption of the colonisation process in the West Bank has two very dangerous consequences for Israel: the rise of Hamas in the West Bank and a total discrediting of the Palestinian Authority set up after the 1993 Oslo agreements. Since the start of the war in Gaza in October 2023, demonstrations against the Palestinian Authority have become such a common occurrence that the regime of Mahmoud Abbas can only hold on to power at the cost of increasingly violent repression. In this context, it is hard to see what could prevent Hamas from taking power in the West Bank, which would open up a new front and a colossal new security challenge for Tsahal. The creation of a ‘Greater Israel’, over and above the legal and moral issues it would raise, seems all the more dangerous for the security of the Israeli state as it would weaken two neighbouring regimes which, until now, have contributed as much as possible to regional stability: Jordan and Egypt. The weakening of Jordan's indispensable partner In addition to weakening the Palestinian Authority, i.e. its only Palestinian partner and interlocutor, Israel's policy of relaunching the colonisation of the West Bank could cause a political earthquake in Tel Aviv's other partner: Jordan. The Hashemite kingdom, where almost 60% of the population is descended from Palestinians who fled the Nakba in 1948-1949 and the Israeli conquests after the Six-Day War in 1967, has been living with the rhythm of pro-Palestinian riots since Since 7 October 2023, Jordan has been evolving in sync with pro-Palestinian riots, which express the solidarity of the Jordanian street with the Palestinians, but also echo a sharp criticism of King Adballah's policy of rapprochement with the Jewish state since the Wadi Araba agreements signed by his father Hussein with Yitzhak Rabin in 1994. In fact, Jordan plays an active role in Israel's security by fighting terrorism and the establishment of Hamas in the refugee camps of Zarqa, Baqa, Jabal Al Hussein and Jerach. It also plays a fundamental strategic role in opposing Iran: Iranian missiles and drones all flew over Jordanian skies during the major attack carried out by Iran in April 2024, and Jordanian anti-aircraft defences helped to thwart the Iranian attack. This strategic position between Israel and the Persian Gulf via southern Iraq explains in particular the installation of Western bases such as Azraq, where European (French and German in particular) and American aircraft and air defence equipment are stationed. In the event of a massive Israeli air offensive against Iran's nuclear programme, Jordanian airspace would play an essential role, as it would be an obligatory route for Israeli aircraft on their way to Iran. However, Likud's policy continues to undermine this precious ally for Israel, by strengthening the Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition force to the Hashemite monarchy. Organised around the Islamic Action Front (IAF), the Jordanian branch of the Brotherhood movement is tolerated by the authorities and has achieved impressive electoral success: after the legislative elections in September 2024, the IAF became the main political force in the Jordanian parliament, winning 31 seats out of 138. This success is all the more spectacular given that the Jordanian electoral system only allows list voting at national level to fill 38 seats, the other 100 being reserved for local notables loyal to the regime and allocated via ballots organised in constituencies where the parties are not represented. The result of last September's Jordanian elections was therefore a veritable tidal wave for the Brotherhood. This phenomenon is essentially explained by the mobilisation of the electorate around the theme of support for Gaza, of which the numerous demonstrations that have shaken Jordan are another symptom. In this context, what would be the consequences for the Hashemite kingdom of stepping up settlement on the West Bank? The massive influx of Palestinian refugees would obviously strengthen the FIA, which is particularly well rooted in the Palestinian diaspora. This situation is all the more explosive in that the descendants of Palestinian refugees, despite having been granted Jordanian nationality, act as a veritable diaspora and refuse to cut ties with their country of origin. The very spectacular demonstrations that took place in the country during the last two weeks of April 2024 are the most recent proof of this. In order to condemn Jordan's aid to Israel in its war against Iran and to express their solidarity with Hamas and the ‘axis of resistance’, Jordanians of Palestinian origin are mobilising in Hiraks, youth movements that have emerged in the post-Arab Spring context, condemning the monarchy's ‘compromises’ with Israel as much as rising prices and unemployment. In this context, the King of Jordan finds himself forced to make his security partnerships with Israel invisible or even to reduce them, and could eventually withdraw from the 1994 Wadi Araba agreements, for fear of seeing social unrest rise and the Muslim Brotherhood inexorably gain in popularity. In the long term, the demographic and political rise of the Palestinian opposition to the Hashemite monarchy threatens the latter's vital prognosis and therefore Israel's security. The return of the Muslim Brotherhood to Egypt and the risk of the collapse of the Al-Sissi regime A similar reasoning can be applied to Egypt, where Marshal Al-Sissi's regime, in place since 2013, would not emerge unscathed from a massive influx of Palestinians from Gaza. The implementation of the Trump plan and the displacement of the two million Gazans in Egypt would considerably strengthen the Muslim Brotherhood in a country where it already holds a majority in public opinion, as demonstrated by the success of Mohamed Morsi in the 2012 elections, and has remained so despite the severe repression it has been the target of since then. By participating in the displacement of Gazans, the regime in Cairo would see itself accused by public opinion of participating in the Israeli colonisation of Gaza, which would lead to a reflex of solidarity on the part of the Egyptian street towards the Palestinians that the Egyptian military regime might not survive. As in Jordan, if Trump's plan for Gaza were to come to fruition, it is hard to see what could stop the Muslim Brotherhood from taking power in Egypt, even if it is currently operating clandestinely and organising itself primarily from abroad (Turkey and Qatar). However, calling into question the 1979 Camp David agreements and the total remilitarisation of the Sinai are undoubtedly the first measures that would be taken by a government aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood, whose anti-Zionism is one of its main guiding principles. In addition to this security disaster for its southern border, Israel would see a new axis of resistance forming around it which, unlike the one currently led by Iran, would be Sunni, more rooted in regional nationalism and would bring together the major powers allied to the Muslim Brotherhood: Turkey, Qatar and HTC's Syria. In this hypothetical context, Israel would be surrounded by enemy states and its survival would once again be threatened, as was the case in the early 1960s before the Six-Day War of 1967. The Trump plan would accentuate the spectacular gap between, on the one hand, an Arab street that is very hostile to the normalisation of relations with Israel and anxious to defend the Palestinian ‘Dar Al Islam’ and, on the other hand, Arab regimes that have become partners or even allies of Israel. The inconsistencies of Trump's Middle East policy should be noted here: on the one hand, he intends to bring Israel closer to its Arab neighbours by extending the Abraham Accords of 2020 (which enabled the normalisation of relations between Israel on the one hand and Morocco, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Sudan on the other), while at the same time nurturing the breeding ground for insurrection on which the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood is developing. Ultimately, implementing the Trump plan would have disastrous consequences for Israel: turning the streets of Arab countries against their respective governments in a confrontation that could lead to a new Arab Spring under the banner of anti-Zionism. In this respect, it is interesting to note that this scenario had already been anticipated by Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the theorist of Al-Qaeda, at the time of the second intifada : “The opportunity for the jihadist movement to lead the ummah in the jihad for Palestine is greater than ever, because all the secular currents which were outbidding the Palestinian cause and competing with the Islamic movement for the leadership of the ummah in this cause have discovered themselves, in the eyes of the ummah, by recognising Israel's right to exist, engaging in talks and complying with international decisions to liberate what remains of Palestinian territory - or what Israel is willing to give up (the only difference being the amount of crumbs Israel will leave to Muslims and Arabs).” Trump and Netanyahu's plans: a disaster for Israel In conclusion, Trump's and Netanyahu's ‘plans’ for Gaza and the West Bank are not just a breach of international law and do not just raise a moral debate. First and foremost, they appear to be a strategic aberration that could very quickly backfire like a boomerang on the Jewish state. The definitive abandonment by Likud and its extremist allies of the two-state solution, and the resumption of the settlement process in the West Bank and possibly Gaza, are undermining Israel's Arab partners. They put an end to the process of normalisation pursued by Israel towards its neighbours since the Camp David agreements with Egypt in 1979 and could ultimately lead to a return to power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the destruction of the Jordanian monarchy, two partners essential to Israel's security. This new anti-Zionist coalition led by the Muslim Brotherhood would be far more dangerous for Israel than the current Iranian-led resistance front. Unlike the Ayatollahs' regime, this new axis of resistance could strike Israel without using proxies, and maintain a climate of permanent insecurity on Israel's borders by hosting the rear bases of terrorist groups or militias fighting the Jewish state on its territory. The dream of a ‘Greater Israel’ remains an ideological chimera in which the security of the Israeli state could be the main victim in the long term.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском In response to the weakening of the Atlantic Alliance and the challenges posed by the war in Ukraine, the Europeans have announced their intention to rearm, leveraging the European Union (EU) as part of this effort. To fully grasp the dynamics unfolding in Brussels—particularly regarding military financing—and to bring order to the myriad of initiatives launched in this field in recent years, it is essential to take a step back. ReArm Europe: Prioritizing National Over European Financing For several years now, the EU has developed new competencies to support and strengthen Europe’s defense industrial base. Since 2017, it has introduced various programs aimed at funding collaborative defense projects among member states, including the European Defence Fund (EDF) and the upcoming European Defence Industrial Programme (EDIP)—the latter still under negotiation. These programs, managed by the European Commission and financed through the EU’s ordinary budget, have remained relatively limited in scope. So far, member states have been reluctant to allow the European executive to gain too much influence in this area, which they consider a matter of national sovereignty. However, the evolving geopolitical landscape—particularly the rapprochement between the United States and Russia—has underscored the urgency for European countries to pursue strategic autonomy by increasing their military spending and by joining forces through their common defense policies. Consequently, they have asked the Commission to explore ways to support defense sector investments while maintaining national control over decision-making. On March 6, 2025, the Commission proposed a plan called ReArm Europe, in an attempt to square the circle desired by the Member States, namely reconciling the principle of national sovereignty with the need to act together. At this stage, the plan does not directly expand the existing EU defense support programs, such as the EDF or the future EDIP. Decisions regarding funding for these programs will be made in the coming months as part of the negotiations for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (2028–2034). Instead, ReArm Europe focuses on facilitating national military budget increases while ensuring a degree of European coordination. Five Key Measures of ReArm Europe To achieve this balance, the Commission has proposed five key measures: • Activating the Stability and Growth Pact’s escape clause—which allows member states to exceed deficit and debt limits during crises. Under this proposal, countries could be allowed to increase their military budgets to up to 1.5% of GDP without this expenditure being counted in their national deficits. This measure could generate an estimated €650 billion over four years for defense spending.• Raising €150 billion through EU-issued bonds, which would then be lent to member states at low-interest rates and with long repayment terms. This funding would support pan-European military projects, such as air defense systems, by pooling demand and enabling joint procurement. Some of the military equipment financed through this mechanism could also be sent to Ukraine.• Facilitating the use of cohesion funds for defense investments. In this regard, it should be recalled that Member States remain free to decide whether or not to use the cohesion funds due to them for defense. These, in fact, must finance projects that are identified by the Member States and their local entities, although they must subsequently be approved at EU level.• Creating a European savings and investment union to encourage private financial institutions to support the military industry—something they have been reluctant to do.• Expanding the European Investment Bank’s (EIB) role in defense financing. Currently, the EIB can only fund dual-use (civilian and military) projects. The proposal seeks to lift restrictions on military financing entirely. However, this issue has been debated for years, and since the EIB’s board of directors comprises member states that make decisions unanimously, the Commission has no direct authority over this matter. The Risk of a Counterproductive Outcome The plan could undoubtedly strengthen European defense, but it could also weaken it. Much will depend on the technical details, as yet unknown, that will be adopted to implement it. To understand this point, it is worth recalling that the ultimate purpose of EU action on armaments is to reduce the fragmentation of the European defense industrial base, in order to consolidate it and make it more competitive. The EU must create a critical mass in terms of defense capabilities and technologies that will enable Europeans to stand up to the world’s major powers together. However, if ReArm Europe simply leads to increased national military spending without coordination or a common EU strategy, it could produce the opposite of the intended effect. In such a scenario, each country would finance its own defense industry in isolation, exacerbating fragmentation and duplication of efforts, rather than strengthening Europe’s collective military capabilities. Difficult Questions That Are Still Waiting for an Answer The technical and regulatory details that will be adopted to implement the ReArm Europe plan will determine whether it will serve a European strategy or whether it will be nothing more than a futile attempt to water the desert sand. Several contentious issues remain to be addressed—particularly regarding the proposed exemption from the Stability and Growth Pact. These questions can be grouped into three main categories: What Types of Defense Expenditures Will Be Exempt from Deficit Calculations? The EU must clarify which military expenditures will be excluded from national deficit calculations and which will still count: Will ReArm Europe apply only to investment spending (e.g., R&D, acquisitions), or will it also cover operational costs (e.g., salaries, training, deployment expenses)? 1.Under What Conditions Will Defense Spending Be Exempt? The EU will also have to define the conditions under which arms expenditure will not be taken into account in the deficits: • Will Member States have to invest in equipment identified as a priority at EU level, or will they be able to finance whatever they want without coordination within the EU?• Will they have to do so through trans-European collaborative projects or not?• What about European preference and eligibility criteria? Will they have to use this money to produce or purchase European equipment, or will they also be able to equip themselves abroad? Who Will Decide? Finally, the issue of decision-making power remains unresolved: • To what extent will the European Commission have discretion in determining which military expenditures qualify for exemption?• Will the Commission have the authority to reject certain expenditures if they do not align with EU strategic objectives?• For EU-backed loans, how will the projects to be financed be selected? The negotiations that will have to be initiated within the EU to answer these questions will not be easy. Behind their bureaucratic appearance lie the perennial political and existential challenges that have plagued European defense since its inception: What level of integration are the member states prepared to accept? What role should Brussels and the Commission play? The squaring of the circle is far from resolved.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском A series of rapid domestic political changes in Lebanon has disrupted the established balance of power, creating a foundation for a reassessment of the positions of key players. Amid a pause in regional escalation, the debate on the decline of Hezbollah’s influence — long the dominant military and political force in the country, has become a topic in numerous publications. However, there is no consensus on the group's future: some experts predict its complete disappearance, while others, on the contrary, believe that the current conditions will serve as a catalyst for its restructuring. A sober view of what Hezbollah represents today seems more important than ever. Since the election of Joseph Aoun as President of Lebanon and the subsequent appointment of Nawaf Salam as Prime Minister, Lebanese politics has continued to undergo changes that are shaping its new landscape. The intensification of diplomatic contacts, escalating tensions in the border region, and unexpected administrative decisions — all these factors reflect the search for a renewed equilibrium that aligns with contemporary realities. Weakened by war and political shifts, Hezbollah finds itself at the center of these transformational processes. Hezbollah's Pyrrhic Victory With the end of active military operations in November 2024, the question arose regarding the extent of the damage suffered by the Shiite group. Despite all the statements by the organization's Secretary-General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, about a "great victory" over the Zionist enemy, the pathos of his rhetoric is significantly devalued when confronted with the stark reality. In fact, the transition of Hezbollah’s current leader to this position from his long-held role as Deputy Secretary-General — a position he occupied for over 30 years under Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah — is directly linked to a key consequence of the war: significant losses within the organization’s ranks. One of the most devastating blows to the group was the physical elimination of the majority of its leadership. Since Hezbollah’s involvement in supporting Hamas's "Al-Aqsa Flood" operation, key figures within the organization have been consistently targeted and killed. Among them were prominent Radwan Unit commander Wissam Tawil, the heads of the Nasr and Aziz special units Talib Abdallah and Mohammed Nasser, as well as the overseer of Hezbollah’s rocket program and chief military advisor to the Secretary-General, Fuad Shukr. Additionally, Ibrahim Aqil, a member of the Jihad Council, Hezbollah’s main military body, was also eliminated. The most shocking event, however, was the death of Hezbollah's longtime leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, following an Israeli strike on Dahiyeh, the southern suburb of Beirut. The attack also claimed the lives of another Jihad Council member, Ali Karaki, and General Abbas Nilforoushan, a commander of Iran’s Quds Force. Hezbollah supporters would likely have reacted with even greater dismay to the elimination of Hashem Safi al-Din, the head of the group's Executive Council [1]. This is because the Shura Council, Hezbollah's main administrative body, is required to elect two Secretary-Generals every three years — one acting and the other "reserve". This procedure was established in the 1990s after the assassination of Hezbollah’s second leader, Abbas Musawi, to prevent internal discord and confusion in the event of a sudden elimination of the Secretary-General. Hashem Safi al-Din was precisely such a designated successor, yet due to his untimely death, he never had the opportunity to enact this contingency mechanism. The losses suffered by the Shiite group, of course, were not limited to its senior command. Before the launch of Israel’s Operation Northern Arrows, the number of Hezbollah casualties among rank-and-file members was estimated at around 400–500 fighters. However, by the end of the Third Lebanon War, Arab and Israeli sources reported that this number had risen to 3,000–4,000, accounting for approximately 6–8% of the organization's 50,000-strong force (as estimated by the U.S. Congress). This figure does not even include a significant number of non-fatal combat casualties — those wounded and rendered incapable of further service. It is also important to note that the number of casualties continues to rise even after the ceasefire agreement came into effect, as Israel’s interpretation of the agreement grants it "full military freedom of action" against Hezbollah. The Israeli military continues to carry out air and missile strikes on any targets suspected of harboring Hezbollah members or being linked to the group. By the end of December 2024, the number of ceasefire violations had already exceeded 300 cases. The "Blue Helmets" (the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL) peacekeeping mission in Lebanon has expressed concern over Israel’s actions. Another crucial aspect of Hezbollah’s post-war situation is the state of its missile arsenal, which posed the primary threat to Israel. As of March 2024, the group was estimated to possess between 100,000 and 200,000 missiles, the majority of which were short-range rockets. According to U.S. and Israeli assessments, Hezbollah’s remaining arsenal now constitutes between 20% and 50% of its pre-war stockpile. However, independent analysts tend to agree only with the upper limit of this estimate. Thus, it becomes almost indisputable that the events of the Third Lebanon War have dealt a significant blow to Hezbollah. The hopes of its supporters for a swift and miraculous recovery are unlikely to materialize. Given the deteriorating geopolitical environment and growing internal pressure on Hezbollah within Lebanon, it remains unclear where the organization will find the resources for its restoration. At the same time, it would be premature to write off the Shiite group entirely. Even Israeli media acknowledge this, publishing bold headlines stating that Hezbollah has not been defeated. The most valuable asset of any political organization is its people, and in this regard, Hezbollah still holds strong advantages. Among objective Lebanese analysts, there is a consensus that support for Hezbollah within the Shiite community remains consistently high. Some even argue that its position has strengthened. Faced with widespread dissatisfaction with the group outside its sectarian base and increasing external pressure on Lebanon, Shiites fear becoming scapegoats. The fear of collective punishment is pushing them to rally around their traditional leadership, as they recognize that they are all in the same boat. Today, the ball is in Hezbollah’s court. The group must act with the utmost responsibility and precision to justify the trust of its supporters. A key focus of this strategy will be its cooperation with the new government, where Hezbollah and its allies, notably, still hold a significant position. The New Cabinet: Remembering Siniora or Bring Back My 2005 On Saturday, February 8, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam announced the completion of the formation of a new national government, calling it a "government of reform and salvation". The process took 26 days, which, for the country's political history in the 21st century, is almost a record. The only time a cabinet was formed faster was in 2005, when Prime Minister Fouad Siniora assembled his government in 19 days amid nationwide mobilization following the Cedar Revolution [2]. This rapid pace is, in fact, a testament to the critical state of Lebanon, whose governmental and bureaucratic system only begins to "wheeze into action" when it is just steps away from plunging into the abyss. The cabinet has been deliberately composed of 24 figures who are formally unaffiliated with political parties [3] and do not intend to participate in future elections. According to the prime minister's vision, this approach is meant to reduce political friction within the government and ensure its effective functioning. Instead of engaging in Lebanon’s traditional positional party politics, ministers are expected to focus solely on their respective portfolios. However, the consultation process between the prime minister and political forces somewhat dilutes the effectiveness of this strategy. Powerful parties still have a significant influence over appointments due to the requirement for parliamentary approval of the cabinet. Nevertheless, the composition of the new government has been strongly influenced by the personal vision of reform-minded President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam — an unusual situation for Lebanon. Ten ministerial candidates were directly nominated by this top-level tandem, while another twelve were backed by political forces [4]. Despite widespread predictions of doom, the Hezbollah-Amal duo — often referred to as the "Shiite duo" — secured four trusted representatives in the government, two from each organization. Another Shiite quota, assigned to the Minister of State for Administrative Development, became a compromise between the Prime Minister and Speaker Nabih Berri, the leader of Amal. However, in the final assessment, this was still framed as a "non-partisan" appointment made on behalf of the head of government. Thus, the configuration of Shiite ministers in the new cabinet clearly demonstrated the practical inevitability of Hezbollah and Amal’s continued influence. The political weight of the "Shiite duo" simply did not allow the Prime Minister to significantly limit their representation in the highest executive body, even though it seems that Nawaf Salam himself is at least somewhat interested in weakening Hezbollah and Amal’s positions. Furthermore, Amal managed to retain its long-standing monopoly over the Ministry of Finance, which was given to former MP Yassine Jaber, a member of the movement. This appointment was preceded by intense speculation, as the Finance Minister holds the second most powerful position in government after the Prime Minister. Any governmental decision that requires budgetary allocations must be signed off by the Finance Minister, meaning that the lack of approval could effectively block any government initiative. Although Jaber was quick to assure that he would not abuse his position, it is clear that President Aoun and Prime Minister Salam, who are oriented toward the West and the Gulf monarchies, are unlikely to be pleased that a key tool for obstructing government operations remains in the hands of figures close to pro-Iranian Hezbollah. At the same time, it appears that in exchange for this “veto” power, another mechanism of obstruction for the Shiite duo has been neutralized — the current cabinet includes a Shiite minister who is not directly dependent on the will of Hezbollah and Amal. This means that if the four representatives of the duo decide to withdraw from the government in an attempt to delegitimize it, the Minister of State for Administrative Development, Fadi Makki, will remain in office. As a result, the argument about the lack of Shiite representation — and therefore the alleged illegitimacy of the cabinet — would become irrelevant. This move by the country’s leadership was not merely a symbolic concession — it is rooted in historical precedents. During the tenure of Fouad Siniora’s government (2005–2009), Hezbollah and Amal effectively withdrew [5] all five Shiite ministers from the cabinet, arguing that the government had become unrepresentative due to the absence of Shiite figures. At that time, Hezbollah and its allies demanded the formation of a national unity government in which the opposition — meaning themselves — would hold a so-called "blocking third". Government decisions in Lebanon require a two-thirds majority, meaning that a political force controlling at least one-third of the cabinet plus one minister has the power to veto decisions and, if necessary, bring down the government. The crisis peaked in 2008, leading to violent clashes between Hezbollah and pro-government forces, which resulted in over 100 casualties. The conflict was eventually resolved, but it remains a cautionary precedent in Lebanese politics. Since then, and until the formation of the current cabinet, every Lebanese government has had one political alliance that held the coveted "blocking third", effectively giving it the ability to stall the cabinet's work. This dynamic is precisely why Lebanon has experienced four governmental crises since 2009. Against this backdrop, Nawaf Salam’s decision to eliminate this risk in the new cabinet appears prudent, as it significantly reduces the chances of yet another executive power collapse. Meanwhile, the Minister of Finance remains a trump card in the hands of Nabih Berri, a highly skilled political tactician. It will only be played if the stakes become too high and the current political arrangement starts leading toward defeat. The Shiite duo is not in a position to oppose the government without cause, but it still has the leverage to defend its core interests when necessary. At the same time, the Shiite duo’s main domestic political opponents — the Lebanese Forces (LF) and Kataeb Party — secured a total of five ministerial portfolios. Additionally, two seats in the government went to candidates from the traditionally Druze Progressive Socialist Party (PSP), which has a long history of political maneuvering in pursuit of the best outcome for its community. Its de facto leader, Walid Jumblatt, has alternated between criticizing Hezbollah and aligning with it, depending on the political climate. Another ministerial position was assigned to Noura Bayrakdarian, a representative of the Lebanese branch of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) "Dashnaktsutyun". The Dashnaks have long been junior partners in the March 8 Alliance [6] and have maintained close ties with the Christian Free Patriotic Movement (FPM). Notably, for the first time in two decades, the FPM failed to secure a single cabinet appointment — a situation last seen during Fouad Siniora’s government. A particularly symbolic shift occurred with the Ministry of Energy, a traditional stronghold of the FPM, which was handed over to the Lebanese Forces (LF). The decoupling of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) from Hezbollah, which we previously discussed, largely predetermined the Shiite bloc’s isolation in the new government — this is the first time they are in the cabinet without a strong Christian ally (the Marada Movement has also been left "overboard"). Following the cabinet’s approval, FPM leader Gebran Bassil expressed willingness to work constructively in opposition, yet at the same time, he voiced serious dissatisfaction with the Prime Minister’s actions. According to Bassil, Nawaf Salam granted greater influence over the cabinet’s composition to Shiite and Druze forces, at the expense of Christian and Sunni interests. His discontent over FPM’s exclusion from the government was further evident during the parliamentary confidence vote. During the session, Gebran Bassil accused the Prime Minister of reneging on commitments made during consultations over his appointment. As a result, the FPM faction refused to support a vote of confidence in Nawaf Salam’s government, stating that the Prime Minister "did not deserve it". However, the parliamentary confidence vote left Gebran Bassil and his Strong Lebanon bloc in the minority. The ministerial statement delivered by the Prime Minister focused on the same priorities outlined in President Joseph Aoun’s inaugural speech: restoring the rule of law and sovereignty, reforming institutions, and committing to the implementation of UN Resolution 1701. The declaration contained at least two clear warning signals directed at Hezbollah. Nawaf Salam reaffirmed the government’s stance that only the state should have the authority to decide on matters of war and peace and hold a monopoly on the use of weapons. Regarding judicial independence, the declaration stressed the urgent need to shield the judiciary from interference and pressure, particularly in relation to the investigation of the Beirut port explosion. This was an explicit reference to the fact that the "Shiite duo" has been obstructing the work of Judge Tarek Bitar, who, in the course of his investigation, attempted to summon high-ranking members of the Amal Movement for questioning. In his speech, Mohammed Raad, the leader of Hezbollah’s Loyalty to the Resistance parliamentary bloc, while offering a few policy recommendations, refrained from harsh criticism of the government and expressed the faction’s trust in it. Other MPs' speeches reflected cautious optimism toward the government's agenda, frequently emphasizing that their support was conditional and could only be justified by concrete steps toward promised reforms. Common ground for the speeches were calls to resolve the problems of depositors and the entire banking sector, to conduct electoral reform and future elections on time, and to economically revitalize depressed areas. The two most popular appeals turned out to be issues that opposing forces usually raise on their banners - the need to put an end to the Israeli occupation and to hand over all weapons to the state. Ultimately, 95 MPs voted to vote in confidence in the cabinet, 12 voted against it and 4 abstained from voting. Overall, the new Lebanese government appears to be, at the very least, an extremely interesting and therefore promising structure. Attention is drawn both to the stylistic aspects – the high representation of women and people with an academic background – and to the formal ones – the absence of a blocking third and the large number of ministers appointed by a tandem of senior officials. All this creates the impression of a very balanced and well-composed cabinet, which is likely to be largely capable of coping with the ambitious tasks of restructuring the country. At the same time, the cabinet in its current form will exist only until the parliamentary elections in May 2026, when the updated balance of power will be established. In this regard, the little over a year that the cabinet has seems to be a period that is insufficient to achieve all the goals set, but suitable for starting the flywheel of change. And despite the fact that Hezbollah and the new Lebanese leadership, represented by the president and prime minister, do not find understanding on all issues, there is something that unites them - to put it mildly, a cool attitude towards Israel. However, on this front, as it turns out, everything is not going as smoothly as we would like. Retreating "Israeli-Style": The IDF Bids Farewell, But Doesn’t Quite Leave… The ceasefire agreement between Hezbollah and Israel officially expired on February 18, by which time the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) were expected to fully withdraw from Lebanese territory. However, few anticipated that the process would proceed without surprises, given reports of Israel’s interest in extending the agreement once again. Indeed, just one day before the deadline, Israeli military officials announced that, as a temporary measure, the army would maintain its presence on five strategic heights. The United States, as the leading party in the ceasefire monitoring committee established by the agreement, was quick to support this move. Meanwhile, Lebanon’s entire political leadership — including the President, Prime Minister, and Speaker of Parliament — continues to insist on the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces. Israel's strategy in the Lebanese direction remains in the logic of tough and uncompromising suppression of security threats. In reality, the "delay" of Israeli troops and the continuation of strikes devalue the entire meaning of the established agreements, giving one of the parties a "legal" opportunity to violate them. In turn, in response, the Israelis insist that Hezbollah is violating its obligations to care for the Litani River. Some experts suggest that the five strongholds in southern Lebanon will become objects of long-term occupation. Control over the hilly terrain along the perimeter of the Israeli border deep in Lebanese territory should obviously create a certain buffer zone, which in theory will secure the borders of the Jewish state. However, if the IDF does not plan to linger on Lebanese soil, it is not very clear until what point its military presence is necessary. In accordance with the agreements, this territory is taken under control by units of the Lebanese Armed Forces, which do not pose any threat to Israel. Moreover, the sincerity of statements about the temporary nature of such measures also calls into question the fact that the land component of the cross-border tensions between Hezbollah and Israel has never been the main cause for concern. The main threat has always come from the missile potential of the Shiite group. In his recent statement, Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem predictably demanded a complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanese territory after October 18 and called on the government to pursue this without compromise. At the same time, he did not disclose what specific actions would be otherwise, but noted that “everyone knows how to deal with occupation.” The restrained tone of his remarks (albeit against the backdrop of the usual anti-Israeli rhetoric) and the lack of any particular threats in the words of the organization’s leader in the language of Hezbollah can be considered cautious statements. Without a doubt, the group at this stage does not have the resources to actively oppose Israel: deliberately going into confrontation today is the same as throwing a slingshot at a tank. Moreover, escalation puts at risk the predominantly Shiite population of southern Lebanon, which is a key component of the organization’s supporters and has already become refugees. The Waning Influence of Hezbollah In addition to the challenges of de-occupation of Lebanese territory, both domestic and foreign policy developments in recent months have been marked by other significant events. All of them point to a certain reconfiguration of Lebanon’s political landscape — one that, more often than not, appears to be unfavorable for Hezbollah. The expected shift is taking place in the system of foreign relations - preconditions for strengthening American-Saudi influence are emerging, namely, the name of the recently elected president of the country was associated with the protection of Washington and Riyadh. Thus, it is this alliance (but, above all, the Saudis) that has for many years acted as a counterweight to Iranian influence on Lebanon, the main conductor of which is Hezbollah. In January, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia, Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, visited Beirut for the first time in 15 years. He expressed support for the president and the prime minister in their course for reform. A few weeks later, the example of her Saudi colleague was followed by the deputy special representative of the US president for the Middle East, Morgan Orgatus. However, her visit caused much more noise: from indignation over a ring in the form of the Star of David at a meeting with the Lebanese president to an audience with an ally of Hezbollah, the speaker Nabih Berri, who during the conversation called Israel "absolute evil". It is curious that the American envoy's visit took place on the eve of the announcement of the cabinet composition. In this regard, her statements that «Hezbollah should not be part of this government in any form» did not go unnoticed, especially after the list of ministers was made public. Another big event was the announcement that Lebanon had a “future” again. Saad Hariri, the longtime leader of the Mustaqbal (Arabic for “future”) movement and former prime minister, announced his return to politics after a three-year hiatus on the twentieth anniversary of the assassination of his father, also Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Before the 2022 parliamentary elections, he announced that he would not participate in them and effectively dissolved his movement. This step left the Sunni forces fragmented (and therefore weak), and the Sunni part of Lebanese politics was left without a clear leader at the helm. This happened because Mustaqbal had long dominated this segment of society, and now Saad Hariri found the best opportunity to make a political comeback. His return to politics can also be seen as an additional factor in the growth of Saudi influence, since he himself is a native of Riyadh and a subject of the kingdom. His ties to the Al Saud family, which go back to his father, have never been a secret, but after the incident in 2017 [7], the relationship has been going through hard times. He also has certain connections to the Emirati elite, in particular to Sheikh Tahnoun bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Finally, the most important news of recent weeks is the government-initiated ban on Iranian civilian aircraft landing in Lebanon, and in particular at Beirut's Rafik Hariri International Airport. After one of the Iranian airliners was denied landing, Hezbollah supporters began protests and blocked the road to the only international airport in the country. The government's extension of this measure, first until February 18, and now indefinitely, is due to information published by the IDF that Iran is sending funds to Hezbollah via aircraft. In his statement following the events, Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem did not vigorously attack the country's leadership, noting that the decision was made under the threat of an Israeli «strike on the runway» if the Iranian plane landed. At the same time, he criticized the government's position, which assumes compliance with Israeli orders. This development once again demonstrates the waning power of Hezbollah and reveals how tense the situation is in Lebanon. *** The recent public funeral of Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, as a symbol of the end of an era, involuntarily becomes the leitmotif of complex internal Lebanese processes. The flight of Israeli fighters over the funeral procession of many thousands and the absence of the president and prime minister, despite the invitation, make comments unnecessary. At present, in the words of the funeral speech of Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem, the time has come for “state responsibility” — Hezbollah is deliberately giving way to the proscenium (but not leaving), realizing the sensitivity of the moment and its own difficulties. And although today it seems that the new reality has already been formed, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that this transition is still far from complete. Most likely, a somewhat predictable situation (if this is applicable to Lebanon at all) will be achieved only after the parliamentary elections in 2026. The path to them in the next year or so will be no less important, but electoral cycles often tend to present surprises. For now, Hezbollah's chosen line of minimizing conflict and a reasonable, but sometimes unyielding, conversation with the new government seems balanced. Three aspects will be key factors at this time that can determine Hezbollah's future. First, the degree of consolidation of the Shiite population around the organization. The extent to which the leadership manages its resources in relation to people is the extent to which the group will remain firmly on its feet. As after the Second Lebanon War, Hezbollah (through its institutions such as Jihad al-Binaa [8]) is engaged in the reconstruction of housing in the affected areas and the payment of targeted compensation (rent). However, this campaign is already facing financial difficulties, despite the tens of millions of dollars spent, since the organization relies almost exclusively on Iran. In this and other dimensions, Tehran's position in the medium term is also critical. Second, the topic of Hezbollah's disarmament will acquire particular importance in the foreseeable future. This problem has already been outlined by the country's top leadership on several occasions, and has also been mentioned in the government's declaration to parliament and supported by a considerable number of deputies in their speeches thereafter. It is becoming clear that such statements are not a bluff, they are for the benefit of Lebanon's international image, but it is not yet at all obvious how this process can be set in motion without clashes within the country. The requisition of weapons from Hezbollah will mean a radical change in the ontological foundations of the group's existence. Strictly speaking, it will no longer be Hezbollah, but something else. The last defining aspect, certainly related to everything outlined earlier, is Israel's behavior. Its escalation will catalyze two mutually directed processes - the government will increasingly put pressure on Hezbollah with the goal of pacifying it or even disarming it, while the group itself will be less and less willing to do so. At the same time, the scenario in which the Israelis manage to completely defeat Hezbollah seems as unrealistic as the idea that Israel will soon abandon its assertive (if not aggressive) policy of suppressing security threats. In this regard, the development of the situation in the Washington-Tehran-Tel Aviv triangle will, for obvious reasons, continue to be relevant for Lebanon and Hezbollah. It is still too early to see Hezbollah as a dying swan. At this stage, the organization stands at a crossroads, where the choice of path carries significant consequences. Only time will tell whether the new leadership can make the right decisions, rebuild the organization's structure, and improve its internal Lebanese relations. The current state of international politics, with its unexpected twists and sudden outcomes, suggests that Hezbollah should rather be viewed as a black swan.  1. The Executive Council is one of the five main bodies of Hezbollah, responsible for the non-military and non-political development of the group (education, social support, medical care, media support, etc.). 2. The Cedar Revolution is a series of popular protests after the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005, centered around the Syrian military presence in Lebanon (both condemning and supporting it). As a result of the protests, Syrian troops were withdrawn from the country after 30 years on Lebanese soil. 3. According to the Lebanese newspaper L’Orient-Le Jour, the Minister of Youth and Sports Nura Bayrakdaryan is an active member of the Armenian Dashnaktsutyun party, however, according to the prime minister’s inaugural statements, the cabinet does not have any ministers who are party members. 4. There are 24 ministers in the government, including the prime minister and deputy prime minister, respectively, the remaining 22 ministers are responsible for their respective areas. 5. The ministers stopped participating in the government's work and submitted their resignations, which, however, were not accepted by the prime minister. 6. The pro-Syrian (and/or pro-Iranian) parliamentary bloc that emerged as a result of the Cedar Revolution of 2005 was formed on the basis of three major political forces: Hezbollah, Amal and the Free Patriotic Movement, as well as their junior partners. 7. In November 2017, while serving as the prime minister of Lebanon, Saad Hariri was effectively detained in Saudi Arabia. He then went on television to announce his resignation and condemn Hezbollah and Iranian influence in the country. The situation was later resolved and the prime minister was released. 8. Jihad al-Binaa is an organization within Hezbollah that is involved in the construction of infrastructure and the construction (reconstruction) of buildings.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском On 8 December 2024, the streets of Damascus erupted in a mix of jubilation and uncertainty as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a Sunni Islamist militia with roots as an al-Qaeda offshoot, toppled Bashar al-Assad’s regime after a stunning 11-day offensive. Overnight, Syria’s transitional government, led by HTS commander Ahmed al-Sharaa, emerged from the ashes of a decades-long dictatorship. Within days, Turkey reopened its embassy, Saudi Arabia offered a diplomatic relationship, and the U.S. lifted al-Sharaa’s $10 million bounty after a meeting. By December 2024, Qatar and France recognized this authority, while Russia, Britain, and Iraq showed openness. Yet, this swift acceptance of an unelected, terrorist-rooted regime—akin to the Taliban’s 2021 takeover— undermines established norms. It sidelines democracy, excuses HTS’s violent past, and frays a rules-based order as states favor strategy over law. The Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in 2021 and HTS’s rapid rise in Syria highlight a troubling trend: military control trumps democratic legitimacy and accountability. This pattern, driven by inconsistent global recognition standards, risks emboldening extremist factions—such as the Islamic State in Iraq, Al Qaeda in Yemen, and Lebanon’s Abdullah Azzam Brigades, Fatah al-Islam, Hurras al-Din, and Jund al-Sham—to pursue similar strategies, further destabilizing a region already scarred by sectarian conflict. The rise of HTS has shown that states prioritize strategic interests over legal values. Turkey, a long-time supporter of the Syrian opposition, acted swiftly: on December 12, 2024, intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin visited Damascus, pledging support for stabilization efforts. Two days later, its embassy reopened, affirming prior ties. Saudi Arabia, countering Iran, followed: on January 24, 2025, Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan met al-Sharaa in Damascus; a week later, on February 2, al-Sharaa’s Riyadh visit—his first as leader—sealed a diplomatic win. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s warm welcome signaled Arab recognition. Qatar recognized the transitional government and dispatched a delegation to Damascus on December 12. France endorsed HTS through envoy Jean-François Guillaume’s mid-December talks. The U.S. opted for de facto engagement, lifting al-Sharaa’s bounty after a December meeting. On February 12, Russia’s Vladimir Putin held a constructive call with al-Sharaa, moving to delist HTS as a terrorist group. Iraq invited al-Sharaa to a May 2025 Arab Summit, and Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi welcomed him to a March 4 Cairo summit, where he met Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and urged Israel’s withdrawal from southern Syria. The UN’s Geir Pedersen, meeting al-Sharaa in December, pushed for inclusivity under Resolution 2254. The Taliban’s slower path to acceptance contrasts sharply. Since seizing Afghanistan in 2021, it has ruled without elections or a constitution, lacking de jure recognition by February 2025 despite ties with China, Russia, and Pakistan. Qatar, the UAE, and Turkey keep pragmatic links, while Saudi Arabia reopened its Kabul embassy in December 2024. The U.S., via Qatar and UN channels, prioritizes humanitarian needs over legitimacy. Its exclusionary rule—banning women’s education, sidelining minorities—defies norms, hindering broader acceptance. HTS has gained quicker goodwill. Al-Sharaa’s inclusivity pledges, invitations to ex-Ba’athists like Farouk al-Sharaa, and prisoner releases suggest moderation. Unlike the Taliban’s gender apartheid, HTS avoids barring women from public life—though its stance is untested. Assad’s fall, marked by war crimes, casts HTS as a liberator. Yet, the world overlooks HTS’s dark past, swapping Assad’s autocracy for an unproven group. The vulnerability of parts of Asia and the Middle East to terrorist groups seizing power raises concerns that this could become a repeatable strategy. The constitutive theory, tying legitimacy to recognition, falters as HTS gains de facto and formal backing. If brute force proves sufficient for recognition, groups like ISKP in Afghanistan or AQAP in Yemen may seek to replicate this model. Hurras al-Din in Idlib, Jaish al-Adl on Iran’s border, or the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan could exploit vacuums. Syria risks losing oil fields to ISIS; Iraq’s fault lines invite resurgence; Yemen aids AQAP; Lebanon tempts jihadists; and Iran faces border threats. In Yemen, where Houthis battle a crumbling south, AQAP could seize on HTS’s success, potentially making Aden a jihadist hub. Lebanon, reeling from Hezbollah’s 2023-24 clash with Israel and economic collapse, invites Sunni extremists to exploit rifts—Arsal, a militant border town, could be next. Iraq’s rural areas, stalked by ISIS cells, risk resurgence if Baghdad weakens. These nations, scarred by proxy wars and failed governance, face greater threats as HTS’s model hints territorial conquest can win tolerance, if not legitimacy. The recognition of Syria’s HTS-led government could galvanize terrorist groups within, sparking crises as they emulate territorial takeover for acceptance. The unrest in Jaramana, a Damascus suburb, shows this: Syria sent forces after a militia linked to Assad’s regime killed an officer at a checkpoint, defying surrender. Lieutenant Colonel Hussam al-Tahan told SANA it targets illegal groups, but the clash—amid Israel’s Druze defense claim—reveals how militias, emboldened by HTS, could exploit weak authority. Hurras al-Din and Islamic State might seize territory, worsening chaos post-Assad.  This danger has erupted in Syria’s Alawite coastal strongholds, where security forces clashed with pro-Assad gunmen in Latakia and Tartous in early March 2025, leaving over 130 dead, per the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Turkey and Saudi Arabia’s acceptance of HTS has fueled such unrest, inviting rival factions to seize territory and seek similar recognition. Israel, claiming to protect minorities, and Iran, potentially backing the Alawites, exploit this chaos—pushing Syria toward partition and creating a fractured state where power supersedes law. For global powers, HTS’s recognition poses a strategic quandary. Iran lost Assad—a major blow in the region. The U.S. and allies, vocal on democracy, weigh their anti-Iran stance against an unelected jihadist regime. This gain could falter if HTS turns radical or if Russia and China exploit the playbook, making the Middle East a proxy chessboard. The strategy—“take territory, wait for acceptance”—worked for the Taliban’s 20-year efforts and HTS’s rapid strike. Without stringent conditions, states risk legitimizing power without elections. Al-Sharaa’s claim on December 30 that elections might take four years met no pushback from the U.S. or Europe—a silence signaling stability over democracy, but at what cost? This precedent erodes core values of international relations, including democracy, accountability, and human rights. HTS’s unelected rule, like the Taliban’s, skirts these norms. De facto engagement—embassies, trade, talks—grants resources without treaty adherence. Their past atrocities—HTS’s civilian attacks, the Taliban’s Al Qaeda ties—go unaddressed, their intentions untested by enforceable promises. Trade with third parties, like China’s mineral deals in Afghanistan or Turkey’s ventures in Syria, risks fueling corruption—Afghanistan’s opium trade now accounts for 90% of the world’s heroin supply, thriving in a governance vacuum. The rush to recognize HTS reflects a realist scramble: Turkey secures its border, Saudi Arabia counters Iran, the U.S. and Israel weaken Tehran’s proxies—without troops. This low-cost, high-impact model could tempt wider use. States might back ISIS in Iraq or AQAP in Yemen to reshape the region. Turkey’s HTS success hinges on moderation; elsewhere, it risks chaos. The lack of a global standard—each state acting independently—undermines international law’s predictability. UN guidelines tying recognition to elections could align legitimacy without rigidity. For now, HTS fills Assad’s vacuum, but at a cost: A Middle East where terrorists become politicians, eroding democracy in a fragile region. Stability today risks a wildfire tomorrow—unless this game is rethought.