The potential recognition of Somaliland by the United States represents a watershed moment for the Horn of Africa and global geopolitics. Somaliland’s stability and strategic location make it a vital player in regional and international affairs. However, introducing military bases into Somaliland risks entangling it in conflicts that could destabilize the region, contradicting the very goals of recognition. Recognition must come without the baggage of military footprints to ensure Somaliland’s sovereignty and neutrality remain intact.

The Risks of Military Footprints in Somaliland

The establishment of a U.S. or allied military base in Somaliland, such as at the Berbera port, could inadvertently draw the region into ongoing conflicts, particularly the war between Iran-aligned Houthis in Yemen and the U.S.-Israel alliance. Recent years have shown the Houthis’ capability to strike far beyond Yemen’s borders, employing advanced ballistic missiles and drones against targets in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel. A military presence in Berbera would likely be viewed as an extension of U.S. and Israeli military operations, making Somaliland a potential target for retaliation.

Somaliland has no direct stake in these conflicts, and any involvement would erode its hard-won peace and stability. Becoming a battleground for proxy wars or a pawn in global rivalries would undermine its aspirations for recognition and self-determination.

History offers numerous cautionary tales of how military bases can provoke conflict. The U.S. military presence in Somalia in the early 1990s, intended to stabilize the region, culminated in the disastrous Battle of Mogadishu, further destabilizing the country. Similarly, military bases in the Middle East, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, often became focal points for insurgent attacks and prolonged conflicts. Somaliland, with its stable governance and strategic location, cannot afford to follow this trajectory.

Strategic Neutrality and Global Maritime Importance

Somaliland occupies a crucial position in global maritime trade, controlling access to the Gulf of Aden and the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, a chokepoint for vessels heading to the Suez Canal. Its stability ensures safe passage for billions of dollars’ worth of goods, making it an indispensable player in global trade. Recognition of Somaliland would solidify its role as a reliable partner in ensuring maritime security, benefiting all stakeholders without necessitating military entanglements.

China and Russia have expressed interest in recognizing Somaliland without introducing military bases, focusing instead on economic partnerships and infrastructure development. Their approach underscores the potential for Somaliland to maintain a neutral stance, engaging with global powers without aligning with military blocs.

A Double Standard in U.S. Policy?

The U.S. has historically opposed military agreements that could destabilize Somaliland or the Horn of Africa. For example, Washington criticized the Memorandum of Understanding between Somaliland and Ethiopia, arguing that Ethiopian military involvement could escalate regional tensions and fuel Islamist extremism. However, the current U.S. interest in establishing a military footprint in Berbera represents a stark departure from this position, raising questions about the consistency of its policy.

Recognizing Somaliland without introducing a military presence would align with the original U.S. argument that stability in the region is paramount. By supporting Somaliland’s sovereignty and strengthening economic and political ties, the U.S. could counter Chinese and Russian influence without risking the region’s peace.

Recognition Without Conflict: The Way Forward

Recognition of Somaliland must prioritize its stability and neutrality. The introduction of military bases risks undermining both, turning Somaliland into a battleground for external conflicts. Instead, the U.S. should focus on:

1. Strengthening Economic Ties: Collaborating with Somaliland on trade, infrastructure, and development projects would enhance its role as a global maritime hub and counter Chinese and Russian influence constructively.
2. Supporting Governance and Security: Offering technical and financial support to Somaliland’s democratic institutions and local security forces can bolster internal stability without external military involvement.
3. Facilitating Regional Cooperation: Encouraging dialogue between Somaliland and its neighbors to address shared challenges, such as maritime security and countering extremism, would position Somaliland as a leader in regional stability.
4. Neutral Recognition: By recognizing Somaliland as a sovereign state without attaching military commitments, the U.S. can demonstrate respect for its sovereignty and avoid entangling it in the geopolitical struggles between East and West.

Conclusion: A Strategic Partner, Not a Battleground

Somaliland’s strategic importance in global maritime trade and its stability make it a valuable partner for the U.S. and other global powers. However, recognition must come without military footprints that risk provoking conflict. By focusing on economic partnerships, governance support, and regional cooperation, the U.S. can strengthen its position in the Horn of Africa while ensuring Somaliland’s neutrality and sovereignty remain intact.

Recognition without militarization is not only in Somaliland’s best interest but also in the interest of global stability, ensuring that the region does not become yet another theater of war in the struggle between global powers.

The U.S. decision to remove the $10 million bounty on Ahmed al-Sharaa, also known as Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, reflects a significant recalibration of Washington’s policy toward Syria following the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad. While the move signals a willingness to engage with new powerbrokers, including the controversial leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), it underscores the complexities of navigating Syria’s fragmented post-Assad landscape.

The removal of the bounty on Sharaa, the leader of a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, highlights a pragmatic shift by Washington. According to Barbara A. Leaf, the assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs, Sharaa has committed to ensuring that terrorist groups no longer pose a threat within or beyond Syria’s borders. This condition appears to have catalyzed the U.S. policy change as Washington engages with the new stakeholders shaping Syria’s future.

The move comes amid broader efforts by Western nations to establish diplomatic ties with the new Syrian authorities. Countries like Britain, France, and Germany are gradually reopening channels, while Qatar and Turkey have signaled their intentions to re-establish embassies. This coordinated approach could pave the way for lifting sanctions that have crippled Syria’s economy, though no formal steps have been taken yet.

Sharaa’s leadership of HTS, an organization still designated as a terrorist group by the U.S., presents a diplomatic paradox. While the U.S. seeks assurances from Sharaa to curb extremist activities, his controversial past and ties to militant operations complicate efforts to frame him as a legitimate partner. Moreover, the integration of HTS into Syria’s new political landscape has raised concerns about its long-term role in governance and security.

The Biden administration’s outreach also reflects a strategic interest in ensuring Syria does not become a breeding ground for terrorism. With over 2,000 American troops still stationed in the country and ongoing airstrikes against Islamic State (IS) targets, Washington remains deeply involved despite signals of disengagement from President-elect Donald Trump.

Trump’s public statements indicate a preference for a noninterventionist approach, with comments praising Turkey’s role in Assad’s ouster and downplaying U.S. involvement. However, the realities on the ground suggest a more complex picture. U.S. forces remain in Syria, backing the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the north, even as Turkey views the SDF as allies of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). These tensions complicate U.S.-Turkey relations and highlight the challenges of balancing alliances in the region.

Trump’s rhetoric, including his assertion that Assad’s removal was primarily driven by Turkish forces, has been met with skepticism by analysts. While Ankara has denied direct involvement, its influence on rebel groups and its broader strategic goals in Syria remain significant factors.

The ongoing humanitarian crisis and concerns about governance in post-Assad Syria remain central to U.S. and international priorities. Efforts to uncover information about missing Americans, such as journalist Austin Tice, signal the continued focus on human rights and accountability. However, the fragmented nature of the new Syrian authorities and unresolved regional rivalries pose significant obstacles to stabilization.

The U.S. also faces pressure to maintain a cohesive approach during the transition between the Biden and Trump administrations. National security adviser Jake Sullivan emphasized the importance of a unified message to both allies and adversaries, but Trump’s potential pivot toward reduced engagement could create gaps in U.S. influence during a critical period.

The removal of the bounty on Sharaa signals a pragmatic but controversial recalibration of U.S. policy. As Washington seeks to shape Syria’s future while avoiding direct entanglement, it must navigate a web of alliances, rivalries, and competing narratives. Ensuring stability will require balancing the interests of key regional players like Turkey, Israel, and the Gulf states, while addressing the humanitarian and security challenges that continue to plague the country.

Ultimately, the success of U.S. engagement in post-Assad Syria will depend on its ability to manage these tensions, maintain a coherent strategy, and adapt to the rapidly shifting dynamics of a fractured region.

President-elect Donald Trump’s calls to end the Gaza conflict quickly have introduced a new dynamic to an already fraught situation in the Middle East. His rhetoric, marked by fiery threats and vague promises of action, signals a strong desire to claim credit for resolving the war before his inauguration on January 20, 2025. However, achieving such a resolution faces significant obstacles, shaped by entrenched regional dynamics, competing interests, and the ongoing transition between U.S. administrations.

Trump’s warnings, such as his statement that “all hell is going to break out” if Hamas does not release hostages, are in line with his characteristic bombast. While his comments suggest the possibility of military or economic pressure on Hamas and its external backers, they lack specificity. Analysts suggest that Trump’s approach may include targeting Hamas members outside Gaza, pressuring nations like Iran that support the group, or leveraging financial sanctions to cut off resources.

While such tactics could complicate Hamas’ operations, they are unlikely to drastically change the on-the-ground reality in Gaza, where Israel’s military campaign has already exacted a devastating toll over the past 14 months. Any actions by Trump would likely build on existing Israeli operations rather than introduce dramatically harsher measures.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces a delicate balancing act. Domestically, he must appease his ultraright-wing coalition, which has called for annexing parts of Gaza and expanding settlements. Internationally, he must contend with Trump’s apparent disinterest in prolonged occupation or settlement expansion, as the president-elect appears more focused on broadening the Abraham Accords to include Saudi Arabia. These competing pressures could shape Netanyahu’s decisions in the coming months.

Trump’s ambitions for a breakthrough with Saudi Arabia, potentially earning him a Nobel Peace Prize, clash with the Israeli far-right’s demands for territorial expansion. This divergence may force Netanyahu to adjust his policies, especially if Trump leverages U.S. influence to push for concessions.

The ongoing U.S. presidential transition further complicates the situation. The Biden administration has pledged to continue its diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire before leaving office, but its waning influence limits its ability to broker a lasting solution. Biden’s team has engaged with regional players like Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar, yet the prospect of a fundamental shift before January 20 appears slim.

Both Biden and Trump have emphasized the need for a seamless transition in handling the conflict, presenting a unified message of urgency. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan highlighted the importance of this collaboration to prevent adversaries from exploiting perceived vulnerabilities during the transition. However, Hamas is likely calculating that promises made by Biden’s administration may not hold under Trump, potentially delaying negotiations.

Despite Trump’s rhetoric, a rapid resolution remains unlikely. The entrenched nature of the conflict, coupled with Hamas’ resilience and Israel’s strategic interests, presents formidable barriers. Trump’s approach may influence the regional narrative and pressure key actors, but his ability to secure a swift and comprehensive resolution will depend on aligning the disparate interests of the U.S., Israel, and regional players.

The Gaza war’s endgame will likely hinge on whether international actors can present a cohesive vision for post-conflict governance, security, and reconstruction. Trump’s tenure will test whether his hardline rhetoric can translate into meaningful action—or whether the conflict will outlast his administration’s ambitions.

A new report by the Counter Extremism Project (CEP) highlights the alarming role of Yemen’s Houthi intelligence apparatus, the Security and Intelligence Service (SIS), in perpetuating human rights abuses, destabilizing the region, and threatening global trade. Authored by security consultant Ari Heistein and endorsed by former UK Ambassador to Yemen Edmund Fitton-Brown, the report sheds light on the unique ruthlessness of the Houthi intelligence network and its broader implications.

The report portrays the SIS as a covert arm of Houthi authority, operating with impunity across territories under their control, including Sana’a and the Red Sea coast. The group’s activities include arms smuggling, radicalizing minors, torturing detainees, and diverting humanitarian aid. Notably, the report accuses the SIS of forcibly disappearing individuals, many of whom endure torture or extrajudicial killings, as evidenced by the cases of two educators detained and brutalized in 2023.

A particularly troubling revelation is the “laundering” of Houthi intelligence operatives into civilian roles within the Foreign Ministry and other departments. This move aims to shield their illicit operations from international scrutiny, enabling continued sabotage and aid diversion under diplomatic cover.

The report exposes how the SIS played a central role in the Houthi diversion of aid, exacerbating Yemen’s humanitarian crisis. Until its dissolution in October 2024, the Supreme Council for the Management and Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (SCMCHA) facilitated aid misappropriation. Its responsibilities have since shifted to other Houthi ministries, raising concerns that the same patterns of exploitation will persist.

The prolonged manipulation of aid has damaged trust between humanitarian organizations and the Houthi leadership, complicating relief efforts in a country where millions depend on international assistance. This issue has gained renewed attention amid the group’s recent military campaign against Israel and its sustained attacks on Red Sea shipping lanes, which have further destabilized global trade.

The Houthi threat is not confined to Yemen’s borders. Their attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea and the group’s ties to Iran amplify their role in disrupting global trade. The report underscores how the Houthis’ actions have decimated Suez Canal revenues critical to Egypt’s economy and raised insurance costs for shipping in the region, impacting global supply chains.

Former Ambassador Fitton-Brown suggests that limited strikes by the U.S. and Israel have failed to curb the group’s growing influence. He argues that Saudi Arabia, despite past controversies over its military campaign in Yemen, might need to take a more decisive role in neutralizing the Houthis. This would require Western powers to shift their stance, supporting Riyadh’s intervention to prevent further destabilization.

The report identifies top Houthi officials, whose roles could make them targets for international sanctions. These include Abdulhakim al-Khaywani, SIS chief since 2019, known for aggressively curtailing citizen rights and facilitating torture; his deputy, Abdulqader al-Shami, who has been linked to al-Qaeda; and Major General Mohammed al-Washli, accused of overseeing forced disappearances and custodial killings. Naming these individuals not only exposes their crimes but could restrict their movements and activities through targeted sanctions.

The report presents a stark choice for the international community: tolerate the Houthis’ continued abuses and threats to regional stability, or adopt a more assertive strategy to neutralize their influence. While Fitton-Brown highlights Saudi Arabia’s prior efforts as the most effective containment strategy, this approach carries risks. Renewed Saudi intervention could escalate civilian casualties and disrupt aid delivery, issues that previously led to global condemnation of Riyadh’s actions.

However, if Iran escalates its support for the Houthis or if tensions between Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia worsen, a more direct confrontation may become inevitable. This would require a recalibration of Western policy, balancing the need to protect civilian lives with the imperative to address the Houthi threat to global stability.

The Houthi intelligence network represents more than a domestic security threat—it is a destabilizing force with global implications. The group’s ability to exploit humanitarian aid, disrupt international trade, and align with terrorist organizations underscores the urgency of coordinated international action. As Yemen’s crisis deepens, this report serves as a reminder that ignoring the Houthis’ growing influence risks further entrenching instability in the region and beyond. The path forward demands a careful blend of diplomacy, sanctions, and, potentially, military intervention to restore balance in one of the world’s most volatile regions.

Senator Rubio’s nomination as Secretary of State signals a toughened U.S. foreign policy on China, with a focus on human rights, trade, and national security.

Senator Marco Rubio’s nomination as the next U.S. Secretary of State under President-elect Donald Trump marks a pivotal moment in U.S.-China relations. A staunch critic of Beijing, Rubio brings a history of strong legislative action and rhetoric aimed at countering China’s global ambitions. His leadership is expected to deepen the United States’ commitment to human rights, economic resilience, and strengthening alliances in the Indo-Pacific, with Taiwan emerging as a focal point.

Rubio, sanctioned by China in 2020 for his advocacy on Hong Kong and Xinjiang, represents a sharp contrast to Beijing’s authoritarian governance. His extensive record on China-related issues—including championing bipartisan efforts to address human rights abuses and fortify U.S. security against Chinese technological and economic threats—provides a clear blueprint for his likely priorities at the State Department.

Rubio has long argued that China represents the most significant adversary the U.S. has faced in modern history. His legislative initiatives reflect a push to protect U.S. economic interests while reducing dependency on Chinese goods. The proposed “Neither Permanent Nor Normal Trade Relations Act” seeks to revoke China’s “most favored nation” trade status, a step that would impose higher tariffs and reduce vulnerabilities in critical industries like semiconductors and aerospace.

This protectionist stance aligns with his broader critique of free trade policies, which he views as having empowered China at the expense of U.S. economic strength. Rubio’s emphasis on reshoring industries and rebuilding domestic manufacturing underscores his belief in a “whole-of-society” effort to counter China’s influence, echoing his September 2024 report, The World China Made.

Rubio’s past advocacy for the Secure Equipment Act, which blocks Chinese companies like Huawei and ZTE from U.S. telecommunications networks, demonstrates his focus on safeguarding national security against Chinese technological infiltration. As Secretary of State, he is likely to prioritize coalition-building with allies to prevent Beijing from dominating critical sectors such as 5G infrastructure and artificial intelligence.

Rubio’s record on human rights issues has earned him international recognition but also enmity from Beijing. As co-author of the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act and its 2024 reauthorization, Rubio has led efforts to sanction Chinese officials implicated in atrocities against Uyghurs in Xinjiang. His advocacy extends to banning imports linked to forced labor, signaling a commitment to using economic tools to combat human rights abuses.

The Senator has also been an outspoken supporter of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement and Taiwan’s sovereignty. His work on the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act and the Taiwan Relations Act reaffirms U.S. support for democratic values in the face of China’s coercion. As Secretary of State, Rubio is likely to intensify these efforts, leveraging U.S. diplomacy to rally international support against Beijing’s authoritarian actions.

Taiwan has been central to Rubio’s legislative agenda, reflecting his understanding of its importance as a bastion of democracy in the Indo-Pacific and a critical link in global supply chains. He has consistently pushed for enhanced military and diplomatic engagement with Taipei, championing bills like the Taiwan Travel Act and reaffirming commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act.

Rubio’s leadership could signal stronger U.S. deterrence policies in the Taiwan Strait. His emphasis on bolstering Taiwan’s defenses and fostering high-level exchanges aligns with bipartisan efforts to counter Beijing’s escalating military pressure on the self-governed island.

Despite Rubio’s clear stance on China, the global diplomatic landscape presents complexities. Balancing the U.S. commitment to human rights with pragmatic engagement on trade and climate issues will test his ability to navigate competing priorities. Moreover, his hardline approach could provoke heightened tensions with Beijing, necessitating careful coordination with allies to maintain a unified front.

China’s retaliation to Rubio’s past sanctions highlights the risks of escalating confrontations. Beijing could further restrict U.S. businesses, ramp up military aggression in the Indo-Pacific, or strengthen its partnerships with countries opposed to U.S. influence. As Secretary of State, Rubio will need to mitigate these risks while advancing a foreign policy that upholds American values and interests.

Marco Rubio’s impending role as Secretary of State heralds a more assertive U.S. foreign policy toward China. His deep-rooted opposition to Beijing’s authoritarianism, combined with his legislative track record, positions him to lead a comprehensive effort to counter Chinese influence while championing human rights and democracy.

However, his success will depend on his ability to balance principled advocacy with strategic pragmatism, fostering cooperation among allies while navigating the complexities of an increasingly polarized global order. For both Washington and Beijing, Rubio’s tenure will likely define a critical phase in U.S.-China relations.

Kyiv claims responsibility for the targeted killing of Lt. Gen. Igor Kirillov, accused of ordering widespread use of banned chemical weapons in Ukraine. 

The assassination of Lieutenant-General Igor Kirillov, commander of Russia’s nuclear, biological, and chemical forces, marks a significant escalation in Ukraine’s efforts to hold Russian officials accountable for alleged war crimes. The daring bombing in Moscow, which Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) has claimed responsibility for, underscores Kyiv’s determination to retaliate against Russian military leaders accused of orchestrating atrocities.

Kirillov was a key figure in Russia’s military operations, charged with overseeing the deployment of banned chemical weapons on the battlefield. The SBU accused him of ordering over 4,800 chemical attacks against Ukrainian forces since the invasion began in 2022. These attacks reportedly poisoned over 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers, causing severe injuries and deaths, according to Kyiv.

The operation to eliminate Kirillov appears to be a calculated response by Ukraine to address what it sees as unchecked war crimes committed under his command. A senior Ukrainian official labeled Kirillov a “legitimate target,” citing his role in directing chemical attacks in violation of international law. His assassination, delivered via an explosive device concealed in an electric scooter, is emblematic of Ukraine’s shift toward bold and high-profile operations beyond its borders.

The killing of a senior military figure like Kirillov in the heart of Moscow is a significant blow to Russia, both strategically and symbolically. It exposes vulnerabilities in the country’s internal security and highlights Ukraine’s increasing ability to strike at high-value targets, even within Russian territory.

The retaliation promised by Dmitry Medvedev, deputy head of Russia’s Security Council, indicates the Kremlin’s intent to escalate the conflict further. Medvedev’s call to “destroy” the Ukrainian leadership responsible for the attack may lead to heightened aggression on the battlefield or targeted strikes against Ukrainian officials. This cycle of targeted killings and retaliatory measures risks deepening the conflict and reducing the likelihood of diplomatic resolutions.

For Kyiv, the assassination sends a clear message: those accused of war crimes will face retribution. The move aligns with Ukraine’s broader narrative of seeking justice for atrocities committed during the war, particularly as it works to galvanize international support. However, such operations carry risks of escalation, potentially provoking harsher responses from Moscow and complicating Ukraine’s position on the global stage.

Kirillov’s death comes amid ongoing accusations against Russia for violating international norms through the use of banned chemical munitions. The allegations include deploying poison-laced drones to force Ukrainian soldiers out of entrenched positions. These tactics have drawn widespread condemnation, with countries like the United Kingdom imposing sanctions on Kirillov for his role in overseeing chemical weapons use.

The broader implications of such actions are severe, as they undermine the global consensus against chemical weapons established by the Chemical Weapons Convention. Russia’s repeated use of these banned munitions not only exacerbates the humanitarian toll in Ukraine but also sets a dangerous precedent for future conflicts.

Kirillov’s role extended beyond military strategy. He was also involved in spreading disinformation campaigns, including baseless claims that Ukraine and the U.S. were preparing to deploy “contaminated battle mosquitos” as biological weapons. These narratives aimed to distract from Russia’s own violations and sow confusion on the global stage, further complicating efforts to hold Moscow accountable.

The assassination of Kirillov and Russia’s vow for retaliation signal an escalation in the war’s intensity. As Ukraine demonstrates its ability to conduct high-level operations within Russia, the conflict is increasingly spilling beyond traditional battlefronts.

This development also complicates the international response to the war. While many Western nations support Ukraine’s right to defend itself and hold Russian officials accountable for war crimes, high-profile assassinations may provoke debates about the boundaries of justified military actions.

Russia, facing growing international isolation and internal vulnerabilities, may double down on its narrative of victimhood to rally domestic and allied support. However, Kirillov’s death adds weight to the mounting evidence against Moscow’s war tactics, bolstering calls for accountability from global powers.

The assassination of Igor Kirillov marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia. It represents a bold statement from Kyiv about its willingness to confront war crimes directly while exposing vulnerabilities in Russia’s internal security. However, the operation risks escalating an already brutal conflict, with potential consequences for both nations and their international supporters.

As the war intensifies, the need for accountability, adherence to international law, and efforts to de-escalate becomes ever more urgent. The elimination of Kirillov is a reminder of the war’s far-reaching implications, both for those directly involved and for the global order at large.

Revelations of a covert dialogue between Italian intelligence and Syria’s Assad regime highlight the contradictions in Italy’s foreign policy amid a collapsing Syrian state. 

Recent allegations that Italy’s external intelligence agency, AISE, offered support to Bashar al-Assad’s regime during its most precarious moment in December 2024 have ignited a diplomatic storm. The claim, originating from a Syrian intelligence document, paints a picture of Italian pragmatism in direct conflict with its public commitment to human rights and sanctions against authoritarian regimes. This episode raises pressing questions about Italy’s foreign policy priorities, the ethics of its engagement, and the potential damage to its credibility on the international stage.

In the report, Syrian intelligence chief Hassan Luqa claims to have received support from General Giovanni Caravelli, director of AISE

According to the leaked document, AISE head General Giovanni Caravelli reportedly reached out to Hassan Luqa, a sanctioned Syrian intelligence official. The alleged conversation expressed Italian support for Assad’s government and underscored Russia’s role in stabilizing the regime. If verified, this move would signal a sharp departure from Italy’s official stance and European Union policy, which have maintained sanctions and condemned Assad for widespread human rights violations.

The timing of this alleged communication coincides with Italy’s decision to reopen its embassy in Damascus—breaking with most European nations—and the regime’s desperate bid to resist a rapid rebel advance led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. While the nature of the support offered remains unclear, the very act of engagement risks legitimizing a regime accused of systematic atrocities, including indiscriminate bombings of civilians and schools.

Italy’s Strategic Motivations

The alleged double game played by Rome appears driven by two strategic priorities: migration management and national security.

First, Syria remains a critical point in the flow of migrants from the Middle East and North Africa. By engaging with Assad, Italy could be seeking assurances on controlling these movements, aligning with its domestic policy to stem irregular migration.

Second, maintaining dialogue with Damascus provides Italy with a bridge to Russia, whose influence in Syria is central to the region’s power dynamics. By aligning indirectly with Moscow’s agenda, Italy might hope to preserve its relevance in the Mediterranean while navigating the geopolitical complexities of Western-Russian tensions.

Such pragmatism, however, comes at a significant ethical cost. Supporting or even engaging with a regime widely accused of war crimes undermines Italy’s commitment to the values it publicly espouses. Critics have been quick to denounce the alleged move as hypocrisy. Charles Lister, a Middle East analyst, emphasized the moral contradiction of supporting a regime responsible for indiscriminate violence while claiming to uphold human rights.

The backlash also extends to Italy’s European partners. Rome risks isolating itself within the European Union by diverging from collective policies that demand accountability from Assad. At a time when international cohesion is critical, such revelations could weaken Europe’s collective stance against authoritarian regimes.

A Blow to Italian Credibility

If proven true, these actions could erode Italy’s reputation as a principled actor on the global stage. The perception of a covert dialogue with Assad would cast doubt on Rome’s commitment to its stated foreign policy goals and its alignment with European principles. The reopening of its embassy in Damascus, coupled with the alleged contact, raises questions about whether Italy is prioritizing short-term strategic interests over long-term stability and ethical considerations.

Italy’s alleged engagement with Assad underscores the perennial tension between pragmatism and the defense of democratic ideals in international politics. While strategic interests often necessitate difficult compromises, the risks of appearing complicit in authoritarian regimes’ abuses are profound.

For Italy, the path forward requires recalibration. If Rome seeks to play a constructive role in Syria, it must do so transparently, championing humanitarian aid, fostering civil society, and supporting a credible political transition. Covert dealings with a regime under siege may yield short-term gains but risk undermining Italy’s long-term credibility and moral authority.

The Cost of Compromise

The revelations surrounding Italy’s alleged dialogue with the Assad regime expose the complexities and contradictions of modern diplomacy. While strategic imperatives may drive engagement with unsavory actors, such actions must be weighed against their broader ethical and geopolitical consequences. For Italy, the challenge lies in reconciling its pragmatic interests with its stated commitment to human rights and democratic values.

In an era where global trust is increasingly fragile

Tehran’s introspection following the collapse of Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria reflects the Iranian leadership’s preoccupation with ensuring its own survival amid mounting internal and external pressures. While fears of “Syrization”—a descent into civil war and state fragmentation—have long been a point of anxiety for the Iranian public, critics like journalist Mehdi Mahmoudian argue that the comparison is exaggerated. Mahmoudian attributes Syria’s collapse not to inevitable chaos but to Assad’s refusal to embrace reform and foreign interference that prolonged conflict, suggesting that a more orderly regime change could avoid such outcomes in Iran.

Iran’s socio-political landscape, however, presents both parallels and distinctions from Syria’s experience. Over a decade of war has left Syria a failed state with a shattered economy and fragmented sovereignty. While Iran retains internal cohesion and relative stability, deep social discontent, economic woes, and waves of protests highlight growing vulnerabilities. Critics within Iran, like political commentator Sadegh Zibakalam, warn that a regime’s survival ultimately hinges on public support, not just military strength or foreign backing, lessons starkly illustrated by Assad’s downfall.

Despite calls from conservatives and reformists alike to address public grievances and bridge the gap between the regime and citizens, the Iranian government has largely maintained a hardline stance. The recently passed hijab law and continued restrictions on social freedoms underscore the regime’s unwillingness to cede ground on ideological priorities. Even moderate voices cautioning against such measures have been overshadowed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s rhetoric, which blames domestic unrest on foreign enemies and internal conspirators, perpetuating a narrative of external threat to justify repression.

Tehran’s response to Assad’s collapse highlights two competing visions for Iran’s future. On one side are reform-minded voices urging socio-political and economic reforms to rebuild public trust and prevent unrest from spiraling into revolution. On the other is Khamenei’s approach, focused on preserving the regime’s ideological base and tightening control through repression. History suggests that while the latter may suppress dissent in the short term, it risks deepening the regime’s legitimacy crisis over time.

The re-emergence of Donald Trump in U.S. politics and talk of a renewed “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran further complicate the regime’s position. Though regime change is not the stated goal of such policies, renewed sanctions and isolation could amplify domestic grievances, potentially opening the door to new challenges for Tehran. As Iran grapples with declining regional influence, economic stagnation, and public dissatisfaction, the lessons of Syria remain a potent reminder of the costs of ignoring citizens’ demands.

The regime’s current strategy appears focused on maintaining its ideological foundation at the expense of inclusivity or reform. However, as past protests have demonstrated, repression alone may not be enough to contain growing demands for change. Whether Iran can navigate its challenges without descending into a crisis similar to Syria’s remains an open question, one that will likely define the country’s future trajectory amid a shifting regional and global landscape.