Yesterday condemned, today embraced

Donald Trump announced on May 13th 2025 that he plans to lift sanctions imposed on Syria since 2004, by virtue of Executive Order 13338, upgraded in 2011 (in addition to Syria's designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1979). Now that the Assad regime was toppled, Syria is being removed from the orbit of evil. 

Since 2011, the Syrian government and people have been cut off from the global economy, shunned from the banking system, crippled by trade restrictions, denied investment opportunities, and condemned to isolation owing to the oligarchic regime that was inherited by the now ousted Bashar Al Assad. Any compliance officer would raise the red flag the moment a company has any ties with Syria - not the regime, not the political sphere - but Syria. 

Yesterday, magically, the US realised that the Syrian baker does not actually represent global menace. SMEs do not stand for all evil. The collective punishment of the Syrian people for accepting the iron-fist rule of the Assad clan - for 45 years - does not sound reasonable anymore. Having impoverished and shut off a nation for half a century by arbitrary sanctions suddenly does not seem quite right.

Arbitrary decisions by individual leaders based on whims and visions is the sad reality of postmodern politics. Trump said that he made the decision after discussing the issue with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, as well as with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. It is unclear whether a magical potion was slipped into the Turkish coffee, or the Saudi qahwa. What is clear however is the nonsensical, contradictory, hypocritical policies followed by the US.

The last round of sanctions on Syria emerged in response to the Syrian civil war in 2011 with two main stated objectives: cessation of Syrian regime violence and introduction of political reforms. Over the course of the Syrian conflict, sanctions have evolved from targeting individuals and entities involved in regime violence towards a “de facto regime of comprehensive sanctions with an extra-territorial dimension targeting third-country individuals and entities that overlap with UN counter terrorism sanctions.” 

The morality and utility of sanctions imposed on Syria have been debated by academic and policy thinkers: Landis and Simon (2020) questioned the ‘pointless cruelty’ of US sanctions, stressing their failure in achieving their declared strategic objectives while ‘immiserating’ the Syrian people. Official Syrian data shows the economy more than halved in size between 2010 and 2022. The World Bank indicated an 83% contraction between 2010 and 2024. Syria was reclassified as a low-income country in 2018, with more than 90% of its near 25 million population living below the poverty line, as per UN agencies. Syria owes between $20 billion and $23 billion, whilst dwindling oil and tourism revenues slashed Syria's exports from $18.4 billion in 2010 to $1.8 billion in 2021. Key imports were paid for with illicit cash from sales of captagon, or from fuel smuggling. Conflict and drought reduced the number of farmers, damaged irrigation and cut access to seeds and fertilizers. In short, sanctions damaged the livelihood of Syrians, who still, to this day, do not fully understand why they were blamed for the actions of a ruling elite. 

Sudan has its own civil infighting, Myanmar, Libya, Yemen…the list of infighting and conflict is sadly long. And longer is the list of human rights violations, committed by allies and neighbours and households themselves. A young Syrian IT specialist would not understand why, for the past decade or so, was unable to tap into any funds. The Syrian farmer would not be able to phantom the logic behind such denial to access necessary resources. The Syrian doctor would not be able to forgive the death of her patient because sanctions prevented the repair of CT scanners owing to sanctions. 

Trump came in riding his white horse, freeing the Syrian national from the shackles of US sanctions. But just as arbitrary and unilateral this generous step is, as easily it is to be reversed at the personal whims and interests of a Trump-alike. The carrot and stick method did not work - but maybe the gentle pull of the bridle would.

Not joining the circus

“It’s not a complex thing to do. With the United States being in control of that piece of land — that fairly large piece of land — you’re going to have stability in the Middle East for the first time.” Donald Trump.

One can only imagine how a king would react to such ignorant words uttered before him, with the world watching. In addition to the feeling of embarrassment by association, the head of the Jordanian state must have been dumb-folded. Instead of sinking low, as a royal he chose the route of diplomacy and regal etiquette, and got media backlash for that. 

The February 2025 meeting between King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Donald Trump in the White House shed the light on the dangers of misinformed public perception, and expectations. Some hailed the monarch, and other criticized him for avoiding the use of stern, confrontational statements. The divide in reactions in the media is extremely clear and confirms the takeover of political binarism. One is either with or against, pro or contra, right or left. Such clarity of position is hailed in some circles, the same circles that praised the US President for speaking his mind and calling things as they are. The same circles that also cheer for revolutionary leaders and outspoken political figures who fear nothing and no one. 

Whilst there is indeed some longing for unapologetic justice and clear positions, politics does not function that way. The dark web of interests, power, alliances, dependence, agendas, weaknesses, and strengths render the gray, lukewarm world of slow diplomacy a necessity. 

The King of Jordan realised in his meeting that years of friendship with the US cannot, and must not, turn into animosity because of one deranged leader. The US is much more than Donald Trump and his policies, and if the latter is too near sighted to appreciate this friendship, then the former must remind him. And that is exactly what he did.

Jordan and the US enjoy long years of reciprocal benefits exchanged. Economic, diplomatic, and security ties link the two nations. Jordan needs the US, and the US - to a varying extent - also needs Jordan. Agreements were inked, missions were coordinated, and favors were exchanged for decades. This friendship cannot be forgone at the first mishap. King Abdullah could have used passionate statements of indignation, but he opted for patience and kind redirection of proposed plans. When asked whether Jordan would receive Palestinians displaced from Gaza, he clarified that he would do what is “best” for his country, and that Arabs would come up with a counter proposal. His answers were measured, poised, and inclusive of the opinion of other Arab states.

However, it should have ended there. There was no need for subsequent messages shared on social media and though Jordanian political figures. The position of Jordan is clear. The respect that the King has for Jordanians and Palestinians alike does not need affirmation and bold statements. The meeting could have ended as it did without the need for additional reassurances and confirmations. This route is followed by the likes of Trump, who constantly feel the urge to share, explain, and clear contradictions in their contradictory, non nonsensical statements.

Personally, I found a lot of merit and elegance in the King's exchanges with Trump. After all, when a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace turns into a circus. The Jordanian King did not, and will not, join the circus. 

Moral murder

YouTube channels dedicated to criminal investigations are enjoyable. The sophistication of the investigative tools and science behind forensic evidence are astounding. One case was particularly interesting, as it required the deployment of hundreds of officers, dozen detectives, thousands of volunteers, years of investigations, hundreds of thousands of dollars in administrative cost, and cross-national cooperation and deployments to uncover the murderer of one woman. The murder was found and tried to ensure that justice is observed and that society is safe. Such manpower and resources were a necessary expense to root out bad citizens that commit a capital crime that cannot, in any shape or form, be forgiven. 

But armies kill thousands in one go, and no one is alarmed. There is no public outcry or a YouTube channel that summarises 15 years of investigations to capture the murderers and exile them from the virtuous society. Soldiers are trusted to act responsibly when having the tools, power, and freehand to end lives the way they see appropriate. The determining factor here is the key word of: morality. 

A November 2024 article published by the British Journal of Politics and International Relations discussed the Moral Foundations Theory (MFT). This theory predicates that "ethical frameworks are a product of innate psychological systems which have evolved to help individuals navigate social life (Haidt and Joseph, 2004)". As such, despite vast differences across cultures, morality often has shared themes and similarities across populations, nested in the core of our intuitive ethics. 

Morality is understood to be the "code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people". But rationality is also a relative notion, and is determined by subjective factors and ideological interpretations of the world. For instance, Israel's Minister of Finance, Bezalel Smotrich, wrote on X that "2025 would be the year of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria”. The choice of the Jewish biblical name of the West Bank reflects the rationale followed by the Israeli politician. Biblical scripts dictate that the region is for Jews, must be owned by Jews, run by Jews, and governed by Jews. As such, it is not only biblically imperative, but morally compulsory to return these lands to those they were assigned to, even if by force, and even if that means the moral killing for civilians. Death is allowed if the moral duty is the driver. Settlers killing Palestinians is also justified, and does not require the deployment of police forces for an in-depth investigation, because the act was a result of a moral duty: that of restoring biblical lands to Jews.

The life of the woman who was unlawfully murdered had much more value than the lives of thousands who perished following military acts. Her life, and death, merited an entire show....the others only a headline. Her killer was labelled a dangerous murderer, the others are hailed as heros. 

The argument to make here is that whilst we tend to believe that we have a Moral Foundations Theory that glues humanity into one big basic system of beliefs based on shared morals, humans actually use morality to justify every immoral act, including murder. As long as society sees it as moral, then go ahead and kill. 

What a coincidence!

 

 "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." Franklin D. Roosevelt

Coincidence, serendipity, and seriality - as described by the coincidence collector Paul Kammerer - do not explain politics. Nor do they explain the media.

Several articles were published regarding an earthquake that hit Iran on October 5 and theories as to whether that was actually a nuclear test run by Iran. An earthquake, measuring 4.4 on the Richter scale, was recorded in Aradan County in Semnan Province. The timing of the seismic activity and the location "made people link it to Iran's nuclear programme and ask if the Islamic country was close to getting its own nuclear weapon" as per media articles. Although earthquakes are normal in that geographical area, the timing of the natural phenomena was put at doubt by a skeptic, conspiratorial,  and weary media coverage.

CIA Director William Burns said yesterday that there was no evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear weapon. However, he also said that Iran only needs one week to amass enough highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb. The nuclear threat  - coupled with the ideological one - that Iran poses in the region is not news. Although the US is treading carefully and Israel following suit, as far as the nuclear issue is concerned, both governments will start crying wolf soon. 

At a time when the US is calling for ceasefire and containing escalations, it does not want to further implicate itself or Israel in the destruction of the region. Instead, and similar to what happened in Iraq over 20 years ago, the fears that were unsubstantiated will suddenly become merited owing to cleverly and patiently weaved messaging in international media outlets. Iran is supporting all of its proxies in the region and is adamant to press through a programme that has been questioned from the outset. An act against the regime is not only justified, but necessary. It is a question of time before it is fully embraced.

Israel's former premier is calling for striking Iran's nuclear sites. He sees the opportunity as ideal, as one more aggression against a nuclear fanatic land would be dwarfed against the atrocities committed in the region. The current Israeli most likely agrees behind closed doors, and a US government  - whichever one is elected - will also probably agree.  It is the role of the media to make us agree, and forget that coincidences in politics do not happen.

Post-truth politics

 

Since October 7, 2023, epistemicide by the media and online influencers has been on the rise. Epistemicide, which is the systematic destruction of rival forms of knowledge, is evident. The mass-murder of Gazans, and the destruction of their livelihoods, schools, communities, universities, heath centers, and cultural and religious centers all contribute to the death of Gazans as spokespeople and knowledge producers of their own history and being. Coupled with radical, misinformed social media influencers, attempting to both justify the Israeli aggression and negating any Gazan narrative, the process is gradual, but guaranteed. The process of denying existence as a nation, as a people, as a community with a distinguished and proper culture and history, and right to exist. It is a process that aims to eradicate the concept of non-citizen, as Gazans have been since 1948, where, in Tendayi Bloom’s words, the absence of citizenship and the livelihood of people despite the system are also being denied.

But the tragedy does not stop here. In comes post-truth politics, which in itself fuels false narratives and feeds public anxiety, distrust and suspicion. Most importantly, post-truth politics has become wishful, non-factual narrative. 

In the Trump-Harris debate held on September 10, 2024, the presidential candidates were asked about their policies towards resolving the Israel-Gaza conflict. And here, each candidate played the term rhetoric to the beat. 

Trump’s answer was a fictional, back-to-the-future, and painfully predictable “this would not have happened under my watch”. A non-answer that gaslights spectators and tricks them into believing that the suffering, injustice, and dehumanization of Gazans would not have led to any new forms of resistance (irrespective of its effectiveness or soundness). Had he been president, Gazans and Israelis would have held hands and rejoiced their neighborly ties under the Mediterranean rainbow. Such inflated ego that embarrassingly allows its bearer to believe that an audience would be reassured that a genocide would end if he were allowed to travel back in time, is sadly not shocking today.

Then came in Harris with another post-truth political maneuver. Harris insisted on a cease-fire agreement and a two state solution. She either lacked the courage or the brains to realize that Israel decided no, and voted no, on both issues. Claiming that her approach to end the conflict is by inking a deal to stop all aggression and establishing a Palestinian state is also gas-lighting an American public. It is time for hard truths, for finger pointing, for brutal honesty.

At present, Palestinians seem to be locked in between a media army that manipulates ignorant and biased actors to spread half-truths and deny truths, and politicians who are delusional and drowning in rhetoric that anything they say is completely void of meaning, inspiration, or goal. Whilst this is happening, a literal army is eradicating an entire body of culture, and uprooting its people in every possible mean.

Epistemicide is happening, and we are watching. And some are clapping. But Gazans are not, and will not, be erased.

Meaning through Conspiracy

Strategy, according to Liddell Hart, as inspired by Sun Tzu, is the art of distributing and employing military means to fulfill the ends of policy. The ends of policy were not a military responsibility but rather handed down from the level of grand strategy, where all instruments of policy were weighed, one against the other, and where it was necessary to look beyond the war to the subsequent peace. It remains unclear what the exact policy that Israeli policy makers are championing, as it shifts and reorganizes professed priorities continuously. Yet, what appears to the average spectator is that 15,000 deaths and 45,000 casualties is collateral damage Israel is willing to accept as part of its policy, its strategy, and end goal. Of what and why? To free hostages? Rid Gazans from tyrants? Achieve security in the immediate vicinity? Crush "human animals" and nuke them? Which is it?

The conflicting statements by Israeli officials and the brutal actions taken by the military feed into the three main conspiracy theories that attempt to give meaning to what policymakers might be thinking:

1. Israel is destroying the enclave’s infrastructure so they can benefit from the natural gas reserves in a field discovered in 2000. The Gaza Marine natural gas field, located offshore the strip is estimated to hold 32 billion cubic meters of natural gas. It was never developed because of Israel’s objections, fearing that revenues would end up in Hamas’ pockets. Now the opportunity presented itself on a silver plate.

2. Israel is emptying the northern part of the strip to pave the way for the Ben Gurion Canal, which would connect the Gulf of Aqaba (Eilat) in the Red Sea with the Mediterranean Sea and would pass through Israel and end in the Gaza Strip. Note that on October 20, 2020, the Israeli state-owned company Europe Asia Pipeline Company and the Emirati company MED-RED Land Bridge signed an agreement on the use of the Eilat-Ashkelon oil pipeline to transport oil from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean, but work on the canal never kicked off. The current Israeli re-occupation of the Gaza Strip came as a gift to revive the project.

3. A clean cut genocide. Gaza would be emptied from Arabs, and Egypt - which recently was promised a 9 billion investment plan and debt talks - would host expelled Gazans. As such, the Israeli premier would bolster his position and the Gaza problem would be swept under the carpet in a Machiavellian regional plan that (behold) included Israeli and Hamas coordination.

 

Such conspiracies need not be true. They only need to make sense. The issue here is not what Israel wants, it is actually what the spectator expects as a justification of the unjustifiable. The reasons of Israel can be one and many, and its strategy is coping and changing as geopolitical developments require such revision. Israel will and did negotiate with Hamas, and it will as it did resume to kill indiscriminately. Nothing is definite, nor is it just, or with meaning, or entirely rational. And so is the policy behind the strategy employed. 

Humans are barely rational creatures who instead respond to messages that tug on their emotions and "feel" as much as they "see" the world. What has been seen and felt must now be understood. To steal a quote from a friend, "for the same things people see different things". But, whichever side of the struggle - even those siding with neither - the images are vivid and real and shared and cant be unseen. The brutality must have a justification that makes more sense than what either side is claiming to achieve. Such senselessness has led to the adoption of conspiracy theories to give the strife some meaning on a timeline of start and end. A why and therefore. A closure to a perceived ugly beginning and middle. A sad attempt of using conspiracies to explain the inexplicable. Hope to find logic in a senseless strategy. A quest for a grand finale.

Yet in the words of Hilary Mantel: "There are no endings. If you think so you are deceived as to their nature. They are all beginnings. Here is one."

Better to Reign in Hell than Serve in Heaven

That is what Satan said, when he (presumably) stood undaunted and remained a dedicated opponent to the tyranny of Heaven. Reigning, irrespective of the underlying conditions, is the essence of sovereignty, which still echoes loudly in most parts of the world. No level of economic distress or isolation could dilute its intensity. Poverty can be and is endured, if not even embraced, by many nations that do not fear an empty belly. 

On September 22, China offered to help reconstruct Syria with he formation of a strategic partnership. Chinese leader Xi Jinping's diction was carefully selected: “China supports Syria’s opposition to foreign interference, unilateral bullying … and will support Syria’s reconstruction.” Western sanctions on Syria have been steadily tightened since the beginning of the a civil war in 2011 with a crackdown on protests and went on to kill hundreds of thousands of people and displace millions. Essentially,  the 2020 Caesar Act freezes the assets of anyone dealing with the country. This translates into lack of foreign investment, deteriorating infrastructure and industry, and increased levels if poverty and social strife. Indeed, the dire economic situation has triggered protests, which were quenched with state aid, eventual indifference and inertia, and lending hands from the anti-bullies. 

Starvation as a war strategy

The soft approach of economic sanctions instead of a military intervention has solid strategic foundations and moral basis - albeit fully utilitarian. Instead of barrels that kill indiscriminately, sanctions in theory target political systems and weaken the system from within. Sanctions allow for a long, quiet peaceful war whose casualties are not those with bullet-ridden corpses, but that of starved skeletons. It is a cheaper war, a more moral one, a war that is accepted by the empathetic public, one that adheres to the Paris Accords. It is the generally accepted approach to rectify a deviating behaviours is one based on economic sanctions. 

The logic is simple: cripple the economy from within, and soon friends and family will leave. But do they really?  Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Russia, and Syria are examples of how such a policy failed epically. Syrians still support the incumbent president; Iran is still a dictatorial-theocracy going ahead with its nuclear program; Russia is pressing on with its regional program; Iraq long survived sanctions and only succumbed following a military intervention, and communist rhetoric still guides Cubans. What sanctions do is penalize citizens for long periods of time, in a lesser-evil-diplomatic cover of cruel collective punishment. Sanctions lead to starvation, poverty, dependence, desperation, and sub-development. Such "peaceful" crisis management is anything but peaceful: it is full of menace and mass punishment in the name of avoiding military intervention. 

A direct, diplomatic solution is a better alternative to the carrot and stick approach. Sanctions are not an effective solution. The world is not safer with these sanctions. In fact, disagreeing governments and companies worldwide have become experts an evading sanctions by using proxy companies, shell firms, hiding UBO information, and selecting complex maritime routes to facilitate "illegal" trade. 

While the public assumes the burden of sanctions, political elites are bolstered, having mastered the art of eschewing sanctions via its alliances with sympathizing regimes. Such economic strife only means further dependence and submission to autocratic regimes that hold whatever remaining carrots allowed. Saliently, nationalistic tendencies and patriotism gain popularity to maintain national dignity. History has proven time and again that sovereignty trumps convenience, and that ideologies remain a strong guiding principle to ordinary people. A life of ruling in hell is better than one of servitude in heaven resonates ever more now with the public, whose moderate positions are necessarily radicalized following injustice, poverty, and inability to satisfy basic needs. 

To conclude, a strategy of a quiet war based on sanctions is weak, ineffective, and counterproductive. Key strategist Field Marshal Helmuth Karl Bernhard Graf von Moltke observed that "strategy is but a system of expediencies".  This cannot be more accurate today.