Syria, Strongmen, & Collective Sovereignty

Well, my theory, I think everyone knows, is that The Middle East is on the path to stability, within the context of what I call collective sovereignty. Collective sovereignty basically means, the regional hegemons, like Saudi Arabia, The UAE, Turkey, and Egypt, with cooperation from Iran, will essentially share control over the region, with each state being a sort of protectorate or dependency under the influence of this, like, consortium of hegemons. I also regard China and Russia as being included in that framework insofar as BRICS constitutes an overall global South organizing institution. And I believe that Israel will eventually be absorbed into this framework, not as a hegemon, but as a dependency. And this will ultimately include Gaza and the West Bank, with the full historical Palestinian territory being merged into one Israeli state, which also means that Zionism will cease to be the operating logic of Israel.

I also believe, everyone knows, that the a national OCGFC owners and controllers of global financialized capital, who do not operate according to the interests of any single nation state, but who transcend borders and who transcend national interests, I believe that they endorse and support this vision for the Middle East. So given this overview, Israel's actions in Syria, particularly its seizure of territory and the expansion of the so called buffer zone, I think these their actions are best understood as an effort to carve out strategic leverage in a region that is undergoing fundamental transformation. These incursions are not just about immediate security concerns. They're a last ditch attempt to secure territorial and political relevance in the face of an emerging regional order that will ultimately absorb Israel as a dependency rather than as a hegemon. By expanding its control over parts of Syria, particularly in the Golan Heights and the surrounding areas, Israel is trying to establish facts on the ground.

This is what they do. Before it loses any ability to dictate regional dynamics. This is a classic colonial tactic, you know. When an entity recognizes that its long term dominance is in jeopardy, it resorts to territorial acquisition as a means of prolonging its influence. It provides a military foothold.

It disrupts a serious stabilization process. It creates bargaining chips for the inevitable negotiations over Israel's future in the region. And, course, Israel isn't just relying on direct territorial expansion. It's also using sectarian manipulation in Syria to try to undermine Syria's reintegration into the regional order. The resurgence of conflict between the Syrian government and the so called minority communities, the Alawites, the Druze, the Christians, and so forth, bears all the hallmarks of an Israeli destabilization strategy.

These communities in Syria have historically played key roles in Syria's government and their security apparatus, And any instability among them weakens the Syrian state, prolonging its vulnerability. Given Israel's long history of exploiting sectarian divisions, whether that's through direct support of armed groups, intelligence operations, or political maneuvering and manipulation propaganda and so forth, I think it's highly likely that Israel has had a central role in instigating these tensions. And undeniably with regards to the propaganda, the way these these events have been portrayed in the media. The objective is obvious. It's clear.

Try to keep Syria weak and divided as long as you possibly can, while Israel tries to strengthen their territorial and their strategic position. But this is ultimately gonna be a losing game. The regional order that's being constructed, which I call again collective sovereignty, does not depend on the fragmented western dominated paradigm that Israel was built to serve. So I think Israel's attempts to seize land and to fuel internal Syrian division is an act of desperation, not strength. The long term trajectory remains unchanged.

As The Middle East coalesces around a new security and economic framework under regional hegemons like against Saudi Arabia, The UAE, Turkey, Egypt, and Iran with the support of Russia and China, Israel is gonna have to accept its place within this new system. Zionism, as an exclusivist expansionist ideology, is fundamentally incompatible with this new reality. The more Israel tries to prolong its old role through territorial aggression and sectarian destabilization, the more isolated and the more unsustainable their position becomes. The so called buffer zones are not gonna provide any lasting security for Israel, fueling intra Syrian conflicts is not gonna secure Israel's dominance. The new order is going to force Israel to relinquish its expansionist ambitions and integrate into a broader regional system.

And ultimately, are going to have to transition away from Zionism as their governing logic. So the strikes in Syria, the land grabs, the covert operations most likely against minority communities, these are all the final flailing attempts of a state that's trying to forestall an inevitable transformation. And with regards to the Syrian government itself, I've seen some neocon types and camouflage neocon types refer to the government as as undemocratic, or refer to Sharah as a terrorist or a strong man. But you can immediately dismiss any idea at all that these people are offended by terrorism, or that they're offended by authoritarianism in reality. This is just a ploy.

Their obsession with form over function, with a label of democracy rather than the actual performance of the government, is one of the biggest illusions that's propagated by the western ideological machine. They tell us that legitimacy is derived from procedural mechanisms, from elections, political pluralism, party competition, and so forth, as if these formalities are more important than the results that they produce. But what's the purpose of government if it's not to secure the well-being, the stability, and the prosperity of its people? I mean, why are these types so insistent on branding the new Syrian president as a strong man rather than evaluating what he actually does? The implicit message is quite clear.

They believe that control over Syria's governance should remain in their hands. They don't care about democracy, they care about dominance. They don't judge a government based on, whether it serves its people, but whether it serves their interests. If a so called strong man stabilizes a nation after years of war, rebuilds infrastructure, protects the security of its citizens, and prevents foreign exploitation, why should he be condemned? Isn't that the very function of leadership?

Meanwhile, so called democratically elected leaders in the West preside over failing economies, escalating crime, rising poverty, social decay, on and on and on. Yet they wear the costume of democracy, so their failures are excused or even lauded. The West insists upon democracy as an ideological weapon, not as a path to good governance. It's just a means of creating instability. It's a mechanism for perpetual political fragmentation.

It's a tool for ensuring that any nation remains vulnerable to foreign western exploitation. I mean, how many times have we seen democratic, so called democratic transitions result in nothing but chaos, nothing but division and economic ruin? I mean, how many times has the so called democratic process been used to install puppets who serve external interests rather than serve their people? No. A government has to be judged according to what it achieves for its nation.

The Syrian government is trying to secure stability, reassert sovereignty, and work towards the reconstruction of the country after years and years of war. The ideological label that you attach to it is irrelevant. The measure of the government is not the manner in which it is chosen, but the manner in which it serves its people. The fixation on democracy is nothing but a distraction designed to delegitimize any ruler who refuses to bow to Western dictates. So is the new Syrian president a strong man?

Well, maybe. But so what? The real question is, is he making Syria stronger? If the answer is yes, then the West's complaints are nothing but the wailing of those who have lost their grip on a country that they sought to control. Now, in my opinion, the Syrian government is comprised of mercenaries, but that's not unique.

The American government is comprised of mercenaries. But the real power over Syria is in Ankara, it's in Riyadh, it's in Moscow, and it's in Beijing. And that's a manifestation of what I said, collective sovereignty. And that's gonna be true for Jordan, it's gonna be true for Lebanon and Iraq as well. And that's a good thing, because on their own, individually, none of these countries could stand up to Western pressure.

Now you can rage about so called national sovereignty and be angry, you know, that these countries are being subordinated under regional hegemons because, I don't know, you still hold some kind of fondness for so called nation states, but subordination was cooked into the nation state model from the beginning. Subordination to the colonial powers that fixed these national borders in the first place. So in fact, if you want to cling to your assigned nationalism, you're only insisting on your own country's vulnerability. Basically, what we're talking about is a team, not the domination of smaller weaker states by bigger more powerful states. We're talking about smaller weaker states being fortified and being strengthened by being part of a regional power network.

It's a reorganization of the Middle East where countries that used to be provinces under the Khilafa system will more or less return to that same status. Where they have a degree of autonomy, but they will be under an overarching management and coordination of a of a somewhat decentralized shared dominion by regional hegemons. In this scenario, national borders, territorial borders are diminished in their importance. We're talking about spheres of influence. That's what I see happening in the region.

And I don't think that anything can, and I don't think that anything will reverse that trajectory. And yes, Israel is gonna be absorbed into that sphere of influence. Israel, of all the countries in the region, Israel has the biggest and most difficult adjustment to make for obvious reasons. But it's an inevitable adjustment, and it's gonna happen whether they wanted to or not. You know, I see so called analysts who and you should understand this.

Most of these so called analysts are actually ideologues and propagandists, not analysts by any stretch of the imagination. I've seen people, saying that Syria is gonna turn into another Libya. But in Libya, regional hegemons have been on different sides. In Syria, they're all on the same page, which is why the government has reached deals now with the Kurds and with the Druze and so on. No one wants to see Syria divided.

No one wants to see it partitioned or dropped into chaos. No one except the Israelis. But the Israelis are actually the weakest player. I mean, they're literally like someone just shouting at the rain to try to stay dry. I've said many times when it comes to Syria, and this is the case in in many situations, but especially for Syria.

You have to look at the waters, not the boats. Israel is a boat. The Syrian government is a boat. The different factions in Syria, they're all boats. And they're boats that have no motors, they have no sail, and they have no rudder.

And they move wherever the water moves them. And the waters are Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, China, and The UAE. And those waters are all flowing in one direction. It's one current. It's one stream.

Each of those boats is gonna move in that direction at its own pace, in a different way, according to its own size and weight and shape and so on, just like a boat. But they're all gonna move towards that same destination. This is inevitable. You know, sometimes people send me headlines or news stories or what have you, you know, alarmist stories and so on. And they think that these stories or these events disprove what I'm saying.

But all it tells me is that you're someone who doesn't actually analyze the region. You don't actually analyze trends or power dynamics or anything like that. You're just someone who reacts to day to day headlines without any real understanding. I think that must be exhausting. And it's completely pointless exhaustion.

I mean, you would literally be better off just not engaging with these issues at all. Because your engagement isn't benefiting you or anyone else. It's not even improving your grasp on what's happening. All it's doing is emotionally exhausting you and potentially spreading hysteria and spreading confusion and misinformation, so I don't know why you even do it. I've been following politics, the politics of the region and generally, but the politics of the region for more than thirty years.

I've lived there, I have a great deal of experience there and so on. So my analysis is not based on this or that headline or this or that story or what this or that expert said. It's the collated sum total of observation, years of observation and a data bank of information that goes back for decades. It's like the brother, Evan said, who writes on X. Everyone should follow this brother on X, by the way.

His his title is, his handle is, Evan Writes on X. His analysis is very it it basically mirrors my own. He's right on most things. He had a tweet where he was talking about people asking him for sources. And he said, I'm not a reporter.

Don't ask me for sources. I'm an analyst. I am the source. And that's right. An analyst isn't telling you the news.

They're explaining and interpreting overall scenarios and likely outcomes based on their knowledge and experience. I mean, I could be wrong, but it's not likely. And that's not a brag. It's a confidence based on a track record. And anyone who's followed my content for any significant period of time can testify to that fact.

Again, it's not me boasting. I don't feel anything about it. Again, this is the difference between an analyst and an ideologue. I don't need things to be this way or that way. I just wanna be accurate in my understanding of the way things actually are.

Objectivity is like a superpower in this regard. Emotional, detachment in analysis, non ideological analysis is the only way that you can ever hope to be accurate. So like you may love or hate this government or that government or say Erdogan who's a polarizing figure or Sisi or whoever else, MBS. I don't care how you feel about any of them. I don't care how I feel about them when I'm analyzing.

This has no role in analyzing what they're doing or what they're likely to do or how it's likely to play out. If you're any sort of activist and you cannot be objective in your analysis, then you'll never be effective as an activist. This is a hard thing for activists to adjust to because I think activism is generally driven by emotion, moral outrage, indignation, ideology or what have ideology or what have you. But you have to put this in its proper place. You can be motivated by subjectivity, but you have to operate according to objectivity.

You can be motivated by feelings, but you have to operate according to facts. That's the only way that you can actually get things done, and that's the only way that what is driving you can ever actually get you to the place where you wanna go.