Shortly after “Al-Aqsa Flood” Operation on 7 October 2023, and the start of the Zionist’s brutal genocidal war against the Palestinian people, Kassioun wrote in its editorial 1154 on 24 December 2023, titled “Beyond Gaza”, the following: “Perhaps the most important conclusion that can be confirmed regarding the American management of the battle is that the required battle goes far beyond the borders of the Gaza Strip and the borders of Palestine. The slogans ‘NO to expanding the war’ in parallel with ‘NO to a ceasefire’ are precisely intended to prevent a direct war between the Zionist entity and several countries in the region, in exchange for the need to expand the war in the form of comprehensive chaos that includes the entire region”.

About a week ago, Trump presented a “new proposal” containing 20 points to end the war on Gaza. Arab states accepted it before Netanyahu introduced amendments thereto. Hamas responded with a shrewd diplomatic reply that neither rejected nor accepted it, leaving the door open for negotiations and a possible agreement.

The last Kassioun editorial, titled “He Who Perseveres Wins... He Who Gives Up Will Be Defeated”, addressed the recent talk of a forthcoming “security agreement” with “Israel”. This talk intensified over the past week, coinciding with the UN General Assembly meetings, part of which were attended by the Syrian president. Multiple media sources, mostly Western and mostly “Israeli” in their orientation, confirmed that the agreement would be signed in New York or Washington, would include major concessions from the Syrian side, and that a Trump-sponsored meeting would be held between the “Israeli” occupation’s prime minister and the transitional Syrian president on the 29th of this month.

Official and journalistic sources, both Syrian and non-Syrian, are talking about the possibility of a US-sponsored “security agreement” with the “Israeli” entity soon. The discussions include various details about the nature of the supposed agreement. Regardless of the veracity of the rumors, what these discussions all have in common is that they all involve Syrian concessions and concessions to the occupier in exchange for “some sort of” security or non-security “guarantees”, as well as talk of lifting US sanctions, which have yet to be lifted despite all the hype surrounding their eventual lifting.

During the last week, two significant events have taken center stage for our entire region, in terms of their weight and impact on the various equations governing the conflict, including those that directly affect us in Syria.

In Tianjin, China, representatives from half the world gathered, and the leaders of the Eurasian countries, who today constitute the true center of the world and contribute at least a third of the global gross domestic product, stood on one platform. This summit could have been like its predecessors, but through the military parade that followed the summit, China presented itself as a military umbrella for the summit and its outcomes. It revealed a sophisticated military structure funded with a budget equivalent to a quarter of the US military budget, and made the US army appear as if it belonged to a previous era. This parade was further enhanced by the presence of both the Russian and North Korean presidents alongside the Chinese president in a rare and unprecedented moment, resembling the announcement of a tripartite alliance.

The UN Security Council’s presidential statement on August 10 – along with a series of diplomatic statements by member states – brought back UNSC Resolution 2254 to the spotlight as the roadmap for a political solution in Syria.

“Different peoples’ experiences prove that departure of the authority does not mean departure of the regime, and that the process of changing a regime a comprehensive radical change – politically and socioeconomically – is a much more complicated process than the mere departure of a president and arrival of a new one.

Against the backdrop of the escalating crises that have occurred and are ongoing in various parts of the country, two contradictory views are circulating within Syrian circles regarding the country’s unity and the possibility of partitioning it. The first view considers partition impossible under any circumstances, while the second believes partition is inevitable and that it is only a matter of time. Neither view reflects objective facts and realities, either internal or external.

Official statements published by SANA on Saturday, August 9, citing “an official source in the Syrian government”, commenting on the “Components Unity Conference” held by the Autonomous Administration on Friday, August 8, in the Syrian city of Hasakah, reflect a clear contradiction within various texts issued by a single source, at almost the same time. These statements contrast calm and positive language calling for public dialogue, national consensus, and guaranteeing the right to assembly, political action, and political participation, with vociferous language throwing accusations of treason and threats in all directions. This contradiction reflects a recurring pattern: between positive promises and demonstrations of a desire for openness, and a practical approach that remains largely exclusive and far from participatory, viewing “security solutions”, i.e., the “logic of dominance”, as its fundamental path.