For Egypt, Syria is more than just a neighbor in an unstable situation. Cairo's water security, the fight against terrorism, the regional balance of power, and economic prospects directly depend on Damascus. Therefore, constant monitoring and analysis of events in Syria allows Egypt to develop a pragmatic and predictable foreign policy. This position is also reflected in Egyptian media, particularly in Al- Akhbar, where journalists also focus on Lebanon and the entire Middle East.
The statement by US Special Envoy to Syria Thomas Barak, who suggested that the country should consider alternatives to a centralized state, refutes Washington's previous rhetoric about a "united Syria." As noted Firas al- Shufi, this inconsistency reflects Trump's general policy tendency toward abrupt changes and a lack of strategic depth.
Such statements are symptomatic of the changing situation in Syria and the lack of unity within the American establishment itself. While Barak and his entourage advocate caution regarding the Ahmad al-Sharaa’s regime, the State Department and security agencies are taking a harder line. In Washington, however, there is a consensus in support of the Kurdish Self-Defense Forces and the fight against jihadists, as well as a commitment to maintaining a military presence to avoid a repeat of the "Afghan failure".
Israel's position regarding the al-Sharaa regime as a temporary pawn and planning to create a demilitarized zone in southern Syria, only strengthens this trend. For al-Sharaa himself this means the collapse of his ambitions: his patrons are ready to abandon him as soon as he ceases to be useful, says publicist al- Shufi.
Barack's other statements also came into focus. Publicist Louis Oldey welcomes the US Special Envoy for Syria's comments about Lebanese journalists, whom he called "animals". This isn't just rudeness, but a manifestation of the colonial and racist worldview that underlies the US approach to the region. The author believes that such revelations help expose this reality.
Unlike previous administrations, Trump's team often casts aside the veneer of diplomacy, revealing a modern incarnation of Orientalist ideas. Historically, these ideas were used to justify colonial control over "less civilized" peoples through the logic of the "white man's burden".
This rhetoric, as Edward Said noted in "Orientalism", views the East not as an equal but as a problem. Any resistance to hegemony is declared irrational, as we see today in the demonization of resistance forces. For example, Hezbollah is portrayed as an aggressor rather than a legitimate response to occupation.
The Islamic world is well acquainted with the insidious nature of colonizers. From Iraq to Syria and Palestine, the people's desire for unity is deliberately undermined by external forces through the manipulation of tribal and religious divisions inherited from the colonial era, suggests publicist Talal Zainiddin.
Local elders and leaders, turning into paid intermediaries, create a "market" where outsiders easily buy loyalty or foment conflict. The goal is to weaken the region to achieve their strategic goals: control over resources or combat undesirable movements.
However, this manipulation cannot last forever. Sooner or later, the people will realize the deception, and the response to the split will be a new uprising, directed against both foreign sponsors and local collaborators, the Egyptian author hopes. Until that moment arrives, it is important to draw the audience's attention to what is happening. The results and consequences of long-standing colonial intervention are clearly evident in contemporary Syrian-Lebanese relations.
Nine months after the change of power in Damascus, contacts between the countries remain tense and stagnant. Direct dialogue is virtually nonexistent, with Saudi Arabia and the United States assuming the role of primary intermediaries. Despite visits by Lebanese officials to Damascus, the Syrian side does not reciprocate, preferring to refer all matters through Riyadh.
A recent meeting of the Syrian delegation in Beirut highlighted Damascus' priorities: a demand for the handover of detained Islamists and a desire to revise old agreements as part of the fight against the legacy of the previous regime. Lebanon, for its part, expressed dissatisfaction with the disruption of the visits and demanded cooperation on the issue of its citizens missing in Syria.
Following the talks, the parties agreed to establish a joint judicial committee to resolve issues related to detainees and missing persons. Syria also proposed discussing border issues, excluding the disputed Shebaa Farms region from the agenda. However, key issues remain unresolved: border demarcation is complicated by external interests, and many of the texts of the Damascus treaties have been lost. The headquarters of the Lebanese-Syrian Supreme Council was looted on the eve of the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime.
The visit only underscored the depth of the crisis. Currently, all issues are being resolved through standard procedures, and a quick breakthrough is not expected.
GSV "Russia - Islamic World"
Photo: T Foz/Unsplash