Beyond the Headlines: Can Peace Hold in Ukraine, Gaza, Syria?

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Tired of feeling overwhelmed by the headlines, want to truly
understand the why behind the global chaos, then you are
in the right place. Welcome to this week, explaining your
weekly deep dive into the most complex and impactful story
shaping our world. I'm Tiana and joining me as always
is Kurbon. Before we jump into the crucial developments of
the week, a quick favor. If you want to ensure

(00:23):
you never miss an episode, make sure you're following or
subscribed on your podcast platform. It literally takes two seconds
and keeps you instantly updated. And if you are getting
value from what we do here, a simple rating or
review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify helps us reach more
curious minds like yours. And don't forget the new interactive
comments on Spotify. It's a fantastic way to engage directly

(00:45):
with the show and other listeners, extending the conversation beyond
the broadcast. You can also find more fantastic podcasts like
ours by visiting leonmedianetwork dot com, part of the awesome
Leon Media network. This week, we're diving into the latest
from Ukraine and Gaza, and the latest on the sectarian
violence in Syria. But as always, we are going to

(01:07):
start with the war in Ukraine, and specifically we are
focusing on some significant shifts we're seeing both on the
ground and in the international arena. So the news seems
to be a constant stream of developments lately. Where should
we even begin to make sense of all of this?

Speaker 2 (01:29):
I mean, it's a multi layered situation, it always has been.
I've been discussing this since the kickoff in February of
twenty twenty two. But there are a few key themes
that are really emerging right now after all this time,
and we're seeing a continuation of intense fighting, particularly with
drone warfare. Couple that with evolving international responses in terms

(01:51):
of sanctions and military aid. We even have some interesting
political and diplomatic undercurrents.

Speaker 1 (01:59):
All right, well, well let's start with the fighting itself.
We've seen reports of increased drone attacks on both sides.
So what does this tell us about the current phase
of the conflict.

Speaker 2 (02:09):
Yeah, I would say that the increased reliance on drones
speaks volumes from an intelligence perspective. The current market of
drones offers a relatively cost effective way to conduct reconnaissance
to target infrastructure, but also to exert pressure on the
other side. Now, for Ukraine, they've become a crucial tool
for striking deeper in Russian held territory. And conversely, Russia

(02:35):
has intensified drone barrages on Ukrainian cities and civilian infrastructure,
like the recent attack that we saw this week on Odessa,
and it shows that their strategy of victory through attrition
and attempting to degrade Ukrainian morale and infrastructure is having
an effect. And it's a cycle of technological adaptation and

(02:59):
counter at it that we are likely going to continue
to see throughout this war.

Speaker 1 (03:05):
In these attacks as we heard about you Know Odessa,
like the one that Odessa have devastating human costs beyond
the immediate tragedy. What are the broader strategic implications of
this kind of warfare on civilian areas well?

Speaker 2 (03:20):
Strategically targeting civilian areas, while often condemned internationally, it does
serve a potential purpose for the aggressor, in this case Russia.
It can so fear and displacement, potentially impacting Ukraine's ability
to sustain the war effort. More and more people speak
out about you know, continuing their defensive war against an

(03:41):
aggressive Russia. That could get the government to come to
the table in a bad spot. It could also be
a way of signaling resolve or retaliating for perceived Ukrainian actions. Now,
from an intelligence standpoint, the long term effectiveness of these
tactics in a in achieving the strategic goals that Russia

(04:02):
has that is quite questionable. I think it can harden
resolve and galvanize international support for the defending nation if
you think of Pearl Harbor nine to eleven for the
US in those events. So, those two events certainly did
not make the American public lose their resolve.

Speaker 1 (04:21):
You mentioned international support, and we have seen the EU
announce another round of sanctions against Russia. So can you
break down the significance of this eighteenth package and how
effective these measures have been so far?

Speaker 2 (04:34):
Well, yeah, you know how I feel about sanctions, right,
So it makes the EU feel as though they're doing
something significant when in fact they are doing very little here,
like you said, eighteen packages, and it hasn't done anything
to affect Russia negatively. Russia's been able to withstand the

(04:55):
effects of these sanctions because they've been bypassing them even
with the help of those same EU countries. So you
think of oil and gas purchases that are being made
by European countries through other means, that is, bypassing the
very sanctions that those EU countries have put in. Now,
Russia has been actively adapting to these restrictions over time,

(05:16):
and sanctions are really more of a long term pressure tactic.
The real impact hinges on the willingness of other nations
to adhere to those sanctions and then Russia's capacity for
economic resilience in finding alternative markets.

Speaker 1 (05:32):
Last week we discussed increased military a to Ukraine, and
now it looks like Patriot missile systems and artillery ammunition
are being sent from the Czech Republic and even Abrams
tanks are headed to Ukraine from Australia. So how crucial
is this continued flow of weaponry for Ukraine's defense?

Speaker 2 (05:49):
I mean this, Yeah, it's a lifeline for Ukraine's ability
to defend itself against a larger and more heavily equipped
adversary in Russia. Now, systems like the Patriot missile system
those are crucial right now because they are incredibly effective
against the kind of intense drone and missile attacks that
Russia is currently launching. The artillery ammunition that you spoke of,

(06:10):
now that's fundamental for ground engagements. The introduction of more
advanced weaponry, the Abram tanks. We talked about that a
few couple years ago when those were first being put
onto the battlefield. Here for Ukraine, they offer a qualitative
advantage on the battlefield. We're seeing some interesting developments as well,

(06:32):
like Ukraine offering its front lines as a testing ground
for foreign arms companies. That suggests a longer term strategic
vision for its defense capabilities. So this might not help
them in the near term, but the future prospects of
Ukraine having an advanced military tech solution that could prevent
further aggression from Russia.

Speaker 1 (06:53):
That's kind of smart, kind of you know, farming out
your battlefields of your too, you know, military tech companies
and be like you want you want to test your
new weapons, we can do it in a real, live
battle dome.

Speaker 2 (07:11):
And it shows a forward thinking, right, not just set
on the present day and what's going on on the battlefield,
but hey, how's this going to help us in the future.
And then they can also take that tech and sell
it globally and make money off.

Speaker 1 (07:25):
Of it, right, and they'll be like, see, look at
look at what it did on the battlefield in Ukraine,
Like this, this is some stuff that you all need.
So anyways, what about the potential deal between Presidents Trump
and Zelensky involving the US buying Ukrainian drones? I mean,
is that viable? Like? What what are the potential benefits

(07:46):
and drawbacks of such an arrangement from a strategic perspective.

Speaker 2 (07:51):
Well, that is a really incredible question, because for decades,
the US went all in on these larger, more capable
unmanned systems that can travel long distances and they can
loiter overhead for longer hours. I've worked for a company once, AVX,
and they'd been developing an asset that would fly for

(08:11):
over twenty four hours. So that's what the US was
focused on just a couple of years ago. The war
in Ukraine, though, has shifted the drone battlefield to use smaller, cheaper,
less capable assets that are basically just being used as ammunition.
And for Ukraine, a deal like this could provide much

(08:32):
needed financial resources and potentially solidify a stronger defense partnership
with the United States. That's something that the US that
Russia does not want to happen, especially, you know, as
this war drags on. Now, the fact that Ukrainian drones
have demonstrated the capability to strike deep into Russian territory

(08:55):
suggests they possess valuable technology and operational experience that could
be of interest to the US in a future conflict
with a near peer or peer peer adversary. From the
US perspective, acquiring and analyzing these battlefield testa drones could
offer insights into Russian vulnerabilities and also inform their own

(09:16):
drone development and defense strategies. But there are potential drawbacks
to this. There is a risk the technology transfer will
fall that technology gets transferred and it falls into unintended
hands or the political sensitivities surrounding such a direct military
industrial collaboration while the conflict is actually still ongoing.

Speaker 1 (09:41):
On the political front, we saw some contrasting statements. President
Trump expressed disappointment but said he's quote not done end
quote with Putin, while Russia warned against US ultimatum. So
what do these pronouncements suggest about the current diplomatic possibilities.

Speaker 2 (10:00):
I mean, what we were seeing is what we knew
all along. At least those who listen to this podcast
and others like this one, they always knew this. These
conversations are highly complex, they're often contradictory in nature, especially
during wartime, and you and I knew that getting to
peace in the first one hundred days of the Trump
presidency that was going to be a pipe dream. There

(10:21):
is no incentive to come to a peace agreement for
either side, and then Trump's blusters oftentimes off putting to
these leaders, especially someone like Vladimir Putin. Now to your
point about Russia's responses, These public pronouncements are often carefully calibrated,
and the signals intended for multiple audiences. I'd say one

(10:46):
domestic but also an international audience, and they can offer
clues about underlying intentions, but we should always interpret them
with a degree of caution. The reality of diplomatic progress
lies in more nuanced the scenes interactions.

Speaker 1 (11:02):
Another story that caught my eye was the fact that
Germany doubts Ukraine would be approved EU entry by twenty
thirty four, while the EU itself continues to strengthen sanctions.
So how do these seemingly conflicting signals within Europe impact
the overall support for Ukraine.

Speaker 2 (11:21):
Now, I mean they reflect the varying national interests and
strategic considerations that are currently at play. So Germany's cautious
stance on Ukraine's rapid EU ascension likely stems from concerns
about the economic and political implications for the European Union,
especially given the ongoing conflict and the significant reconstruction efforts
that will be required now. Simultaneously, the continued strengthening of

(11:45):
sanctions demonstrates a collective will within the European Union to
maintain pressure on Russia. These internal debates are a natural
part of a large multilateral organization like the European Union,
and while they might create some short term uncertainty, the
overall trend is support for Ukraine. That's both through sanctions

(12:07):
and other means. This appears to remain relatively strong, and
it's going to be strong moving forward.

Speaker 1 (12:16):
Okay, Well, finally, Kurvin, looking at all of these pieces,
the intensified fighting, the evolving international response, and the political maneuvering,
what's your overall assessment of where this conflict might be
heading in the near future.

Speaker 2 (12:31):
That's a good question, and I think that's one that
experts are dwelling on every single day, is this conflict
wages on, our rages on. I do think that predicting
the trajectory of any conflict is fraught with uncertainty, but
I will say that based on current intelligence, we can
anticipate a continuation of intense fighting, likely with both sides

(12:54):
continuing to adapt their tactics and technologies, particularly in the
realm of drone warfare. You may even see an increase
in gray zone conflict like heightened cyber attacks, disinformation campaigns,
and even at both sides using non military militias. The
international support for Ukraine, especially in terms of military and

(13:15):
financial aid, that seems likely to persist at this point,
although the scale in nature of that support could evolve.
So keep an eye on the next forty five days
or so. As that fifty day timeline that Trump talked
about that Putin needs to come into a peace agreement
within the next fifty days that would pass. So what
does Trump do if Putin does not show up to

(13:37):
the negotiating table in good faith. The path to a
negotiated resolution at this moment in time remains very elusive.
There are significant differences in stated positions and objectives, and I,
for one, I'm going to be closely monitoring a few
key indicators. That's going to be the intensity and nature
of the fighting leading up to that fifty day deadline,

(13:59):
the ineffective of international sanctions and aid, and then any
significant shifts in the political rhetoric or actions of the
key actors involved Russia, Ukraine, the United States.

Speaker 1 (14:12):
All right, thank you for your analysis there. For now,
let's shift to Gaza. And we've been following ongoing situation
closely from US two years now, and recent reports paint
a complex picture. On one hand, we're hearing about potential
progress and ceasefire negotiations, while simultaneously the humanitarian crisis on

(14:32):
the ground appears to be deepening. So can you give
us a broad overview of workings stand currently.

Speaker 2 (14:41):
Yeah, I mean, right now, we're seeing a confluence of
intense diplomatic efforts running parallel to a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian catastrophe.
So the core issue remains the conflict between Israel and
Hamas and the efforts to secure a pause in fighting,
a truce, hopefully to allow for the release of hot
stages and the delivery of that much needed aid to

(15:03):
the people of Palestine.

Speaker 1 (15:05):
So let's start with these truth negotiations. We've heard reports
of direct talks happening in Doha mediated by Cutter, Egypt
and the United States. We have heard similar reports over
the last six months or so, and nothing gets accomplished
and people continue to suffer. Is this time different, Like,
what's the general direction of these discussions and what are

(15:28):
the main hurdles.

Speaker 2 (15:30):
Yeah, let's tackle the easy question first. Is this time different? No,
that's the simple answer there. There is just no getting
around the trust issues here. The more Hamas attacks and
Israel retaliates, both of which are harming and killing civilians,
that those trust issues, those erod further now for the

(15:52):
general discussions, so that the primary focus right now is
on a proposed sixty day truce. The reporting suggests that
the core elements involve a phased release of hostages held
by Hamas in exchange for the release of Palestinian detainees
held by Israel. There are also discussions around the withdrawal
of some Israeli forces from Gaza and the establishment of

(16:12):
mechanisms for increased humanitarian aid delivery. Now, I already took
you through the main hurdle trust, but as always in
these situations, it is multifaceted. It's not. They're not one
issue things, so fundamentally there are differing end goals here.

(16:34):
Amasa has expressed a desire for any agreement to lead
to a permanent end to the conflict and a full
Israeli withdrawal. Now Israel, on the other hand, they've stated
that its objective remains the dismantling of Hamas and the
removal of its leadership from Gaza. So bridging the fundamental difference,
even for temporary truce that's going to require a significant compromise.

Speaker 1 (16:59):
We've seen behoor It's quoting a spokesperson for Hamas's military
wing suggesting they might become less flexible on partial deals
if the current round of talks doesn't yield results. So
how should we interpret those kinds of statements from an
analytical standpoint?

Speaker 2 (17:14):
If from my perspective they serve several purposes. The first
one is this actually could be a genuine indication of
their negotiating red lines, so they could be signaling to
the mediators and Israel that their willingness to compromise on
interim steps is limited at this point. But really it's
just a tactic to increase pressure on the other side,

(17:36):
they want to extract more concessions by suggesting a hardening
of their stance. Now, the statements, much like we talked
about earlier with the statements out of Russia. They're aimed
at their internal audience in Gaza and among the Hamas fighters,
So they are reinforcing their commitment to their stated goals.

Speaker 1 (17:56):
And on the Israeli side, we've heard Prime Minister in
Nataniel Who's office suggesting that Hamas has not reciprocated their
efforts towards a deal. So how do these competing narratives
play into the overall situation.

Speaker 2 (18:08):
That's the same thing I just talked about with Hamas
this place to a domestic audience in Israel. But I
also think both sides understand the international perceptions of the
conflict and the negotiating process. Each side's trying to position
itself as acting reasonably in the other that's the other
side is the primary obstacle to all of this. So
for Israel, highlighting a lack of reciprocation from Hamas, that

(18:34):
that could garner domestic support for a continued military operation.
Becauld also potentially put pressure on international actors to condemn
hamasa's stance now for Hamas portraying Israel as rejecting deals
that could alleviate the suffering in Gaza and secure the
release of Palestinian prisoners, which is what Hamas would say

(18:56):
that this truce would do. That can build support within
the Palestinian territory worries, but also can continue to build
support internationally. Now, I tend to say it's important not
to take these narratives that face value. If you analyze
the underlying motivations and the realities on the ground, you're
gonna get a better understanding of the actual motivations behind

(19:17):
both of these public statements.

Speaker 1 (19:19):
Moving to the humanitarian crisis, the reports we're seeing are
deeply concerning as always, I don't remember the last time
I saw a good report from Gaza, but with rising
malnutrition and warnings of famine now sprouting up. So how
does this intersect with the ceasefire negotiations?

Speaker 2 (19:40):
I mean the humanitarian crisis as a significant layer of
urgency but also complexity to the negotiations. So every day
that the media reports of civilian suffering, the more pressure
is put on Israel and the United States to come
to an agreement. Interestingly, there is not much pressure on
Hamas to do anything that would be just based on

(20:03):
media reporting. I think this stems from the fact that
Hamas is a terror organization, so the media understands fear
and suffering is how those organizations work in the first place,
you know, saying Palestinians are suffering and then blaming Hamas,
it's not going to do anything to get the group
to lay down to arms. The immense suffering of the
civilian population in Gaza does, however, create international pressure on

(20:27):
democratic institutions like Israel and the United States to reach
a resolution, even a temporary one. So the humanitarian situation,
while terrible, is definitely seen as a leverage both within
the media and Hamas. Now highlighting the dire consequences of
continued conflict has certainly played a role in the negative

(20:48):
international opinion against Israel. And then there's this horrible cycle
of atrocities at play. You know, Hamas faces pressure through
military action by Israel targeting its leadership, while Isra is
pressured by the horrific consequences of their very actions against Tamas.
So when someone calls uh both sides and says, hey,

(21:11):
you got to stop fighting, it immediately raises a question
from both of those sides, and they go so who
goes first? Who's going to be the first one to stop?

Speaker 1 (21:20):
Just stop, like, take your ego out of it, just stop.

Speaker 2 (21:25):
That's that. It may be the toughest thing for anyone
in power to do right because you get in power
because of ego.

Speaker 1 (21:33):
And it tastes so sweet, does it? I don't know.
I've never I don't know.

Speaker 2 (21:39):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (21:40):
Yeah, I am literally putty in the kid's hands. I
don't I don't have power.

Speaker 2 (21:46):
You should ask them.

Speaker 1 (21:51):
Well, I think.

Speaker 3 (21:55):
We are really seeing that final point you made play
out in real time. Staying with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza,
we are seeing reports about the challenges and delivering aid
into Gaza.

Speaker 1 (22:08):
So what are the main obstacles and what impact are
they having?

Speaker 2 (22:13):
Yeah, Like, I mean, delivering aid in a war zone
is just not easy. Ever, this isn't unique to Gaza,
but it is happening, and the obstacles are actually multifaceted here.
They can include the ongoing fighting. For sure. You don't
want to put people out there and they're getting shot
at because the active conflict is going on. That puts

(22:35):
AID workers at risk. Trying to find aid workers who
would risk their life to go out there can become difficult.
There's also logistical challenges in distributing aid within a densely
populated and damaged environment. The impact is devastating, and we
have for months seeing food and security, limited access to

(22:55):
essential medical supplies, and an inability to address the rapid
speed of disease in GASA.

Speaker 1 (23:03):
You said it's like difficult to find aid workers that
are willing to put their lives at risk. They could
have just let Greta Thunberg go through with her little boat.

Speaker 2 (23:11):
Yeah, I don't. How did she have a lot of
aid on that boat that she was bringing in. I
can't remember. I'm not saying that sarcasticly.

Speaker 1 (23:20):
No, I think there was a decent amount of aid.
I don't. I mean, obviously it wasn't nearly enough to
put a dent in the right catastrophe that's going on
on the ground. But I mean she was bringing attention
to it, you know, everything she does brings attention to
the cause. Then then her presence winds up or shadow

(23:44):
what's going on.

Speaker 2 (23:45):
There too, Like that was what I was going to say. Yeah,
so there's two things that happen here at overshadows. But
then there's also the perspective that you know, when she
gets on the ground in Gaza, the IDF is tasked
to make sure that everyone within that group is secure
and not dying. And so they're fighting an active war

(24:07):
and now they're having to worry about these people who
hate them and having to protect those people, and so
it takes resources away. It takes resources away from the
aid groups and things like that. So it is a
noble cause, but sometimes it can be more It could
do more harm than good.

Speaker 1 (24:26):
Yeah, well, okay, So looking at the broader geopolitical context,
how do regional and international actors influence this situation and
the prospects for a ceasefire.

Speaker 2 (24:39):
We'll start with Cutter and Egypt, who are directly involved
in mediating this, and they will significant influence through their
diplomatic channels and relationships with both Israel and Hamas. Now
remember Hamas has leaderships still living in Cutter, some are
living in Egypt, so they do have that relationship with
both sides. The United States this role is critical, but

(25:01):
it's also complicated. While the US provides diplomatic backing and
exerts pressure on both sides, it tends to muddy the
waters with this harsh public rhetoric. Other international actors like
the UN often complicate matters as well because they have
this perceived favoritism towards one side, and this erodes effective

(25:23):
communication and as seen with humanitarian aid, it creates confusion
both within Gaza and internationally.

Speaker 1 (25:30):
Given all these interconnected factors like the stalled but ongoing negotiations,
the dire humanitarian situation, and the regional and international dynamics,
what is your overall assessment of the near term prospects
for a meaningful ceasefire in Gaza.

Speaker 2 (25:49):
Yeah, it's still a highly fluid and unpredictable situation right now.
While the continued diplomatic efforts that does offer a glimmer
of hope, the fundamental disagreements between Israel and Hamas, particularly
regarding the long term goals of the conflict, that represents
significant obstacles. The increasing humanitarian crisis definitely adds immense pressure

(26:14):
to find a resolution, but it doesn't necessarily guarantee a
breakthrough in negotiations. What I'm looking for are concrete shifts
in the stated positions and actions of the key actors.
So if one makes a compromise I'd like to see
where the other one tries to make a compromise, and
that's how we know we're getting closer to an actual

(26:35):
Ceasepire deal. The more that we see finger pointing between
Hamas and Israel, the less optimistic I become. So until
we see more substantial concessions and a clear pathway towards
addressing the core issues, a sustained Ceasepire remains a significant challenge.
In the next few days and probably the next couple weeks.

(26:55):
That's likely going to be critical in determining whether the
current diplomatic push can overcome these hurdles or if the
conflict will continue this devastating trajectory in the region.

Speaker 1 (27:07):
And on that notehe we are going to take a
quick break here, but when we come back, we'll pivot
to that deeply concerning situation unfolding in Syria. So stay
with us, we'll be right back. Welcome back, listeners. Before
the break, we hinted at a deeply concerning situation in Syria.
It was only a few months ago that some experts
were very hopeful about the future of Syria after the

(27:29):
fall of the Assauld regime. But you did not hold
out the same, Hope Kervin. And now we are seeing
an escalation of violence in the southern province of Souweta.
So from what we've been seeing, it sounds like things
have really taken a turn for the worst there. So
can you give us an overview of what's been happening,
because I know whenever we discussed the fall of the

(27:51):
Assaud regime, you immediately clocked power vacuum.

Speaker 2 (27:55):
Yes, I did. Yeah, glad you remembered that. Yeah, and
as I did, absolutely what we're seeing here. You know,
what we are witnessing in southern Syria, particularly in Sueda,
This should not have surprised experts. I'm pretty surprised that
it is surprising those who are experts in Syria and

(28:17):
the Middle East and who do that for a living.
What happened this past week was a fresh wave of
sectarian violence that really highlights the fragile security landscape across
the country. And we're talking about a significant escalation in
clashes that's primarily between Dru's militias and Sunni Bedouin fighters.
It is all ignited around July thirteenth, and that was

(28:40):
because of a reported abduction of a Druze merchant.

Speaker 1 (28:44):
And this isn't just a minor skirmish, is it. The
reports of casualties are quite stark.

Speaker 2 (28:51):
Far yeah, far from it. It's not just a one
off abduction and a few people getting angry about it.
This situation quickly spiraled seeing reports of one hundreds killed.
I know the numbers are still fluid, but definitely it
is in the hundreds right now. This intense violence is
not isolated. It is the first major outbreak in Sweda

(29:15):
since earlier clashes in April and May. It echoes even
larger incidents we saw in March in the coastal provinces
in that those coastal provinces were the ones that were
involving the Alouitz minority. We talked about that in March
on this podcast, and it's a clear indicator that Syria's
post civil war security is, as predicted here on this podcast,

(29:38):
very much in flux.

Speaker 1 (29:40):
And as these conflicts flared, we also saw a notable
international response. Israel in particular stepped in saying it was
there to protect the Drews. So Kermin, what's the intelligence
read on Israel's involvement and what they're trying to achieve here?
Like why are they sticking their nose in another conflict?

Speaker 2 (29:58):
Absolutely right, that's everybody first question, what is Israel doing?
And that's a critical piece of this puzzle, because well,
first let's start with what happened here. So on July fifteenth,
Israel intervened militarily. They stated their objective was to protect
the DRUS and eliminate pro government forces they accused of

(30:19):
attacking them in Sueta. It was quickly escalated, so the
following day, Israel expanded the scope of its attacks significantly,
so they were not striking just in Sueda, but also
the Ministry of Defense and the Syrian Army headquarters in Damascus.

Speaker 1 (30:37):
So this wasn't just a localized response in Suena, but
a broader message to the Syrian government.

Speaker 2 (30:43):
Yeah, exactly. This represents the most serious Israeli escalation in
Syria since December twenty fourth, that's when they took the
extensive action across Syria, including seizing a un patrolled buffer
zone in the Golden Heights. Now, from an intelligence perspective,
Israel seems intent on preventing the new Syrian authorities from

(31:04):
building up military capabilities that could be seen as a
threat to their own security. Another foreign minister even said, quote,
the warnings in Damascus have ended. Now, painful blows will
come end. Quote. We're seeing that happen now and it
indicates a clear shift in their strategy.

Speaker 1 (31:22):
Okay, so how has the rest of the world reacted
to these developments, especially with Israel's expanded strikes. I don't
know how they're doing it. They're just spreading themselves.

Speaker 2 (31:31):
So then, yeah, so that was right when the war
in Godza kicked off against Tamas. There's a lot of
questions about, you know, how is Israel going to fare
if Hesbellah does something and then they have to go
after Iran and then they have to go and do
things in Syria, and we're seeing that play out, and

(31:52):
there was some questions will I mean, does Israel survive
all of this? So far, they've done a pretty good
job with the backing of the United States, extreme backing,
I would say, But the international reaction to all of
this has varied, and those varied reactions all depend on allegiances.
Of course, the United States and Secretary of State Marco

(32:15):
Rubio expressed concern but did not express condemnation. The air
of states, including Lebanon, Iraq, cutter. Jordan, Egypt, and Kuwait
have condemned israel strikes. Saudi Arabia denounced them as quote
blatant attacks end quote, and even Turkey, a key player
in post Asad Syria, they described these attacks as quote

(32:37):
an act of sabotage against serious efforts to secure peace
end quote. Now, the UN Secretary General unsurprisingly condemned Israel's
escalatory strikes in Syria. So while there's global concern over
the violence, there's also significant apprehension about Israel's actions and
their potential to further destabilize this region.

Speaker 1 (33:01):
All right, well, let's pivot back to the Jews community.
They are at the center of this current conflict. So
who are they and what's their historical and current relationship
with the Syrian state, especially this new government.

Speaker 2 (33:15):
Yeah, this is a great question, and I do think
we should take a moment and try to understand all
the players here. And the Drus are fascinating and historically
significant ethno religious minority. They are primarily Arabic speaking, and
that they can be found across Syria, Lebanon, some are
in Israel and there are also some in the occupied

(33:38):
Golen Heights. Now, their faith is a distinct offshoot of
Shia Islam within Syria, and they make up about three
percent of the population, with roughly half of their million
global followers living there in Syria.

Speaker 1 (33:54):
So they are a significant minority within Syria itself.

Speaker 2 (33:59):
They are, and their position has historically been precarious. So
during Syria's long civil war, the Drews largely operated their
own militias. Those militias were supported by Israel in southern Syria. Now,
with the fall of Asade in December twenty twenty four
and the rise of the islamis led government under interim
President Ahmed al Sharra, the Drews have largely resisted attempts

(34:22):
to imposed state authority over southern Syria. There's a range
of views within the community, but many object to an
official Syrian security presence in Sueeda, and they prefer to
rely on those local militias rather than integrating into the
Syrian army.

Speaker 1 (34:39):
And we've heard deeply disturbing reports from the ground from
residents themselves about the behavior of the very forces that
were supposedly deployed to protect them. So what are those
reports telling us?

Speaker 2 (34:51):
Yeah, there's accounts of barbaric scenes, bodies in the street,
people fearing for their lives as gunmen go door to door. Crucially,
while President Shara's government has publicly condemned attacks on the
Drews and vowed to restore order, it's those forces. So
President Shara's own forces who have been the ones attacking

(35:12):
the minority community. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which
is a reputable monitor, unlike the Gaza Health Ministry, they
have documented summary executions of Drews by government forces.

Speaker 1 (35:27):
So that is a significant gap between rhetoric and reality.

Speaker 2 (35:32):
Yeah, look, this all feels incredibly predictable. You know, we
once talked on this podcast the philosophical question of whether
individuals can truly change, especially when figures like Chira, with
his past as a terrorist, come into power. Now, these
reports are unsurprisingly deepening the mistrust among some Drews towards Damascus.

(35:56):
So the feeling among residents is one of abandonment but
also of betrayal, as they question whether the authorities meant
to protect them are in fact responsible for this violence.
This resulted in a deep seated skepticism. Many view the
government promises as little more than lip service, a stark
reminder of the broken pledges following similar incidents involving the

(36:20):
Alouitz minority in March.

Speaker 1 (36:23):
Well, it sounds like the promise of protection feels like
deja vu for.

Speaker 2 (36:28):
Many, it does much like the situation we discussed with
Israel and Hamas. This deep seated mistrust presents a significant obstacle.
It remains to be seen how the new government is
going to navigate this as it attempts to unify the country.

Speaker 1 (36:43):
Well, as we look to the future, what are the
potential implications of this escalating violence and the various interventions.

Speaker 2 (36:51):
First, the cycle of violence is likely to persist. That's
driven by that same who stops first dilemma we discussed
regarding Hamas and is So without a clear mechanism or
willingness for de escalation from both sides, military actions are
likely going to continue to provoke counteractions, perpetuating the suffering. Also,

(37:12):
the breakdown of trust will likely deepen here, So when
populations feel abandoned and betrayed by the very forces meant
to protect them, that foster's profound skepticism. I don't think
I think that's a surprise to anybody. This whole lip
service approach to governance, where the promises are unfulfilled. That's
only going to further destabilize regions. It's going to create

(37:33):
a fertile ground for disaffection and potentially new conflicts. A
power vacuum it will ensue, and we could see a
broader regional conflict. Finally, I want to bring Iran into
the discussion. The recent development of Iran reserving all options
to defend itself after those US strikes on its nuclear facilities,

(37:56):
I'd say the outlook becomes even more volatile. What does
Iran do as it sees an opportunity to show its
might and kind of improve how it's perceived in the
Middle East. I can see a future where diplomatic solutions
become increasingly challenging and the risk of wider regional or
even international confrontations rises significantly. So really, what I'm saying

(38:21):
is we're looking at a future marked by increased instability, racture, trust,
and a heightened risk of wider conflict. And all of
this seems unfortunately probable if these patterns continue, and.

Speaker 1 (38:35):
The Israeli strikes certainly complicate that.

Speaker 2 (38:39):
Yeah, I didn't want to I don't mean to just
call out Iran in this, but not even just the
strikes by israel I think of the Druis militia as
an Israeli proxy, much like the Iranian proxies. They receive
financial insecurity backing. And if you think that Israel doesn't ask,
or better yet, tell the drew Use what they should

(39:00):
be doing from a security standpoint, then you're absolutely crazy,
because they do so these sectarian clashes, combined with Israel's
escalating strikes, that threatens to derail any attempt at state
building and post war recovery. Now, from Israel's perspective, they
are likely to continue viewing the new Syrian authorities and
their affiliated Islamist fighters in the south as a significant

(39:24):
security threat to their nation. This could push Israel to
pursue more alliances with more groups who feel alienated by
the new Damascus government. That further fragments an already fractured nation.
So it's a very volatile situation and frankly, the immediate
future looks incredibly uncertain for Syria.

Speaker 1 (39:46):
Well, thank you for shedding light on such a complex
and critical situation. We will continue to monitor this very closely.
So is there anything else you want to discuss?

Speaker 2 (39:56):
But that's all I have. Do you want to talk
about anything.

Speaker 1 (40:01):
My knee pits are sweating so bad right now.

Speaker 2 (40:08):
In the house.

Speaker 1 (40:10):
It's not that it's not that hot. It's my computer
on my lap, so my knee but behind, my knees
are sweaty. But actually, what I.

Speaker 2 (40:20):
Want, let's talk about your knees.

Speaker 1 (40:23):
Well, want to talk about my now. So last week
when we did our little sidebar thing about Epstein, we
got a bunch of requests for a Trump Epstein episode,
and guys, that has nothing to do with geopolitics, Oh fortune,
does it?

Speaker 2 (40:43):
Does it with the intelligence community?

Speaker 4 (40:47):
Well, if it becomes like a thing and it starts
bleeding into like he actually has to face it, we
could probably do an episode then, But as of right now,
it's just him fighting with the Wall Street Journal and
Rupert Murdoch and claiming that it's a lie.

Speaker 1 (41:07):
But I mean, come on, come on, we know better,
Like there's so many pictures of him wish with Epstein,
Like we know better. We aren't dumb.

Speaker 2 (41:16):
Were you were dumb? But we're not morons. I mean,
come on.

Speaker 1 (41:21):
Speak for yourself.

Speaker 2 (41:23):
And the more you say things like are we still
talking about? Why are we still talking about this? What
is why? Why are we doing this? The more, it
looks like you're part of it. Like the way they're
this situation is incredibly bad.

Speaker 1 (41:40):
Yeah, it's and the fact that they think that people
are just gonna bly Oh well, he said, he doesn't
understand why. Like I barely talk to the guy. We
we weren't that close. What do you talk? I don't.
I don't make drawings. I don't drawings.

Speaker 2 (41:56):
So terrible at it, terrible at it.

Speaker 1 (42:00):
There were a bunch of drawings that Trump made, like
one of a city scape, and like he has made
drawings and they are framed and they are in people's
houses and museums and stuff like that. It's just ridiculous.
I don't know if it's a museum, but I saw
I saw like a frame picture of a city scape
that he drew. Anyways, he doodles. He's a doodler.

Speaker 2 (42:24):
Yeah, I mean, you know, claim it. I think their
coordinative response. So there's two things that I'd like to say.
One is the coordinated response attack of the Wall Street
Journal is another one of those things where it's like
it kind of sounds like these are your letters. When

(42:44):
you get everyone in your administration to say the same
thing to the Wall Street Journal, but also the reason
that they can do this is because of the first
Trump term. So many articles were debunked, uh that were
hit pieces on Trump. So the you know, the Russian dossier.

(43:06):
There was one where he was said to have been
sleeping around with with Russian hookers and you know, doing
very disgusting things with them. They found out that that
was actually not true. It was from one source, and
that source was just trying to uh, you know, to fame. No,

(43:29):
I'm talking about the media as a whole. All of
these stories that I'm talking about were not just one
public heate. It wasn't like, oh, this is just CNN
trying to do it, or this is MSNBC or you know,
the Huffington Post. It was multiple media sites that were
putting out.

Speaker 1 (43:49):
Doesn't Rupert Murdoch own Fox News? Yes, Rupert Murdoch is uh,
can I do it without Fox News?

Speaker 2 (43:58):
Can do it? He's gotten news, He's got news Max. Now,
oh great, okay. But the other thing is that none
of the other big publications, the New York Times associated
Press picked this story up. And typically that's a red flag.

(44:19):
If only one publication is running the story, it means
scared of cod that's one. It could be one that
one thing, the other thing could be So yes, they
could definitely be scared of getting roped into this like
long expensive legal battle, even if it is true. But
the other thing that that is happening here is it

(44:41):
could be poorly sourced. It could be a poorly sourced report.
We don't know. Maybe the letter wasn't particularly backcheck enough
that we don't have enough people who can corroborate that
that letter was written by Trump.

Speaker 1 (44:58):
Didn't Murdoch come out flat out say we stand behind
this reporting.

Speaker 2 (45:04):
I don't know if if Murdoch said that. I know
that Trump said that Rupert Murdoch was going to handle
it and not have it released.

Speaker 1 (45:14):
Uh, okay, well that was.

Speaker 2 (45:17):
In a long truth social post. But you would also.

Speaker 1 (45:21):
Expect no personal soapbox, you.

Speaker 2 (45:23):
Know, yes, but you would expect I would hope that
someone like Rupert Murdoch, who owns the Wall Street Journal,
would come to the defense of his publication. Even if
he doesn't agree with them releasing it, you would still
want him to come to come to their defense, both
for you know, monetary reasons and to keep people employed

(45:47):
at that newspaper. So a lot of things going on
very nuanced.

Speaker 1 (45:53):
Oh my god, said that word again. Actually the word
of what was the word that you've.

Speaker 2 (46:00):
Kept saying, multifaceted I think fit like seventeen times. Yeah, listen,
geopolitics as multifaceted and nuanced.

Speaker 1 (46:10):
You not shut up. Uh, whenever you pick a word,
you you really lean into it. You just pepper it
throughout through I'll get a whole episode and just keeps
going and it gets more and more on my nerves
and I'm like, and you fight you at the saurus.

(46:30):
But yeah, okay, So obviously right now, it's just Trump
going back and forth and it's not I mean, it's
affecting you know, politics here in the United States, but
it's not really affecting geopolitics yet. And that's kind of
why we can't have a full episode. But if it
does get if it if it escalates, I mean, it's

(46:52):
entirely possible that we will have an entire gibber jabber
session talking.

Speaker 2 (46:56):
Yeah, And we make it a point in this podcast
that we don't deal in domestic politics.

Speaker 1 (47:03):
Just not that's not not often like sometimes a little
a little blurb here and there, but we do try
to keep it international.

Speaker 2 (47:13):
Yeah. So We're not really talking about the inner workings
of political parties within the United States until that then,
like you said, once it affects other countries, then we
we get involved.

Speaker 1 (47:27):
Yeah, then we get involved, then you'd better watch out.
But I think that just about sums it up. So
thank you for listening to This Week Explained. We hope
you found it informative and engaging, and if you have
any feedback or suggestions for future episodes, we would love
to hear from you. For more in depth coverage of
these stories and more, be sure to follow us on

(47:49):
social media at This Week Explained Sianna.

Speaker 2 (47:52):
Thank you so much, and until next week, stay safe
out there.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Cardiac Cowboys

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Beyond the Headlines: Can Peace Hold in Ukraine, Gaza, Syria?

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Cardiac Cowboys

All Episodes

Beyond the Headlines: Can Peace Hold in Ukraine, Gaza, Syria?

On Purpose with Jay Shetty