The purpose of this paper is to analyse the Syrian crisis and its regional repercussions in three circles. The first circle refers to Syria’s neighbourhood i.e. Turkey, Iraq and Lebanon. The second circle concerns the Arab-Israeli conflict comprising Israel, the Palestinians and Jordan. The third one is the great regional circle, which refers to the antagonism for regional hegemony and includes Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Qatar and of course the USA.

In 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon that came into force provided the EU with a High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and a newly devised European External Action Service that was formed in January 2011.  The Arab uprisings and the civil wars in Libya and Syria constituted early and delicate test benches for the new CFSP. Nevertheless, assessing the CFSP during the Syrian crisis cannot be decoupled from the role played by the European member states most involved in the events on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean.

The article is about the Iraqi stance on the Syrian crisis and in particular of the official government, the Sunni minority in Iraq, the Iraqi Kurds and the tribes in Iraq. Each party has its own goals and interests in the outcome of the Syrian civil war and we will see them unfold below.

As a result of the Syrian crisis, Shia’a and Sunni sporadic clashes are taking place mainly in northern Lebanon, including vindictive abductions and even arrests of politicians. Many analysts and politicians have been warning of a highly possible spillover of the Syrian crisis in Lebanon. First due to the intense sectarian character and vulnerability of Lebanon and second due to Hezbollah’s influence -backed by Syria and Iran- in the Lebanese political arena. The domestic realities of Lebanon and the critical situation of Hezbollah’s allies are bringing Hezbollah to a crossroad: will it join the fight to support Assad or not? The decisions to be made by the ‘Party of God’ at this point will be decisive not only for itself but for Lebanon as well.

This article seeks to explain the absence of legal reasoning behind the inaction in Syria, especially after the imposition of a No-Fly zone in Libya. After briefly explaining the legal framework regarding intervention today, the action in Libya is explained under that framework, while the situation is compared to that in Syria. The main goal of the article is to show that the only possible reasoning behind staying still in front of the massacres committed is basically realpolitik. However, it will be shown that intervention is not and should not by all means be cure-all.  

Last year’s events have caused a domino effect in the region of the Middle East and the developments could not have left the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan unaffected. The impact of these events became apparent both on the domestic issues and on the relations of the Kingdom with other states and actors. To some extent the developments in Jordan resembled those in the rest of the Arab World. On the total, though, Jordan’s case is different.

After nine months of protes ts, escalating violenc e, and an es timated 5 ,0 0 0 civilian deaths, it appears that government and anti-regime forc es have reac hed a s talemate. T hough on the brink of a “slow motion collapse”, the Assad regime is determined to remain in power, and will continue its bloody campaign agains t dissenters at all cos ts. In the interes t of s tability and the regional balanc e of power, the United S tates and the international community have several potential polic y options to address the growing turmoil. T he urgenc y of the situation grows daily, as ac tors settle in for a “long winter of Arab discontent”, amids t signs of an emerging civil war.

The wave of regional uprisings reached Syria in mid- March, with opposition organisers and protesters being rounded up daily. The Syrian regime responded immediately using disproportionate force in order to quell protesters and emphasise the consequences of dissent. However, Syria’s internal frustration is of particular importance due to the country’s regional significance.

Though not in the forefront of the mass media coverage of the Middle East and often overshadowed by more spectacular but not necessarily more important players, Syria remains the key to many issues in the Middle East. The Syrian regime has survived American neo-conservative regime-change assault on the region and at the same time it plays a pivotal role in four interdependent fields of regional antagonism: Lebanon, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the regional Arab order and, last but not least, the issue of Iranian hegemony.

Το 2016 δεν ξεκίνησε με τους καλύτερους οιωνούς για τη Μέση Ανατολή, δεδομένης της πρόσφατης επιδείνωσης των σχέσεων Σαουδικής Αραβίας – Ιράν. Ο αντίχτυπος μιας τέτοιας κρίσης για την ευρύτερο ισλαμικό κόσμο υπήρξε ανέκαθεν εφιαλτικός, φτάνει να αναλογιστούμε ότι κάθε ένα από αυτά τα δύο κράτη θεωρεί δικαίωμά του να εκπροσωπεί σύσσωμους τους σουνίτες ή τους σιίτες αντίστοιχα. Σε κάθε περίπτωση πάντως, η παρούσα ένταση δεν αποτελεί κάτι το νέο και πρέπει να ιδωθεί υπό ένα αλληλένδετο γεωπολιτικό και ιδεολογικό πρίσμα, που υπερβαίνει την ένοπλη αντιπαράθεση μεταξύ των δεκάδων σουνιτικών πολιτοφυλακών και της Χεζμπολλάχ στα πεδία μαχών της Συρίας ή των Χούθι στα βουνά και τις πόλεις της Υεμένης.