Albanese Confirms October Meeting With Trump After UN Meet
P&C | Wednesday, 24 Sep. 2025
Australia| Planet & Commerce
A Surprise Encounter in New York
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and US President Donald Trump briefly met at a reception for world leaders in New York, confirming a formal sit-down in Washington on October 20.
The encounter came after Albanese was left off Trump’s official schedule for the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) week. Social media buzzed when Albanese shared a photo with Trump, captioning it:
“Good to chat with President Donald Trump at US welcome reception for world leaders attending United Nations General Assembly.”
While the meeting itself lasted only a few minutes, it was symbolically significant: the third Albanese-Trump encounter in six months.
October 20 Meeting: What’s on the Agenda
The October summit in Washington is expected to focus on three sensitive issues:
- Aukus Nuclear Submarine Deal – Trump is pressing Australia to accelerate defence cooperation under the Aukus agreement with the US and UK, including nuclear-powered submarine capabilities.
- Defence Spending – Trump is demanding Australia raise military spending to 3.5% of GDP, far above NATO’s 2% benchmark and current Australian levels.
- Trade Tariffs – Australia faces new US tariffs on minerals and manufactured goods, raising tensions between two longstanding allies.
Albanese is also expected to pitch Australia’s critical minerals strategy, showcasing Canberra as a reliable partner in the global clean energy supply chain.
Trump’s Fiery UNGA Speech
Trump’s speech at the UN earlier in the day set the stage for a charged diplomatic atmosphere. Over nearly an hour, Trump:
- Mocked climate change as a “green energy scam” and “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world”.
- Attacked wind turbines, renewables, and carbon footprint metrics.
- Insulted migration policies in Europe, warning that countries were being “ruined” by newcomers.
- Ridiculed the United Nations itself, questioning its purpose in its 80th anniversary year.
- Repeatedly boasted of being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.
- Downplayed Palestine recognition, insisting the global priority must be to demand the release of hostages taken by Hamas in the October 2023 attacks.
Leaders in the assembly reportedly laughed, took photos, and whispered during his at times rambling address, which bore the hallmarks of a campaign rally rather than a diplomatic speech.
Climate Clash: Trump vs Albanese
Trump’s broadside against climate change measures came just hours before Albanese delivered a pro-climate pitch at a Macquarie-hosted event, urging global investors to back Australia’s critical minerals industry.
Albanese framed the clean energy transition as “the biggest change since the Industrial Revolution,” declaring that global demand for lithium, rare earths, and renewable technologies would shape the century.
He will also host a Future Made in Australia summit, led by Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen and Industry Minister Tim Ayres, aimed at cementing Australia’s position as a green energy superpower.
This sharp contrast between Trump’s climate skepticism and Albanese’s green industrial agenda sets up October’s Washington talks as a potential ideological showdown.
Palestine Recognition: A Diplomatic Rift
A major theme dividing the two leaders is Palestinian statehood.
- France, Canada, the UK, Australia, and several European allies formally recognized Palestine at a joint conference earlier in the week.
- Trump blasted the move, accusing countries of “rewarding Hamas” and warning it would “encourage continued conflict.”
- Albanese defended recognition as a step toward peace but carefully avoided direct confrontation, saying it was valuable to hear Trump’s “perspectives.”
The divergence highlights growing US isolation on the issue. While nearly 150 countries recognize Palestine, the US, Germany, and Japan remain opposed.
Migration and Multilateralism: Trump’s Harsh Words
Trump railed against mass migration, alleging that even in the UK, communities were demanding sharia law, and warned that “your countries are going to hell.”
He dismissed the UN as ineffective, declaring: “What is the purpose of the United Nations? It has tremendous potential, but it’s not even coming close.”
Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong listened silently as Trump tore into climate policies, migration, and multilateralism. Their presence was a reminder that Australia values the UN, even as Washington under Trump undermines it.
Australia’s Strategic Balancing Act
Albanese faces a delicate balancing act. On one hand, Trump is demanding more from Australia militarily and economically. On the other, Albanese seeks to preserve bipartisan US-Australia ties while pursuing his government’s progressive agenda at home.
Australia is committed to:
- Delivering Aukus submarine capabilities on time.
- Expanding joint defence exercises in the Indo-Pacific.
- Deepening Quad cooperation with India, Japan, and the US.
- Attracting global investment in green hydrogen and minerals.
But Trump’s demands — especially on 3.5% GDP defence spending — risk sparking domestic debate in Australia, where many argue funds are better used for climate resilience, health, and infrastructure.
Domestic Political Context in Australia
Back home, Albanese’s government is under pressure to balance foreign policy with cost-of-living challenges. Rising tariffs and Trump’s transactional style could complicate Australia’s export economy, especially in critical minerals and agriculture.
Meanwhile, opposition figures in Canberra will seize on Albanese’s multiple trips to the US as either evidence of strengthening ties or misplaced priorities amid domestic struggles.
Business and Diplomatic Outreach
Alongside the UNGA, Albanese also led an economic diplomacy push, pitching investment in Australia’s rare earths and critical minerals sector.
The reception hosted by Macquarie drew global business leaders, with Kevin Rudd, Australia’s ambassador to Washington, and Albanese’s partner Jodie Haydon in attendance.
This initiative underscores Canberra’s long-term strategy: leverage Australia’s resource endowment to ensure economic security and maintain relevance in global supply chains.
Strategic Stakes for October
The October 20 Washington meeting is more than a diplomatic courtesy — it is a test of how Australia navigates a Trump presidency that often disregards multilateral norms.
Key stakes:
- Aukus survival amid Trump’s unpredictable defence demands.
- Trade relations, with tariffs threatening Australian industries.
- Climate cooperation, where visions diverge radically.
- Middle East diplomacy, where Australia sides with Europe while Trump resists Palestine recognition.
The challenge for Albanese will be to stand firm on climate and trade, while managing Trump’s unpredictability and preserving the alliance.
Conclusion: An Uneasy Partnership Ahead
The Albanese-Trump interaction in New York was brief, but its symbolism mattered. With a formal October meeting looming, both leaders are preparing for difficult conversations that cut to the heart of the US-Australia alliance.
Trump’s rejection of climate action and Palestinian recognition contrasts with Albanese’s progressive agenda, but both share interest in bolstering Aukus, defence cooperation, and regional security.
For Australia, the stakes are immense: preserving security guarantees while defending national interests in a volatile geopolitical era.
The world will be watching Washington in October to see whether Trump and Albanese find common ground or clash openly on climate, defence, and diplomacy.
Elon Musk’s X Challenges Australia’s Social Media Ban Law
P&C | Wednesday, 24 Sep. 2025
Australia| Planet & Commerce
X Pushes Back Against Australia’s Child Social Media Ban
Elon Musk’s X platform (formerly Twitter) has formally called for a delay in Australia’s upcoming under-16 social media ban, raising what it described as “serious concerns” about the legality, proportionality, and unintended consequences of the controversial policy.
In a submission to a Greens-led inquiry on age verification systems, X urged that enforcement obligations should begin at least six months after regulatory guidelines are finalized, and with a formal grace period for compliance.
The policy, due to take effect on 10 December 2025, mandates that major platforms ban access to under-16s or face fines of up to $50 million.
eSafety Commissioner’s Position
The eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, has stated that her office does not intend to pursue punitive action on the first day of enforcement. Instead, regulators will focus on identifying “systemic failures” of compliance over time.
Still, platforms remain concerned about the sweeping nature of the legislation. The commissioner has the authority to pursue hefty penalties for companies found to be in breach.
X’s Legal and Human Rights Concerns
X argues that the Social Media Minimum Age Law could breach Australia’s obligations under international human rights treaties. In its submission, X warned:
- The ban risks infringing on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which enshrines children’s right to freedom of expression and access to information.
- It could also clash with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, potentially inviting international scrutiny.
- Rather than protecting children, the policy could unintentionally drive minors to unregulated, unsafe platforms, exposing them to greater risks.
X highlighted comments from the Australian Human Rights Commission, which in November flagged “significant reservations” about the law’s design and impact.
Migration to Unsafe Platforms
A central argument made by X is that blanket bans will not stop children from using social media. Instead:
- Young users may turn to unmoderated apps or foreign platforms with no child safety standards.
- Children could use VPNs (virtual private networks) to bypass restrictions, something X says cannot be effectively prevented without draconian monitoring.
- The law could push activity out of regulated environments into “wild west” corners of the internet.
In other words, the ban may worsen online risks, rather than mitigate them.
A Punitive and Unclear Regulatory Framework
Another issue raised by X is the lack of clarity about which platforms are covered under the law. The legislation does not clearly define whether it applies only to large global platforms or also to smaller online communities.
X warned that this ambiguity risks “regulatory weaponisation”, giving the government excessive power to selectively target companies.
The company’s submission described the regime as “punitive”, placing full responsibility for minors’ activities on platforms while ignoring broader structural issues such as parental oversight, device-level controls, and digital literacy.
Proportionality and Effectiveness Questioned
X questioned the evidence base behind the ban, arguing there is no clear proof that:
- Blocking under-16s from social media reduces harm.
- Age assurance systems, in their current form, are effective or proportionate.
The company stressed that banning social media for children risks creating new harms, particularly by isolating them from peer communication, online learning, and access to verified information.
Alternative Proposals: Smartphone-Level Age Assurance
Rather than placing the burden solely on platforms, X suggested that age assurance should occur at the smartphone or operating system level.
This model would:
- Place responsibility on device manufacturers and app stores rather than each platform.
- Ensure a standardized approach across apps and services.
- Reduce regulatory uncertainty for platforms managing millions of users.
Other tech companies, including Meta, have expressed support for device-level verification as a more feasible and less intrusive approach.
Global Advocacy by Albanese Government
The debate in Australia is attracting international attention. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Communications Minister Anika Wells are currently in New York, lobbying other countries to adopt similar child safety laws.
Australia is positioning itself as a global leader in online safety regulation, pushing to make age verification and child protection standards a norm in digital governance.
Wells has publicly stated that platforms “have no excuse not to be ready”, rejecting tech companies’ requests for delay.
Industry Backlash and Concerns
X is not alone in raising objections. Across the tech industry, companies worry about:
- Implementation costs of new compliance systems.
- Legal exposure from vague or overbroad provisions.
- Chilling effects on online expression for young people.
- The risk of fragmented regulations across jurisdictions.
Critics argue that while child safety is paramount, policymaking must balance protection with rights, and avoid solutions that could be counterproductive or unenforceable.
Broader Debate: Online Safety vs Digital Rights
The controversy touches on a global tension:
- Governments worldwide are under pressure to protect children from online harms, including cyberbullying, grooming, explicit content, and misinformation.
- At the same time, restrictions on access raise questions about privacy, free speech, and digital equity.
Advocates argue that digital rights are human rights, and bans may unfairly restrict young people’s voices in the digital public sphere.
Comparisons with International Models
Different countries are experimenting with child online safety laws:
- United Kingdom: Introduced the Online Safety Act, requiring platforms to address harmful content.
- United States: Several states are pursuing age-gating laws, though many face constitutional challenges.
- European Union: The Digital Services Act emphasizes platform accountability but stops short of outright bans.
Australia’s approach is among the strictest globally, and could set a precedent — or a cautionary tale — for other democracies.
Political Dimensions
The Albanese government sees the ban as part of its domestic child safety agenda, but political opponents and industry critics frame it as:
- An example of overreach that risks undermining civil liberties.
- A symbolic gesture that may be ineffective in practice.
- A policy that could alienate tech investors and create diplomatic friction with global platforms.
What Happens Next
The law is scheduled to come into effect on 10 December 2025, but its rollout may be contested in courts or delayed through regulatory discretion.
The Greens-led parliamentary inquiry will weigh submissions from X, Meta, child safety groups, human rights organizations, and academic experts before issuing recommendations.
Meanwhile, X has signaled that it may legally challenge the policy, should its enforcement conflict with international treaty obligations.
Conclusion: A Clash Between Safety and Rights
Australia’s under-16 social media ban has ignited a high-stakes battle between governments and platforms, pitting child protection against digital rights and practical feasibility.
For Elon Musk’s X, the issue is not just compliance costs, but the principle of proportionality: whether banning under-16s is lawful, effective, or ethical.
As Australia pushes other nations to follow its lead, the world is watching. The outcome will shape not only the future of online child safety but also the balance of power between states, corporations, and citizens in the digital age.
Andrew Hastie Warns Liberal Party Could Die Without Cuts
P&C | Wednesday, 24 Sep. 2025
Australia| Planet & Commerce
Hastie’s Stark Warning on Immigration
Senior Liberal MP Andrew Hastie has escalated his push for a harder line on immigration, warning that the Liberal Party “might even die as a political movement” if it fails to commit to curbing net overseas migration.
In a strongly worded Instagram post, Hastie declared:
“If we don’t act, we can expect anger and frustration. We might even die as a political movement. So be it. What is the point of politics, if you’re not willing to fight for something?”
His intervention has fuelled renewed speculation about a potential future leadership challenge, with allies describing him as a credible alternative to the current leadership team.
Housing Crisis and Migration Link
Hastie tied his comments directly to Australia’s housing affordability and availability crisis, saying the nation was experiencing unsustainable demand driven by high levels of migration.
Key figures:
- Treasury forecasts net migration at 262,000 for 2025, down from a post-pandemic peak of 556,000 in 2023.
- Projections indicate migration will settle at around 230,000 annually for the rest of the decade.
While Hastie acknowledged migration is not the only driver of housing stress, he insisted it was a major factor that the Liberal Party must confront head-on.
Defying Internal Critics
Hastie’s comments come after weeks of internal bickering inside the Liberal Party. His vocal campaigns against net zero by 2050 and in favour of reviving domestic manufacturing have angered colleagues who accuse him of freelancing outside his home affairs portfolio.
Some MPs, speaking anonymously to The Australian, urged Hastie to tone down his rhetoric. In response, he denounced them as “nameless cowards”.
Hastie’s defiance has raised eyebrows in Canberra, with many interpreting his Australia-first economic pitch as laying the groundwork for a leadership tilt.
Manufacturing Pitch and National Vision
Last week, Hastie posted a social media video in front of a 1969 red Ford Falcon, lamenting the collapse of Australia’s car manufacturing industry.
“We’re a nation of flat-white makers, when we could be making beautiful cars like this again,” he said.
The imagery was a pointed critique of both Labor and Coalition governments, and a call for renewed investment in domestic manufacturing capacity.
His “Australia-first” message, with echoes of populist economic nationalism, was viewed internally as an attempt to broaden his appeal beyond immigration and climate issues.
Allies Rally Around Hastie
Hastie has found vocal supporters inside the party.
- Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, recently dumped from the shadow frontbench, defended him as a potential future leader, declaring: “I think he’d make a remarkable leader one day.”
- MPs Garth Hamilton and Henry Pike have also publicly endorsed him as leadership material.
- Two other Liberal MPs told Guardian Australia they shared the same view privately.
Price suggested that some colleagues saw Hastie as a threat precisely because of his discipline, communication skills, and leadership credentials.
Leadership Speculation
Although Hastie did not contest the Liberal leadership after the party’s May election defeat, his repeated interventions on immigration, net zero, and manufacturing have sparked speculation he is positioning himself as an alternative to Deputy Leader Sussan Ley and possibly to Opposition Leader Peter Dutton down the track.
Price herself has refused to back Ley, further destabilising the party’s frontbench. She also indicated she would continue to work closely with Hastie to push the Liberals to dump net zero commitments.
The Migration Debate Inside the Liberals
Hastie’s comments tap into a wider Liberal Party debate over immigration.
- Advocates like Hastie argue migration has outpaced infrastructure and housing supply, fuelling cost-of-living pressures.
- Others warn that slashing migration could damage economic growth, reduce skilled labour supply, and alienate multicultural voters.
- Treasury figures show migration is slowing but will remain historically high, ensuring the debate will remain a flashpoint issue.
Hastie’s blunt framing — survival of the Liberal Party as a political movement — highlights how central he believes the issue will be to future elections.
Net Zero and Climate Policy Clash
Beyond immigration, Hastie has repeatedly threatened to quit the shadow frontbench if the Liberals recommit to net zero by 2050.
His stance puts him at odds with colleagues who want to moderate climate policy to appeal to suburban voters.
Hastie and Price argue that net zero undermines Australian energy security and industrial competitiveness, calling instead for policies that prioritise domestic manufacturing and resource development.
This divide underscores broader factional tensions inside the party between conservatives and moderates.
Internal Strains Over Strategy
The Liberal Party has been reviewing all its policy positions after the May election loss, leaving a vacuum that ambitious figures like Hastie have sought to fill.
Some insiders accuse him of exploiting the policy reset period to build his profile, while others believe his interventions are filling a necessary leadership void.
Price summed up the mood bluntly: “We don’t have much in the way of policy. We are supposed to be an effective opposition.”
Hastie’s Leadership Credentials
Andrew Hastie brings an unusual resume to politics:
- Former Special Air Services (SAS) captain, with service in Afghanistan.
- Elected as MP for Canning in Western Australia in 2015.
- Quickly rose through the ranks to serve in home affairs and defence portfolios.
His military background and direct style resonate with some party members who see him as a credible future leader capable of cutting through with voters frustrated by mainstream politics.
Wider Political Context
The immigration debate comes amid broader national challenges:
- A housing affordability crisis, with record rents and home prices.
- Post-pandemic migration surges putting pressure on urban infrastructure.
- Ongoing debates about energy, net zero, and industrial revival.
Hastie’s message blends all three issues into an Australia-first vision, seeking to position the Liberals as the party of national sovereignty, strong borders, and domestic industry revival.
Risks and Opportunities
Hastie’s combative style carries risks:
- It could alienate moderate voters in urban electorates.
- It may deepen internal splits within the Liberal Party.
- His anti-net zero stance could clash with younger voters and business groups backing green transition policies.
Yet it also presents opportunities:
- Tapping into voter anger over housing costs.
- Building credibility on economic nationalism and industrial revival.
- Offering a clear conservative alternative to Labor’s progressive agenda.
Conclusion: A Party at a Crossroads
Andrew Hastie’s warning that the Liberal Party could “die as a political movement” if it fails to address immigration is more than rhetoric — it is a challenge to his party’s direction, leadership, and future identity.
With allies like Jacinta Price championing him as a future leader, and with mounting pressure over migration, net zero, and manufacturing, Hastie has positioned himself at the heart of the Liberal Party’s ideological crossroads.
Whether this represents a genuine leadership bid or a policy reset campaign, the stakes are high. For a party still reeling from electoral defeat, Hastie’s words underline a stark truth: the Liberals must choose between cautious moderation and bold realignment — or risk political irrelevance.
Syrian Forces Take Over IS Prison After SDF Exit
P&C | Friday, 23 Jan. 2026
Damascus | Planet & Commerce
Syrian government forces have taken control of a major prison housing suspected members of the Islamic State group in the country’s north, marking a significant shift in security authority after Kurdish-led fighters evacuated the area under a recently brokered agreement. The takeover reflects a broader transition underway in northeast Syria, where control of detention centers long managed by U.S.-backed forces is increasingly passing to Damascus. Syria’s Interior Ministry said on Friday that the state prisons authority is now responsible for al-Aqtan prison, located north of the city of Raqqa, once the de facto capital of the Islamic State group. According to the ministry, officials have begun reviewing the files of detainees held at the facility, as government forces consolidate control over key security installations in the region. Al-Aqtan is the second major detention center to fall under Syrian government authority in recent days. Earlier this week, government troops entered Shaddadeh prison near the Iraqi border. That move was followed by a chaotic security breach during which around 120 Islamic State detainees escaped. State media later reported that most of those who fled have since been recaptured, underscoring the volatility surrounding the handover of detention facilities. The takeover of al-Aqtan prison came just two days after the U.S. military confirmed it had begun transferring some of the approximately 9,000 Islamic State detainees held across more than a dozen detention centers in northeast Syria. Those facilities were previously secured by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, which has played a central role in countering the extremist group over the past decade. The SDF emerged as the main ground force fighting the Islamic State in Syria with backing from a U.S.-led coalition. In March 2019, the group captured the last pocket of territory held by the extremists, effectively ending the so-called caliphate. During those battles, thousands of IS fighters, along with tens of thousands of women and children linked to them, were detained and placed in prisons and camps across northeast Syria. Among those sites is the sprawling al-Hol camp, which government forces took control of earlier this week. The transfer of al-Hol and now al-Aqtan prison highlights the scale of the challenge facing Damascus as it reasserts authority over areas previously outside its control, while managing the security risks posed by large numbers of hardened militants and their families.
Raqqa governor Abdul-Rahman Salama said al-Aqtan prison holds up to 2,000 detainees, though it remains unclear how many of them are confirmed Islamic State members. Deputy Interior Minister Maj. Gen. Abdul-Qader Tahan visited the prison on Friday to inspect conditions and review security arrangements, according to state television. The visit was portrayed by Syrian authorities as part of efforts to stabilise detention facilities and prevent further escapes. The transfer of control followed days of negotiations between the Syrian government and the SDF. Under the agreement, a corridor was opened allowing nearly 800 Kurdish fighters assigned to guarding al-Aqtan prison to withdraw westward toward the Kobani region, which remains under SDF control. The SDF said it completed the evacuation of its forces from the prison with support from the U.S.-led coalition, relocating them to what it described as “safe locations.” In a statement, the SDF confirmed that al-Aqtan prison holds detainees from the Islamic State “terrorist organization” and said its withdrawal was conducted in coordination with international partners. The group’s departure marks a tangible reduction of its role in securing IS detention facilities, a responsibility it has shouldered for years with limited resources. The Syrian government’s push into northeast Syria earlier this month triggered widespread displacement, with thousands of civilians, mostly Kurds, fleeing toward the province of Hassakeh. Several ceasefire attempts collapsed before a four-day truce was declared on Tuesday night, allowing negotiations over prisoner facilities and troop movements to proceed.
The prison handovers are part of a broader political and security deal signed by interim Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa and SDF commander Mazloum Abdi. Under the agreement, the U.S.-backed SDF is expected to merge into Syria’s ministries of defence and interior, effectively dissolving its independent military role. U.S. officials have openly supported the transition. American envoy Tom Barrack said earlier this week that the SDF’s function as Syria’s primary anti-Islamic State force “has largely expired,” arguing that the new government is now both willing and capable of taking over security responsibilities. He added that Washington has no interest in prolonging a separate SDF role in the country. The fate of Islamic State detainees remains a major regional concern. On Wednesday, U.S. and Iraqi officials confirmed that Baghdad had requested the transfer of IS prisoners to Iraq, a proposal Washington has accepted. The Syrian government welcomed the plan, saying it would assist in managing the detention crisis and reduce the burden on Syrian facilities. As Damascus consolidates control over prisons once guarded by Kurdish forces, questions persist about long-term security, accountability, and the risk of renewed militant activity. The mass detention of IS members has long been described by analysts as a ticking time bomb, particularly amid shifting alliances and fragile ceasefires. The handover of al-Aqtan prison represents more than a tactical change on the ground. It signals a broader reconfiguration of power in northeast Syria, with the government reclaiming authority over critical security assets as U.S. policy evolves and Kurdish forces scale back their independent role. How effectively Damascus can manage thousands of detainees, prevent future breakouts, and coordinate with regional partners will shape the next phase of Syria’s post–Islamic State landscape.
Ankara Celebrates Collapse Of SDF Influence In Syria
P&C | Friday, 23 Jan. 2026
Damascus | Planet & Commerce
Turkey is openly welcoming the rapid gains made by Syria’s new government against the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, marking a dramatic shift in the balance of power across northern Syria and a major strategic victory for Ankara after years of cross-border tension. In just two weeks, the Syrian Democratic Forces, once the United States’ primary partner in the fight against the Islamic State group, has lost most of its territorial control following a swift and decisive offensive by Damascus. For Turkey, the developments represent the realization of long-held regional objectives. Ankara has consistently regarded armed Kurdish groups along its southern frontier as an existential security threat, linking them to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has waged a decades-long insurgency inside Turkey that has claimed tens of thousands of lives. The effective dismantling of the SDF removes what Turkish officials have long described as a PKK-linked armed entity operating just across the border. The collapse of the SDF comes only months after a Kurdish militant faction inside Turkey agreed to lay down its arms, amplifying Ankara’s sense that momentum is now firmly on its side. Turkish leaders see the developments in Syria as reinforcing domestic peace efforts while reshaping the regional security landscape in Turkey’s favor. The offensive was launched by Syria’s interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa, who came to power after the ouster of the Assad government in December 2024. Since then, al-Sharaa has moved quickly to consolidate authority over a fractured country, confronting remnants of pro-Assad forces, rival militias, and autonomous groups unwilling to submit to central control. Minority ethnic and religious communities, including Kurds, have viewed the Sunni Arab-led government with caution, but Damascus has pressed ahead with a campaign to reassert state authority. Within a fortnight, the SDF was forced out of large swathes of northern Syria, including key areas around Aleppo. After months of stalled negotiations, the Kurdish-led force accepted a deal under which it would dissolve as an organized entity and see its tens of thousands of fighters absorbed individually into the Syrian government’s military and security institutions, rather than as a unified bloc. The agreement marked the end of the SDF as an autonomous military actor.
The SDF was formed roughly a decade ago with U.S. backing as a coalition of militias to combat the Islamic State group, ultimately playing a decisive role in dismantling the extremists’ territorial “caliphate.” Its core, however, was built around a Syrian Kurdish militia affiliated with the PKK, a fact that made the group unacceptable to Ankara from its inception. Turkey has been one of al-Sharaa’s most important external supporters, providing political backing and military assistance as he worked to stabilize his government. Analysts say Ankara also played a discreet but influential role in the recent offensive. Turkish security officials have indicated that Turkey advised Syrian forces during operations that led to the SDF’s withdrawal from key northern cities, while Turkish intelligence maintained close coordination with Damascus throughout the campaign. According to officials speaking on condition of anonymity, Turkey’s intelligence agency remained in contact with the Syrian administration to ensure civilian protection and facilitate the safe evacuation of SDF fighters and their families. Ankara also coordinated with the United States, the international coalition against the Islamic State, and regional actors during the offensive, underscoring its growing diplomatic leverage. “This is certainly a very favorable outcome for Turkey,” said Sinan Ülgen, director of the Istanbul-based EDAM research center. He noted that both the collapse of PKK-linked influence and the expansion of the Syrian government’s reach align closely with Ankara’s long-term goals. However, Ülgen cautioned that the gains could prove fragile if Damascus fails to stabilize the northeast and address lingering ethnic and political grievances. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan publicly congratulated the Syrian government, telling lawmakers that Turkey has consistently defended the idea of a single, unified Syrian state. He reiterated Ankara’s red line against any separatist structure along Turkey’s borders, stressing that such entities pose a direct threat to national security. Equally significant was Washington’s decision not to intervene on behalf of the SDF. Experts say the Kurdish-led force miscalculated by assuming continued U.S. backing when it rejected an earlier integration proposal from al-Sharaa. The White House instead shifted its support toward the new Syrian government, focusing on brokering ceasefires and managing a controlled transition.
Analysts suggest that Erdogan’s warm personal rapport with U.S. President Donald Trump may have smoothed the way, but emphasize that Washington’s stance reflects a broader reassessment. The U.S. has concluded that its primary interlocutor in Syria should now be a sovereign government rather than a non-state armed group. Israel, despite its own tensions with Turkey over Syria, also refrained from intervening. Some SDF representatives publicly appealed for Israeli support, pointing to Israel’s past involvement in protecting the Druze community in southern Syria. However, Israel chose to stand aside. Analysts point to a recent meeting between Syrian and Israeli officials in Paris, where Damascus effectively acknowledged Israel’s zone of influence in the south, as a turning point that reduced incentives for Israeli involvement. For Turkey, the developments offer potential momentum in its renewed peace initiative with the PKK. In May, the group announced plans to disarm and disband following a call from its imprisoned leader Abdullah Ocalan. The PKK later staged a symbolic disarmament ceremony in northern Iraq and withdrew remaining fighters from Turkey. The SDF, however, had resisted pressure to follow suit, arguing that Ocalan’s call applied only to the PKK itself. “Now that handicap has been eliminated,” Ülgen said, referring to the SDF’s dissolution. Still, observers warn that Ankara must tread carefully. Turkey’s pro-Kurdish political party has cautioned that any violence against Kurds in Syria could undermine fragile peace efforts at home, highlighting the interconnected nature of regional and domestic Kurdish dynamics. As Turkey celebrates the erosion of a long-standing security challenge on its border, the situation in northern Syria remains fluid. While Ankara views the collapse of the SDF as a strategic breakthrough, the durability of Damascus’s gains and the treatment of Kurdish communities will shape whether this moment becomes a foundation for lasting stability—or a prelude to new tensions in a region long defined by shifting alliances and unresolved grievances.
What Israel Really Wants For Gaza After War
P&C | Friday, 23 Jan. 2026
Jerusalem | Planet & Commerce
After more than two years of relentless military assault on Gaza, Israel stands at a crossroads that exposes deep contradictions between its stated security goals, internal political pressures, and international expectations. The war has devastated the Palestinian enclave, flattening much of its housing and infrastructure and killing more than 70,000 Palestinians, while survivors endure winter conditions with scarce food, medicine, and shelter. Yet even as the humanitarian catastrophe deepens, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has joined U.S. President Donald Trump’s newly launched “Board of Peace,” an initiative meant to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction and governance. Netanyahu’s participation has sharpened questions about Israel’s true intentions for Gaza. Whether Israel envisions rebuilding the territory, maintaining an indefinite security presence, or quietly preserving a destructive status quo remains deeply contested, both inside Israel and abroad. With Israeli elections looming later this year, Netanyahu must project cooperation with Washington’s plans while simultaneously appeasing hardline partners within his governing coalition. That coalition includes figures such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who has openly opposed both Gaza’s reconstruction and the ceasefire itself. Smotrich and his allies, rooted in religious Zionism, argue that Jews have a divine right to settle Gaza and reject any arrangement that leaves the territory outside Israeli control. Their influence has left Netanyahu navigating an increasingly narrow political path. Despite his resistance, Netanyahu has failed to halt key elements of the U.S.-backed ceasefire framework. The transition toward the second phase of Trump’s three-stage plan has proceeded even without Hamas disarmament, and the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt is set to reopen in both directions, allowing movement of people and goods. U.S. decisions to include Turkey and Qatar in the Board of Peace, and to explore an International Stabilisation Force for Gaza, have also moved forward despite Israeli objections.
Inside Israel, divisions over Gaza policy are stark. Smotrich has denounced U.S. proposals as harmful to Israeli interests and even called for dismantling the U.S. base in southern Israel that monitors the ceasefire. Other lawmakers appear more focused on election positioning, tailoring rhetoric to their voter bases rather than articulating a coherent strategy for Gaza’s future. Netanyahu continues to insist that Hamas will ultimately be disarmed, while the Israeli military presses ahead with clearing land along Gaza’s border to create an expanded buffer zone inside the enclave. This approach, analysts say, serves a dual purpose: weakening Hamas’s operational capacity and pushing Palestinian communities farther from Israel’s border, allowing the government to project an image of restored security. Israeli society, however, remains deeply fractured. “The public is deeply divided on Gaza and the Board of Peace,” said Dahlia Scheindlin, an American Israeli political consultant and pollster. She noted that while a minority favors resettling Gaza, most Israelis are driven by fear and security concerns rooted in the events of October 2023. “They want Israel to remain in Gaza in some form and don’t trust outsiders to handle it,” she said, even as many hope U.S. involvement might succeed where years of war have failed. For peace activist Gershon Baskin, the chaos inside Israel’s leadership is unmistakable. “They don’t have a strategy, and everything is chaos,” he said after visiting the Knesset. “They’re in election mode and only speaking to their base.” Baskin added that Palestinian suffering has largely vanished from mainstream Israeli discourse, leaving most Israelis unaware—or indifferent—to the scale of destruction just across the border.
That invisibility has consequences. While many Israeli leaders agree that a Palestinian state will not emerge, they remain divided over how Gaza should be controlled and by whom. Analysts inside Israel say there is no credible plan for coexistence, only an unspoken belief that outside powers, including the United States, lack the ability to impose one. Even Israel’s commitment to U.S. initiatives remains uncertain. Netanyahu has reportedly described the ceasefire’s second phase as merely “declarative” when speaking away from Washington, in contrast to the optimism expressed by U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff. Critics argue this signals an intent to delay and obstruct rather than genuinely move toward stabilization. “The genocide hasn’t stopped; it’s just shifted from active to passive,” said Israeli lawmaker Ofer Cassif. He accused the government of allowing Palestinians to freeze and starve as a matter of policy rather than accident. Political economist Shir Hever echoed the critique, arguing that Israeli decision-making is driven by short-term domestic pressures rather than long-term planning. He pointed to past military actions coinciding with political crises, suggesting Gaza policy is similarly shaped by electoral survival. Still, some see a narrow opening. Baskin said he is more optimistic than in years, citing a new factor: a U.S. president whose demands Israel cannot easily refuse. He pointed to Washington’s insistence on moving forward with ceasefire phases, opening Rafah, and including regional actors despite Israeli resistance. Others remain skeptical. Cassif dismissed the Board of Peace as a stalling mechanism, arguing that Israel’s real policy is to frustrate stabilization efforts while humanitarian conditions deteriorate. “It’s painful,” he said, “as a humanist, a socialist, and as a Jew.” As Gaza’s future hangs in the balance, Israel appears caught between competing impulses: control versus disengagement, settlement dreams versus security buffers, and international pressure versus domestic politics. The result, critics argue, is a strategy defined less by vision than by delay—one that leaves millions of Palestinians in limbo and risks entrenching a cycle of suffering with no clear end.