Tag: Syria

Sun Tzu again: Ethics-Signaling is Not Strategy !

Posted in Politics, warLeave a comment

Sanctions are the West’s favorite placebo. They make politicians feel decisive and moralists feel righteous, but they rarely change the battlefield. From Russia to China and now Israel, Europe is mistaking ethics-signaling for strategy — and paying the price for it.

When I wrote about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, I took flak for refusing to reduce a complex war to black-and-white slogans. Let me be clear: I was never a defender of Moscow. In fact, in those early months I joined the Volunteer Legion, put my own life at risk, and saw the folly of that war up close. My critique was — and remains — about strategy, not sympathy.

The same applies today. Hamas’s October attack on Israel was brutal and strange in equal measure. Israel’s initial military response could still be framed as “forward self-defense.” But what followed spiraled far beyond proportionality. If the International Criminal Court believes there are grounds for a genocide case and has issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, then it is no longer civil or credible to argue that Israel’s government is “on the right side of history.”

I already wrote in July that Israel’s strategic logic is breaking down in full view of the region. What began as deterrence has curdled into recursive escalation — strikes in Gaza, Syria, even Qatar — that alienate allies and erode Israel’s long-term legitimacy. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the morality of it all, it is bad strategy.

And yet, Europe’s reaction is once again to reach for the sanctions lever.

The Sanctions Reflex

Sanctions sound tough. They signal resolve. They please moralists. But they rarely work. Even the most optimistic studies put their “success rate” below 40%; more skeptical analyses suggest closer to 5%. That is not strategy. That is roulette.

And when the wheel stops against you, you lose twice: once in economic blowback, and again in strategic realignment. Europe’s energy crisis, and Russia’s accelerated pivot to Beijing, are Exhibit A.

Now: Israel

Fast forward to today. The EU is late — very late — in criticizing Israel’s conduct in Gaza. Public opinion is finally forcing politicians to “do something.” And what do they reach for? Trade measures. Suspension of preferential tariffs. Targeted listings. The familiar reflex.

It is, once more, ethics-signaling. Politicians get to look righteous. The moralists applaud. But will Netanyahu change course because the EU slaps tariffs on Israeli machinery or chemicals? Hardly. He has already decided his war aims. His calculus does not turn on Brussels.

Meanwhile, Israel is deeply integrated into European supply chains, R&D networks, and technology flows. Broad trade measures risk collateral damage to ourselves — again.

The Bitter Logic

So the chain grows longer:

  • Russia: sanctions, energy pain, Moscow–Beijing axis.
  • China: tariffs, tech “rip-and-replace” policies, and other spirals of retaliation.
  • Israel: now, the same reflex — trade as punishment.

Where does it stop? If tomorrow Europe decides that America is no longer a functioning democracy, do we cut trade with the US too? That sounds absurd — but the logic, once embraced, rolls downhill fast.

Sun Tzu’s Counsel

Sun Tzu told us to weigh five heads of war: the Moral Law, Heaven, Earth, Command, and Method. In 2022, I wrote that Europe scored poorly on all of them. Nothing has changed.

  • Moral Law: shouting “justice!” without a strategy is not moral strength, it is posturing.
  • Heaven and Earth: the conditions are not on our side; we cannot wish them away.
  • Command: our leaders confuse signaling with purpose.
  • Method and Discipline: sanctions are a substitute for action, not disciplined statecraft.

A Better Course

If the EU is serious about law, it should enforce the measures it already has:

  • No settlement goods in our markets.
  • No weapons or dual-use items where there is a risk of IHL violations.
  • Full cooperation with the ICC and ICJ.

That is lawful. That is targeted. That has integrity.

But let us drop the delusion that broad trade sanctions are a lever of strategy. They are not. They are the political sugar rush of the moment: sweet on the tongue, destructive to the body.

Conclusion:
Ethics-signaling is not strategy. It is an abdication of strategy. And Europe, once again, risks paying the price.

This post was generated by ChatGPT, based on me playing the devil’s advocate with it, verified news sources and game-theoretical analysis patterns. However, it was — of course — moderated and approved by a human editor (me) for clarity, neutrality, ethical framing and — yes — legitimacy or attribution (only me bears responsibility for my opinion, isn’t it).

#MiddleEast #Israel #Syria #Geopolitics #SecurityDilemma #StrategicLogic #AICommentary #webeunews

Israel’s Strategic Logic Is Breaking Down — In Full View of the Region

Posted in Politics1 Comment

ChatGPT-generated commentary on real-time events, moderated and published by a human observer. This post reflects no official stance — only the unfolding facts and patterns visible to those willing to look.

I. The Latest Strike: A New Line Crossed

On July 16, 2025, Israel conducted precision airstrikes on the Syrian Ministry of Defence in Damascus, as well as on targets near the presidential palace. These were not routine operations against Iranian proxies or covert shipments. They were overt hits on the central nervous system of the Syrian state.

Israel justified the move as a defensive response to Syrian military deployments in Suwayda, where clashes between Druze fighters and Bedouin militias have spiraled into civil bloodshed. With over 250 people killed in Suwayda in recent weeks, Israeli leadership claimed a moral imperative to intervene — framing the strikes as part of a protective deterrence strategy for regional minorities.

But the world is not convinced.
And neither, it seems, are many within Israel’s traditional alliance network.

II. From Precision to Pattern: The Logic of Escalation

In less than a month, Israel has struck:

  • Iran (in a surprise operation that even U.S. intelligence was only partially briefed on),
  • Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon (as part of its “perpetual containment doctrine”),
  • and now central Damascus — openly targeting a sovereign state’s most symbolic and institutional assets.

This is no longer the quiet shadow war that Israel has managed for over a decade. It is something else:

  • Visible, not deniable.
  • Reactive, not strategic.
  • And increasingly uncoordinated, even among allies.

The logic appears to be unraveling.

III. Game Theory in Real Time: A Security Dilemma, Accelerated

What’s unfolding is a textbook case of the security dilemma — where every move made in the name of security triggers greater insecurity in return.

Israel believes it is acting rationally:

  • Pre-empt threats.
  • Signal strength.
  • Protect vulnerable communities (e.g., the Druze).

But in game-theoretical terms, it is moving into a high-risk tit-for-tat sequence, where actions meant to reduce long-term threats only amplify short-term volatility. This is no longer deterrence. It is recursive escalation.

The regional players are watching closely — and adjusting their posture:

  • Syria, though institutionally weakened post-Assad, is now being recast in international discourse as a target rather than an actor.
  • Iran, already hit earlier this month, now has a broader diplomatic justification for retaliation — or at least narrative leverage.
  • The United States, Israel’s most consistent backer, is publicly urging restraint. The Biden administration reportedly warned that such moves could jeopardize wider regional normalization efforts.
  • Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar — normally divergent in rhetoric — have converged in their condemnation of Israel’s “destabilizing behavior.”

The message: This is not a local matter anymore.

IV. Strategic Blindness? Or Strategic Exhaustion?

It is tempting to search for a coherent doctrine behind Israel’s moves:
A new perimeter? A preventive containment of collapsing Arab states? A domestic show of strength?

But perhaps what we’re witnessing is not doctrine at all — but strategic fatigue:

  • A democracy stretched between multiple frontlines.
  • A leadership under increasing internal and external pressure.
  • An army accustomed to dominance but less attuned to narrative warfare, where images of destruction can undo years of legitimacy-building.

Israel remains the region’s most capable military actor — but it is now playing without clear lines of restraint, and without the consent of the geopolitical arena it once dominated.

V. The Coming Reframing: From Protector to Provoker?

The Suwayda argument — that Israel is protecting minorities in lawless zones — may hold moral appeal. But geopolitics isn’t built on moral appeal alone. It is built on:

  • Predictability,
  • Credibility, and
  • Coalition tolerance.

If Israel loses all three, it risks being seen not as the strategic adult in the room — but as a rogue actor with a nuclear arsenal and no endgame.

The shift is already happening:

  • Western editorial boards are more cautious in their support.
  • Neutral states are treating Israeli moves as destabilizing, not stabilizing.
  • The international legal discourse is slowly creeping toward language of proportionality and sovereignty — with Syria, of all countries, gaining rhetorical ground.

VI. Closing Reflection: Strategic Moves, Emotional Traps

From a purely strategic standpoint, Israel may be playing against itself. Every successful strike now adds weight to a narrative that delegitimizes Israel’s position long-term, even if it wins the tactical exchange.

This is not a question of right or wrong. It is a question of outcomes.

What outcome is now achievable?
Who remains willing to share the burden of escalation?
How many moves ahead is anyone really thinking?

As one observer put it:

“After the surprise strikes on Iran, Israel is further escalating in some kind of logic that no one understands — not even its allies.”

That sentence may turn out to be the most honest intelligence brief of the week.

This post was generated by ChatGPT, based on verified news sources and game-theoretical analysis patterns. It was moderated and approved by a human editor for clarity, neutrality, and ethical framing.

#MiddleEast #Israel #Syria #Geopolitics #SecurityDilemma #StrategicLogic #AICommentary #webeunews

Afghanistan: another post-mortem analysis

Posted in PoliticsLeave a comment

The row between President Karzai and the US which accompanied the much-delayed opening of a ‘political office’ by the Taliban in Doha a few days ago, the continued attacks on Afghan and international security forces in Afghanistan, the Taliban’s immediate focus on an exchange of prisoners as talks between the US and the Taliban seem to be getting underway (five Taliban leaders held in Guantanamo Bay in exchange for one US ‘prisoner of war’ held who knows where) all show that the Taliban have no intention of yielding any concessions: not to the US, and surely not to the current Afghan regime.

That is not much of a concern for the current US administration as Barack Obama had made it clear, even before his first term as US President, that he just wanted the US to cut the losses – in lives and in treasure – and disengage as soon as the Taliban could offer reasonable assurances that they would not abet international terrorism. Hence, as soon as they’ll do that (and, of course, we’ll trust their word – even if there’s no ground whatsoever for doing so), the US will be happy to cut a deal.

As for national terrorism, well… Who cares? It is obvious for all those who want to see (but then many do not) that since the worldwide War on Terrorism started, US interventionism – or international interventionism in general – has not much to show for in this regard. Libya, Egypt and Tunisia are hardly stable, with hard-line Islamic groups threatening whatever improvement was made in terms of political and civil rights as the Arab Spring fanned out. As for Syria, well… As much as I deplore the bloodshed there (the conflict in Afghanistan looks pretty insignificant in comparison), Barack Obama is right in not committing to a military intervention. [If the EU thinks it can help by arming the rebels, let them do so – even if it is not a wise move in my view.] The fight in Syria is a full-blown Islamic war between Sunni and Shia Muslims – and Syria’s minorities, Christian or other, are being crushed in the event. Nevertheless, Barack Obama’s gut feeling about the conflict is correct: stay out! If the West would truly care about human rights and democracy, it should intervene in Saudi Arabia.

That being said, the Taliban’s ambivalence about negotiations – or its outright inflexibility I should say – should obviously worry Karzai, as well as his family and friends and supporters. Let me be straight: I have some sympathy for him. In fact, I admire him – but to some extent only. We should all admire him, if only because Afghan kings and presidents usually end up murdered. More importantly, Hamid Karzai’s personal history is full of bravery and sacrifices – although I do agree that does not justify his erratic behavior.

So what is my prognosis as to Afghanistan’s future? I doubt Afghanistan will hold presidential elections next year. I think President Karzai – who cannot be elected for yet another term according to Afghanistan’s Constitution – will just say it’s too costly and too dangerous for people to vote, and so he will just call it a Loya Jirga – as he did before – and ask the carefully selected ‘elders’ to confirm he can continue without going through the trouble of national elections. And then he’ll preside over another phase of gradual disintegration – one of the many which have marked Afghanistan’s history. Or he might be murdered. Or, else, perhaps I am wrong and there will actually be some kind of elections through which Afghanistan would get another leader – an outcome which the US would surely like to see. Would it make any difference? I don’t think so. Under Afghanistan’s constitutional system, the President is both Head of State as well as Head of Government – which is just one of the many flaws in the current set-up which ensures its non-sustainability – and so that’s a sure recipe for disaster in my view.

The truth is that the Bonn settlement did not integrate the losers of the US-led War in Afghanistan – and now that this War is obviously over (the US got tired of fighting it) – these losers are back with a vengeance. So we’re in for another decade of trouble there. But, again, I think it’s clear to all now that Washington does not look at that as much of a concern anymore: it’s of concern to the Afghans only.

So what went wrong? Well… Washington finally got it: Afghanistan requires a political solution. The problem is: Washington’s decision-makers understood this way too late and so, yes, Washington’s negotiators are basically negotiating the terms of retreat now – if not surrender – and there’s nothing honorable about it.

As I spent more than four years in that country, I pity my Afghan friends. They do have the right to feel betrayed. I also pity those families who have lost relatives there, and those who lost limbs or got permanent trauma – physical or psychological. We all fought an impossible battle there (I myself spent more than four years there)… And that’s the only thing we can be proud of. It’s not a lot, but it’s something.

As for Karzai, perhaps he can find himself some safe place to go to. His family got rich enough and so money is not an issue. But perhaps he’ll prefer harakiri. Or perhaps he’ll get murdered. Or perhaps he’ll clear the way for a successor. All of that would be honorable – or, at the very least, more honorable than what the West is currently trying to do – and that is to just get out – regardless of the loss of face and lack of morality it implies. […] But then honor is not something that matters in the post-modern world we’re living in, is it?