博客

In an exclusive interview with Middle East Eye, France’s ambassador to Oman Nabil Hajlaoui has delivered a sharp diplomatic rebuke of the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, characterizing the operation as both unjustified and outside international legal frameworks. The ambassador’s remarks, recorded for The David Hearst Podcast, represent a significant public divergence between Western allies regarding Middle East military strategy.

Hajlaoui articulated France’s position with notable clarity: ‘This military operation exists outside of international law and we cannot endorse it in any way. We see no justification, no supporting Security Council resolution, nor any situation requiring such rapid escalation to military action.’

The timing of the offensive, launched on February 28th, proved particularly troubling according to the French diplomat. The attacks coincided with a critical juncture in Oman-mediated negotiations between Washington and Tehran that had shown promising developments. Ambassador Hajlaoui revealed that French officials had received briefings indicating substantive progress in these talks, with several elements ‘moving in the right direction.’

This assessment aligns with recent statements from Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, who three weeks prior had announced Iran’s agreement to never stockpile enriched uranium and to degrade existing nuclear material to ‘the lowest level possible’ through an irreversible conversion process into fuel. The US-Israeli military operation commenced merely one day after these diplomatic breakthroughs.

Hajlaoui expressed understanding regarding Iran’s anger following the attacks, noting the natural frustration when ‘you discuss and then you are attacked.’ While acknowledging that Tehran’s concessions remained ‘very far from American expectations,’ the ambassador identified broader sticking points including Iran’s ballistic missile program and regional activities that Western powers view as destabilizing.

The French diplomat suggested Israel likely drove the momentum toward military confrontation rather than prolonged negotiations, stating: ‘I’m really not informed of the way the Israelis and Americans discussed this preparation, but we can just see that the momentum was pushed by the Israelis.’

This military escalation has generated profound disappointment in Muscat according to Hajlaoui, who described the mood as one of ‘clear dismay’ at what he termed a ‘collective failure to prevent war.’ The ambassador warned that Gulf states are being unwillingly drawn into a conflict they did not seek, despite their recent efforts to rebuild relations with Tehran.

Hajlaoui issued sobering warnings about the conflict’s potential expansion, noting the absence of clear limits to escalation. He highlighted the particularly grave economic implications should Iran close the Strait of Hormuz—the world’s most critical oil chokepoint through which approximately 20% of global oil output and one-third of liquefied natural gas transit.

While France has deployed an aircraft carrier to the region as reassurance to partners, Hajlaoui emphasized that France has no intention of involvement ‘in any way in this war.’ The nation is collaborating with allies to monitor the strategic strait but will refrain from active intervention during ongoing military operations.

The ambassador characterized potential US troop deployment as ‘a very big game changer’ that would contradict the administration’s stated policy of avoiding ‘endless wars.’ Such escalation would represent ‘an incredible political risk’ and a total policy shift according to Hajlaoui.

Finally, the diplomat expressed concern about the undermining of multilateralism internationally, citing reduced US contributions to UN agencies and the creation of alternative forums competing with established international institutions.

In Syria’s volatile northeast, a dramatic geopolitical transformation has unfolded with unprecedented speed, marking a pivotal shift in the country’s post-Assad landscape. The region has witnessed the astonishingly rapid collapse of Kurdish-led autonomous rule, replaced by a fragile reintegration process under Damascus’ authority that now faces its most critical examination.

The Syrian government achieved a remarkably swift reassertion of control across territories previously held by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), following a comprehensive military campaign supported by tribal fighters that triggered a widespread retreat. This development culminated in a January 30 agreement establishing a permanent ceasefire and a phased roadmap for incorporating the northeast’s military and civilian institutions back into state control.

Senior security official Abu Qasem characterized the stunning reversal, noting that “fifteen years of self-rule ended in a fortnight.” He attributed the rapid collapse to sustained coordination between Damascus and tribal elements, combined with diminished U.S. support for the SDF that quickly eroded their operational viability.

The government of Ahmed al-Sharaa has initiated confidence-building measures, including a landmark decree recognizing Kurdish identity and language rights, restoring citizenship to previously disenfranchised Kurds, and declaring Nowruz a national holiday—Syria’s first formal acknowledgment of Kurdish national rights since independence in 1946.

Practical reintegration steps have followed, with Hasakah governor Nour al-Din Ahmad announcing the reopening of provincial roads, reactivation of Qamishli airport, reinstatement of dismissed employees, resumption of transport links with the capital, and prisoner releases. The government simultaneously expanded governors’ administrative and spending powers, implementing a decentralized local administration model negotiated with the SDF.

Despite these developments, Middle East Forum analyst Aymenn Tamimi believes the fundamental power dynamics favor Damascus: “The objective is clear: to build a centralized state that does not tolerate autonomous or rival political projects.”

Significant security challenges have emerged during the transition, particularly regarding detention facilities. The chaotic transfer of al-Aqtan prison in Raqqa province—where 126 minors were reportedly abused in SDF custody—and the disorderly withdrawal from al-Hol camp, which housed thousands of Islamic State-linked families, have raised concerns about escaped detainees and security vacuums.

The Islamic State has sought to exploit this instability, declaring a “new phase” of operations against Syrian authorities whom they’ve branded apostates. Meanwhile, the U.S. completed transferring over 5,700 adult male IS detainees from Syria to Iraq during the transition period.

Economically, the northeast represents both tremendous opportunity and challenge for Damascus. The region contains Syria’s most significant oil and gas resources, grain-producing land, and key cross-border routes. Syrian economist Yazan Enayeh notes that “Syria’s reassertion of control over northeast oil and gas fields is a game changer,” potentially generating substantial fiscal revenues and energy self-sufficiency.

However, Abu Qasem observed striking underdevelopment in former SDF-controlled areas, raising questions about resource allocation. The ultimate test for Damascus will be whether reclaimed control can translate into tangible benefits for the war-weary region through security, essential services, job creation, and inclusive governance that accommodates one of Syria’s most diverse and unpredictable regions.

The Middle Eastern military confrontation enters its third week with escalating intensity as Iran demonstrates unexpected resilience against combined US-Israeli operations. The conflict, initiated on February 28 as a voluntary military engagement by Washington and Jerusalem, has evolved into a protracted struggle with no clear resolution in sight.

Tehran’s Islamic regime is engaged in a battle for survival while simultaneously executing a strategy of asymmetric warfare designed to inflict maximum regional and global economic disruption. Despite inferior conventional military capabilities compared to the US-Israeli alliance, Iranian forces have maintained operational continuity and institutional stability, rapidly appointing Mojtaba Khamenei as successor to the slain supreme leader.

The American position, characterized by contradictory objectives and unclear strategic goals, contrasts sharply with Israel’s explicitly stated ambition to dismantle both the Iranian regime and diminish Iranian state sovereignty. Prime Minister Netanyahu has further articulated expansionist territorial ambitions based on biblical references to ‘greater Israel,’ receiving unexpected endorsement from US Ambassador Mike Huckabee.

Military analysts observe that the conflict has entered a critical phase where missile and interceptor inventories may determine the eventual outcome. Meanwhile, Iran continues to leverage regional proxy networks and economic pressure tactics, attempting to transform the bilateral confrontation into a broader regional crisis that might compel Gulf Arab states to intervene diplomatically.

The humanitarian consequences continue to mount, with Iranian and Lebanese civilian populations bearing disproportionate casualties. The conflict has already triggered global energy market disruptions through attacks on critical infrastructure including Kharg Island’s oil export facilities, though Trump administration officials maintain these economic impacts remain temporary.

As the war progresses without clear exit strategies, international observers anticipate either material exhaustion or political declaration of victory as potential conclusion scenarios, though neither outcome promises regional stability in the polarized post-conflict landscape.