Israel-Iran war, silent transformations in western Asia
Beyond the overt military dimensions, the war was also aimed at strategically distancing Tehran from its deepening ties with China and Russia, while simultaneously curbing the expansion of the pan-Shia movement led by Iran. In this sense, the conflict served a role analogous to that of the 1967 war, which effectively halted the rise of the pan-Arab movement spearheaded by Gamal Abdel Nasser and supported by Moscow.
Regardless of whether it is referred to as "Operation Rising Lion," "True Promise," or "Midnight Hammer," it is evident that this war is quietly transforming the regional landscape. Syria appears to be entering a new phase, aimed at establishing the foundations of governance, while the regional influence of both Turkey and the Gulf states is expanding. In parallel, the issue of Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) disarmament has progressed into a new stage, influenced by the broader consequences of the conflict.
Moreover, the war has turned Iraq and the Kurdistan Region into arenas for two major regional rivalries. On one front, these areas have become a battleground for military competition between Iran and Israel, a dynamic that has pushed Iraq's internal situation to the edge of crisis - where "unknown drones" have emerged as key players in shaping the security environment. On another front, Iraq is increasingly becoming a site of strategic contention between Turkish and Iranian interests.
Additionally, the war - and even the anticipation of it - has compelled Turkey to quietly engage in a discourse aimed at redefining its nation-state identity, particularly through the rhetoric of Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood. Simultaneously, within Iran, a growing debate between the ultra-conservative faction and other elements of the political elite reflects yet another dimension of the war's subtle but enduring influence - an influence that appears likely to persist.
Iraq: between the hammer of war and the anvil of rivalry
Iraq's current situation appears increasingly precarious as the country approaches elections under the shadow of both ongoing regional conflict and intensifying geopolitical rivalry - developments that may, as in previous instances, prove decisive for its future. In relation to the recent war, Iraq has formally protested the violation of its airspace sovereignty, but this issue is only one dimension of a broader and more complex set of challenges. On the day the conflict ended, two of Iraq's radar systems were destroyed, and in the days that followed, unidentified drones emerged as a growing security concern, appearing in areas ranging from Kirkuk to Sulaimani and Duhok. The Iraqi government is currently conducting investigations to determine the origins of these incursions.
While some have speculated that the Islamic State (ISIS) may be responsible, this theory does not align with the group's current limited military and organizational capabilities. In reality, only three regional actors possess the capacity to conduct such drone operations across the Kurdistan Region and Kirkuk: Turkey, Iran and affiliated 'resistance' groups, and Israel. At a time when the world is closely monitoring the PKK disarmament negotiations, it is unlikely that Turkey would risk undermining the process, especially since the nature and targets of the drone activity do not suggest Turkish involvement.
Both Iran and Israel remain highly sensitive to the strategic positioning of the Kurdistan Region and Iraq more broadly. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, the Kurdistan Region adopted a stance of silent neutrality during the recent conflict. However, this neutrality has failed to satisfy either Iran or Israel, each of which interprets the Region's posture through its own security and strategic lens. Whether war resumes or not, the Kurdistan Region's geographic and strategic location renders it critically important to the offensive and defensive calculations of both parties.
At this stage, the identity of the actors behind the drone incidents remains unknown. Nonetheless, the prevailing interpretation is that these incidents constitute strategic signaling, intended more as a message than as direct acts of aggression or destruction. The ambiguity surrounding these developments underscores the fragile and volatile security environment in which Iraq now finds itself - caught between the hammer of regional warfare and the anvil of great-power rivalry.
Another point is that the possibility of Iraq being caught up in war due to the balance of power in the region is always open, because Iraq is important to Iran to protect its last regional bastion, but it's also important to Israel to keep a gateway to reach Iran open and prevent a problem from forming through Iraq. It seems that in the future, beyond security and military matters, Iraq will increasingly become a field of economic competition and influence between Turkey and Iran, and this will translate into political tension.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Memri
10 hours ago
- Memri
Reactions In Lebanon To War Against Iran: Hizbullah Justifies Its Non-Intervention; Its Opponents Hope For Downfall Of Iranian Regime
Israel's military operation against Iran, launched on June 13, 2025, and the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025, sparked conflicting reactions in Lebanon, reflecting the depth of divisions in this fractured country that has yet to recover from the war between Hizbullah and Israel, which ended in November 2024. During the fighting, many in Lebanon – including President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam – were deeply concerned that Hizbullah would fulfil the role assigned to it by its patron, Iran, by coming to its aid in the conflict and thus dragging Lebanon into another war. The country's leaders made it clear to both Hizbullah and Iran that Lebanon had no connection to the war and must not be embroiled in it. Hizbullah, for its part, found itself caught between a rock and a hard place. Battered and weakened by the damage to its military infrastructure and its standing within Lebanon after its war with Israel – which it launched in order to support Hamas – the organization was hard put to justify renewing the hostilities with Israel on behalf of a foreign country and dragging Lebanon into another round of fighting. Moreover, joining the war would have strengthened its opponents and validated their argument that Hizbullah must be fully disarmed. On the other hand, aiding its patron Iran, especially amid an unprecedented assault by Israel and the U.S., is one of Hizbullah's main roles and one of the key reasons Iran has supported it in the first place. Yet now, when it was expected to 'repay' Iran for its support, the organization was failing to fulfill its role. Throughout the fighting, Hizbullah limited itself to expressing solidarity and organizing rallies in support of Iran. Its senior officials claimed that this country could defend itself, meaning it did not need Hizbullah's assistance. As expected, after the ceasefire, Hizbullah adopted Iran's narrative of victory, partly to demonstrate that its intervention had indeed been unnecessary. Conversely, Hizbullah's opponents did not hide their satisfaction and joy over the attacks on Iran, describing them as a "gift" to Lebanon and openly expressing support for Israel and the U.S. Like liberal voices across the Arab world,[1] some in Lebanon mocked Iran, calling it a "paper tiger" after it failed to prevent the significant damage to its military capabilities. While voicing concern that Hizbullah would join the fighting, these actors renewed their calls to accelerate the disarming the group, so that it could no longer threaten to use its weapons. This report presents reactions in Lebanon to the Israeli and U.S. attacks on Iran. The Official Lebanese Position: Lebanon Has No Connection To The War; We Condemn Iran's Strike on the U.S. Base in Qatar Like all the Arab countries, with the exception of Syria, the state of Lebanon condemned the Israeli attack on Iran, on the grounds that it "undermined international efforts to maintain stability in the Middle East."[2] At the same time, Lebanese officials conveyed a clear message – to audiences both within Lebanon and abroad – that they opposed dragging their country into war, as Hizbullah did after Hamas launched its terror attack against Israel on October 7, 2023, a decision that brought heavy losses and massive destruction upon Lebanon. President Joseph Aoun emphasized during a June 16 cabinet meeting that Lebanon must be kept away from conflicts "in which it has no part."[3] Following the U.S. strike on Iran he reiterated this position, stressing that "Lebanon – its leadership, its parties and its people – now understands better than ever that we paid a heavy price for the wars that have taken place on our soil and in the region. Lebanon does not want to pay anymore, and has no national interest in doing so, especially given that the cost of these wars has been, and will continue to be, more than it can bear." It is worth noting that President Aoun did not condemn the U.S. strike on Iran but merely expressed concern over "the escalation of tensions that threaten stability and security in many regions and countries," and called for "restraint and serious and constructive negotiations to restore stability to the countries of the region and to avoid further destruction and bloodshed."[4] Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a close ally of Hizbullah, likewise expressed his position on involvement in the war, saying in an interview with Lebanon's MTV channel on June 19: "[I am] 200 percent [sure] that Lebanon will not join the war, because it has no interest in doing so and because it would pay the price. [Moreover,] Iran does not need us..."[5] According to Lebanese press reports, government officials did not stop at declarations, but exerted significant pressure on Hizbullah to stay out of the war. For example, Lebanese Armed Forces Commander Rodolph Haykal made it clear to Hizbullah leaders that Lebanon must steer clear of the conflict and must not be dragged into a war in which it has no part, and that they must conform to the official position that only the state has the authority to decide on matters of war and peace."[6] However, following Iran's strike on the U.S. base in Qatar, official Lebanon deviated from its neutral stance and, like the rest of the Arab states, condemned it as an attack on a sovereign Arab country. President Aoun called it "an infringement of the sovereignty of a sister state and a move that will escalate tensions in the region." He added that Qatar enjoys the "sympathy and support of the Lebanese president and people in protecting its sovereignty, territorial integrity and its fraternal people."[7] Hizbullah: We Support Iran, Which Does Not Need Anyone To Defend It It appears that these pressures exerted on Hizbullah – along with the severe blow dealt by the war with Israel to its military capabilities and its standing within Lebanon – achieved their goal. Throughout the fighting between Israel and Iran, and even after the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran's allies in Lebanon, chief of them Hizbullah, refrained from taking military action against Israel or the U.S. Instead, they sufficed with condemning the Israeli and American attacks, organizing support rallies (which drew only small crowds) and applauding Iran's strikes on Israel. Iran's war with Israel and the U.S. was described as a battle between truth and falsehood, as a continuation of the Battle of Karbala,[8] and, in an effort to rally support from the Arab and Islamic world, as a war against the entire Islamic nation. To justify their failure to intervene in the fighting, Hizbullah officials stressed that Iran could take care of itself and needed no assistance. The organization's secretary-general, Na'im Qassem, said after the start of the Israeli operation against Iran that Hizbullah "supports the rights and the position of the Islamic Republic of Iran and any measures it takes to protect itself and its choices…"[9] Hizbullah MP Hassan Fadlallah said that "Iran never told anyone to fight in its name. When it is attacked, its national honor and its sovereign status compel it to rely on its own strength, on the will of its people and on the decisions of its leadership…"[10] Rally in solidarity with Iran in South Lebanon (Image: June 20, 2025) However, three days before the American strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, Hizbullah Secretary-General Na'im Qassem expressed a somewhat different position, stressing that Hizbullah was not neutral in its position on the war. He said: "We in Hizbullah and the Islamic resistance are not neutral [in our stance] towards Iran's legitimate rights and independence and America's falsehood and aggression… We stand with Iran in its confrontation against this global injustice… We are not neutral. Therefore, we express our position in support of Iran, its leadership and its people." Qassem then hinted that Hizbullah might even take military action against Israel, stating: "We will act as we see fit in response to this oppressive 'Israeli'-American aggression… This [Iranian] people cannot be defeated. Past aggression by 'Israel' has proved its steadfastness under any pressure… However, this does not absolve us of our responsibility to stand with Iran and support it in any way that will help end this tyranny and arrogance."[11] The shift in Hizbullah's position was possibly the result of pressure from within the organization and perhaps also from Iran itself. These statements exacerbated the prevailing fears in Lebanon that Hizbullah would intervene in the conflict, and sparked criticism from government officials and from the group's opponents – which prompted Hizbullah to convey once again that it had no intention of joining the fray. For example, in its response to the U.S. strike on Iran, the organization limited itself to expressing "full solidarity" with Iran and complete confidence in Iran's ability "to withstand this aggression and make the American and Zionist enemy taste the bitter flavor of defeat." In other words, it signaled that it did not intend to join the fighting.[12] Iran Defeated Israel And The U.S. Just By Standing Up To Them; It Gave Us Everything And Received Nothing In Return Predictably, just as it did after its own war with Israel, Hizbullah tried to present Iran's non-surrender as a victory. In a statement it issued on June 25, a day after President Trump declared a ceasefire with Iran, the organization congratulated Supreme Leader Khamenei and the Iranian people for the "divine victory" they achieved by means of their "precise and painful" strikes against "the Zionist enemy" and for their "amazing response" to the American attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Calling this "the dawn of a new historical era in the confrontation with the American hegemony and the Zionist savagery in the region," the statement also urged all the peoples of the Islamic nation "to derive inspiration from this tremendous victory."[13] On the same day, the organization held a support rally outside the Iranian embassy in Beirut, [14] at which Hizbullah MP Muhammad Ra'ed congratulated Iran on its "victory" and declared, "Iran is now a deterrent regional force… It proved this with its steadfast stance and by bending the usurping Zionist enemy to its will."[15] Two days later Hizbullah Secretary-General Na'im Qassem said, in a similar vein, that Iran had won the war because Israel had not achieved its three goals in launching its attacks: the destruction of Iran's nuclear program, the destruction of its missile array and the toppling of the Iranian regime. Qassem justified the Iranian regime's decision to agree to a ceasefire, saying that this was "truly in Iran's interest because it put an end to the aggression against it." He added that his organization's support for Iran was "a sign of respect for Iran, due to its support for the downtrodden. It gave us everything and received nothing in return… We are proud of our support for Iran and stand under the banner of the wise and courageous leadership of Imam Khamenei."[16] Hizbullah Opponents: The Attack On Iran Is A Gift To Lebanon Conversely, many other voices in Lebanon supported the Israeli and American attacks on Iran and even relished its defeat. Opponents of Hizbullah and Iran in the country thanked President Trump and indirectly also Israel, and described the attacks as "a gift" to Lebanon, due to the heavy damage this country has suffered over the years at the hands of Iran and its ally Hizbullah. Opponents of Iran in Lebanon expressed hope that the attacks would not only damage the regime's military capabilities but actually bring about its collapse, and opponents of Hizbullah called to accelerate the disarming this organization so that it could no longer threaten to use its weapons on behalf of external forces. Concern That Lebanon Would Be Dragged Into Another War; If Hizbullah Wants To Fight Let It Go To Iran And Fight There As stated, during the war many voices in Lebanon, including regime officials, expressed deep concern that Hizbullah would decide to violate the ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel and fulfill the role assigned to it by its patron Iran, of protecting Iran in its time of need. They presented this concern as yet another argument for disarming Hizbullah completely rather than disarming it only in South Lebanon. MP Sa'id Al-Asmar of the Strong Lebanon parliamentary bloc said: "The Lebanese have no part in the war on Iran. Our domestic interest is to keep Lebanon out of it. What we want is for Iran not to interfere in our internal affairs and not to export its program. We have had enough of its evil and its export of weapons and wars… [We say] no to the culture of death and to wars in Lebanon… Only the [Lebanese] state – and not any sect or party [within it] – can defend the Lebanese people. Salvation can only come from the state and from Hizbullah surrendering its weapons."[17] Lebanese journalist Tarek Abou Zainab wrote on his X account: "The Lebanese refuse to become victims of destructive regional conflicts and refuse to be fuel for Iran's nuclear ambitions."[18] Journalist Rami Na'im warned Hizbullah to stay out of the war, writing: "#Lebanon_does_not_want_war. Do not drag us into proxy wars, because you will be digging your grave with your own hands. #Thank_you_Trump."[19] Political activist Karen Al-Bousany called on President Aoun, Prime Minister Salam and Parliament Speaker Berri to officially decare that Lebanon would not join the war between Israel and Iran, and added, "We do not want civil wars or a war that has nothing to do with us. And last but not least: Hizbullah, where was Iran when Israel attacked you in Lebanon?"[20] Georges Hayek, a member of the Central Council of the Lebanese Forces party, wrote on his X account: "The Iranian people will not allow Lebanon to be sacrificed again on the Iranian altar. Neutrality is the source of security and stability. Whoever wants to defend Iran can go and commit suicide over there."[21] Lebanese activist Carla Hayek wrote: "O Na'im Qassem, sit tight. Lebanon has no part in this war. If you want to fight, go to Iran and volunteer to join the IRGC."[22] Calls To Accelerate The Disarming Of Hizbullah As noted above, the concern that Hizbullah would decide to extend military support to Iran and thus drag Lebanon into another war caused its opponents to intensify their calls to completely disarm the organization. Amjad Iskandar, editor-in-chief of the daily Nidaa Al-Watan, which opposes Hizbullah, criticized the Lebanese authorities for delaying in fulfilling their commitment to disarm this organization, as well as Hizbullah itself for evading this. He wrote: "The ball is now in the court of the state as well as in Hizbullah's court. But Hizbullah is a totalitarian organization that adopts a suicidal policy and ascribes no importance whatsoever to the homeland or the people. For this reason, it is inconceivable that the state should continue to delay. What should have happened six months ago [after the signing of the ceasefire agreement between Lebanon and Israel] must [now] happen within six weeks or less. Only determination will prevent civil war. The Lebanese people and all its sectors will support the state if it actually decides to act like one. The Lebanese are tired of being fuel for other people's wars, of defending foreign agendas and of becoming victims of sectarian adventures that do not suit them."[23] In an article in Nidaa al-Watan, Charbel Jabbour, a Lebanese journalist and senior member of the Lebanese Forces party, wondered whether the state would "take advantage of the end of the Iranian role – [a role] that gave birth to Hizbullah – to complete the imposition of its sovereignty [over all of Lebanon's territory]..." He urged Hizbullah itself to "take the initiative and declare the end of its armed project. Otherwise the state must assert its sovereignty and announce, for example, that the discovery of weapons depots will expose their owners to arrest and prosecution." He stressed that the fact that Hizbullah had not yet joined the fray did not mean that its armed role had ended for good, and added: "Today Hizbullah is weak, but tomorrow it may become stronger. Therefore, the state must act decisively and swiftly to disarm it."[24] Iran Is A Cancer That Must Be Excised; It Poses A Much Greater Danger To Lebanon Than Israel; The Attack On It Is A Gift For Lebanon Many Lebanese welcomed the attacks on Iran due to the numerous crimes it had committed against the Arab peoples in general and Lebanon in particular, as they put it. For example, one day before Israel launched its operation against Iran, political activist Karen Al-Boustany called for military action against the Iranian regime, which she likened to a cancer. She wrote on her X account: "If you want to get rid of a cancer you must excise it completely. [In this case] the patient is the Middle East, the hospital is the U.S., the surgeon is Israel, the disease is Iran, and the type of disease is Khamenei. Soon the region will be completely healthy, Inshallah." [25] These voices expressed support for the Israeli offensive and called it a "gift" to the Lebanese people. Lebanese journalist Rami Na'im wrote on his X account a few hours after the start of the Israeli attacks: "Iran is a lie that has cost us thousands of lives. The resistance [axis] has become a thing of the past. Lebanon is grateful to Trump..."[26] In an interview with a website called "No to the Iranian Occupation," Na'im said: "I want to congratulate the Lebanese people on the occasion of the attack on Iran. Congratulations to every Lebanese who has fought against this criminal Iranian regime, which brought Lebanon to a state of collapse on every level. Iran is far more dangerous than Israel, for Israel is restrained by the U.S., whereas Iran is restrained by no one. Iran is a danger to Lebanon. What happened today [the attack on Iran] is a gift to all the Lebanese people. It is a gift to the martyrs of the Cedar Revolution[27]... a tribute to every youth who died defending Lebanon's sovereignty."[28] Georges Hayek of the Lebanese Forces party wrote on X: "The souls of the martyrs, from Mahsa Amini[29] to Rafic Hariri,[30] Gebran Tueni and Luqman Salim,[31] are breathing in relief after the removal of the Iranian mullah regime."[32] Activist Carla Hayek discussed the damage caused by Iran to the region, writing: "A Lebanese kills a [fellow] Lebanese, an Iraqi kills an Iraqi, a Syrian kills a Syrian and a Yemeni kills a Yemeni – [all] for the sake of that Zoroastrian pig [Khamenei] and his destructive enterprise."[33] Opponents of the Iranian axis in Lebanon praised U.S. President Donald Trump for his decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, with some even describing this as a mission to save humanity. Journalist Rami Na'im wrote: "Thank you, Donald Trump. The entire Middle East thanks you, first and foremost Lebanon. Iran is without a nuclear program, and must surrender before time runs out."[34] Charles Jabbour wrote: "When the U.S. president carried out the attack that ended Iran's nuclear program, the threats of Iran and its proxies to harm American interests in the region did not cause him to hesitate even for a moment. This is because, by destroying the [Iranian] nuclear program, which could have turned the region into a firestorm, he is saving humanity..."[35] The Iranian Regime Is A Paper Tiger In light of Israel's successful attacks on Iran, some mocked the latter for touting its military capabilities and said that its defeat spelled the end of the entire resistance axis. Georges Hayek wrote in an article on the Grand Lebanon website titled "The Official End of the Resistance Axis": "…What Israel has done obviously humiliated the [Iranian] regime, which 'puffed itself up' for years and presented itself as a 'tiger' that could destroy Israel in seven hours. The Israeli attack reveals that the opposite is true…"[36] Carla Hayek shared an image depicting Iran as a cat that sees itself as a lion, and commented, "The Iranian regime is a paper tiger."[37] Hopes That The Attacks Would Lead To The Downfall of The Iranian Regime, Making The World A Better Place Many of the writers expressed hope that the attacks would lead to the downfall of the Iranian regime and put an end to the danger it poses. Journalist Rami Na'im wrote: "Khamenei's time is almost up. His regime is teetering, and like the [former] Syrian regime [its officials] are preparing to flee. It's only a matter of time until Iran is liberated." In another post the following day, he wrote: "Soon we will visit Tehran to celebrate Khamenei's downfall. Iran will not last long. It has begun to crumble from within..."[38] In his article on the Grand Lebanon website, Georges Hayek wrote: "For 35 years, Khamenei's regime has impoverished Iran, plundered it and turned it into a place of political oppression. The Iranian people and the peoples of the region, who have suffered from its military proxies, deserve to live in stability, in prosperity and in partnership with the international community. After the collapse of the [resistance] axis, the region may not immediately become more stable and united... but with the end of the Iranian revolutionary project it will undoubtedly become a better place."[39] Georges Hayek wrote on X: "If this war [ends] without any change in the Iranian regime, it will be like someone showering and then failing to change their underwear."[40] Lebanese activist Raymond Hakim wrote: "Never trust someone you have wounded, because once the wound heals he will destroy you. If the loathsome Iranian regime is not overthrown, once its wounds heal it will rebuild itself again and commit even more despicable crimes against us. I hope the Persian regime falls for good."[41] Mockery Of The Iranian Regime's Victory Celebrations: If This Is A Victory, What Does Defeat Look Like? Alongside expressions of satisfaction over the outcomes of the war, several commentators expressed disappointment that the campaign did not end with the fall of the Iranian regime. Journalist and politician Charles Jabbour, for example, wrote on X: "In just 12 days, Iran's nuclear [program] was put out of commission. That is, in less than two weeks, we were rid of a program that had been in development for over two decades and cost hundreds of billions – [funds] that were denied to the Iranian people – all in order to achieve a goal that evaporated in a matter of days." He added: "Sadly, the goal [of the war on Iran] was not to overthrow the Iranian regime but to eliminate the nuclear program. That has been achieved. Bye-bye."[42] In another post, he wrote: "Heroism is not for the U.S. to overthrow the Iranian regime but for the Iranian people to overthrow it. I hope it will do so."[43] Some writers mocked Iran's victory celebrations. Writing in the Nidaa Al-Watan daily, journalist Abu Zouheir wondered what victory the Iranian leadership was talking about, given the hundreds of fatalities and the destruction of hundreds of homes. He also slammed the Iranian regime for holding these celebrations in the context of the attack on the U.S. Al-Udeid air base in Qatar, saying: "Tehran did not celebrate the harm caused to the 'usurping entity' Israel but rather the strike on the Arab soil of Qatar."[44] Activist Karen Al-Boustany shared an image of Khamenei congratulating the Iranian people on its 'victory over Israel,' and commented: "[This is] the latest joke. Congratulations to Iran and to Khamenei. It looks like they have the idea of victory backwards."[45] Lebanese activist Raymond Hakim posted on X: "Iran has won. It lost officials and leaders, lost its air force, lost airports and sea ports, lost its nuclear facilities, lost engineers and nuclear scientists, lost oil and gas facilities, lost billions of dollars, and lost infrastructures. The question is: If all that is a victory, what does defeat look like[?]!!"[46] *N. Moses is a research fellow at MEMRI.
Memri
10 hours ago
- Memri
The Historical Context Of The South China Sea Territorial Conflict
On July 12, 2016, exactly, nine years ago, the Permanent Court of Arbitration delivered its final ruling on the case filed by the Philippines against China over territorial disputes in the South China Sea.[1] The court affirmed that China's claim, as embodied by its nine-dash line, has no basis under international law.[2] This following analysis provides the historical context of the disputed waters. (Source: X) The waters first appeared in Indian, Arab, and Chinese historical records as early 206 BCE. The waters were depicted as fishing grounds and trading routes that connected Eastern and Western Asia to Southeast Asia. The waters are peppered with tiny islands and sunken reefs. There, safe havens were built by ancient seafarers as they navigated the open sea. Artifacts originating from a myriad of cultures were found in the islets suggesting that they were used not by one but a host of civilizations. Fast forward to World War II, it became clear that the waters were strategic in a time of war. They were used by Japan as naval outposts during the expansion of its empire in South East Asia. In the 1960s, it was discovered that beneath the seas lie an estimated 11 billion barrels of oil, 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 10 percent of the world's fishing resources. It has also emerged as one of the most important global trading routes. The strategic importance of the waters could not be denied. Of particular interest is the Spratly Islands. The Spratlys is a group of some 100 islets, reefs and shoals. It straddles the Philippines to the east, Vietnam to the west, Malaysia and Brunei to the south, and China and Taiwan to the north. Control over the Spratlys allows military projection and surveillance over the entire Asian region. Six nations claim ownership of the Spratlys but China claims not only the Spratlys but all of the South China Sea. Satellite images shows that Beijing had already constructed artificial islands with airstrips, missile platforms and harbors at Fiery Cross Reef, Subi Reef, and Mischief Reef, among others. Tensions have been escalating, thanks to China's coercive activities and bad behavior. To defuse tensions, ASEAN called for the establishment of a code of conduct as early as 2002. But drafting the code did not start until 2017. By mid‑2023, the second version of the code of conduct was completed with China and ASEAN agreeing to write a third version due to significant disagreements. ASEAN claimants (notably the Philippines, Vietnam) want a legally binding agreement enforceable under international law. China insists on a non-binding framework. Moreover, China is pushing to exclude third‑party military navies (like the U.S.) from the agreement, which ASEAN found self-serving and unacceptable. Without a functioning code of conduct, China has aggressively asserted its claims by way of coercion and deployment of grey zone tactics. The Philippine-China Conflict The Philippine-China stand-off started in 2013, when, in a unilateral act of aggression, China announced that the Spratlys, Parcel islands and Macclesfeild Bank would be administered by Sansha City, a territory of China. Suspicions were rife that China would build a military base to support its navy and air force – something China vehemently denied. Years later, the suspicions were proven true and China was caught in its own lie. The Chinese Coast Guard roped off the entrance of the Scarborough lagoon preventing Philippine vessels from entering, including those of fishermen. The Chinese accosted Philippine vessels that traversed the area, confiscated their contents and detained the crew. It was a blatant disrespect of Philippine sovereignty. The Philippines resisted China's bullying and moved swiftly to defend its sovereignty. It did what any law-abiding republic would do – it took China to court. It was the only claimant of the disputed territories with the courage to do so. In 2014, the Philippines filed a case against China before the Permanent Court of Arbitration of the United Nations Convention of the Laws of the Seas (UNCLOS). The Philippines argued that China's territorial claim was in defiance of the UNCLOS accord for which both China and the Philippines are signatories. The Philippines further argued that the basis of China's claim, its nine-dash line, was conjured out of convenience only in 1946 in contrast to Philippine historical claims whose basis are nautical records dating back to the XV century. For those unaware, China's campaign to claim the entire South China Sea for itself started when a power vacuum arose after Japan's defeat in World War II. In 1946, China's Ministry of Interior Committee deployed two geography students named Fu Jiaojin and Zheng Ziyue to define China's boundaries in the South China Sea. The basis of their claim was an atlas drafted in 1936 by Bai Meichu, a Chinese professor whose atlas was proven to be riddled with errors. The dashes drawn by the two students were a cartographic sketch without clearly defined boundaries. It does not specify where exactly the sovereignty ends and what rights China claims (sovereignty, historic fishing rights, administrative control, etc.). Its ambiguity was deliberate as it allows China to assert a wide range of claims flexibly. The nine-dash line is a preposterous claim by any account. It is for this reason that the international community supports the Philippine's legal argument and absolutely no nation support's China's claim. In 2016, the tribunal ruled in the Philippine's favor saying that China's nine-dash Line is invalid and illegal. It further ruled that China has no legal claim nor historical rights over Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone and that it had behaved unlawfully. The ruling bestows upon the Philippines the legal rights on the waters. On the next installment, an in-depth analysis will be provided on the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. *Andrew J. Masigan is the MEMRI China Media Studies Project Special Advisor. He is a Manila-based economist, businessman, and political columnist for The Philippine Star. Masigan's articles in MEMRI are also published in The Philippine Star.
Shafaq News
11 hours ago
- Shafaq News
The river remembers: 11 years since Speicher massacre
2025-07-15T14:00:07+00:00 Shafaq News Each year, Umm Ali returns to the banks of the Tigris with a candle in her hand and Quranic verses on her lips. She kneels beside the ruins of Saddam Hussein's former palaces, where her nephew was executed, whispering prayers into a place stained by violence and memory. On June 12, 2014, ISIS militants overran Camp Speicher, a former Iraqi Air Force base near Tikrit. They captured nearly 2,000 unarmed military cadets—mostly young Shia men from central and southern Iraq—separated them by sect, stripped them of their IDs, and took them to execution sites across Saladin province. Many were shot en masse or dumped into the Tigris. The massacre unfolded inside the lavish presidential complex once used by Saddam Hussein—a site meant to inspire awe and dominance. Marble corridors and manicured courtyards became killing grounds, transforming a symbol of tyranny into a theater of death. Eleven years later, the Iraqi government continues to investigate the massacre. Over 1,200 bodies have been exhumed from mass graves, and DNA identification efforts are ongoing. Several suspects have been tried and executed, including 36 in 2016. In July 2025, German authorities extradited another fugitive involved in the killings following a joint operation with Iraqi intelligence. Iraq is also working with international partners, including the UN Investigative Team for Accountability of Daesh (UNITAD), which has classified the Speicher massacre as a potential war crime and assists Iraqi courts in documenting and prosecuting those responsible. 'The Speicher crime is not just a local tragedy—it is a national one,' said lawyer Adnan al-Jubouri. 'It must stay in our collective memory as a rejection of sectarianism and violence.' Residents of Tikrit continue to distance themselves from the attackers. 'This has nothing to do with our city or its tribes,' said Hassan al-Tikriti. 'It was a crime against humanity carried out by fanatics who do not represent us.' Even as justice advances, many families are still searching for answers. 'We don't come here just to grieve,' Umm Ali said. 'We come to remind Iraq that justice must never be forgotten.'
