Syria has asked Turkey for defence support amid sectarian clashes, officials say
The defence ministry officials said that Syria has also sought assistance to combat 'terrorist organisations', including the so-called Islamic State group.
Turkey – which has long expressed readiness to assist Syria – was working towards providing training, advisory services and technical support to help strengthen Syria's defence capacity, the officials added.
Tensions escalated in southern Syria last week, with violent clashes erupting between Bedouin Arab tribes and Druze militias in the province of Sweida.
The conflict triggered Israeli air strikes on convoys of government forces in Sweida and on the Ministry of Defence headquarters in central Damascus, which Israel justified as efforts to protect Druze communities.
Turkey, which strongly supports Syria's interim government led by President Ahmad al-Sharaa, has been seeking a defence agreement with Syria that could reportedly include establishing Turkish military bases on Syrian territory.
Ankara also backs an agreement reached between the interim Syrian administration and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to integrate into Syria's national army.
Implementation of the deal has stalled, with a major sticking point being whether the SDF would remain as a cohesive unit in the new army or be dissolved completely.
On Tuesday, Turkish foreign minister Hakan Fidan warned Kurdish and other groups in Syria against exploiting the tensions to pursue autonomy, stating that any attempt to divide Syria would be viewed as a direct threat to Turkey's national security and could prompt intervention.
Turkey considers the SDF a terrorist organisation because of its association with the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, which has waged a long-running insurgency in Turkey.
The defence ministry officials said Turkey expects the SDF to follow through on its commitments under the agreement, adding that Turkey would be 'following' the situation.
The situation in Syria has increased tensions between Turkey and Israel.
In April, Israel struck five cities in Syria, including more than a dozen strikes near a strategic air base in the city of Hama, where Turkey reportedly has interests in having a military presence. Israel accused Turkey of trying to build a 'protectorate' in Syria.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Is David Williams the MoD's fall guy?
Yesterday the Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed that its permanent secretary, David Williams, will be stepping down in a matter of weeks. He has served for just over four years, almost exactly the average tenure of his predecessors since the department was created in 1964, but it is difficult to regard the timing as a coincidence. It is still not yet three weeks since the catastrophic loss of data on Afghan nationals and others, and the MoD's use of a super-injunction, were disclosed to parliament by defence secretary John Healey. Williams is not explicitly being sacked: permanent secretaries very rarely are. The Ministry of Defence is being very careful and measured in its language to refer to his impending departure: according to the BBC, Healey had a 'conversation' with Williams before the Afghan data loss story became public knowledge, and 'made clear that this was the right time to make a change'. There is a plausible argument that we should not draw a line directly from the data loss to Williams's departure. The MoD has also briefed that this is 'an appropriate time for a transition' of leadership; under Healey's Defence Reform programme, the senior levels of the Ministry of Defence have been rearranged and streamlined into a 'leadership quad' which will supervise all aspects of defence policy and the armed forces. This is the biggest reorganisation of the MoD for half a century, and it need not be any reflection on Williams that he chooses to step down before implementing the reforms in full, or that the defence secretary would prefer a fresh approach and a new top civil servant. Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton will be taking over as Chief of the Defence Staff next month, while the recruitment for a permanent national armaments director is taking longer than expected. While Madelaine McTernan, Chief of Defence Nuclear, has been in post since 2022, replacing Williams at this stage could make sense. Equally, Williams's departure could be seen as part of a wave of changes at permanent secretary level which often happen in the first year or so of a new government. Simon Case (Cabinet Secretary), Sir Matthew Rycroft (Home Office), Dame Tamara Finkelstein (Defra), Sir Philip Barton (FCDO), Dame Bernadette Kelly (Transport), Sarah Munby (DSIT) and Sir Jim Harra (HMRC) have all left the civil service within the past 12 months. And yet… while the MoD is making no explicit connection between Williams's departure and the data loss, it is hard to escape the feeling that we are being invited to join the dots, and that the permanent secretary is an expiatory offering to the political gods. The whole scandal did, after all, take place on his watch, and he was in charge of the overall management and leadership of the Ministry of Defence, as well as formally being principal accounting officer responsible to parliament. The MoD should under no circumstances be allowed to wipe the slate clean with Williams's departure. There is still a great deal we do not know about the Afghan data loss scandal, though the Intelligence and Security Committee, the House of Commons Defence Committee and the Public Accounts Committee will all be inquiring into the issue. But Williams – whatever his individual culpability – cannot be the fall guy. Even based on what we currently know, the MoD has a shameful inability to prevent the loss of secret data, and data breaches have increased threefold over the past five years. There is also a systemic lack of accountability, particularly in relation to a number of disastrous equipment procurement projects. The readiness with which the department accepted the comfort blanket of a super-injunction for nearly two years speaks to a deeply ingrained culture of secrecy and dislike of scrutiny. The Ministry of Defence is secretive, inefficient, unaccountable and almost pathologically unable to learn from its mistakes. That has been common currency in defence circles for decades, but the Afghan data loss cut through to the consciousness of the wider public. There is now a major issue of public trust, already a rare, valuable but rapidly disappearing commodity. If ministers try to usher Williams off stage, bring in a new permanent secretary and assume that previous disasters can then be written off, they must have their feet held to the fire. This is not a failing individual. This is an ingrained, systemic, cultural malaise. And it has to be fixed.
Leader Live
3 hours ago
- Leader Live
Lammy not accepting Iran's claims over enriched uranium
Representatives from the United Kingdom, Germany and France held talks with Iran last week to try to break the deadlock over the country's nuclear programme. Tehran maintains it is open to diplomacy, though it recently suspended cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). A central concern for western powers was highlighted when the IAEA reported in May that Iran's stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% – just below weapons-grade level – had grown to more than 400kg. In a wide-ranging interview with The Guardian, Mr Lammy said: 'Its leaders cannot explain to me – and I've had many conversations with them – why they need 60% enriched uranium. 'If I went to Sellafield or Urenco in Cheshire, they haven't got anything more than 6%. The Iranians claim it's for academic use, but I don't accept that.' Mr Lammy warned that Iran developing nuclear weapons could lead to an escalation of tensions in the Middle East. Israel and the United States carried our strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June. 'Many of your readers will have watched Oppenheimer and seen the fallout of (the US building an atomic bomb),' he said. 'So it's what (a nuclear Iran) might mean in terms of other countries in the neighbourhood who would desire one, too. And we would be very suddenly handing over to our children and grandchildren a world that had many more nuclear weapons in it than it has today.' The Foreign Secretary said he had heard Israeli arguments in favour of regime change in Tehran, but did not believe that was behind the US decision to strike. The Tottenham MP added any decision to topple the government was one for the Iranian people, with his focus 'on what the UK can do to stop Iran becoming a nuclear power'. Last month, Mr Lammy suggested that Britain, France and Germany could 'snap back' on sanctions against Iran unless the country gets 'serious' about stepping back from its nuclear ambitions. He told the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee: 'Iran face even more pressure in the coming weeks because the E3 can snap back on our sanctions, and it's not just our sanctions, it's actually a UN mechanism that would impose dramatic sanctions on Iran across nearly every single front in its economy. 'So they have a choice to make. It's a choice for them to make. 'I'm very clear about the choice they should make, but I'm also clear that the UK has a decision to make that could lead to far greater pain for the Iranian regime unless they get serious about the international desire to see them step back from their nuclear ambitions at this time.'
North Wales Chronicle
3 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Lammy not accepting Iran's claims over enriched uranium
Representatives from the United Kingdom, Germany and France held talks with Iran last week to try to break the deadlock over the country's nuclear programme. Tehran maintains it is open to diplomacy, though it recently suspended cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). A central concern for western powers was highlighted when the IAEA reported in May that Iran's stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% – just below weapons-grade level – had grown to more than 400kg. In a wide-ranging interview with The Guardian, Mr Lammy said: 'Its leaders cannot explain to me – and I've had many conversations with them – why they need 60% enriched uranium. 'If I went to Sellafield or Urenco in Cheshire, they haven't got anything more than 6%. The Iranians claim it's for academic use, but I don't accept that.' Mr Lammy warned that Iran developing nuclear weapons could lead to an escalation of tensions in the Middle East. Israel and the United States carried our strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June. 'Many of your readers will have watched Oppenheimer and seen the fallout of (the US building an atomic bomb),' he said. 'So it's what (a nuclear Iran) might mean in terms of other countries in the neighbourhood who would desire one, too. And we would be very suddenly handing over to our children and grandchildren a world that had many more nuclear weapons in it than it has today.' The Foreign Secretary said he had heard Israeli arguments in favour of regime change in Tehran, but did not believe that was behind the US decision to strike. The Tottenham MP added any decision to topple the government was one for the Iranian people, with his focus 'on what the UK can do to stop Iran becoming a nuclear power'. Last month, Mr Lammy suggested that Britain, France and Germany could 'snap back' on sanctions against Iran unless the country gets 'serious' about stepping back from its nuclear ambitions. He told the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee: 'Iran face even more pressure in the coming weeks because the E3 can snap back on our sanctions, and it's not just our sanctions, it's actually a UN mechanism that would impose dramatic sanctions on Iran across nearly every single front in its economy. 'So they have a choice to make. It's a choice for them to make. 'I'm very clear about the choice they should make, but I'm also clear that the UK has a decision to make that could lead to far greater pain for the Iranian regime unless they get serious about the international desire to see them step back from their nuclear ambitions at this time.'
