The National Interest Foundation Newsletter

Issue 275, February 28, 2025

Welcome to our NIF Newsletter. In this week’s edition, we provide analysis regarding where things stand with the Gaza ceasefire deal as the first phase nears its end, explore the prospect of removing sanctions on post-Assad Syria, and look into Germany’s recent election and its potential implications.

Editor: Bassam Tarbush

Where Things Stand with the Gaza Ceasefire Deal as the First Phase Nears Its End

After a multi-day Israeli breach of the ongoing Gaza ceasefire deal that prompted fears regarding a possible resumption of the conflict, more than 600 Palestinian prisoners were eventually released on Thursday, in what amounts to the final exchange of hostages and prisoners agreed upon under phase one of the agreement. This past Saturday, Israel had been due to free the captives following Hamas’ release of six Israeli hostages, however, Israel halted this at the last minute in a blatant violation of the deal’s terms. The ceasefire agreement’s first phase is now set to expire this weekend, and there is justifiable concern that Israel will resume the war if a second phase does not come into effect. Egypt has stated that the negotiations between Israel and Hamas on the next stage of the Gaza ceasefire deal have begun. Officials from Egypt, Qatar, and the United States are mediating the efforts aimed at progressing the agreement from phase one to phase two. The idea of extending the first phase has also been floated as a means of potentially maintaining the ceasefire deal for the time being while negotiations continue, but the talks themselves regarding the second phase are meant to bring about a permanent end to the war, which – if successful – would include the return of remaining hostages in Gaza and the full withdrawal of Israeli troops from the territory.

With the first phase of the Gaza ceasefire deal nearing its official end, the negotiating parties have clearly been behind schedule in initiating talks regarding phase two. Under the timeline for the agreement and its multiple stages, talks on the second phase of the deal were supposed to commence during the early days of February so that in an ideal scenario, phase two could begin seamlessly at the start of March. However, as we approach the end date of phase one this weekend, serious questions remain over whether or not talks will come to any fruition, or if hostilities in Gaza will resume instead. Analysts have drawn attention to the troubling predicament that Israel finds itself in, as on the one hand, there is a great deal of pressure from the families of hostages and much of the world at-large to proceed with the agreement but yet, on the other hand, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu risks seeing his coalition government collapse should the war not be resumed – as far-right extremist coalition members have threatened to quit if this scenario unfolds. Netanyahu’s removal from power would also open him up to the serious domestic criminal corruption charges that he faces, not to mention the active arrest warrant at the hands of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

In addition to violating the terms of the deal and risking its derailment via its multi-day delay in releasing Palestinian prisoners over the past week, Israel has also done so by stating that it would not withdraw as planned from the Philadelphi Corridor – the long strip of land bordering Egypt. Israel’s military was supposed to begin pulling out of the corridor tomorrow on Saturday, and complete the process within eight days. On top of this, humanitarian agencies have highlighted that Israel is still obstructing the flow of aid into Gaza, even after the implementation of the ceasefire deal. For their part, Hamas has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to the continuation of the ceasefire agreement. Furthermore, they have called on the international community to put pressure on Israel in order to “immediately enter the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire agreement without any delay or hesitation.”

One can draw a link between the Trump administration’s biased pro-Israeli rhetoric and policies, and Israel seemingly being emboldened to engage in breaches of the ceasefire deal and other violations. As some commentators have expressed, there is a clear sense that Netanyahu’s government feels it has the unconditional backing of Trump for its bellicose actions in Gaza and elsewhere. The U.S. president has commented that “it is up to Israel to decide” whether or not it will uphold the truce and that he is “fine with any decision that Israel makes” regarding continuing the ceasefire or resuming its war. Amid the course of the fragile ceasefire, he has also lifted a previous Biden administration restriction that was imposed on the transfer of highly destructive MK-84 bombs to Israel. Rather than pressuring Israel to maintain the deal and abide by its agreed-upon terms, Trump is giving Israel the “green light” to act with impunity through the persistent flow of weapons despite evidence of Israeli war crimes and by failing to rebuke Israel for actions that jeopardize an already precarious ceasefire, like the one that took place last weekend – all to the detriment of peace and stability.

Prospect of Removing Sanctions on Post-Assad Syria

Following decades of oppression and brutality at the hands of the Assad government in Syria, the deposing of the regime has sparked new hope and a sense of optimism in the country. While many are buoyant about the possible outlook of the future, there are still key obstacles that must be adequately addressed. One of the main issues is the need for sanction relief. Analysts and experts have tried to outline the importance of this in order for Syria’s delicate and nascent political transition to succeed. To allow for this to happen, Syria’s caretaker government will have to act swiftly to repair the country’s devastated economy. As many commentators have noted, Syrians will need to feel that their economic conditions are improving if the transitional government is to ultimately be viewed as legitimate and worthy of support. Otherwise, in the absence of this, a failure to address economic hardships will likely destabilize an already fragile transition.

Syria has a litany of sanctions that were imposed on the country dating back over 40 years as a means of initiating punitive measures against the dictatorial Assad regime. This has, unsurprisingly, placed a great deal of strain on the Syrian civilian population and economic conditions in the country. It is estimated that more than 90% of Syrians live below the poverty line, with over half of the population suffering from food insecurity. Additionally, at least 16.5 million Syrians require humanitarian aid in order to meet their basic needs, not to mention the fact that after 14 years of conflict, much of the country’s infrastructure is in ruins and public facilities like schools, roads, electrical grids, and hospitals are severely damaged.

As such, removing some of the sanctions on human essentials and the banking sector would give Syria and its citizens a chance to recover. Economic conditions will not be given the opportunity to significantly improve until funding and trade are made more accessible and thus, countries should lift sanctions that get in the way of basic human rights. More specifically, it would be beneficial to the Syrian people if sanctions were lifted on global financial systems, energy access, and trade of essential goods. The easing of sanctions against Syria could also open new trade routes, and reconstruction efforts in the country would certainly attract substantial and useful investments. The purpose of the sanctions was to punish the oppressive Assad regime for its plethora of war crimes and human rights violations, and now that the former government has been overthrown, Syrians deserve that the sanctions be removed too. Earlier this week, the European Union (EU) did lift several sanctions on Syria in the hopes that it will promote an inclusive political transition that can lead to economic recovery and stability, and others should follow suit. Through the lifting of sanctions, the EU and the United States in particular could demonstrate their desire to see a successful transition in Syria.

Efforts and attention should also be dedicated to addressing the remaining human rights abuses taking place now that the repressive Assad regime has been toppled. This is most evident in northeast Syria, where the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) – a Kurdish-led coalition of U.S.-backed groups – have continued to engage in serious rights violations. Human rights advocates have pointed to the abuse of minorities by the Kurds in areas under their control, as it is estimated that the SDF holds approximately 56,000 men, women, and children in detention centers, nearly all of whom are arbitrarily and indefinitely detained. Many of these in captivity are tortured and kept under inhumane conditions, while thousands more have been forcibly disappeared. Agnès Callamard, the Secretary General of Amnesty International, has stated that the SDF “have committed the war crimes of torture, cruel treatment, and murder,” and that the United States has played a role in enabling these abuses by propping up these militia groups. By continuing to support them in any capacity, the U.S. bears culpability for these humanitarian atrocities. The SDF controls about a third of Syrian territory including vital areas in the northeast of the country, and Turkey views the group as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which it has designated as a terrorist entity. A thorough Amnesty International report released last year found that torture is being carried out systematically in detention facilities run by the SDF.

In the end, without the economic relief that the removal of sanctions provides, the chances of the current caretaker government successfully implementing a sustainable political transition in Syria are considerably reduced. On top of this, the lifting of sanctions would not only ease economic hardship among the country’s population, it also greatly increases the likelihood of a more stable and thriving Syria – which bodes well for regional security.

Germany’s Election and Its Potential Implications

This past Sunday, elections were held in Germany to elect the 630 members of the Bundestag, the country’s federal parliament. The snap election was triggered when German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition government collapsed in November of last year. The results saw Germany’s center-right conservative bloc of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its partner, the Christian Social Union (CSU), finish in first with around 28.5% of the vote, while the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) surged to come in second with 20.8%. The AfD secured its strongest-ever result in a national election, finishing more than 4 percentage points ahead of Outgoing German Chancellor Scholz’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) – which came in third with only 16.4% of the total vote, an almost 10-point drop from their first-place finish back in 2021 and its worst-ever federal election result. The outcome means that the conservative CDU/CSU is on track to lead the next coalition government and that CDU party leader Friedrich Merz is likely to be Germany’s next chancellor. However, while they did secure the most votes – giving them a projected 208 seats in the Bundestag – the CDU/CSU alliance alone falls short of the 316 seats needed to form a government on its own and will therefore be required to build a coalition in order to do so. Despite the AfD’s record-high second place vote share, parties and blocs have appeared to rule out forming a coalition with the far-right party.

The recent election in Germany marked the first post-World War II election in the country in which a party other than either the CDU/CSU or the SPD came in second place. Additionally, the AfD’s electoral showing is the strongest by a German far-right movement in the same time frame. Analysts have highlighted that the party’s rise can be largely attributed to its growing appeal among voters who are critical of immigration and multilateralism – resulting in an evident “shift to the right” political trend that has been seen recently across the continent in other countries like France, Italy, Hungary, and Austria. The AfD is unlikely to be involved in any coalition government, but the election results are expected to strengthen its clout in the Bundestag and the level of impact it possesses in influencing policymaking. The AfD has been credibly accused of extremism and are therefore being surveilled by German authorities, which has largely contributed to their ostracism from the official German political arena. It is important to note that while gains were clearly made on the far-right end of the political spectrum, there were also significant ones on the other side too as the German Left Party nearly doubled its vote share from the previous election. In totality, the results suggest that more of the country’s electorate is drifting towards the political fringes, as dissatisfaction with the mainstream parties increases. Thus, centrist parties will have to swiftly work to address the country’s challenges or risk potentially even larger electoral drop-offs in future elections. Some experts speculate that the center-right CDU/CSU alliance and the center-left SPD seem likely to be compelled to cooperate in what would amount to a fragile coalition government in order to keep the political periphery forces at bay. To date, Merz has set a target of mid-April for attempting to establish a new German coalition government.

The makeup of the new coalition government stemming from the recent election results is poised to have a major effect on the foreign policy stances that it adopts. Regarding its potential impact on relations between Germany and the United States, Merz has expressed that “My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve [security] independence from the United States” under Trump. According to Merz, the Trump administration “does not care about Europe and is aligning with Russia,” and the anticipated soon-to-be chancellor even likened the recent U.S. tactics under Trump to those of the Kremlin itself. He has also conveyed doubt over what the current American government’s position on the Ukraine War and vis-à-vis Europe will be in the coming weeks and months, and as such, has surmised that Europe may need to devise a new defense structure to possibly replace the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). All of this comes amid a backdrop of serious uncertainty regarding the future of Ukraine and Trump’s commitment to European security, concerns that Washington under Trump is moving closer to Moscow, and doubts related to the status of Europe’s alliance with the United States.

As it pertains to German policy towards the Middle East and immigration from there in particular, the electoral triumph of conservatives and surges by the far-right in the recent election cast uncertainty over the future of refugees and asylum seekers. Merz has prompted his party to adopt a tougher stance on border security and migrants, and has pledged to tighten immigration laws. He contends that his prospective centrist coalition must initiate its own stricter measures in order to fend off the rising political relevancy of the far-right. Others disagree with the idea of instituting harsher immigration policies and argue that sealing off borders will not make Germany safer. As one re-elected Bundestag member put it, “What we truly need is the opposite: safe pathways, humane and fair treatment for those who arrive, and full access to work, healthcare, and social services. We need to empower those seeking refuge in Germany rather than to exclude them.” On another element related to the Middle East, Merz has also been criticized by human rights advocates for recently expressing an interest in “finding a way” for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to visit Germany, despite the latter’s arrest warrant at the hands of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Ultimately, when it comes to the issue of immigration, the new German coalition government could find itself facing legal or political barriers if it seeks to implement stricter policies, and it remains to be seen how this would play out.