A Scholarly Journey Developed by US Experiences

 By Leila Nicolas, PhD

The release of my latest book, "Global and Regional Strategies in the Middle East: In Pursuit of Hegemony," (Routledge, August 2024), marks a defining moment in my academic journey—one deeply influenced by my experiences as an alumna of two transformative US exchange programs: The SUSI (Study of the US Institutes) in 2016 and Fulbright in 2021.

While I have previously published several books in Arabic and English, this work represents a culmination of insights, blending regional expertise with the critical analytical tools I gained in the United States. 

This book goes further—it dissects the mechanisms of hegemony with sharper precision, thanks to the methodological rigor and interdisciplinary perspectives I encountered in the US. 

The SUSI program at Bard College (New York) was my first experience in the US. I still remember the academic debates and professional visits, which broadened my understanding of US policy-making and "grand Strategy in context," a tool that later became central to my research.  

Years later, the Fulbright Program at Fordham University elevated my work to new heights. The generosity of the US Department of State, SUSI organizers, Bard College, and Fordham University (New York) can not be paralleled.

What I took from the US experiences is that the "American Dream" was never about material wealth—it was about freedoms—freedom to think boldly, research fearlessly, and write without constraints. 

In the US, I was taught that academia thrives only when it is free from dogma, can name uncomfortable truths, and ask tough questions. 

All these were reflected in my new book, which discusses global and regional strategies, proxy wars, and the fight of all against all—which stems from that very liberty.  

--

Leila Nicolas is a professor at Lebanese University and a US author and geopolitical analyst with several published works in Arabic and English. An alumna of SUSI (2016) and Fulbright (2021), her research focuses on competition between great powers and MENA politics.

Syria's new government formation

 

- Syrian Interim President Ahmad Al-Sharaa Announces Formation of New Government
- Syrian interim president Ahmad Al-Sharaa has announced the formation of a new government that includes various Syrian factions.
Yet, key sovereign ministries remain under the control of figures close to him—specifically, members of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham.
Opinions within Syria are divided over whether the new government truly represents all components of society.
While major regional powers have welcomed its formation, the U.S. and European nations have yet to issue clear statements.
---
The establishment of this new government could be seen as a historic turning point following Assad's downfall.
Undoubtedly, the move comes in response to external pressures demanding a more inclusive government that represents all segments of Syrian society, safeguards pluralism, and protects minorities.
This government faces major challenges both domestically and internationally:
Domestically: Establishing state authority, maintaining security, and addressing the severe economic crisis.
Internationally: Gaining recognition and legitimacy, lifting sanctions, being removed from terrorism lists, and securing support for reconstruction efforts.

Above all, the most critical challenges remain preserving Syria’s unity, addressing the Israeli occupation, and preventing the country from descending into fragmentation and all-out conflict.

Trump - Iran exchanged messages

 

- President Donald Trump threatened Iran with airstrikes and secondary tariffs if no agreement was reached.
- In his message, Trump extended a hand for negotiation but warned against rejecting it.
- Iran’s response: We accept indirect negotiations, but the U.S. must first build trust and abandon its "maximum pressure" and threat-based policies.

Key Negotiation Topics
1. Iran’s Nuclear Program
How far Trump's administration will go in its demands on Tehran remains unclear.
Trump previously stated that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons.
However, some U.S. officials pushed for the complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program.
- Iran will firmly reject this demand, as international law does not prohibit the peaceful use of nuclear technology.
Tehran will insist on its right to uranium enrichment for civilian purposes while pledging not to develop nuclear weapons.
If the U.S. raises its expectations to include full dismantlement, negotiations will likely stall and hit a dead end.

2. Iran’s Missile Program
Iran views its missile program as a fundamental part of its national defense strategy.
Tehran considers this program non-negotiable and has ruled it out as a discussion point.

3. Iran’s Regional Influence
Iran regards its regional presence as a form of "forward defense."
Over the past two years, Iran's axis has suffered major setbacks, particularly in Syria, following the collapse of the Assad regime.
U.S. negotiators will focus mainly on Iran’s role in Yemen.
However, The Houthis (Ansar Allah), supported by Iran since 2015, are Iran's allies rather than mere proxies.
Even if Iran halts military aid, securing major compromises from Yemeni factions will be difficult.

Conclusion
According to the 2025 U.S. Threat Assessment Report, Iran is not seen as an immediate or direct threat to American interests (in the meantime).
Therefore, a new nuclear agreement with the Trump administration could be possible—unless Washington’s pro-Israel lobby exerts significant pressure to derail negotiations by introducing conditions Iran cannot accept.

Lebanese "Normalization" with Israel?

1. Legally:
- Normalization should start with a peace treaty, which may include provisions for normalization.
A peace treaty and a normalization agreement are diplomatic accords, but they have different purposes in international relations. A peace treaty may outline a path to normalization.

A Peace Treaty is a formal agreement, typically mediated by an external party, that officially ends a state of war between two or more parties. It usually includes terms related to a ceasefire, territorial settlements, disarmament, compensation, and similar issues.

On the other hand, a Normalization Agreement establishes or restores full diplomatic relations between states, usually after a period of hostility or non-recognition. This agreement focuses on enhancing economic, trade, tourism cooperation, and cultural exchanges, without necessarily addressing war, non-aggression, or military conflicts.

Under International Law:
A peace treaty is a legally binding agreement that ends hostilities between warring states. Violating such a treaty could lead to renewed conflict or international legal action at the International Court of Justice. It falls under international humanitarian law and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969).

A normalization agreement, meanwhile, improves relations between previously hostile or diplomatically unconnected states. It is governed by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (which emphasizes good faith implementation) and customary international law, which requires respect for state sovereignty and mutual diplomatic recognition.

2. Politically:
Discussing normalization in Lebanon seems out of context for two main reasons:
A-  Arab states that have signed normalization agreements with Israel did not have occupied territories and were not front-line states directly involved in conflict. Therefore, they could move directly to normalization without first signing peace treaties. However, in Lebanon, Israel must withdraw from Lebanese-occupied territories—whether these were occupied after the last war or prior—respect Lebanon’s sovereignty and cease violations of its airspace and territory.
Israel is unlikely to agree to this without imposing political conditions that could interfere with Lebanon’s internal affairs.

B - Lebanon aligns with the broader Arab position and will not engage in peace or normalization independently of Arab consensus, as it has no strategic interest in doing so.
Saudi Arabia has set the Arab benchmark for normalization: the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. All Arab nations are expected to adhere to this position, which Lebanese President General Joseph Aoun reaffirmed in his speech in Cairo.
However, Israel refuses to grant even minimal rights to the Palestinians, let alone support the establishment of a Palestinian state.

"Multi-Layered" Security: A New Israeli Doctrine

The investigation into the events of October 7 showed that Israel's intelligence failures were due to deep and systemic issues within its intelligence community. Key problems included:

1. A significant gap between intelligence concepts and execution.
2. Inability to warn of the surprise attack.
3. Misunderstanding of fundamental issues regarding Hamas.

To prevent such failures in the future, Israel is adopting a new security strategy called "multi-layered security," focusing on Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria.
This new doctrine is based on the following principles:

- Establishing strong defense positions within Israel, particularly in areas adjacent to Lebanon, Gaza, and inside the occupied Syrian Golan.

- Creating a buffer zone in neighboring countries, specifically Lebanon, Syria, and the Gaza Strip.

- Enforcing demilitarization of Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria.

In Lebanon:
- Israel is strengthening its military presence along the border inside Israel.
- It has gained control over some border villages and strategic hills in the neighboring territories in Lebanon.
- It is pressuring the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah not just at the southern part of the Litani River, but throughout the country.

In Syria:
-Military bases have been reportedly reinforced in the occupied Golan Heights.
- Israel plans to keep control of about 400 km of occupied territory, as a crucial security buffer.
- It has conducted strikes against Syrian military sites, contributing to a demilitarized status for Syria.

In Palestine:
- Israel seeks to establish the Gaza Strip and Palestinian territories as demilitarized zones.
It intends to maintain control over key areas, such as the Philadelphia crossing, and create a security buffer zone inside Gaza.
- Security measures are being strengthened along the West Bank and Gaza borders.