From Aleppo to Tehran: Mikhail Awad’s Perspective
Republic of Palestine – Political Affairs RedactionRead the article in Spanish
Read the article in Arabic
In a recently published analysis, political analyst Mikhail Awad presents a comprehensive reading of regional transformations in the Middle East, asserting that the region is living through an unprecedented historical moment—one that goes beyond traditional crises and moves toward an open-ended conflict with multiple possible outcomes.
Awad argues that the world is no longer governed by stable rules or balanced power equations, but has instead become captive to unilateral wills and overt hegemonic ambitions, led by the United States in their most explicit form during the Trump era.
A World Without Rules: From Gaza to Greenland
The analyst notes that the U.S. administration under Donald Trump treats geopolitics as private property open to acquisition. From discussions about appointing a “governor for Gaza,” to controlling oil and political life in Venezuela, and openly speaking of seizing Greenland “by any means,” an unmasked imperial mindset is clearly on display.
Within this context, Awad adds, U.S. threats against Iran—however dangerous they may appear—are not aimed at launching a ground war, but rather constitute a policy of “maximum pressure” designed to push targeted states toward fragmentation, internal exhaustion, and chaos.
Aleppo: Fragmentation Instead of Resolution
Awad stresses that what occurred in Aleppo was not an isolated event, but the outcome of regional and international understandings involving the United States, Turkey, and “Israel.” Local authorities, he argues, served merely as implementers, while real decisions were made in major global capitals.
The broader objective, he explains, was not the overthrow of a specific government, but the dismantling of Syria’s geography into fragmented identities and administrative entities—consistent with long-standing projects that reject strong, unified states in the Levant.
The Kurdish Factor: From Syria to Iran
Awad highlights the Kurdish role as a functional tool within broader geopolitical projects, noting that Kurdish military structures in Syria—particularly the SDF—did not operate as protective social forces, but rather as fronts serving U.S. and Atlantic objectives.
He also points to the timing between developments in Aleppo and armed movements by Kurdish factions inside Iran, suggesting a deliberate attempt to transfer the conflict into Iranian territory and drain Tehran from within, in a manner similar to what previously occurred in Syria.
Iran: A System Resistant to Collapse
The analyst emphasizes that toppling the Iranian system is far from easy. Iran’s political structure, he explains, is built around “two states within one state”: the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guard on one side, and a civilian state with rotating reformist and conservative governments on the other.
As a result, no popular movement—regardless of its scale—can bring down the system without a vertical split within the core of power itself.
The Dilemma of Strategic Patience
Awad criticizes Iran’s strategy of “strategic patience” and its reliance on managing conflict through external allies. He argues that this approach has resulted in tangible losses in key arenas such as Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, while adversaries have openly declared an existential war. In such wars, he contends, offense becomes the most effective form of defense.
Power and Deterrence Cards
According to Awad, Iran possesses major deterrent assets, ranging from its ability to close the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb, to its deep influence in Iraq—where any organized popular and religious mobilization could dramatically alter the U.S. presence.
The strategic choice, he concludes, lies in shifting from a defensive posture to political and military initiative against U.S. and Israeli interventions.
Conclusion: A Battle of Wills
Mikhail Awad concludes that the region stands on the threshold of a genuine existential war—a confrontation between projects of fragmentation and domination on one side, and forces that still retain elements of resilience and deterrence on the other.
In such a war, there is no room for neutrality: either victory imposes its equation, or defeat removes actors from history.
He concludes:
“Today, the question is not how much power exists, but which mindset is capable of using it at the right moment.”
