A report published today in the Financial Times has sparked interest; it cites a source close to the Tehran regime, who conveyed a message to the international community regarding the Iranian armed forces’ capabilities to strike Western military bases even beyond the Middle East. The report names Bulgaria and Cyprus as potential targets for Iran.
The Difference Between Threats, Journalistic Leaks, and Assessments
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
The Houthis attacked airports in Saudi Arabia
Commenting on this report, Gabriel Charitos, a visiting professor of international relations at Panteion University, an analyst at the Cypriot Institute for Policy and Democracy Studies and a contributor to ALPHA Cyprus, noted that the Iranian source cited by the British report does not appear to have named Bulgaria and Cyprus, and therefore, the content of the Financial Times report must be read with caution.
Specifically, the Iranian source states that Tehran could strike targets beyond the Middle East should the U.S. decide “to overreact” in the context of an impending attack against Iran.
Mr. Charitos pointed out that it is not clear whether the references to Bulgaria and Cyprus stem from the remarks made by the Iranian official cited in the article.
The Case of Bulgaria
However, shouldn’t the mention of Bulgaria come as no surprise to us, in the following sense? The government in Sofia had agreed to the U.S. request to host U.S. aircraft used for aerial refuelingfor fighter jets. In light of this development, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, through posts on Platform X as well as official communications to the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, had warned that his country is prepared totake action to address the threat to Iranian national security.
The Special Case of Cyprus and London’s Role
However, regarding the reference to Cyprus, the issue is more complex. In reality, the question is whether Tehran will be willing to confront Britain’s stance in the region. It is a fact that Britain maintains a presence in the Middle East, both in the Persian Gulf and off the coast of the Bab—El-Mandab, which are controlled by Yemen’s Houthis—as well as in northern Iraq, which is among the areas associated with the operations of the British energy giant BP.
Particularly with regard to BP’s presence and interests in the broader region, Gabriel Charitos emphasized that this specific factor must be given special attention in order to understand the motivations behind Britain’s role in the Middle East and the role that British bases in Cyprus may be called uponBritish bases in Cyprus—which London never fails to emphasize are “sovereign”— with all that this has historically implied vis-à-vis all regional actors without exception.
Is there a risk of another drone attack on the bases?
As for whether there is a risk of a repeat of last March’s incident, involving drone attacks on the Akrotiri base, Mr. Charitos did not rule out such a possibility.
However, he emphasized that, unlike the situation in March, Hezbollah now appears to have been significantly weakened following the intense bombardment of its weapons depots by the Israeli military. On the other hand, no one can know for certain whether Tehran will want to demonstrate that it is capable of extending “its long arms” into the Eastern Mediterranean through its regional allies—whether that means Hezbollah in Lebanon or its two offshoots in Syria and Iraq.
On the other hand, as Gabriel Charitos pointed out, the tension that already exists between Iran and Bulgaria at the diplomatic level does not exist in the case of bilateral relations between Iran and the Republic of Cyprus. On the contrary, Foreign Minister Konstantinos Kompos maintains a direct line of communication with his Iranian counterpart—a fact that clearly has a constructive effect.
The war of words between the U.S. and Iran continues
In conclusion, Mr. Charitos cited both today’s Financial Times article and other reports occasionally published by international media outlets, involving not only the Republic of Cyprus but also other states located relatively far from the current hotspots of tension in the Middle East, be “read” with a level head.
He noted that the current situation between Washington and Tehran is characterized by a constant war of words, warnings, and threats, given that the timeframe for implementing the roadmaps aimed at continuing indirect negotiations—primarily through Pakistan—has expired, and we are now entering a period that will either pave the wayfor further contacts or lead to yet another period of tension in the Persian Gulf. Moreover, the recent Iranian threats reported by the Financial Times follow on the heels of recent statements by President Trump, which suggest he is even considering placing the Strait of Hormuz under U.S. control—a possibility that has been interpreted in various ways, without any clear confirmation as to whether the U.S. actually intends to implement such measures, which in the past would have been considered, at the very least, excessive.
A Turkey-Israel clash in Syria was narrowly averted
Tensions have been rising in recent hours between Israel and Turkey following what is widely acknowledged to be — Israeli airstrike against the Abu al-Duhur military airfield in northwestern Syria, 70 km south of the Turkish-Syrian border, in the province of Idlib.
Although the IDF has not confirmed that its own warplanes actually struck the airport’s runway, the U.S. Special Envoy for Syria and Lebanon, Thomas Barak, in an interview this morning with the Israeli television news network i24News, attributed responsibility to Israel, accusing it of potentially provoking a direct military conflict between Israel and Turkey with unpredictable consequences for the region.
Israel: Turkey Wants to Violate the ‘Status Quo’ in Syria
Commenting on the developments, Gabriel Charitos pointed out that in the wording of yesterday’s official statement from Benjamin Netanyahu’s private office, there was a clear reference to a “violation of the status quo,” which dictates to what extent the Turkish military presence within Syrian territory is “considered permissible.”
The Israeli narrative portrays Turkey as bolstering that specific Syrian airbase through infrastructure projects (which, after the new regime in Damascus took power, had remained unused by the Syrian army) and that this new development significantly alters the “agreed balance” of military influence in Syria. However, it is practically impossible to verify whether the Israeli claim is valid or not, since no relevant agreement has been made public that would “permit” or “does not permit” Turkey’s continued presence within the “new Syria” of its interim President, Ahmad al-Sarraa.
Damascus wants to maintain a balance
What is interesting, however, is the stance taken by the Al-Sarraa administration in its public communications, in response to the Israeli strike on the Abu al-Duhur military airfield. On the one hand, the government in Damascus condemned Israel for the attack—as was, after all, to be expected. On the other hand, however, media commentators—who are completely controlled by the Al-Sarraa administration—are attempting to de-escalate the situation with their statements today, pointing out that this is a conflict that “concerns exclusively Turkey and Israel” and which “just happens (!) to be taking place on Syrian soil.” In fact, they note that “while this recent development is indeed unpleasant,” they emphasize that “nevertheless, the behind-the-scenes indirect contacts between Syria and Israel to resolve their bilateral differences are continuing as usual” —though this has not been confirmed, even indirectly, by the Israelis.
Ultimately, is there an “agreed-upon Syrian status quo” between Israel and Turkey?
Assessing the interesting situation unfolding in the regional rivalry between Israel and Turkey in the “Syrian chess game,” especially against the backdrop of the recent public and explicit statements by U.S. Special Envoy Thomas Barak, Gabriel Charitos concluded that what remains to be clarified is exactly what the “status quo” that has reportedly been agreed upon regarding the balance of power between Turkey and Israel in Syria, and what exactly it entails. This is a question that remains unanswered, one that may be resolved by the Turkish and Israeli moves expected to follow.
Watch Gabriel Haritos’ analysis on today’s episode of ALPHA Summer with Neoklis Neokleous
