Abstract
2025 began on a note of some optimism that onset of President Trump the second time and his aversion to wars in general, will bring about some relief to Middle East/West Asia and may end the 15 months old Israel-Hamas war which has created a tremendous uncertainty in the regional geo political landscape. Before President Trump took oath of office a tactical ceasefire under his typical threats was achieved only to be broken in no time and the mayhem continued. On top of it Trump invited Israeli PM Netanyahu to White House to reward him for compliance, even if temporarily, and announced that he would take over Gaza and convert into “beautiful Riviera” by expelling the 1.9 Mn Gazans to Egypt and Jordan thereby creating a chaos in the region which resulted in Saudi Arabia and Mohammed bin Salaman taking the lead. The Arab League meet came up with an alternate plan for Gaza reconstruction with $53 bn committed by the Gulf Arab states. But the acceptable “day after scenario’ to Israel and resumption of the ceasefire remained major hurdles for a respite to Gazans. Even Israelis have become disgruntled by Netanyahu’s approach as more than 47% as per a recent poll preferred a continuing ceasefire and release of the remaining hostages. Meanwhile, Israel continued to bomb Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria while controlling strategic Golan Heights. Houthis on the other hand restarted their attacks on the US air craft carriers and other naval assets as well as targeting Israel and the sea lanes of communications through the Red Sea remained fragile. President Trump, while trying to force nuclear talks with Iran, embarked on ridding the maritime traffic of the Houthi threats- even though unsuccessfully thus far.
Seismic changes in Syria with the removal of President Bashar Al Assad (exiled to Moscow) and conversion of a terror declared organisation Hayat Tahrir Al Shams (HTS) and its leader Ahmed Al Sharaa into legitimate rulers by engagement with the regional powers and US and Europe created a new paradigm shift emboldening the non-State actors even more. While Türkiye and USA and Israel and GCC countries led by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE emerged as direct beneficiaries at the expanse of Iran and Russia. Iran’s 3Hs strategic arms in Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis, Moscow and Damascus continued to talk especially with regard to Russian strategic naval bases and assets in Syria. Al Sharaa has been seeking removal of crippling sanctions especially by the Americans and Europeans in order to salvage the economy but they were able to bridge the internal differences especially with Kurdish factions, fighting the ISIS and Ankara, under the aegis of Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) supported by the US and more presentative Government with Druze, Alawites and Christian representation was announced at the end of March 25.
Türkiye leadership reached some understandings with the jailed Kurdish Leader Abdullah Ocalan who decided to call off armed rebellion against Erdogan’s regime which enabled even the talks between HTS and SDF in Syria. PKK also announced immediate ceasefire against Türkiye leading to some hope for reconciliation. Erdogan also continued to claim that Türkiye can only be the saviour of NATO and Europe in the ongoing Trans-Atlantic rift under Trump. He also wanted an expeditious discussion on their EU membership.
As the geopolitical landscape remained fragile and talks between Washington and Moscow were facilitated by Saudi Arabia and Türkiye with regard to Russia-Ukraine war: UAE played a role of messenger between US and Iran on nuclear deal along with Oman; and , Qatar and Egypt assumed mediatory role in the Israel -Hamas war trying to effect the ceasefire and release of hostages.
Meanwhile, like his first term President Trump is expected to make his first visit in May to Saudi Arabia as his Middle east Envoy Steven Witkoff and other officials straddles across the region to secure deliverables.
More Details ….
The PKK Ceasefire and Syrian-Kurdish Reconciliation
West Asia stands at the cusp of a geopolitical transformation following two interconnected developments: the call by imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan to dissolve the organisation and the historic agreement between Syrian Kurdish forces and Damascus. These twin events, unfolding in early 2025, carry the potential to reshape longstanding dynamics of conflict, power, and identity across the region.
On February 27, 2025, Abdullah Ocalan issued a landmark appeal from his prison cell on İmralı Island, urging the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) to lay down arms and pursue a peaceful, democratic path. Labelling continued armed struggle as counterproductive in the current regional context, Ocalan framed his call as a strategic pivot aimed at preserving Kurdish identity through political integration rather than insurgency.
The PKK leadership responded promptly, declaring a unilateral and unconditional ceasefire on March 1, effectively ending over four decades of conflict with the Turkish state. While the group’s leadership stressed that the decision was grounded in Ocalan’s “vision for Kurdish dignity through peace,” it is also noted that mounting military pressure and international isolation had significantly weakened the group’s operational capacity. Arabic media outlets such as Al-Quds Al-Arabi and Asharq Al-Awsat described the move as a “historic recalibration,” reflecting both ideological fatigue and geopolitical necessity. The PKK’s announcement also coincided with heightened regional diplomacy, particularly around the Kurdish issue in Syria.
The Syrian-Kurdish Accord: Integration Over Autonomy
Barely ten days after the PKK ceasefire, a breakthrough agreement was reached between the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and Syria’s newly reconstituted Islamist-leaning government under President Ahmed al-Shara’. In a move that stunned observers, the SDF agreed to dismantle its autonomous governance structures and integrate fully into the Syrian national army.
According to Al-Mayadeen and Al-Jazeera Arabic, the agreement was brokered with significant input from Russia and Iran, both of whom view the consolidation of Syrian territory as essential to regional stability and a counterbalance to U.S. and Israeli influence in the Kurdish regions. The deal effectively ends the quasi-autonomous Kurdish administration that had governed northeastern Syria since 2013. However, SDF commander Mazloum Abdi clarified that the agreement reflects “pragmatism, not capitulation,” asserting that constitutional rights now offer a more durable solution for Kurdish aspirations.
Moreover, Turkish officials responded to these developments with what they termed “measured optimism.” While the dissolution of the PKK and the YPG’s (People’s Protection Units) merger into the Syrian army align with long-standing Turkish security objectives, scepticism remains high in Ankara. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan reiterated Türkiye’s demand for verifiable disarmament of all YPG units, which Ankara considers indistinguishable from the PKK. Turkish intelligence services have reportedly stepped-up coordination with Syrian counterparts to monitor potential rearmament efforts in border areas. Despite the ceasefire, Turkish forces launched a series of operations against PKK cells in southeastern Türkiye and northern Iraq in early March, resulting in 26 militant deaths. Erdoğan emphasised that “military operations will continue wherever threats to our national security persist,” signalling that the PKK’s future will be judged by its actions, not declarations.
While optimism surrounds these shifts, the road ahead remains uncertain. As we know Kurdish trust in Arab governments is historically low, and constitutional guarantees often falter in implementation. The SDF’s disbanding, if not matched by sincere political inclusion, could lead to renewed insurgency under new guises. The simultaneous PKK ceasefire and Syrian-Kurdish accord signify a rare alignment of interests in a region defined by fragmentation and conflict. While the motivations behind these moves are diverse-ranging from strategic recalculation to external pressure outcomes could recalibrate the Kurdish struggle from militarisation to political negotiation. However, success hinges on whether all parties honour their commitments and invest in reconciliation beyond rhetoric. As the region teeters between conflict and cooperation, the Kurdish question once again stands at the heart of the West Asia’s evolving order.
Escalation in Yemen: U.S. Airstrikes, Regional Responses, and Strategic Implications for India
On March 15, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump authorised a large-scale military operation against Iran-backed Houthi positions in Yemen. This operation, comprising a series of airstrikes, was launched with the declared objective of halting Houthi attacks on international maritime routes in the Red Sea-a strategic corridor through which a significant share of the world’s oil and commercial trade passes. Over the past two years, Houthi forces have intensified drone and missile strikes on commercial vessels and naval assets, allegedly in retaliation against U.S. and Israeli actions in the region, thereby heightening regional tensions.
According to U.S. defence officials, the strikes were aimed at crippling the Houthis’ operational capabilities, targeting their air defence systems, radar installations, drone launch sites, and command centres. Despite assertions of precision targeting, reports confirmed at least 31 deaths and over 100 injuries, including civilians. This incident marks the first major U.S. military operation against the Houthis in Trump’s second term and represents a serious escalation in hostilities.
In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, President Trump issued a stern warning to Iran, demanding an immediate end to its support for the Houthis or face what he termed “full accountability.” The Houthis retaliated swiftly, launching a coordinated missile and drone attack targeting the USS Harry Truman aircraft carrier and other U.S. naval assets stationed in the northern Red Sea. Although U.S. military sources claimed to have successfully intercepted these projectiles, the retaliation underscored the Houthis' operational resilience and determination to confront American forces.
The operation drew sharp condemnation from Iran, with Iranian Foreign Ministry officials labelling the attack “an act of aggression” against the sovereignty of Yemen and an irresponsible escalation of regional tensions. According to Al-Mayadeen, a prominent Beirut-based Arabic news outlet, Iran’s leadership reaffirmed its strategic support for the Houthi movement and warned that the strikes would destabilise not only Yemen but also the broader Persian Gulf and West Asian region. In its report on March 16, 2025, Al-Mayadeen cited Iranian officials stating that the United States would bear full responsibility for the consequences of its actions.
Similarly, Al-Arabiya, a Saudi-owned pan-Arab news network, covered the retaliatory Houthi missile attack, emphasising the potential threat posed to maritime security in the Red Sea. The channel’s military analysts noted that the confrontation risked provoking further asymmetric attacks by pro-Iranian militias in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon against American and allied interests.
From a strategic standpoint, this operation reflects Trump’s revived ‘peace through strength’ doctrine, characterised by assertive military posturing intended to deter adversaries and safeguard U.S. interests in vital international waterways. The Bab-el-Mandeb Strait in particular holds immense strategic value as a chokepoint linking the Red Sea to the Arabian Sea and onward to the Indian Ocean. The Pentagon’s justification for the strikes centred on protecting international shipping and deterring Iran’s growing regional influence through proxy groups, is consistent with long-standing American objectives in West Asia.
However, the escalation in Yemen signals a dangerous intensification of the U.S.-Iran-Houthi proxy conflict. The rapid retaliatory capability displayed by the Houthis suggests a readiness to challenge U.S. military deployments in the region. According to Tasnim News Agency, an Iranian state-affiliated outlet, Iranian defence officials warned of a "strategic response" should American forces continue their operations in Yemen or elsewhere in the Gulf. Tasnim further reported on March 16 that Tehran considered the Houthis an integral component of the “resistance axis” against U.S. and Israeli interests.
In addition to military concerns, the humanitarian consequences of the strikes have been grave. Yemen, already reeling from one of the world’s most severe humanitarian crises, suffered further civilian casualties and infrastructural damage. Al-Jazeera Arabic, in its report on March 16, highlighted the civilian toll of the operation, quoting local Yemeni health officials who described overcrowded hospitals and a shortage of medical supplies in Sana’a and Hodeidah. The Qatari-based network also emphasised that the airstrikes jeopardised ongoing UN-mediated peace efforts, with several diplomatic envoys warning that renewed hostilities could stall or derail fragile negotiations. The broader regional implications of the escalation are equally concerning. Rising tensions risk igniting a wider conflict involving multiple state and non-state actors, potentially destabilising neighbouring theatres such as the Persian Gulf, Eastern Mediterranean, and the Strait of Hormuz. Additionally, proxy militias in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon may intensify asymmetric operations against U.S. military bases and commercial interests, further complicating an already volatile security environment.
For India, these developments hold significant strategic and economic ramifications. Although maintaining a policy of non-intervention in Yemen’s internal affairs, India remains heavily reliant on energy imports from the Gulf region, with over 60% of its crude oil supplies sourced from Gulf states. Disruptions in the Red Sea or Strait of Hormuz would directly jeopardise India’s energy security and maritime trade routes. Moreover, the safety of the large Indian expatriate community in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Bahrain-numbering in the millions-would necessitate contingency planning in the event of further regional instability.
India also faces a delicate geopolitical balancing act. While expanding strategic partnerships with the United States, Israel, and the GCC states, New Delhi continues to maintain diplomatic engagement with Iran. The latest escalation could strain this equilibrium, requiring India to carefully navigate its relationships without being drawn into the region’s rivalries.
The U.S. military operation in Yemen marks a dangerous escalation in the ongoing proxy conflict between Washington and Tehran, with grave implications for regional security and humanitarian conditions. While the strikes may have achieved immediate tactical objectives, they risk intensifying conflict, undermining diplomatic initiatives, and worsening civilian suffering. For India, this evolving security environment calls for enhanced diplomatic outreach to regional powers, proactive risk assessment for energy and maritime vulnerabilities, and contingency strategies to protect its nationals and interests in the Gulf.
West Asia Strategic Developments: Saudi Diplomacy, Gulf Markets, and Iran’s Economic Challenges
The West Asian region has witnessed a series of notable political, economic, and diplomatic shifts in recent weeks, underscoring the continued volatility and strategic contestations shaping its landscape. From Saudi Arabia’s assertive diplomatic engagements to fluctuating Gulf stock markets and Iran’s internal economic woes, these developments collectively reflect the dynamic interplay between regional ambitions and international pressures.
Saudi Arabia’s Expanding Diplomatic Footprint
In a notable demonstration of its growing global ambitions, Saudi Arabia has actively positioned itself as a mediator in international conflicts, hosting peace talks related to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. This initiative, reportedly facilitated with the encouragement of U.S. President Donald Trump, highlights Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s (MbS) vision to recalibrate the Kingdom’s foreign policy posture from a regional power to a consequential international actor.
According to a report by Al Arabiya (March 13, 2025), Riyadh recently hosted high-level delegations from Russia, Ukraine, the United States, and several European states in a bid to broker a ceasefire framework. The meetings, held in Riyadh and Jeddah, underscore MbS’s aspiration to present Saudi Arabia not just as an oil-rich economy but as a proactive diplomatic stakeholder. The Kingdom’s leadership, through these initiatives, seeks to enhance its soft power while safeguarding strategic interests in the broader Eurasian corridor.
This diplomatic overture also aligns with the Vision 2030 socio-economic agenda, under which Saudi Arabia aims to diversify its economy and reduce its dependence on hydrocarbon exports. As Asharq Al-Awsat, observed in its editorial on March 14, 2025, Riyadh’s mediation efforts reflect a dual-purpose strategy: projecting international influence while fostering a stable global energy market essential for financing its ambitious domestic reforms.
Gulf Markets Respond to Geopolitical and Economic
The recent diplomatic flurry has also reverberated through the Gulf’s financial markets, where investor sentiment remains sensitive to regional and international developments. In the past week, Gulf stock exchanges registered mixed performances amid hopes for a negotiated ceasefire in Ukraine and anxieties over potential new U.S. tariffs on global trade.
Saudi Arabia’s Tadawul index experienced slight declines, attributed to cautious investor behaviour in response to the uncertain geopolitical climate. Conversely, the Dubai Financial Market (DFM) and Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange (ADX) recorded moderate gains, buoyed by robust corporate earnings in the real estate and logistics sectors. According to a market summary published by Al Eqtisadiah, a Saudi economic daily on March 15, 2025, regional traders are closely tracking U.S. economic indicators and interest rate signals from the Federal Reserve, which have direct implications for Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) monetary policies given their currencies’ peg to the U.S. dollar.
Kuwait’s and Qatar’s markets also displayed resilience, with energy sector stocks benefiting from a temporary spike in oil prices amid heightened shipping risks in the Red Sea. However, analysts warn that sustained market stability will depend on progress in diplomatic negotiations and clarity regarding U.S. fiscal policies.
Iran’s Economic Struggles and Diplomatic Calculations
Meanwhile, Iran continues to grapple with severe economic challenges, which are increasingly constraining its domestic and international policy options. The Islamic Republic faces mounting inflation, a depreciating rial, and persistent unemployment, exacerbated by sustained U.S. sanctions and regional tensions. As reported by Al Mayadeen on March 14, 2025, Iran’s leadership has convened emergency economic planning sessions, with some officials advocating for renewed engagement in international negotiations, including those surrounding the nuclear file.
These economic pressures bear significant political ramifications. Iran’s fragile economy has historically influenced its strategic calculations, as seen in previous instances where financial strain prompted diplomatic overtures, such as the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Current circumstances suggest a potential repeat of this pattern, with Tehran possibly signalling a willingness to reopen bargaining channels should economic hardship deepen further. Tasnim News Agency, an Iranian outlet closely aligned with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), reported on March 13, 2025, that select conservative factions within Iran’s establishment are increasingly open to “conditional dialogue” with Western states, provided that negotiations address both sanctions relief and regional security assurances.
Taken together, these developments illustrate a region in flux; one where traditional rivalries, economic vulnerabilities, and emergent diplomatic manoeuvres intersect in complex ways. Saudi Arabia’s active diplomatic foray into global conflict resolution, coupled with its economic diversification goals under Vision 2030, signals an evolving foreign policy doctrine aimed at consolidating both regional leadership and international relevance. Gulf financial markets’ mixed responses reflect the fragility of investor confidence in an environment where global geopolitics, energy security, and U.S. economic policies remain unpredictable variables. Simultaneously, Iran’s economic distress highlights the enduring link between financial pressures and foreign policy adaptability in the region. For stakeholders like India, these shifting dynamics necessitate careful diplomatic engagement, continuous risk assessment of energy and financial markets, and proactive measures to navigate the region’s evolving security and economic terrain. As West Asia redefines its power alignments and strategic ambitions, the coming months promise further transformations that will shape the broader geopolitical order.
Escalating Tensions in West Asia: Turkey-Israel Rivalry in Syria, Gaza’s Humanitarian Crisis, and Geopolitical Realignments
The geopolitical landscape of West Asia has grown increasingly volatile, shaped by the confluence of intensifying rivalries, humanitarian emergencies, and expanding strategic alliances. Central to this dynamic are the mounting tensions between Turkey and Israel over Syria, the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and the consolidation of an emerging Iran-Russia-China military axis, signalling new fault lines in regional and global power politics.
Following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024, Syria has become a theatre for heightened strategic competition between regional actors. Among the most consequential rivalries is that between Turkey and Israel, whose conflicting security and political interests have drawn both nations into a precarious standoff.
Tensions escalated in March 2025 when Israeli airstrikes targeted three key Syrian air bases-T4, Palmyra, and Hama-facilities reportedly under Turkish assessment for potential military deployment as part of a proposed joint defence initiative with Syria’s interim government. These strikes, interpreted by Ankara as an explicit warning against deepening its military presence in Syria, underscore Israel’s unease over Turkish ambitions in the war-ravaged country. Al-Quds Al-Arabi, reported on March 16, 2025, that Israeli security officials justified the operations as essential to preventing “destabilising forces” from gaining ground in Syria and threatening Israeli territory.
In response, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan publicly condemned the Israeli strikes, denouncing them as a violation of Syrian sovereignty and a destabilising force in an already fragile region. Addressing a press conference in Ankara, Fidan asserted that while Turkey seeks no confrontation with Israel, it remains committed to ensuring Syria’s territorial integrity and preventing the formation of an autonomous Kurdish enclave along its southern border. According to Yeni Şafak, a Turkish daily, Turkish leadership views control over northern Syria as critical to its long-term security and regional influence.
The diplomatic exchanges between Ankara and Tel Aviv have since grown increasingly acrimonious. Turkey vocally condemned Israel’s continued settlement expansion in the occupied Golan Heights, branding it an “illegitimate extension of borders through occupation,” while Israel accused Turkey of conducting a sustained military occupation of Syrian territory since 2016 and supporting Islamist militant factions, hostile to Kurdish groups and Israeli interests.
Humanitarian Catastrophe in Gaza
Amid these geopolitical tensions, the humanitarian situation in Gaza has dramatically worsened. A combination of ongoing Israeli blockade measures, damaged infrastructure from previous conflicts, and insufficient international aid has pushed the territory to the brink of collapse. The European Parliament, in an urgent session on March 17, 2025, called for immediate action to address what it termed a “man-made humanitarian disaster”. Lawmakers warned of imminent famine-like conditions and highlighted the staggering cost of reconstruction.
Al Jazeera Arabic, reporting from Gaza City on March 15, 2025, detailed severe shortages of clean water, fuel, and medical supplies, as well as widespread malnutrition among children. The coverage criticized what it described as “Western complicity” in prolonging Gaza’s misery through unconditional support for Israeli security operations, despite evident civilian suffering. The crisis has also increased political pressure on the European Union, with several member states urging a recalibration of ties with Israel should the humanitarian situation remain unaddressed.
Iran, Russia, and China’s Joint Naval Exercises: Maritime Security or Strategic Messaging?
Regional tensions have been further amplified by the trilateral naval exercises conducted by Iran, Russia, and China in the Gulf of Oman. The drills, codenamed “Maritime Security Belt 2025”, commenced on March 14, 2025, near the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint responsible for roughly 30% of global oil shipments. Iran’s Tasnim News Agency described the exercises as a demonstration of the three powers’ commitment to ensuring freedom of navigation and regional maritime security.
However, international analysts have widely interpreted the exercises as a strategic signal aimed at challenging Western naval dominance in critical waterways. According to Al Mayadeen, a Beirut-based Arabic news outlet, Iranian officials emphasized that the drills intended to “foster cooperative security frameworks among like-minded powers”, but the timing and location of the manoeuvres—amid escalations in Gaza, Syria, and the Red Sea—leave little doubt about their geopolitical messaging.
The exercises also coincided with increased activity by Houthi rebels in Yemen, who have threatened to target commercial vessels linked to Israel in the Red Sea. The Houthis’ maritime operations, bolstered by Iranian support, reflect Tehran’s broader strategy of leveraging proxy forces to challenge Israel and U.S.-aligned Gulf states. Al-Quds Al-Arabi noted on March 16 that these moves further complicate international shipping and risk extending the current crises into an expansive regional conflict.
The developments underline the volatile and interconnected nature of West Asian geopolitics. The escalating tension between Turkey and Israel over Syria’s future illustrates the enduring rivalries reshaping post-conflict power alignments. Meanwhile, the deepening humanitarian tragedy in Gaza serves as a stark reminder of the human cost of geopolitical contests, while Iran, Russia, and China’s growing military cooperation highlight the emergence of alternative security architectures in defiance of Western hegemony.
For international actors including, India, the EU, and the broader Gulf region- these developments necessitate careful diplomatic navigation, proactive humanitarian diplomacy, and vigilant monitoring of regional military escalations. The coming months are poised to be critical in determining whether these confrontations will be contained through dialogue or erupt into wider conflict, further destabilising an already fragile region.
Tunisia’s Political and Electoral Landscape: Between Stability and Suppression
Tunisia, once hailed as the lone democratic success story of the Arab Spring, now finds itself at a critical crossroads. Recent developments in its political and electoral domains paint a complex picture of procedural efficiency on one side and deepening authoritarianism on the other. While the Independent High Authority for Elections (ISIE) celebrates the smooth renewal of local and regional councils, the political environment remains deeply polarised, with grave implications for democratic values, civil liberties, and inclusive governance.
On February 27, 2025, Tunisia completed the renewal of its local and regional councils without recording any vacancies, an achievement the ISIE attributes to the procedural reforms introduced through Decision No. 1 of 2025. These reforms, implemented on January 20, aimed to ensure a seamless transition in governance structures. As a result, 279 new regional council members were appointed, including 39 individuals with disabilities, suggesting a modest step toward greater social inclusion.
However, beneath this administrative efficiency lies a disconcerting gender imbalance. Out of the 279 regional council members, 96% are male and only 4% are female. The leadership landscape is even more skewed: all 24 regional council presidents are male. In local councils, 81% of presidents are men, while women make up just 19%. This stark underrepresentation underscores the structural barriers facing Tunisian women in political life barriers that persist despite Tunisia’s historic advancements in women’s rights, including the landmark Personal Status Code of 1956 and the post-revolution gender parity law.
The current imbalance reflects not merely social conservatism, but an institutional failure to enforce gender parity policies and foster equitable participation. If Tunisia is to maintain its democratic credentials, meaningful reforms must go beyond procedural renewal and address the foundational issues of inclusivity and representation.
Authoritarian Undercurrents- The Mass Trial of Opposition Figures
While the ISIE touts its electoral achievements, Tunisia’s democratic foundations are being tested by a parallel and troubling development. On March 4, 2025, a mass trial commenced in Tunis, targeting around 40 political opponents, journalists, and businessmen. The defendants face charges of conspiring against state security—an accusation frequently employed in authoritarian settings to suppress dissent.
Among the most prominent figures on trial are Abir Moussi, leader of the Free Destourian Party, and Rached Ghannouchi, head of the Islamist Ennahda Party. Both have been imprisoned since 2023 on separate charges. Rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have condemned the trial as a politically motivated manoeuvre aimed at silencing opposition and consolidating the power of President Kais Saied.
Since dissolving the parliament in July 2021 and assuming extraordinary powers, President Saied has repeatedly framed his actions as part of a broader fight against corruption and dysfunction. However, critics argue that these steps amount to an assault on Tunisia’s democratic institutions. The ongoing crackdown on political opponents, the curtailment of judicial independence, and the restrictions on civil liberties evoke disturbing parallels with Tunisia’s authoritarian past under President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.
Shrinking Civic Space and Democratic Backsliding
Tunisia’s civil society-long seen as a cornerstone of its democratic experiment-is also under mounting pressure. Legal restrictions, media suppression, and judicial overreach have eroded the space for civil engagement and public dissent. The Tunisian General Labour Union (UGTT) and other key actors in civil society have voiced concerns about the trajectory of the country, but their influence appears increasingly circumscribed in the face of growing executive dominance.
Moreover, the lack of transparency in legal proceedings, the arbitrary detention of political activists, and the absence of independent oversight mechanisms point to a significant deterioration in the rule of law. Tunisia still retains the outer scaffolding of democratic institutions—elections, councils, and procedural checks—but the spirit of participatory governance is steadily being hollowed out.
A Fragile Democracy at a Turning Point
Tunisia now stands at a pivotal moment in its post-revolution history. The orderly conduct of electoral processes cannot mask the deeper democratic deficits unfolding within the political system. The underrepresentation of women, the silencing of opposition voices, and the systematic erosion of checks and balances reflect a drift toward authoritarianism that threatens to reverse the hard-won gains of the 2011 revolution.
To reclaim its democratic promise, Tunisia must embark on a genuine path of political reform. This includes restoring judicial independence, ensuring gender equity in political representation, safeguarding freedom of expression, and fostering an inclusive political culture. The international community, regional partners, and domestic actors all have a role to play in supporting this fragile democracy at a critical juncture.
(With inputs by Dr Farah Shahin)
