Middle East
US envoy Tom Barrack in Beirut to discuss Hezbollah disarmament plan
US special envoy for Syria, Tom Barrack, traveled to Beirut to meet with officials regarding Hezbollah.
Barrack’s statements followed a meeting with Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam during his visit to Lebanon on Monday.
Barrack asserted that the disarmament of Hezbollah is a Lebanese internal matter, adding that while the organization continues to be designated a “foreign terrorist organization” by the US, Washington’s current role is to “provide advice, facilitate dialogue, and prevent the escalation of tension.”
The US diplomat also said that they “cannot force Israel to do anything,” only “have influence.”
Barrack explained that his return to Lebanon stems from US President Donald Trump’s renewed interest in ensuring regional stability and that Lebanon plays a key role in this effort.
‘The Syrian government should be held responsible for recent acts of violence’
The US official emphasized the importance of supporting the Lebanese government’s reform efforts and maintaining security and institutional stability.
Barrack also highlighted the failure of the ceasefire agreement between Lebanon and Israel, stating that efforts are ongoing to understand and resolve the agreement’s collapse.
Comparing Lebanon’s situation to Syria’s, the envoy described the conflict in Syria as a “disaster” and stressed that the Syrian government must be held accountable.
Regarding potential military intervention, Barrack clearly stated that the US has no intention of sending more troops to any conflict zone “under hostile conditions.”
This marks Barrack’s second visit to Lebanon in two weeks. Lebanon and the US are “exchanging ideas” on a proposal that would ultimately lead to the disarmament of Hezbollah and the transfer of all its weapons to the control of the Lebanese state.
Hezbollah rejects the American plan
Beirut is also demanding that Israel halt its daily attacks on the country and withdraw from five strategic points it occupies in southern Lebanon.
Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Naim Qassem accused Barrack of encouraging the Lebanese army to disarm the group and incite a civil war.
Qassem also adopted a firm stance on the issue of weapons, arguing that in Hezbollah’s absence, Israel would expand its territorial control in parts of Lebanon.
“We will not surrender or give in to Israel; Israel will not be able to take our weapons from us,” Qassem said in a video address at a memorial for a senior Hezbollah commander killed in last year’s war with Israel.
Barrack blackmails Lebanon and Hezbollah through the new HTS administration
During his previous visit, Barrack said he welcomed Lebanon’s response to the US plan for Hezbollah’s disarmament and stressed that Lebanon should not be “left behind” in the “rapidly changing region.”
In response to the US proposal, Lebanese officials submitted a seven-page document demanding Israel’s complete withdrawal from disputed territories, including the Shebaa Farms, and reaffirming state control over all weapons.
The government also pledged that Hezbollah’s weapons in Southern Lebanon would be destroyed.
In an interview with The National, Barrack said that time is of the essence. “Honestly, I think they will say, ‘the world will pass us by.’ Why? On one side there is Israel, on the other there is Iran, and now Syria is also emerging so quickly that if Lebanon does not act, it will become Bilad al-Sham again,” he said, using the historical name for the “Greater Syria” region.
This comment by Barrack was interpreted as Lebanon being at risk of being absorbed into Greater Syria, but the envoy later clarified that he only intended to praise “Syria’s impressive steps.”
“I can guarantee that the Syrian leaders only want coexistence and mutual prosperity with Lebanon, and the US is committed to supporting this relationship between two equal and sovereign neighboring countries living in peace and prosperity,” Barrack said.
Barrack says there is no ‘Plan B’ besides the current Damascus administration
Meanwhile, Barrack reiterated Washington’s support for the new government in Syria, stating there is no “Plan B” other than cooperating with the current authorities to unite the country.
Speaking to the Associated Press in Beirut, Barrack took a critical stance on Israel’s recent intervention in Syria, saying its timing was wrong and complicated efforts for regional stability.
Barrack told the Associated Press that the “murders, acts of revenge, and massacres committed by both sides” are “unacceptable,” but argued that “Syria’s current government, as a new government with very few resources to solve a wide variety of problems, is doing its best.”
Regarding Israel’s attacks on Syria, Barrack said, “The US was not consulted on this matter, did not participate in this decision, and the US has no responsibility for matters that Israel deems necessary for its own defense.”
The envoy added that Israel’s intervention “created another very confusing chapter” and “happened at a very bad time.”
Barrack noted that when the recent clashes erupted, Israel’s view was that southern Damascus was a “suspicious” area and that any military developments there should be discussed and agreed upon with them. “The new government [in Syria] was not exactly of this view,” he said.
The envoy also stated that the ceasefire declared between Syria and Israel on Saturday was a limited agreement that only addressed the conflict in Suwayda. He underlined that the agreement did not address broader issues between the two countries, including Israel’s claim that the area south of Damascus should be a demilitarized zone.
According to the envoy, Israel favors a divided Syria
In talks leading to a peace agreement, Barrack said that “both sides did their best to reach an agreement on specific issues related to the movement of Syrian forces and equipment from Damascus to Suwayda.”
Stating that “whether or not to accept Israel’s intervention in a sovereign state is a separate issue,” Barrack suggested that Israel would prefer Syria to be fragmented and divided rather than controlled by a strong central state.
Barrack noted that strong nation-states, especially Arab states, are seen as a threat to Israel. “[But in Syria] I think all minority communities are smart enough to say that we will be better off together, in a central structure,” he said.
‘A Syria-Türkiye defense agreement is a matter for those countries’
When asked whether the violence in Suwayda had deepened distrust in the new government in Damascus and what would become of the SDF agreement, Barrack said he did not think the incidents in Suwayda would derail these talks and that progress could be made “in the coming weeks.”
Barrack had met with Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) leader Mazloum Abdi over the weekend.
When reminded that Türkiye had offered to provide defense assistance to Syria, Barrack appeared to give a green light to a possible Damascus-Ankara agreement.
Barrack said the US has “no position” on the possibility of a defense agreement between Syria and Türkiye, adding, “It is not the job or in the interest of the US to tell neighboring countries what they should do to each other.”
Middle East
US waives human rights terms on $320m military aid to Egypt
The US State Department stated that it has waived human rights conditions on more than $300 million in military aid to Egypt.
The statement emphasised that this decision was taken in consideration of Cairo’s “helpful role” since the outbreak of the war against Iran.
Egypt began receiving substantial support from the US after signing a peace treaty with Israel in 1979.
Since the late 1980s, the country has received approximately $1.3 billion annually in US military assistance.
A portion of this aid is subject to conditions related to human rights and democracy, which can be waived on national security grounds.
Withholding funds, including during the administration of former US President Joe Biden, has caused tension between Cairo and Washington in the past.
A letter dated 21 September and addressed to various congressional committees, obtained by Reuters, stated that Secretary of State Marco Rubio “decided to waive the certification requirement under the fiscal year 2025 Foreign Military Financing programme for Egypt of $320 million.”
This waiver was subsequently confirmed by the State Department.
An accompanying memorandum justifying the decision stated that this portion of military aid was “essential for counterterrorism, border security, or non-proliferation programmes, or otherwise important to the national security interests of the United States.”
The memorandum, dated 4 September and bearing Rubio’s signature, stated: “Exercising this waiver authority is critical to the US-Egypt relationship and to US national security priorities, particularly given the helpful role Egypt has played in the aftermath of Operation Epic Fury.”
“Operation Epic Fury” is the designation used by the US military for the campaign launched jointly with Israel against Iran in late February.
The State Department memorandum, whose authenticity was confirmed by two sources in Washington familiar with the letter, did not provide detailed information regarding what was termed Egypt’s “helpful role”.
The State Department’s annual decision on military aid to Egypt typically covers funds allocated for the preceding fiscal year, which ends on 30 September.
A State Department spokesperson stated that Rubio waived the certification in the interest of US national security and that the US continues to cooperate with the Egyptian government across a range of issues.
In an emailed statement, the spokesperson said: “This waiver recognizes the importance of maintaining security cooperation with Egypt at a time of significant security challenges in the region.”
The Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not immediately comment on the matter.
The spillover effects of the Iran war have imposed a heavy toll on US security partners, including Egypt.
Owing to rising fuel prices and other disruptions, the Egyptian economy is passing through a difficult period.
Under the Biden administration, the US withheld portions of the annual military allocation on multiple occasions over Egypt’s human rights record.
In 2024, following the Hamas-led 7 October attack on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza, the Biden administration set aside human rights conditions, disbursing the entire $1.3 billion allocation to Egypt for the first time in its tenure.
Human rights organisations have long accused Egypt, under the administration of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, of widespread human rights abuses, including torture and enforced disappearances.
This week, Egyptian police detained six journalists from a fact-checking and investigative media outlet, accusing them of spreading false information on behalf of the banned Muslim Brotherhood.
Egyptian authorities state that they have taken steps to address human rights issues. Sisi said stability is paramount and that the government supports human rights by working to provide for basic needs.
Middle East
Britain expands curbs on arms exports to Israel over Gaza risks
Britain has significantly broadened its military export restrictions targeting Israel, suspending or rejecting more than 80 licences for items the IDF could use in Gaza.
This figure is nearly triple the number affected when the policy was first introduced in September 2024.
United Kingdom Minister of State for the Middle East Stephen Doughty said that as part of what he described as a “tighter system” for assessing exports to Israel, more than 50 further export applications have been refused since approximately 30 licences were initially suspended.
Under the initial decision taken in September 2024, 30 of roughly 350 licences were suspended after the British government concluded there was a “clear risk” that certain military exports could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.
The affected equipment included components for military aircraft, drones, naval systems, and targeting gear.
Doughty said additional measures adopted this month established what he termed a “double safeguard” mechanism within the approvals process.
Export applications must now be assessed both against existing international humanitarian law criteria and in light of Britain’s position on the legality of Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories.
“We have so far suspended or refused more than 80 licences,” Doughty said, adding that he had personally examined each licence.
Despite the wider restrictions, British-origin parts entering the international F-35 fighter jet supply chain continue to be largely exempt.
The UK government argues that preventing British-made components from entering the global F-35 pool could undermine the programme as a whole and have serious consequences for the security of the UK and its allies.
Direct exports of F-35 parts intended specifically for Israel remain suspended.
Doughty defended maintaining the supply of components via the international programme, arguing that halting it could have severe ramifications for the broader European and allied security architecture.
Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Emily Thornberry challenged this position, arguing that the issue was political rather than purely legal.
Thornberry suggested adopting an approach similar to the Dutch model, under which components entering the international supply chain could be flagged as “not intended for aircraft bound for Israel”.
The initial suspension was implemented in September 2024 by then Foreign Secretary David Lammy.
Lammy stressed at the time that the measure did not constitute an arms embargo and applied solely to items assessed as usable in military operations in Gaza.
Since then, the policy has been tightened further under Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
The expanded export restrictions follow the Burnham government’s adoption of a more confrontational policy toward the Israeli government.
Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband drew sustained applause at the Labour Party’s annual conference in Liverpool after delivering a sharp critique of the Netanyahu government’s policies and defending the decision to ban trade with Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Accusing Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza, Miliband stated that the British government heard public outrage over the conflict, telling delegates: “We hear you. You were right.”
Middle East
Netanyahu holds secret UAE talks with Saudi Arabia and Arab officials
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with representatives of Gulf and Arab nations that lack diplomatic ties with Israel, including Saudi Arabia, during his weekend visit to the United Arab Emirates.
Sources close to the gathering told the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth on Monday that representatives from Morocco, Libya, Jordan, and Qatar also took part in the meeting.
Netanyahu made a unannounced visit to Abu Dhabi on Sunday, where he met with the country’s leader, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
According to Israeli media, this marked the first time the United Arab Emirates officially confirmed a visit by Netanyahu.
The meeting was arranged by Mossad Director Roman Goffman “at the request of Saudi Arabia, which asked for Israel’s assistance against Houthi attacks in the Red Sea region,” according to Yedioth Ahronoth.
The discussions addressed Iran and the Houthi militia. The newspaper added that the Arab states heard from Israel that “Israel is prepared to assist countries in the region with air defence systems, just as it aided the UAE during the conflict with Iran.”
Conflict in Yemen intensified in September when Ansarullah militiamen launched a rapid offensive that seized Yemen’s entire Red Sea coastline, including the vital maritime corridor of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
The Yemeni resistance also imposed a blockade on Saudi Arabia’s energy exports and staged multiple attacks against the kingdom.
Saudi Arabia reportedly sought military assistance from the US to counter Ansarullah.
Washington declined to attack the Houthis directly, but announced that it would provide intelligence and targeting support.
Reporting on the same visit, The Jerusalem Post said Netanyahu spent six hours in the UAE and that the principal subject of his discussions with MBZ was Iran.
Citing sources familiar with the matter, the newspaper added that the trip came “after Netanyahu exerted heavy pressure on the United Arab Emirates to arrange a meeting ahead of the Israeli elections on 27 October.”
Separately, the Associated Press, citing a person with direct knowledge of the meeting, reported that Netanyahu’s visit to the UAE was arranged in part to ask MBZ to deny reports that he had warned the Israeli prime minister of an impending Hamas threat prior to 7 October 2023.
According to Israeli media, Netanyahu’s office denied the AP report, issuing the following statement:
“Fake news. The visit focused solely on strengthening ties between the two countries and on regional issues.”
-
Europe6 days agoEuropean unions urge governments to scrap all Palantir deals
-
Diplomacy6 days agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul highlights irreversible shift to multipolarity
-
Europe1 week agoEmmanuel Todd says West faces collapse amid Ukraine and Iran crises
-
Europe2 weeks agoEuropean intelligence chiefs divide over risk of Russian attack
-
Middle East2 weeks agoSharaa says 7 October must not shape Israel policy on Syria
-
Diplomacy1 week agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul to debate multipolarity and global order
-
America2 weeks agoRepublican support for Trump’s war with Iran drops sharply in polls
-
Europe6 days agoRome protests AfD poster depicting South Tyrol as independent state
