Middle East
Ahmad Sharia and Mullah Haibatullah; Why are their (Islams) so different?
In his last interview, the leader of the Hayat Tahriri al-Sham (HTS) and current ruler of Syria spoke about holding elections and drafting the constitution. Ahmad Sharia’s desire to hold elections and draft a constitution shows that Syrian Islamists do not intend to build a system similar to the Taliban emirate in Kabul.
Speaking to Saudi Arabia’s state television, Ahmad Sharia also known as Abu Mohammad Jolani said that it may take four years to hold presidential elections in Syria and three years to draft a new constitution. Unlike the leader of HTS, the Taliban in Afghanistan has explicitly stated that free elections will not be held under their rule. The Taliban believes that the government should be based on Islamic Sharia and internal consultations of Taliban leaders and religious authorities, not on western democratic models of the ballot box.
Talking about holding elections and drafting the constitution is not the only difference between HTS in Syria and Taliban in Afghanistan. In the past months, Jolani has taken actions that show that he does not want the world community to look at him and Hebatullah Akhundzadeh, the leader of the Taliban from the same window.
He is aware of this comparison and has deliberately emphasized his difference with the secret and mysterious leader of the Taliban. Jolani had recently said that the society of Afghanistan and Syria are different and he will not create a government in the “style” of the Taliban.”
Jolani does not hide from his people and world
One of the main differences between Jolani and Hebatullah Akhundzadeh is that the leader of HTS does not hide from the public.
The presence of the leader of Jolani in public and the way he interacts with the members of his group and other Syrian citizens have significant differences with the leader of the Taliban. From these differences, it is possible to understand the different cultural, political, and ideological views that both groups adhere to.
In the three and a half years that have passed since Hebatullah Akhundzadeh’s rule over Afghanistan, he has been ruling by broadcasting audio files and orders from Kandahar and has shown no desire to have a closer relationship with the people. During this time, he never appeared in front of the media cameras to speak to the people of Afghanistan. To such an extent that prominent Sunni and Shiite clerics and a number of prominent media figures of the Taliban have also said that they have not been able to meet Akhundzadeh so far.
Hebatullah is against photographing of the living creature, but Jolani takes pictures with women in Damascus
Recently, a video of the moment Jolani took a picture with a young Syrian woman in Damascus became very popular and controversial on social media networks. In this video, it can be seen that Jolani asks one of them to cover his hair before taking a photo with several women in Damascus.

The leader of the Hayat Tahriri al-Sham (HTS) Ahmad Sharia (R) and Taliban leader Hebatullah Akhundzadeh (L).
Critics criticized Jolani’s “intervention” about a woman’s veil. There are many positive and negative opinions about this video. In addition to these views, the video shows two differences between Jolani and Akhundzadeh – unlike Akhundzadeh, Jolani is not afraid of appearing in the streets of the capital of the country he leads and is not afraid of appearing in front of people’s cameras and that he is not against filming.
Akhundzadeh has banned filming and broadcasting images of living creatures in the controversial law through the Ministry of Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. The law that seriously threatens the future of visual media in Afghanistan and has provoked differences among the cabinet members of this group.
Following the passage of this law, the Taliban have intensified pressure to ban the broadcast of images of living creatures on televisions across Afghanistan.
Appointing a woman as head of the central bank for the first time in the history of Syria
In one of the latest actions, the Syrian transitional government appointed Misa Sabrin as the head of the country’s central bank. Mrs. Sabrin is the first woman in the history of this bank to become its president. Before this position, she was the first deputy as well as director of supervision of the Central Bank of Syria.
Misa Sabrin’s appointment probably shows Jolani’s desire to involve women in the country’s top management. On the contrary, the Taliban administration has barred women not only from participation in higher jobs, but also from government jobs in general. Also, women have lost the right to education and participation without discrimination and gender segregation in the country’s economy. This action has had negative effects on the economy and health of Afghan women.
Afghan women are banned from working in NGOs and international organizations including UN offices across Afghanistan. Afghan women were also banned from going to work and also schools’ girls above sixth grade forced to stay at home. In the last action, the Taliban also banned female medical students from attending classes.
Contrary to the dissolution of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs of Afghanistan, the Office of Women’s Affairs of Syria continues to work.
The interim government of Syria has appointed Ayesha Al-Debs as the head of the country’s women’s affairs office. With this appointment, Ayesha Al-Dabs was the first woman to hold an official position in the new Syrian government led by the Islamist Tahrir al-Sham group.
Ayesha Al-Dabs is a human rights and civil society activist. She has previously worked in humanitarian fields in Idlib, Syria and helping Syrian refugees in Turkey.
This appointment took place while there were concerns that the role and rights of women would be ignored in the new structure.
After her appointment, Ayesha El-Debs announced in an interview that the Syrian interim government will provide opportunities for women to participate in all social fields, according to their abilities and qualifications.
On the contrary, the Taliban dissolved the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and replaced it with the Ministry of Public Affairs, whose task is to oppress women and deprive them of fundamental rights and freedoms.
Hebatullah Akhundzadeh is isolated
Jolani and his representatives have been busy meeting with officials and high-ranking envoys of foreign countries in Damascus in the past couple of days.
In one of the most important events, US Deputy Secretary of State Barbara Leaf said after the meeting of the US diplomatic delegation with the leader of Tahrir al-Sham in Damascus, Washington has canceled the $10 million reward for the arrest of Jolani.
In justifying the decision, Barbara Leaf, the US assistant secretary of state for Middle East affairs, said that the leader of Tahrir al-Sham is committed not to allow terrorist groups to operate in Syria and pose a threat to the United States or neighboring countries.
Unlike him, so far similar awards set by the United States and the United Nations on Taliban leaders have not been removed.
On the contrary, Hebatullah Akhundzadeh’s isolation in Kandahar has become one of the most prominent features of her leadership period.
In more than three years of ruling Afghanistan, only once Akhundzadeh held a face-to-face meeting with the Prime Minister of Qatar, Mohammad bin Abdul Rahman Al Thani. The meeting was held in Kandahar.
Apart from this meeting, Akhundzadeh has never met a foreign official. Akhundzadeh has not only refused to appear in public, but also has almost no connection with the outside world at the diplomatic level.
The reluctance of foreign officials to travel to Kabul is mostly due to the policies of the Taliban, which have led to strong international reactions. For example, the suppression of women under Taliban rule has intensified so much that a famous American actor said at a UN meeting that “cats and birds” have more freedom than Afghan women.
Any fear of Jolani becoming another Hebatullah?
Jolani is a figure who emerged from among a rebel Islamist group and is now in a position that many consider him to represent a change in the approach of this group. However, examining his background, it is very important in assessing whether he will really take a different path from similar leaders like Hebatullah Akhundzadeh.
Since the beginning of his activity as the leader of HTS, Jolani has tried to present a different image from similar Islamist groups. In recent years, unlike the traditional and strict approach of many Islamist groups, he has shown a desire to interact with regional countries and the international community. At the same time, these changes are mostly tactical and it is not yet clear to what extent this more open approach is committed to the fundamental principles of the group and the political future of Syria.
Another point is the structure and history of writing Sham, which consists of a rebel group with strong ideological tendencies. In the past, many similar groups have moved to establish single-party governments after coming to power, severely suppressing dissent.
This risk is also present with HTS and Jolani’s leadership, especially if some of these changes are designed solely to garner international support.
Paying attention to his performance in the near future, especially in matters such as drafting a constitution, holding elections, and interacting with different ethnic groups in Syria, will determine whether Jolani really intends to lead Syria to a more diverse and democratic path, or whether he will also finally give in to the ideological and political limitations of his group.
The key question is, does Jolani have the ability and real desire to protect citizen rights and respect human rights, or will his policies ultimately, similar to other ideological Islamist governments, lead to the concentration of power and limiting freedoms? Only time and his performance in future critical situations can clarify the answer to this question.
Two different Islams
The fundamental differences between HTS under the leadership of Jolani and Islam of Taliban under the leadership of Akhundzadeh are due to the different approaches of these two groups in the field of politics, human rights and interaction with the outside world.
HTS has moved more towards interacting with the international community, holding elections and accepting some democratic principles, while the Taliban under the leadership of Akhundzadeh emphasize an Islamic governance system based on strict (Sharia law) and are against any kind of political or social participation. These differences are especially evident in women’s rights, diplomatic relations and individual freedoms.
Despite these strict approaches, the Taliban say that their goal is to establish an Islamic order, but this order comes at the cost of removing individual freedoms and human rights. Finally, instead of creating stability, the Taliban’s governance has led to the deepening of crises and further isolation of Afghanistan.
Middle East
UNDP estimates $1.38 billion in building damage across southern Lebanon
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Lebanon’s National Council for Scientific Research have released a rapid assessment report on building damage in southern Lebanon.
According to Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar newspaper, the study relied on satellite imagery and geospatial artificial intelligence (GeoAI) technologies to assess externally visible damage to buildings along the southern border between October 23, 2025, and April 29, 2026.
The report found that a total of 11,095 buildings had been completely destroyed in the areas surveyed. Based on an assumed average apartment size of 150 square metres, these destroyed structures are estimated to correspond theoretically to 17,891 housing units.
The volume of debris generated in the region is estimated at 3,107,756 cubic metres.
In addition to the buildings that were completely destroyed, the assessment identified partial damage to 2,242 buildings and minor damage to 9,311 others.
At the housing-unit level, the report estimates that alongside the approximately 17,891 units that were completely destroyed, around 5,219 homes sustained partial damage and 18,282 suffered minor damage.
The report stressed that these housing figures are not based on direct field surveys but on mathematical modelling using average floor-space assumptions and therefore constitute theoretical estimates.
Preliminary cost of building damage estimated at $1.38 billion
The report calculated reconstruction costs using a standard benchmark value of $450 per square metre. On that basis, the total preliminary cost of building damage was estimated at $1.384 billion.
Geographically, Nabatieh Governorate accounted for the largest share of the damage, estimated at $1.053 billion, while losses in South Governorate were assessed at $331 million.
At the district level, preliminary costs were estimated at $688 million in Bint Jbeil, $333 million in Marjayoun, $315 million in Tyre, $32 million in Nabatieh district and $16 million in Sidon.
The report emphasised that these figures cover only external physical damage to buildings and do not represent the final cost of reconstruction or the total economic losses caused by the war.
In Bint Jbeil district, the highest levels of destruction were recorded in Aitaroun, where 1,658 buildings were destroyed, followed by Bint Jbeil city with 1,076, Ayta al-Shaab with 539, Beit Lif with 371, Yaroun with 242 and Ainata with 227.
In Marjayoun district, 969 destroyed buildings were recorded in Mais al-Jabal, 824 in Taybeh, 285 in Houla, 199 in Markaba, 184 in Blida and 174 in Deir Siryan.
In Nabatieh district, 71 buildings were destroyed in Yahmar al-Shaqif, 69 in Zoutar al-Sharqiya and 37 in Kfar Sir. In Tyre district, 370 buildings were completely destroyed in Burj al-Shamali, 216 in Naqoura, 162 in Abbassiyeh, 80 in Tyre city and 65 in al-Mansouri. In Sidon district, destruction was concentrated mainly in Zirariyeh, where 65 buildings were destroyed, and Arzi, where 62 buildings were levelled.
The report also outlined significant limitations that prevent the findings from being treated as a definitive final assessment.
The study did not cover entire administrative districts but was limited to areas where clear satellite imagery was available.
As a result, the area south of the Litani River constituted the main focus, while only limited data from areas north of the river were included. Some municipalities were fully surveyed, while only selected sections of others could be examined.
For example, all cadastral zones in Bint Jbeil district were surveyed. In Tyre district, 74 of 75 cadastral areas were fully covered, while one was only partially included.
In Marjayoun, 17 of 33 areas were fully surveyed and 21 partially covered. In Nabatieh, only four of 52 areas were fully analysed, while 15 were partially examined. In Sidon, none of the 77 areas underwent a complete survey, with only five areas partially included in the assessment.
The report listed several additional limitations:
Critical infrastructure damage, including roads, bridges, electricity networks, water systems and telecommunications facilities, was not assessed.
Damage to underground shelters, basements and non-visible interior sections of buildings could not be detected.
No clear distinction could be made between residential, commercial and industrial structures.
Buildings with minor damage were excluded from debris-volume and cost calculations.
Structural density, shadows and narrow streets introduced potential margins of error in satellite analysis.
No field visits or on-site inspections were conducted to verify the findings. The assessment was carried out entirely through desk-based analysis of satellite imagery.
Given the scale of destruction and confidence in the methodology employed, no on-site verification procedures were undertaken in cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces or the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS).
UNDP said the findings should be regarded as preliminary planning data and that the scope of the assessment would be expanded as additional satellite imagery and field information become available.
Officials noted that once excluded categories and infrastructure losses are taken into account, the true cost of the destruction in southern Lebanon is likely to be significantly higher than the estimates contained in the report.
Middle East
Iran makes Lebanon ceasefire prerequisite for final agreement with US
Assessments that efforts to restrain Israel in Lebanon are being shaped less in Beirut or Tel Aviv than in closed-door talks between Iranian and American negotiators resurfaced ahead of negotiations in the Swiss town of Bürgenstock.
Unlike the current approach adopted by the Lebanese government, Iran continues to pursue a strategy of leveraging its influence on the ground to secure diplomatic gains.
The Lebanese government, meanwhile, remains committed to a separate negotiating track that critics say facilitates concessions to Israel at the negotiating table in Washington that could not be achieved on the battlefield.
US Vice President JD Vance, who arrived in Switzerland to participate in the latest round of talks, confirmed that efforts to make the ceasefire in Lebanon permanent would be among the negotiations’ top priorities.
According to CNN, citing a diplomatic source familiar with the matter, the US and Iranian delegations agreed to convene an emergency session on the situation in Lebanon as the first item of discussion, placing the issue at the top of the agenda.
US says it faces difficulties over Israeli withdrawal
According to diplomatic sources cited by Al-Akhbar newspaper, US officials informed the Iranian side that Washington had made intensive efforts to persuade the Israeli government to complete a full withdrawal from Lebanon but had encountered significant difficulties in the process.
US officials requested Iranian support in facilitating Hezbollah’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon as part of efforts to enable an Israeli pullout.
The Iranian delegation responded that Hezbollah was an internal Lebanese matter. While indicating that Tehran did not oppose an agreement by the Lebanese authorities on a timetable providing for a rapid Israeli withdrawal, the delegation outlined what it viewed as its own area of responsibility.
Iranian representatives said both Tehran and Washington had committed to implementing measures aimed at ending the war across the region, including in Lebanon, and argued that the United States should exert pressure on Israel not only to uphold a ceasefire but also to withdraw quickly.
Iran reiterates Lebanon condition for final agreement
An Iranian official also told CNN that ending the conflict in Lebanon was the most important item on the Iranian delegation’s agenda.
During the talks, Vice President Vance said Washington would continue working toward peace between Lebanon and Israel and expressed hope that the temporary ceasefire could be transformed into a permanent agreement capable of delivering long-term stability.
Speaking before the session, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Tehran would not begin negotiations on a final agreement with Washington unless the war in Lebanon was halted, as stipulated in the US-Iran memorandum of understanding.
In a post on X, Baghaei wrote: “It is not possible to move to the negotiation stage for a final agreement unless these provisions are implemented, foremost among them the first clause, which calls for ending the war on all fronts, including Lebanon.”
Military and diplomatic developments ahead of the Bürgenstock talks threatened to undermine the understanding reached between the parties. Following Israeli attacks in Lebanon and what Iran described as an escalation of military tensions in violation of the US-Iran agreement, Tehran announced that it had closed the Strait of Hormuz to traffic.
In a statement, Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters said the closure of the strait was only the first step in a series of measures planned by Tehran. Iran’s Foreign Ministry subsequently announced the suspension of the Geneva negotiations with the United States.
Following those developments, reports indicated that Washington intervened and increased pressure on Israel, leading Israeli military commanders to issue definitive orders for a complete halt to military operations in southern Lebanon for the second time within 24 hours.
Israeli media reports said the decision was not taken solely on Tel Aviv’s own initiative and that military operations were curtailed as a result of intense US pressure following Iran’s move in the Strait of Hormuz.
Middle East
US lifts naval blockade of Iran after ceasefire memorandum signed
The United States has lifted its naval blockade of Iran on the orders of President Donald Trump, ending restrictions on vessels entering and leaving Iranian ports.
Announcing the development, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) said the US military was no longer blocking maritime traffic to Iranian ports and had halted all operations related to enforcing the naval blockade.
The statement added that US warships would remain in the region to monitor compliance with the terms of the agreement.
The decision to lift the blockade follows the memorandum of understanding signed by the United States and Iran on June 18, aimed at ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic.
After signing the document in France, where he was attending the G7 summit, Trump sent the agreement to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian for approval.
In a statement, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said a formal signing ceremony between the two delegations, previously scheduled to take place in Geneva on June 19, would no longer be held.
Negotiations to continue in Switzerland
According to Axios, citing sources familiar with the matter, the signing process for the memorandum of understanding was accelerated in order to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to shipping as quickly as possible.
A planned meeting between US and Iranian representatives in Switzerland has not been cancelled. The talks are expected to focus on launching negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, with US Vice President James David Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf set to take part.
According to CNN, the 14-point memorandum calls for an immediate ceasefire on all fronts, the lifting of the naval blockade, the resumption of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the removal of oil sanctions on Iran and the withdrawal of US troops from areas surrounding Iran.
The agreement also includes the allocation of $300 billion for Iran’s economic reconstruction, the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets and a 60-day negotiation process aimed at reaching a final agreement on the nuclear programme.
In return, the authorities in Tehran pledged not to develop nuclear weapons.
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD says Ukraine should compensate Germany over Nord Stream sabotage
-
Asia2 weeks agoPentagon adds Alibaba, Baidu and BYD to list of firms with alleged Chinese military ties
-
Opinion1 week agoA voice rising from New Delhi: BRICS’s manifesto for a new world order
-
Europe2 weeks agoToyota and JLR warn EU ‘Made in Europe’ rules could threaten jobs and investment
-
America2 weeks agoWorld Cup referee from Somalia denied entry to US as immigration scrutiny intensifies
-
Middle East1 week agoMine clearing in Strait of Hormuz could delay shipping traffic for up to 50 days
-
America7 days agoData leak exposes Peter Thiel’s secret ‘Dialog’ network of politicians, regulators, and tech elites
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTürkiye calls for Azerbaijan-Armenia peace treaty, highlights normalization steps with Yerevan
