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
Iran resumes ballistic missile assembly using stockpiled parts
Iran has resumed ballistic missile production in underground facilities, despite statements by Israeli and US authorities asserting that this capacity had been completely eliminated.
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal citing US and Middle Eastern officials, the Tehran administration is utilizing pre-stockpiled components in the manufacturing process.
Officials report that despite strikes on missile sites and industrial installations at the beginning of the war, Iran continues the assembly of both solid- and liquid-fuelled missiles.
Intelligence data indicates activity at numerous underground centres, including the Khojir complex in the southeast of the country, along with efforts to establish additional underground assembly points to protect against new air strikes.
Current assembly operations are being maintained at lower volumes compared with pre-war levels, as US and Israeli operations destroyed several facilities and a naval blockade has impeded the import of components and solid-fuel ingredients.
Assessing the process, Tal Inbar, a senior analyst at the US-based Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, stressed that damaged infrastructure can be repaired during periods when facilities are not targeted, and parts procured from other countries can be stored there.
Inbar noted that it would be naive to believe Iran is not rebuilding its missile production capacity.
Arguing that the facilities were destroyed and Tehran has suffered severe losses, the official stated that Iran remains weaker than ever before, and US President Donald Trump will never permit the country to acquire nuclear weapons.
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell stated that the US has destroyed up to 90% of Iran’s drone, ballistic missile, and naval industrial infrastructure, severely degrading Tehran’s ability to launch missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.
Another US government official pointed out that the Tehran administration may have revived production, albeit on a low scale, following preliminary talks conducted in mid-June with the Trump administration regarding the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and ending the war. The official noted that existing stockpiles are sufficient to assemble at least two hundred missiles.
A CNN report in late May indicated that the Tehran administration was attempting to reopen underground missile shelters, struck by the US and Israel with costly munitions, using bulldozers and dump trucks.
Excavation activities accelerated after the April ceasefire decision; out of 69 tunnel entrances struck across 18 distinct locations, 50 have been made accessible again.
Experts stressed that it is impossible to destroy missile power solely by bombing tunnel entrances, underlining the limitations of such bombardments.
US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth claimed in April that they had effectively ended Iran’s missile programme. However, an NBC News report noted that Tehran utilized the ceasefire period to reconstitute its military strength.
Middle East
Mohammed bin Salman urges Trump to strike Houthis after Mokha falls
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has requested that US President Donald Trump launch air strikes against the Houthis in Yemen.
According to two US officials who spoke to Axios, Trump rejected the request, and US officials emphasised that the administration has no plans for direct intervention against the Houthis for now.
Oil prices surged on Thursday after the resistance led by Houthi militias (Ansarallah) seized the strategic coastal city of Mokha in Yemen.
This development brought the Yemeni resistance one step closer to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which is vital for global trade and Saudi oil exports.
With Iran already disrupting traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, Houthi control over Bab el-Mandeb could provide Tehran with powerful new leverage over the US and its Gulf allies.
On Thursday, as Houthi forces advanced towards the coastal city of Mokha and Saudi-backed Yemeni forces retreated, bin Salman telephoned Trump to brief him on the deteriorating situation.
A few hours later, the prince called again to request that Trump carry out US air strikes against the Houthis.
Trump declined, but a US official stated that the administration would provide Saudi Arabia with intelligence and targeting data on the Houthis.
The official noted that approximately 200 US military personnel are currently stationed in Saudi Arabia, providing non-military support.
A senior Trump administration official indicated that Washington’s priority is keeping the Red Sea open, while leaving the broader fight to regional partners.
“We are in continuous dialogue with Saudi Arabia and the Government of the Republic of Yemen regarding regional stability,” the official said.
The official continued:
“The US remains focused on protecting our core national security interests, such as ensuring freedom of navigation in the Red Sea, while empowering our regional partners to take the lead in managing and resolving regional security challenges.”
The US is concerned by the rapidly escalating conflict in Yemen and is seeking to avoid direct military intervention while increasing its support for Saudi Arabia.
According to two sources familiar with the matter, Admiral Brad Cooper, Commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM), travelled to Saudi Arabia on Thursday for urgent coordination meetings.
The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemeni resistance forces reignited in July after Riyadh blocked an Iranian aircraft carrying senior Houthi officials from landing in Sanaa following their return from Ali Khamenei’s funeral.
Bin Salman requested Trump’s political support to strike Sanaa airport, but made clear that Saudi Arabia did not require US military assistance. Trump granted his support.
The Houthis subsequently retaliated by attacking Saudi tankers in the Red Sea. These strikes threatened a route crucial to the kingdom’s oil exports, and the group later expanded its attacks to Saudi energy facilities.
Saudi Arabia and its Yemeni allies responded with air strikes and ground operations against Houthi positions.
Saudi Arabia’s request for direct US military intervention marks a sharp reversal from July, when Riyadh informed Washington that it could manage the Houthis on its own.
As clashes intensified, the Saudis began seeking progressively greater support from the US.
Sources close to the discussions noted that in recent weeks, US military and civilian officials informed their Saudi counterparts that Trump’s directive is to keep American forces focused on Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, and to avoid opening a new front.
Middle East
Netanyahu ignored MBZ warning on Hamas 7 October plan, report says
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly ignored a direct warning from UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan in the run-up to 7 October 2023, according to an investigation by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
The report states that the UAE leader, widely known as MBZ, was convinced in September 2023 that an explosion was imminent in the region, particularly given the escalating tensions in the West Bank.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who maintains close ties with bin Zayed, recounted: “In the months leading up to the war, he spoke with me about this issue frequently. He consistently conveyed the message that the situation needed to be de-escalated. He even dispatched a special envoy to Israel who met with the prime minister. The emir appeared to sense that the region was on the verge of erupting.”
MBZ also engaged in direct discussions with Netanyahu. These exchanges followed a standard operational protocol: a representative from the United Arab Emirates embassy would arrive at the prime minister’s office equipped with a specialised, secure telephone device to ensure confidentiality.
However, according to the newspaper, the call initiated by bin Zayed on this occasion was extraordinary in nature.
A week and a half before 7 October 2023, the UAE ruler placed a call to Netanyahu from the Presidential Palace in Abu Dhabi, and the two leaders spoke for 45 minutes.
During this conversation, bin Zayed warned that Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader in Gaza, was planning a major operation against Israel.
Bin Zayed voiced deep concern that such an event would not only lead to significant bloodshed, but would also destabilise the entire region and undermine the Abraham Accords.
Haaretz reported that three senior foreign sources possess direct knowledge of the call’s contents, marking the first public disclosure of the conversation’s existence.
A close Palestinian adviser to bin Zayed, who had emigrated from Gaza to Abu Dhabi years earlier and maintained extensive connections across the Gaza Strip, was also present during the exchange.
According to the adviser, the UAE ruler stressed to Netanyahu that Israel needed to prepare for this specific threat.
The adviser stated:
“The emir explained that, according to his assessment, Sinwar was preparing for a major event. He told Netanyahu that Israel had to be prepared. At the same time, he proposed working towards an economic solution for the Gaza Strip to prevent escalation, alongside calming the situation in the West Bank.”
Bin Zayed urged Netanyahu to take the matter seriously. Yet, to the emir’s surprise, the prime minister reacted with relative calm.
Netanyahu told bin Zayed that, in his own assessment, Hamas was planning to operate in the West Bank area. Reassuring the Emirati leader, Netanyahu insisted that Israel was prepared for any scenario.
The UAE leader later recounted his conversation with Netanyahu and his subsequent warning to CIA Director William J. Burns.
Bin Zayed shared with Burns the intuitive alarm he had sought to convey to Netanyahu—that “something over there is about to blow”—and noted the Israeli prime minister’s conviction that the unstable theatre was in fact the West Bank.
“The emir hoped that, despite Netanyahu’s reserved reaction, he would take the message seriously and take action,” the adviser said.
However, neither anticipated that the prime minister would hear the warning without briefing the heads of his defence and security establishments: neither the director of the Shin Bet, nor the director of the Mossad, nor the chief of staff of the Israel Defence Forces was informed of MBZ’s warning.
Haaretz noted that Gaza-related negotiations between Israel and Hamas had been proceeding smoothly in early 2023, providing the context in which the Emirati ruler’s concerns emerged.
The report received swift corroboration from the Israeli political opposition. Former prime minister and leader of the B’Yachad party, Naftali Bennett, stated that he knew the warning issued by UAE leader Mohamed bin Zayed to Netanyahu concerning Hamas’s plans prior to 7 October was genuine.
Speaking to 103FM, Bennett said: “I am telling you: I know this to be true.”
Bennett continued:
“Mohamed bin Zayed of the UAE warned Netanyahu that Sinwar was planning an operation. The head of the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate, Abbas Kamel, also notified Netanyahu a few days before the massacre that a major operation was being planned. I do not wish to discuss my sources with anyone. I am telling you: I know this fact to be true.”
Contending that Netanyahu had led Israel “blindly into this horrific disaster,” the opposition figure asserted: “He was so deeply captive to the conception that Hamas was an asset that, despite receiving explicit warnings, he did nothing.”
Bennett maintained that Netanyahu bears direct responsibility for 7 October, not merely by virtue of being prime minister, but because “he spent 15 years strengthening Hamas and doing nothing.”
-
Europe5 days agoGermany’s CDU drafts tougher citizenship rules to counter AfD
-
Russia2 weeks agoWhat to know about Russia’s upcoming State Duma elections?
-
Europe2 weeks agoMarine Le Pen leads all 2027 French presidential scenarios, poll shows
-
Diplomacy1 week agoGeoffrey Roberts sees Ukraine war concluding within coming months
-
Middle East2 weeks agoIran expands deterrence as Gulf strikes expose US munitions limits, analysts say
-
Europe1 week agoGerman industrial bosses push for return to 40-hour working week
-
Russia2 weeks agoRussia warns NATO over Arctic militarisation and conflict risks
-
Asia2 weeks agoBOJ faces critical rate decision as US presses for faster hikes
