Connect with us

Middle East

Profile of Jonathan Powell, the man who turned Jolani into Sharaa and disarmed the PKK

Published

on

According to a new claim, Jonathan Powell, the founder of the British intelligence-linked organization Inter Mediate, who turned Syrian HTS leader Abu Muhammad al-Jolani into President Ahmed al-Sharaa, is also the person who convinced the PKK to lay down its arms with the promise of a “Türkiye without terror.”

A profile published in the London-based Saudi publication Al Majalla, written by Con Coughlin, lists the mediations previously conducted by Powell as part of “conflict resolution.” Powell has been appointed as the National Security Advisor (NSA) to Prime Minister Keir Starmer in the new Labour government.

Powell, who was the chief of staff to then-Prime Minister Tony Blair from 1997 to 2007, was appointed as the United Kingdom’s new National Security Advisor by the current Prime Minister Starmer in November 2024.

Critics of Powell, who was Blair’s longest-serving advisor and is known as the negotiator of the “Good Friday” Peace Agreement in Northern Ireland, argue that the NSA role should be apolitical. They also point to Powell’s involvement in the September 2024 agreement that led to the UK ceding sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. This is seen as a controversial move because the island chain hosts a top-secret US military base on Diego Garcia.

Born in 1956, Powell has a diverse background, including working for the American investment bank Morgan Stanley and as a journalist for the BBC and Granada ITN.

In 2011, he founded the charity Inter Mediate to use his experience as a British chief negotiator to “help resolve complex conflicts.”

The relationship of this mysterious organization with the British intelligence agencies MI6 and SAS is now an open secret.

The British NGO behind Ahmed Shara’s suit: Inter Mediate

In 2014, he also served as the special envoy to Libya for then-Prime Minister David Cameron.

According to Al Majalla, Powell, the author of several books, brings his diplomatic experience as his most important asset to his current role. In addition to Northern Ireland, it is noted that he conducted successful negotiations with ETA in the Basque region, was involved in negotiations with FARC in Colombia, and took part in peace talks in Mozambique.

Al Majalla describes Powell’s role as follows:

“The National Security Advisor (NSA) is the principal advisor to the Prime Minister and Cabinet on national security matters. This role covers strategy, policy, capability, and civil contingencies. He is also the Secretary to the National Security Council and head of the national security teams in the Cabinet Office, meaning he works across all Whitehall departments and overseas.”

An important part of this role is a network of “international stakeholders, business, industry, and civil society groups.” According to his profile, some of Powell’s connections date back to his days studying history at Oxford or later at the University of Pennsylvania. He likely met many of his sources during his early career in journalism before joining the Foreign Office in 1979.

Appointed as First Secretary to Lisbon in 1981, Stockholm in 1986, then Vienna, and the UK’s Washington, D.C. Embassy in 1991, Powell participated as an observer in Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign. It was Powell who introduced Blair to the new US president following Clinton’s election victory.

According to the profile, after Blair became the leader of the Labour Party, he asked Powell to be his chief of staff. In the early years of the Blair government, one of Powell’s top priorities was the Northern Ireland peace process, which would culminate in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.

Powell later advocated for the tactics successfully applied in Northern Ireland to be used during the “War on Terror.”

Coming to the present day, Powell’s agenda appears to be busy once again. According to Al Majalla, it was Powell who welcomed Bangladesh’s interim leader, Muhammad Yunus, on his first official visit to the UK last month.

The report claims that Powell was in Istanbul the week the PKK announced it would lay down its arms at the call of Abdullah Öcalan. There, he met with the Ukrainian delegation present for peace talks with Russia, having met with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv just days before.

Ahead of the now-canceled Israel-Palestine peace summit, Powell was tasked with explaining the UK’s position on recognizing a Palestinian state to “uneasy” members of parliament.

According to Al Majalla, Powell’s presence behind the scenes is highly influential. Late last year, before Bashar al-Assad was overthrown, it was Powell’s charity, Inter Mediate, that took on the mediating role with both the HTS-led jihadist groups and the PKK.

Al Majalla claims it was Powell who convinced the PKK to disband.

Powell had also met with Ahmed al-Sharaa, then known as Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, in May 2021.

Al Majalla summarizes the “behind-the-scenes” activities of Powell and Inter Mediate as follows:

“His influence extends to personnel. Powell’s former close colleagues are taking on advisory roles as the fledgling administration tries to find its feet in Damascus. Inter Mediate is said to have an office in the presidential palace. A Turkish source recently provided crucial information to The National. ‘Jonathan Powell played an important role in handling these very sensitive issues,’ the source says. ‘He is like a foreign minister. Powell plays a more important role in the Middle East than [UK Foreign Secretary] David Lammy.'”

According to a report in The National, last year “a delegation of Turkish and Kurdish MPs” traveled to the UK and Ireland to learn about the Good Friday Agreement. Ayla Akat, one of the Kurdish MPs, recalled Powell comparing the negotiations to riding a bicycle: “You have to keep pedaling, or you will fall off.”

Working with the UK-based think tank Democratic Progress Institute, Powell and his team developed a program drawing on lessons from Northern Ireland. The team briefed MPs from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP).

The source said, “The American thinking was that one day there would be a withdrawal from Syria. When that day came, they did not want the Kurds in Syria to enter into conflict with Türkiye. They wanted to prepare the ground for that.”

According to a source, the US under the Biden administration reached out to Türkiye to propose a deal with the PYD. The overall situation rapidly evolved into a full-fledged peace process. PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan appeared on camera this month for the first time in over two decades. Öcalan told the group to lay down their arms and turn to non-violent politics because “the strategy of a national liberation war has ended.”

The report states that the UK also became involved in these talks, and Powell’s company, Inter Mediate, has long-standing relationships with the PYD and Türkiye under a contract with the UK.

According to The National, after Jolani moved to Damascus, two advisors from Inter Mediate also went to the Presidential Palace, completing the task undertaken by the charity under what appears to be a legacy contract.

Inter Mediate’s executive director, Claire Hajaj, and its director of long-term projects, Lucy Stuart, are advising the presidential office in Damascus, which seeks to rebuild the government in Syria.

Inter Mediate features Powell prominently on its website, highlighting his role as “one of the key architects of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement” in Northern Ireland. It states that Powell founded the organization to “share the lessons from the Northern Ireland peace talks and to help other leaders facing similar dilemmas.”

From al-Qaeda affiliate to statesman: Adviser’s role in Syrian leader’s rise questioned

It also notes how Powell helped end the Basque conflict in Spain, served as a “peace advisor” to Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, and worked with Mozambican President Filipe Nyusi to end the country’s civil war.

After returning to government in November, Powell resigned from the charity in accordance with UK law, and there has been no information since then about his involvement in Inter Mediate’s activities.

According to the report, there are complaints within the Labour Party’s parliamentary group about the power held by Powell and Liz Lloyd, the Director of Policy Implementation, who was once Powell’s deputy under the Blair administration, with rumors of a “power grab” circulating.

The opposition Conservatives have seized on this situation, calling for a parliamentary inquiry to investigate why Powell was given the status of a special advisor instead of a direct ministerial appointment. This status means Powell does not have to answer to Parliament, despite negotiating directly with foreign governments on behalf of the UK and leading the talks on the handover of the Chagos Islands.

Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Alex Burghart, said this month, “It is scandalous enough that we cannot question his role in the surrender of the Chagos, but now it emerges he has been using his private organisation to establish secret channels with terrorist groups. Parliament should be able to question him on this. If the government had nothing to hide, they would not be going to such lengths to keep Powell out of the cold light of scrutiny.”

The profile concludes:

“Whether Powell will face an inquiry is now in Starmer’s hands, but even the most cursory glance at Powell’s diplomatic career shows that he performs best behind the scenes, away from the public eye. One wonders if the real issue for the opposition is the results he so often achieves.”

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Middle East

US and Israel weigh Iran strikes after midterm vote, reports say

Published

47 minutes ago

on

22/10/2026

By

The US and Israeli defence ministries have drawn up plans for a fresh assault on Iran, with the envisioned offensive under consideration to launch after the US Congressional midterm elections on 3 November.

Citing sources, The New York Times reported that the blueprint anticipates a brief but intense campaign.

As military units step up their drills, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth discussed prospective strike options with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The list of targets encompasses Iran’s nuclear sites, its energy infrastructure, and its arsenals of missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.

Several officials who spoke to the newspaper argued that a new wave of attacks could deal a heavy blow to the Iranian economy, forcing the leadership in Tehran into concessions.

Conversely, other sources doubt whether a resumption of fighting would prove any more successful than the earlier campaign conducted between February and April.

That previous offensive drove energy prices higher and drained US stockpiles of interceptor missiles.

It remains unclear whether US President Donald Trump will authorise the operation.

Domestic political calculations in Israel could also influence the trajectory of the plans, given that the country faces general elections on 27 October.

While some experts speaking to the newspaper contended that Netanyahu could leverage the threat of war to form a national unity government, others pointed to the opposition’s distrust of the prime minister.

Washington fears regional spillover

The US administration also harbours concerns that the fighting could engulf the wider region. On Wednesday, the US State Department ordered non-essential government personnel and their family members to leave Saudi Arabia following attacks by the Iran-backed Houthis.

A US military build-up, comprising three aircraft carriers, fighter aircraft, and special forces units, is slated to be fully deployed to the region by early November.

The targets under review include the deep underground nuclear facility code-named “Pickaxe”. Trump suggested that the high-yield GBU-43/B bomb, known as the “mother of all bombs”, could be deployed against the site, though experts doubt whether the ordnance can destroy a complex buried so deeply.

For its part, Tehran is preparing for a potential escalation, threatening to broaden its target list. Retaliatory options under consideration by Iran reportedly include data centres and subsea internet cables, in addition to shipping and energy facilities.

Mehdi Mohammadi, an adviser to an Iranian negotiator, dismissed US hopes of wrapping up a new campaign within 72 hours as a “fantasy”. Mohammadi warned that Tehran’s response would be more severe and unpredictable.

The Financial Times previously reported that an Israeli strike on Iran set for 10 October had been called off because the US president was unwilling to risk a broader conflict ahead of the Congressional midterms.

According to that report, the Israeli military had prepared a multi-day assault on nuclear sites, Iranian government targets, power plants, and civilian infrastructure on Netanyahu’s orders. The strikes had been designed to exceed the intensity of the campaign begun in February.

Washington seeks to secure an agreement from Tehran covering both the Strait of Hormuz and its nuclear programme.

“It will either be a deal or a strike,” one source told the Financial Times, adding that an operation could get under way in the coming weeks.

Another official who spoke to the paper suggested that Israeli preparations might serve as leverage to squeeze Iran in negotiations.

Axios also reported that the Pentagon had issued orders to prepare for renewed strikes, though the directive contained no specific date and Trump has yet to take a final decision.

The US and Israel launched their offensive against Iran on 28 February. Iran hit back by targeting US and Israeli assets across the region and curbing vessel transit through the Strait of Hormuz.

Although both sides signed a memorandum of understanding in June that provided for a ceasefire and talks to lift the blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, reciprocal attacks between the US and Iran have persisted.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Netanyahu trails Eisenkot in Israeli polls despite Trump backing

Published

22 hours ago

on

21/10/2026

By

As general elections scheduled for 27 October approach in Israel, the opposition camp led by former Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot continues to lead Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in public opinion polls.

Survey data published in the Israeli press on 19 and 20 October reveal that the governing coalition has failed to catch the opposition, despite explicit backing from US President Donald Trump.

However, the current distribution of votes documents that neither wing can reach a governing majority on its own.

Neither bloc reaches the 61 seats needed to form a government

According to a survey conducted by Channel 13, if an election were held today, Eisenkot’s bloc would win 51 seats, while the Netanyahu coalition would take 50.

A Channel 12 poll indicates that the gap has widened slightly, projecting 55 seats for Eisenkot’s alliance and 51 for the governing bloc. A minimum of 61 seats is required to form a government in the Knesset, Israel’s 120-seat parliament.

A key factor deadlocking the political arithmetic is the refusal by both sides to form a coalition with parties representing Palestinian citizens of Israel. This stance stands as the most tangible obstacle to securing a parliamentary majority after the election.

Channel 12 data shows that overall voter turnout is expected to remain at 72%. The inclination to head to the ballot box climbs to 81% among opposition voters, compared with 74% measured among Netanyahu supporters.

The same poll notes that Eisenkot has widened his lead over Netanyahu by two further points in prime ministerial preferences.

Yashar party climbs after Gantz bows out

A survey published on the Walla news site shows that the balance shifted after Benny Gantz decided to withdraw his Blue and White party from the race. Following that move, Eisenkot’s Yashar party increased its projected tally to 23 seats, while Netanyahu’s Likud dropped by one seat to 19.

Eisenkot’s party and the “Zionist Opposition” bloc it anchors have remained atop the polls for several months.

In an earlier message of support, Trump praised Netanyahu as “a great fighting prime minister and an even greater partner for peace.” Public opinion polls document that this diplomatic and political backing has not proved sufficient to tip the preferences of the Israeli electorate in favour of the incumbent government.

Support for Ben Gvir rises among young voters

Although Netanyahu’s alliance trails in overall strength, far-right figures within the coalition appear to be expanding their grassroots base. Gauged interest in the Jewish Power party of Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir is climbing, particularly among younger voters.

Speaking to a study conducted by Agam Labs, affiliated with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, an 18-year-old student described his shifting preference: “I used to think he was a bit crazy, but then I actually looked at what he was saying, and it all made sense.”

Another Israeli citizen stated that Ben Gvir’s push to arm West Bank settlers gave them “room to breathe.”

Ben Gvir is known for leading settler incursions into the Al-Aqsa compound and distributing military-grade rifles to tens of thousands of settlers since 7 October 2023.

Criticized for escalating violence against Palestinians, Ben Gvir has called for starving Gaza, maintaining military operations in Lebanon, and bombing Beirut. The far-right minister’s militaristic stances also find a political constituency across several opposition parties in Israel.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Netanyahu unveils security doctrine and regional alliance map

Published

2 days ago

on

20/10/2026

By

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shared an updated security doctrine with the public ahead of general elections scheduled for 27 October.

Announced by the Prime Minister’s Office on 18 October and shaped with contributions from the National Security Council, the work includes a detailed map classifying Israel’s regional allies, adversaries, and spheres of influence.

The new doctrine aims to eliminate elements defined as threats directly through pre-emptive military interventions rather than containing them, to expand buffer zones, and to establish new regional partnerships.

Al Jazeera points out that this approach has effectively been put into practice during Israel’s recent military operations and strikes against neighbouring countries.

Regional blocs and allies classified on the map

The map presented by Netanyahu classifies not only sovereign states into blocs, but also armed groups, de facto administrations, and territories controlled by various forces.

The terms “alliance” and “friend” used on the map do not imply that formal and binding partnerships have been established with all these entities.

The “Hexagon Alliance” on the Israel-United Arab Emirates (UAE) axis and parties considered “friends” of this bloc are shown in blue and light blue shades.

This group includes Azerbaijan, Greece, southern Cyprus, the Druze in Syria’s As-Suwayda province, eastern Libya under Khalifa Haftar’s control, Ethiopia, Somaliland, Puntland, areas in Yemen held by the UAE-backed former Southern Transitional Council, and territories controlled by the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan.

The “Sunni Diamond Alliance”, formed by Türkiye, Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, alongside peripheral actors, is distinguished by green and light green shades.

This cluster marks Azerbaijan, Syria, Qatar, Kuwait, areas in Yemen controlled by the Saudi-backed Presidential Leadership Council, Eritrea, Sudan, the West Bank, Jordan, the Lebanese government, Northern Cyprus, and Somalia. In Libya, both the Tripoli-based western administration and the Haftar-dominated eastern administration are shown as linked to this bloc.

Iran and the Axis of Resistance are defined in red and pink colours. Hashd al-Shaabi in Iraq, eastern and southern parts of Lebanon where Hezbollah is active, Ansar Allah-controlled areas in Yemen, and Hamas-administered Gaza find a place within this axis. Russia is marked on the map in pink under “friend” status to this bloc.

Orange and yellow markings are also used around NATO members, alliance partners, and actors with friendly relations with Washington. The lines also illustrate the permeability between blocs.

For instance, Azerbaijan is presented with two-toned stripes as a friend of both the Israel-UAE axis and the Türkiye-led bloc, while India stands out as the only actor classified as a “friend” to all parties.

The map in question was reportedly prepared in May by Marc Saxer and Marcus Schneider for the Germany-based Friedrich Ebert Foundation, which has engaged with Israeli governments since 1978.

Pre-election rhetoric of the “indispensable leader”

Netanyahu is facing voters in a bid to retain power amid ongoing corruption proceedings and continued criticism over his management of the 7 October 2023 attacks and subsequent conflicts.

According to Al Jazeera’s analysis, releasing the security doctrine and map on the eve of elections rests on Netanyahu’s strategy of establishing himself as the only capable leader who can protect Israel.

Backed by electoral support from US President Donald Trump, Netanyahu pointed during his presentation to a potential change of administration in the White House.

Arguing that an administration distant or hostile to Israel could take office in Washington within two years, Netanyahu said his country must expand its network of alliances and become an attractive regional partner because of that possibility.

Mohanad Hage Ali, deputy director for research at the Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center, noted that this presentation, built on rival blocs and security corridors, deepens existential anxieties within society.

According to Hage Ali, this approach reinforces voters’ perceived need for a tough leader, and Netanyahu is attempting to rally support from populations wary of uncertainty through this reassurance.

Fierce backlash from the Israeli opposition

The publication of the document provoked reactions in Israeli domestic politics.

Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the Yashar Party and former chief of general staff, criticised the work as consisting of “two empty pages filled with slogans that have nothing to do with an actual security doctrine”.

Emphasising that the Netanyahu government was responsible for the “gravest failure and disaster in Israel’s history” on 7 October, Eisenkot said subsequent escalating regional clashes had also left every front engulfed in flames.

Eisenkot argued that the document exposes a lingering strategic vacuum, while the prime minister is reviving fears to divert attention from misleading claims in his election pledges.

Yesh Atid leader and former prime minister Yair Lapid also described the text as superficial.

“Even by Netanyahu’s current standards, which are defined by exhaustion and detachment from reality, this document looks as if it was written using a free version of an AI chatbot,” Lapid said.

Lapid added that a text consisting merely of bulleted headings cannot be deemed a doctrine, and that the effort is nothing more than an attempt to cover up the disasters caused by the prime minister.

The buffer zone model

The buffer zone concept featured in the strategy document is based on Israel establishing direct military control over cross-border territories.

Al Jazeera notes that the current occupation conditions in Gaza and southern Lebanon are practical reflections of this policy.

Mohanad Hage Ali warned that a plan based on making military control permanent could bring fresh conflicts and the risk of ethnic cleansing.

Hage Ali also noted that portraying actors such as the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan and Haftar’s forces within the Israel-UAE axis could damage their legitimacy in the Arab world.

Arguing that this choice reflects Netanyahu’s domestic priorities, Hage Ali observed: “What Israelis think becomes more important than the reputation of your allies and the sustainability of these alliances.”

Netanyahu’s proposal for a “hexagon of alliances”, raised at the beginning of the year and covering India, Greece, southern Cyprus, and unspecified Arab, African, and Asian nations, has yet to be formalised.

While international analyses describe the initiative as a diplomatic branding exercise rather than a binding defence pact, observers recall that actors such as India prioritise commercial interests and non-alignment over rigid blocs.

Finally, Hage Ali stated that the presented map will provide propaganda material for the Tehran government and its allies, reinforcing arguments that Israel harbours regional expansion and domination ambitions.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey