Connect with us

Middle East

US balances support and sanctions for Syria’s new Julani-led government

Published

on

The US is holding the stick of sanctions while also offering support to the new Damascus government led by former al-Qaeda leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani (Ahmed al-Sharaa).

Tom Barrack, the US Ambassador to Turkey and Special Envoy for Syria, who has emerged as one of the biggest supporters of the Julani administration, has made another in a series of statements.

Barrack told al-Sharaa to reconsider his policies and adopt a “more inclusive” approach following last week’s clashes in Suwayda, which raised the possibility of a new sectarian war. Otherwise, he said, al-Sharaa would risk losing international support and facing the country’s fragmentation.

Speaking to Reuters in Beirut, where he was visiting to discuss the disarmament of Hezbollah, the envoy said that in private talks with Julani, he advised him to reconsider elements of the pre-war army structure, reduce “Islamist indoctrination,” and accept regional security assistance.

Barrack: Sharaa risks losing the momentum that brought him to power if he doesn’t make changes

Barrack argued that without rapid change, al-Sharaa risks losing the momentum that brought him to power.

Barrack said, “Sharaa should say: ‘I will adapt quickly, because if I do not, I will lose the universal momentum that is behind me.'”

The envoy also said that Julani could “mature as a president and say, ‘The right thing for me is not to pursue my own agenda, which has not been very effective.'”

Barrack also said the new government should consider being “faster and more inclusive” in integrating minorities into the power structure, but he denied reports that HTS-affiliated security forces were responsible for violations against Druze civilians.

According to the American diplomat, there is still no alternative to the current administration

Barrack suggested that ISIS militants may have disguised themselves in government uniforms and that videos posted on social media were unreliable as they could be easily manipulated. He claimed, “Syrian soldiers did not enter the city. These atrocities are not being committed by Syrian regime forces. They are not even in the city because they agreed with Israel that they would not enter.”

Arguing that the risks in Syria are dangerously high and that there is no “succession plan” or viable alternative to the country’s new government, Barrack said, “There is no Plan B for this Syrian regime. If this Syrian regime fails, someone is trying to provoke its failure. To what end? There is no successor.”

When asked if Syria could follow the terrible scenarios of Libya and Afghanistan, he replied, “Yes, and even worse.”

The Julani government has not been hostile to Israel from the outset

Barrack confirmed that the US does not support Israel’s airstrikes on Syria, saying the attacks increase the “confusion” in Syria.

Barrack said his message to Israel is to engage in dialogue to address its concerns about Syria’s new leaders, and that the US could play the role of an “honest broker” to help resolve any concerns.

He said that the Julani government has stated from the beginning that it is not an enemy of Israel and could normalize relations when the time is right.

The special envoy claimed that the US does not dictate what Syria’s political structure should be, saying it demands nothing but stability, unity, justice, and inclusivity.

Barrack said, “If they establish a federalist government, that is their decision. And the answer to the problem is that everyone may now need to adapt.”

Lifting the Caesar Act in Congress will be made conditional

On Tuesday, the US House Financial Services Committee passed a bill introduced by New York Republican Congressman Mike Lawler that would allow President Donald Trump to permanently lift significant sanctions on Syria within two years, provided the new government meets a series of conditions, including the release of political prisoners arrested by the deposed former leader Bashar al-Assad.

Trump had already lifted many sanctions on Syria. However, many members of Congress from both parties are skeptical of Trump’s embrace of the new Syrian leader so quickly.

In this context, Lawler’s proposal to impose conditions on the remaining US sanctions has led to an unprecedented alliance between “conservatives” and “progressives” who prefer the complete removal of sanctions.

In another example of bipartisan cooperation, two centrist Democratic lawmakers, Brad Sherman of California and Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, helped Republicans advance the Lawler plan. Florida Representative Byron Donalds, who is close to Trump, voted “no” along with all other Democrats.

Lawler told Semafor, “The goal here is very clear: to ensure that this government can really establish itself and succeed. For that, of course, economic cooperation and the easing of sanctions need to begin.”

Nevertheless, the Representative added that he “thinks it would be foolish to lift all sanctions immediately without a truly stable situation on the ground,” pointing to the possibility of a “coup or the collapse of this newly established government.”

Lawler said he has been “in contact with members of the White House” about his legislation.

A 2-year transition period for the complete removal of sanctions

Donalds told Semafor, “I understand what Mike is trying to do, but I don’t think we should get ahead of the White House. A lot has changed on the ground; let’s give the president some time.”

Under current law, Trump has the authority to waive the remaining US sanctions on Syria under a law known as the Caesar Act every 180 days.

Lawler’s bill gives the new administration two years to certify that the new Syrian government has met the specified conditions before sanctions can be lifted completely.

Members of Congress who advocate for the complete removal of sanctions rather than Lawler’s solution include conservative Representative Joe Wilson, who called on the committee to “reconsider the measure,” and Representative Maxine Waters of California, the top Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

Wilson said he supported an amendment proposed by Waters to Lawler’s bill on Tuesday, which was rejected.

Regarding Waters’ proposal, Wilson said, “Yes, she is right. It is very gratifying that the president has indicated he wants to give Syria a chance. The way to do that is to lift the sanctions completely so that the business community knows it can invest.”

Some Democrats were undecided before the vote. Greg Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told Semafor it was a “delicate situation.”

“If you lift all the sanctions at once, you know what that means. At the same time, you want to make sure that progress is being made. Maybe when I get out, I can tell you exactly what I think,” Meeks said, ultimately voting against the bill.

Amendment for “reasonable steps to protect religious and ethnic minorities”

The president cannot permanently lift the sanctions imposed by the Caesar Act unless Congress repeals the law (or allows it to expire in 2029).

Lawler acknowledged that “the administration’s position will be vital” to securing enough support in the House and Senate.

On the other hand, he expressed concerns about lifting sanctions following the events in Suwayda last week, where sectarian violence led to the death of a US citizen.

Lawler voted yes after accepting an amendment that added a new condition for lifting sanctions: “reasonable steps to protect religious and ethnic minorities.”

As the Trump administration tries to include Syria in the Abraham Accords, Lawler expressed optimism that his proposal could be a useful tool in this regard.

In May, the president had promised the new Syrian president that sanctions would be eased if Damascus agreed to normalize relations with Tel Aviv.

“This can be used as a tool to help normalize economic ties with the Israelis in practice,” Lawler said.

Middle East

UNDP estimates $1.38 billion in building damage across southern Lebanon

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Iran makes Lebanon ceasefire prerequisite for final agreement with US

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Middle East

US lifts naval blockade of Iran after ceasefire memorandum signed

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey