Middle East
US envoy Tom Barrack in Beirut to discuss Hezbollah disarmament plan
US special envoy for Syria, Tom Barrack, traveled to Beirut to meet with officials regarding Hezbollah.
Barrack’s statements followed a meeting with Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam during his visit to Lebanon on Monday.
Barrack asserted that the disarmament of Hezbollah is a Lebanese internal matter, adding that while the organization continues to be designated a “foreign terrorist organization” by the US, Washington’s current role is to “provide advice, facilitate dialogue, and prevent the escalation of tension.”
The US diplomat also said that they “cannot force Israel to do anything,” only “have influence.”
Barrack explained that his return to Lebanon stems from US President Donald Trump’s renewed interest in ensuring regional stability and that Lebanon plays a key role in this effort.
‘The Syrian government should be held responsible for recent acts of violence’
The US official emphasized the importance of supporting the Lebanese government’s reform efforts and maintaining security and institutional stability.
Barrack also highlighted the failure of the ceasefire agreement between Lebanon and Israel, stating that efforts are ongoing to understand and resolve the agreement’s collapse.
Comparing Lebanon’s situation to Syria’s, the envoy described the conflict in Syria as a “disaster” and stressed that the Syrian government must be held accountable.
Regarding potential military intervention, Barrack clearly stated that the US has no intention of sending more troops to any conflict zone “under hostile conditions.”
This marks Barrack’s second visit to Lebanon in two weeks. Lebanon and the US are “exchanging ideas” on a proposal that would ultimately lead to the disarmament of Hezbollah and the transfer of all its weapons to the control of the Lebanese state.
Hezbollah rejects the American plan
Beirut is also demanding that Israel halt its daily attacks on the country and withdraw from five strategic points it occupies in southern Lebanon.
Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Naim Qassem accused Barrack of encouraging the Lebanese army to disarm the group and incite a civil war.
Qassem also adopted a firm stance on the issue of weapons, arguing that in Hezbollah’s absence, Israel would expand its territorial control in parts of Lebanon.
“We will not surrender or give in to Israel; Israel will not be able to take our weapons from us,” Qassem said in a video address at a memorial for a senior Hezbollah commander killed in last year’s war with Israel.
Barrack blackmails Lebanon and Hezbollah through the new HTS administration
During his previous visit, Barrack said he welcomed Lebanon’s response to the US plan for Hezbollah’s disarmament and stressed that Lebanon should not be “left behind” in the “rapidly changing region.”
In response to the US proposal, Lebanese officials submitted a seven-page document demanding Israel’s complete withdrawal from disputed territories, including the Shebaa Farms, and reaffirming state control over all weapons.
The government also pledged that Hezbollah’s weapons in Southern Lebanon would be destroyed.
In an interview with The National, Barrack said that time is of the essence. “Honestly, I think they will say, ‘the world will pass us by.’ Why? On one side there is Israel, on the other there is Iran, and now Syria is also emerging so quickly that if Lebanon does not act, it will become Bilad al-Sham again,” he said, using the historical name for the “Greater Syria” region.
This comment by Barrack was interpreted as Lebanon being at risk of being absorbed into Greater Syria, but the envoy later clarified that he only intended to praise “Syria’s impressive steps.”
“I can guarantee that the Syrian leaders only want coexistence and mutual prosperity with Lebanon, and the US is committed to supporting this relationship between two equal and sovereign neighboring countries living in peace and prosperity,” Barrack said.
Barrack says there is no ‘Plan B’ besides the current Damascus administration
Meanwhile, Barrack reiterated Washington’s support for the new government in Syria, stating there is no “Plan B” other than cooperating with the current authorities to unite the country.
Speaking to the Associated Press in Beirut, Barrack took a critical stance on Israel’s recent intervention in Syria, saying its timing was wrong and complicated efforts for regional stability.
Barrack told the Associated Press that the “murders, acts of revenge, and massacres committed by both sides” are “unacceptable,” but argued that “Syria’s current government, as a new government with very few resources to solve a wide variety of problems, is doing its best.”
Regarding Israel’s attacks on Syria, Barrack said, “The US was not consulted on this matter, did not participate in this decision, and the US has no responsibility for matters that Israel deems necessary for its own defense.”
The envoy added that Israel’s intervention “created another very confusing chapter” and “happened at a very bad time.”
Barrack noted that when the recent clashes erupted, Israel’s view was that southern Damascus was a “suspicious” area and that any military developments there should be discussed and agreed upon with them. “The new government [in Syria] was not exactly of this view,” he said.
The envoy also stated that the ceasefire declared between Syria and Israel on Saturday was a limited agreement that only addressed the conflict in Suwayda. He underlined that the agreement did not address broader issues between the two countries, including Israel’s claim that the area south of Damascus should be a demilitarized zone.
According to the envoy, Israel favors a divided Syria
In talks leading to a peace agreement, Barrack said that “both sides did their best to reach an agreement on specific issues related to the movement of Syrian forces and equipment from Damascus to Suwayda.”
Stating that “whether or not to accept Israel’s intervention in a sovereign state is a separate issue,” Barrack suggested that Israel would prefer Syria to be fragmented and divided rather than controlled by a strong central state.
Barrack noted that strong nation-states, especially Arab states, are seen as a threat to Israel. “[But in Syria] I think all minority communities are smart enough to say that we will be better off together, in a central structure,” he said.
‘A Syria-Türkiye defense agreement is a matter for those countries’
When asked whether the violence in Suwayda had deepened distrust in the new government in Damascus and what would become of the SDF agreement, Barrack said he did not think the incidents in Suwayda would derail these talks and that progress could be made “in the coming weeks.”
Barrack had met with Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) leader Mazloum Abdi over the weekend.
When reminded that Türkiye had offered to provide defense assistance to Syria, Barrack appeared to give a green light to a possible Damascus-Ankara agreement.
Barrack said the US has “no position” on the possibility of a defense agreement between Syria and Türkiye, adding, “It is not the job or in the interest of the US to tell neighboring countries what they should do to each other.”
Middle East
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
-
Middle East2 weeks agoIran expands deterrence as Gulf strikes expose US munitions limits, analysts say
-
Diplomacy1 week agoGeoffrey Roberts sees Ukraine war concluding within coming months
-
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
