Connect with us

Middle East

US envoy Tom Barrack in Beirut to discuss Hezbollah disarmament plan

Published

on

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.”

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Middle East

US envoy says Syria interim leader Sharaa seeks Israel normalization

Published

22 hours ago

on

23/10/2026

By

US Ambassador to Türkiye and Special Envoy for Syria Tom Barrack stated that Syria’s interim president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, wants to normalize relations with Israel.

At the same time, he called for an end to Israel’s military operations in Syria and questioned whether Washington should intervene to halt them.

Speaking at the Global Security Forum held in Doha, Qatar, Barrack said Sharaa had managed difficult circumstances well and was trying to reassure Israel that his government poses no threat.

“I think President Sharaa has done a very good job under very difficult circumstances,” Barrack said, describing the message he believes the Syrian leader is conveying to Israel: “I am not aggressive, I have no problem with Israel, I want relations with Israel to normalize.”

Barrack also urged Israel to stop its operations in Syria, while voicing uncertainty over whether the US should step in to end them:

“It’s time to stop this [Israel’s actions in Syria]. I don’t know if it’s time for the US to intervene to stop it.”

Israel intensified its military operations in Syria following the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad on 8 December 2024. Israeli forces entered the demilitarized “buffer zone” along the Golan Heights and took up positions on the Syrian side of Mount Hermon (Jabal al-Shaykh), with Israel describing the deployment as a temporary security measure.

Israeli air strikes have also targeted military facilities and weapons depots across the country.

Barrack pointed to Syria’s political transition as an example of how groups once viewed as adversaries could be incorporated into new political and security structures.

“You can take Nusra, which was once designated a foreign terrorist organization; following the transformation that took place on December 8, many people today evaluate this example as ‘here is a model,'” the US diplomat said.

The Nusra Front was a jihadist group that emerged during the Syrian civil war and, after pledging allegiance to al-Qaeda, announced its departure from the network. The organization was designated as “terrorist” by several countries and bodies, primarily the US and the UN.

The group’s leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa (Abu Mohammad al-Julani), subsequently headed Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which led the offensive that ousted Assad.

Barrack also highlighted the integration of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) into the Syrian national army as an outcome many had previously considered unlikely.

“Nobody thought you could reintegrate this Kurdish entity, the SDF, into a national army, but it happened,” the US official said.

Damascus and the Kurdish-led forces signed an agreement on 10 March 2025 to integrate the SDF’s military and civilian institutions into the Syrian state.

However, delays occurred in the implementation of the agreement due to disputes over integration terms and the future of self-administration in the region.

Barrack nevertheless expressed doubts about the effectiveness of earlier US interventions in the Middle East, citing Washington’s involvement in what he characterized as “23 regime changes” across the wider region.

“Whenever we have tried to intervene, to change a person or a regime, it seems to have been a mistake,” Barrack said, while also questioning the value of US intervention in Yemen, describing it as apparently “senseless.”

Continue Reading

Middle East

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

Published

2 days 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

3 days 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

MOST READ

Turkey