English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For January 31/2025
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2025/english.January31.25.htm

News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006 

Click On The Below Link To Join Eliasbejjaninews whatsapp group
https://chat.whatsapp.com/FPF0N7lE5S484LNaSm0MjW
اضغط على الرابط في أعلى للإنضمام لكروب Eliasbejjaninews whatsapp group

Elias Bejjani/Click on the below link to subscribe to my youtube channel
الياس بجاني/اضغط على الرابط في أسفل للإشتراك في موقعي ع اليوتيوب
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAOOSioLh1GE3C1hp63Camw

Bible Quotations For today
Do not lag in zeal, be ardent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, persevere in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers
Letter to the Romans 12/09-21/:"Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honour. Do not lag in zeal, be ardent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, persevere in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are. Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ No, ‘if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.’Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on January 30-31/2025
Video Link: A Crucial MTV Interview with Rasha Slim and Dr. Ali Khalifi on the Fourth Anniversary of the Assassination of Martyr Lokman Slim
Hezbollah’s financial institution Al Qard Al Hassan/Hanin Ghaddar/January 30/2025
Stifled Transitions/Charles Elias Chartouni/January 30/2025
Israel Says it Intercepted Hezbollah Surveillance Drone
Israel Steps Up Provocations in Southern Lebanon
Hezbollah’s Qard al-Hasan Halts Payouts: Technical Issues or Cash Crunch?
Boulos hopes govt. won't comprise members of 'former establishment'
Aoun Meets with World Bank VP, Reaffirms Commitment to Reforms
US Envoy Morgan Ortagus to visit Lebanon: Discussions center on Israeli withdrawal and Hezbollah captives
Salam says he's 'flexible' but 'same standards to apply to everyone' in govt. formation
Report: Salam rejects Jaber, asks Berri to send new names
Aoun urges parties to shun 'wrangling over quotas'
President Joseph Aoun affirms commitment to reforms in Lebanon during meeting with UN coordinator
The struggle to finalize Lebanon's cabinet amid sectarian disputes: President Aoun calls for urgent government formation
Israeli drone strikes vehicle in Yarin
Air France says will resume flights to Beirut Saturday
History of technocracy: Can Lebanon's leaders accept a true technocratic government?
PM-designate Nawaf Salam calls Grand Mufti, reaffirms commitment to government formation
Health Ministry releases updated cumulative report on Israeli attacks on Lebanon's healthcare sector
To What Extent Can a Leader Make Independent Decisions?/David Sahyoun/This is Beirut/January 30/2025
All Hope Lost?/Marc Saikali/This is Beirut/January 30/2025
Will Hezbollah Learn from the Disasters of Its War and “Descend from Its Perches”?!/Hussein Ataya/Janoubia Website/January 30/2025
Lebanon’s prime minister-designate is unlikely to confront Hezbollah/David Daoud/MENA/January 30/2025
Naim Qassem’s most defiant speech yet as Hezbollah secretary-general/David Daoud/FDD's Long War Journal/January 30, 2025
Letter to President Trump from U.S.-Lebanon Friendship Caucus

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on January 30-31/2025
Syrian Factions Appoint Ahmad Al-Sharaa as Transitional Leader
Syrian leader Sharaa pledges to form inclusive government
Qatar's Emir Tells Sharaa 'Urgent Need' for Inclusive Syrian Government
Saudi Leadership Congratulates Al-Sharaa on Assuming Presidency of Syria
Behind closed doors: Israel expands military presence in Syria, establishes new buffer zone
US airstrike in Syria kills senior operative of Al-Qaeda affiliate
Hamas Can Never Govern Gaza or Threaten Israel Again’: Rubio to Egyptian Foreign Minister
‘Dangerous for the Entire World’: Israeli Envoy to Moscow Warns Against Russian Pact With Iran
Trump's Envoy: Rebuilding Gaza Could Take 10-15 Years
Northern Gaza Residents: Stuck in Open Air Living
Hamas Confirms Israel Killed Mohammed Deif Last Year
Israel Delays Prisoner Release after Chaotic Hostage Handover
UNRWA Still Operating Despite Israel Ban
Biden quietly approved South Africa’s pro-Hamas envoy. Trump should fire him/Max Meizlish and Richard Goldberg/The Hill/January 30/2025
Iranian-backed militias in Iraq face an uncertain future/Seth J. Frantzman/FDD's Long War Journal/January 30/2025
Saudi FM Receives Phone Call from Russian Counterpart
Everyone Aboard an American Airlines Jet that Collided with an Army Helicopter is Feared Dead
Iraqi Shot Dead in Sweden Ahead of Verdict over Quran Burning

Titles For The Latest English LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources on January 30-31/2025
Continued chaos in Syria: Iraqi militias and an Alawite insurgency/Ahmad Sharawi/FDD's Long War Journal/January 30/2025
Qatar Seeks Nobel Peace Prize for Gaza Mediation Despite Enabling Hamas/Natalie Ecanow/FDD/Policy Brief/January 30/2025 |
Memo to Trump: Beware the ‘Reverse Teddy/Matt Pottinger/The Free Press./January 30/2025
Jihadist Terror: Alive and Well in Africa/Nils A. Haug/Gatestone Institute./January 30, 2025
When — and Why — Christians First ‘Demonized’ Muhammad/Raymond Ibrahim/The Stream/January 30, 2025
Is There Another Way with Israel?/Hazem Saghieh/Asharq Al Awsat/January 30/2025
What Happens After the Liberation of Khartoum/Osman Mirghani/Asharq Al Awsat/January 30/2025

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on January 30-31/2025
Video Link: A Crucial MTV Interview with Rasha Slim and Dr. Ali Khalifi on the Fourth Anniversary of the Assassination of Martyr Lokman Slim
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2025/01/139651/
A scientific exposé of the deceitful, terrorist, and demonic culture of the Iranian Supreme Leader’s doctrine, Welaet Al Fakeah, and its criminal Hezbollah terrorist Militia in Lebanon. The discussion presents undeniable evidence implicating Hezbollah and Iran’s barbaric, inhumane, delusional, and hallucinating axis in the assassination, as well as in Lebanon’s destruction and the dismantling of the Shiite community. The interview highlights how Hezbollah has severed Lebanon’s Shiites from their national identity and history, drowning them in absurd dogmas and heresies that have led to their current catastrophe.
January 30, 2025

Hezbollah’s financial institution Al Qard Al Hassan
Hanin Ghaddar/January 30/2025
Hezbollah’s financial institution Al Qard Al Hassan postponed the payment of compensations to the Lebanese who lost properties during the war. They gave people checks that cannot be paid! That’s why they’re desperate to have the Ministry of Finance. And that’s exactly why should NOT comply. They’re broke and it’s an opportunity to tell the Shia community that Hezbollah is not their only option.

Stifled Transitions
Charles Elias Chartouni/January 30/2025
The transitions in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza are still controversial and their actors undecided about theirs incomings. Observers ask whether the various actors are genuinely interested in transformative courses and to which extent. The newly set dynamics which have taken place throughout the Near East have not yet been relayed by steadier reformist courses within the respective political entities. A cursory review of the respective cases unveils the nature of the political obstacles that are preventing the new dynamics from taking hold. Multiple accounts help us make sense of the rising obstacles and the way we should go about dealing with them. The common pattern between the three cases is their pliability to Iranian power politics and their nemeses. Iranian power politics are by definition subversive, imperial prone regionally and repressive on the inside. The transformation process lies on the crossroads between normalization and democratization and on both accounts. These two indicators are to be monitored and gauged all along the unfolding events and political courses.

Israel Says it Intercepted Hezbollah Surveillance Drone
Asharq Al Awsat/January 30/2025
The Israeli military said Thursday it has intercepted a surveillance drone launched toward Israeli airspace by the Hezbollah militant group in Lebanon. Israel and Hezbollah reached a ceasefire in late November that ended some 14 months of fighting. Under the deal, both sides were to withdraw forces from southern Lebanon within 60 days, The Associated Press said. The deadline passed this week with Israeli troops still in Lebanon. But the US said the sides had agreed to extend the ceasefire through Feb. 18 while Israel continues its withdrawal.
Israel and Hezbollah have repeatedly accused each other of violating the deal.

Israel Steps Up Provocations in Southern Lebanon
Beirut: Paula Astih/Asharq Al Awsat/January 30/2025
Israel has ramped up its provocations against both the Lebanese government and Hezbollah, striking the southern town of Nabatieh, intensifying aerial activity, deploying drones over Beirut and detaining Lebanese citizens. Israel has also been stepping up the demolition of homes and infrastructure in villages remaining under its control. The escalation came after Lebanon’s government agreed to extend the ceasefire until February 18. Despite the rising tensions, Hezbollah—having already rejected the ceasefire extension—has remained silent on Israel’s breaches. Military experts attribute this stance to the group’s limited capacity to engage in a fresh conflict, as well as its need to contain public frustration over the prospect of another wave of displacement and destruction. Israel’s recent escalation and heightened provocations are a “dual message” to both Hezbollah and the Lebanese army, signaling its readiness for military intervention if the ceasefire terms are not upheld, according to retired Brig. Gen. Georges Nader. “Even though Israel itself has never adhered to agreements, it is making it clear that it is prepared to act at any moment,” Nader told Asharq Al-Awsat. Addressing the ongoing destruction of border villages still under Israeli occupation, Nader said the intensified demolitions were a direct response to Sunday’s events, when displaced residents insisted on returning to their homes. “Israel is turning these villages into scorched earth, making them uninhabitable even if it eventually withdraws,” he added. A military source confirmed that Israeli forces continue to occupy several areas and towns. The Lebanese army is continuing its deployment south of the Litani River in coordination with the Quintet Committee overseeing the ceasefire, despite Israeli attacks, the military said. It accused Israeli forces of firing at soldiers and civilians during the deployment and launching two airstrikes on Nabatieh. The army said it is helping residents in border towns and working to enforce UN Resolution 1701 while taking necessary security measures in the area.

Hezbollah’s Qard al-Hasan Halts Payouts: Technical Issues or Cash Crunch?
Beirut: Youssef Diab/January 30/2025
The Qard al-Hasan in Lebanon, widely regarded as Hezbollah’s de facto central bank, has suspended payments for housing displaced individuals and repairing partially damaged homes due to war with Israel. The suspension will remain in effect until February 10, with the association citing “technical reasons” for the decision. However, it stated that its other financial services—such as loan disbursements, withdrawals, deposits, and other transactions—will continue as usual. Observers attribute the move to Hezbollah’s mounting financial losses amid the conflict, as Israel has successfully targeted and destroyed most of Qard al-Hasan’s branches, offices, and vaults, wiping out significant sums of cash and jewelry stored within them. The scale of the losses has left Hezbollah financially strained, making it unable to cover compensation costs—unlike its response following the 2006 war. A source familiar with Hezbollah’s internal discussions said the group is facing a severe cash shortage, preventing it from covering rent and home repair costs for displaced families. Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, the source said Hezbollah had promised to provide housing aid for a year but underestimated the scale of destruction and the number of affected families, making the financial burden too great to handle. After the ceasefire, Hezbollah announced that Qard al-Hasan would pay each affected family $14,000—$8,000 as a one-time furniture allowance and $6,000 for a year’s rent in Beirut. Families in the south, Bekaa, and other areas were promised $4,000 for rent. The source, who declined to be named, revealed that Iran sent Hezbollah about $1 billion after the ceasefire, but the funds have already run out. With no cash left, Hezbollah is now searching for new funding sources. He also questioned Qard al-Hasan’s explanation that “technical reasons” were behind the suspension of payments while other financial services continued. There are growing fears, he warned, that Hezbollah could dip into public deposits to cover compensation. The group is also looking to restore supply routes from Iran, the source added, as Lebanese authorities have tightened controls at Beirut’s airport and port, blocking Hezbollah’s unchecked shipments.

Boulos hopes govt. won't comprise members of 'former establishment'
Naharnet/January 30, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump’s senior adviser on Arab and Middle Eastern affairs, Massad Boulos, said the new U.S. administration is “closely following up on the political developments in Lebanon” and is “looking forward to comprehensive changes.”“As has happened in the presidency and premiership, we hope that will reflect on the government line-up, which needs to reflect the needed reform and those who had a role in the former establishment should not be re-appointed,” Boulos added, in an interview with Al-Jadeed television.
“This is needed in order to continue the revival course and regain the international community’s confidence,” he added.

Aoun Meets with World Bank VP, Reaffirms Commitment to Reforms
This is Beirut/January 30, 2025
President Joseph Aoun reiterated on Wednesday Lebanon’s readiness to implement the necessary reforms, as outlined in his inaugural address. During a meeting with Ousmane Dione, the World Bank’s Vice President for the Middle East and North Africa, President Aoun emphasized that one of the primary objectives of the new government will be to draft the required legislative frameworks to facilitate these reforms, according to the National News Agency.In response, Dione reaffirmed the World Bank’s commitment to supporting Lebanon, stressing that every effort will be made to aid in the country’s reconstruction and recovery. It is important to note that the implementation of these reforms is a prerequisite for unlocking approximately $3 billion in financial assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to be disbursed over four years. However, no significant steps have been taken in this regard since 2022.

US Envoy Morgan Ortagus to visit Lebanon: Discussions center on Israeli withdrawal and Hezbollah captives
LBCI/January 30, 2025
Negotiations on two key issues, Israel's intention to maintain control over five sites in South Lebanon and the fate of Hezbollah captives held by Israel, are expected to gain momentum by the end of the week and early next week. U.S. special envoy Morgan Ortagus has reportedly arrived in Tel Aviv and is set to visit Lebanon in the coming days. The discussions will take place both in bilateral meetings and during the upcoming session of the mechanism monitoring committee of the ceasefire agreement scheduled for Friday. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has formulated a plan to address Israel's continued occupation of specific areas, including Labbouneh, Yaroun, Odaisseh, Kfarkela, and Khiam. However, he is withholding details of this proposal until he meets with Ortagus. Sources familiar with the matter indicate that both the United States and France, represented in the monitoring committee, insist on a complete Israeli withdrawal by February 18. However, concerns remain over potential U.S.-Israeli understandings that could delay the process, particularly as Israel continues to express doubts about the Lebanese Army's and UNIFIL's ability to counter Hezbollah. Regarding the prisoner issue, LBCI has obtained a list of seven Hezbollah members currently detained by Israel. The list includes Kamel Younes, captured in Blida; Hassan Jawad, Youssef Abdallah, Ibrahim Khalil, Mohammad Jawad, and Hussein Sharif, all abducted in Aita al-Shaab; and Imad Amhaz, who was kidnapped in an Israeli commando operation in Batroun. This issue will also be on the agenda in talks with the U.S. envoy and the monitoring committee. Meanwhile, the International Committee of the Red Cross has expressed willingness to assist in addressing the matter but has remained discreet about any potential steps to ensure the success of the negotiations.

Salam says he's 'flexible' but 'same standards to apply to everyone' in govt. formation
Naharnet/January 30, 2025
Prime Minister-designate Nawaf Salam has stressed that he “will not give up any of the standards” that he has announced for the government formation process, which are separation between parliamentary and ministerial posts and naming “competent” ministers who are not party members or intend to run in the parliamentary or municipal elections. Addressing those who have voiced concerns, Salam called on them to hold him accountable should he breach these standards. “I’m not the one obstructing or delaying the formation,” Salam added, following talks with President Joseph Aoun at the Baabda Palace.
Salam also reiterated that “no ministry is exclusive to a certain sect and no ministry is prohibited to a certain sect.”He added that he wants to form a government that would “win the confidence of the Lebanese who are longing for reform, in order to pull Lebanon out of its deep and acute crises, regain its Arab credibility and rally international support for it.” Emphasizing that he will not back down from the “standards,” the PM-designate also noted that he is “an advocate of flexibility in dealing with everyone.”“I will maintain this approach and I’m confident that I will overcome the difficulties,” he added.

Report: Salam rejects Jaber, asks Berri to send new names
Naharnet/January 30, 2025
Prime Minister-designate Nawaf Salam has reversed his approval of allotting the finance portfolio to ex-MP Yassine Jaber who is close to Speaker Nabih Berri, al-Akhbar newspaper reported on Thursday. Salam informed President Joseph Aoun in their meeting on Wednesday that “there is a main obstacle with the Amal and Hezbollah duo, in addition to disagreements over some names,” the newspaper said. He added that “the other hurdles are solvable, seeing as he is taking the Sunni bloc for granted, and he also agrees with President Aoun that the obstacles related to Christians can be easily resolved once the problem with Shiites is settled,” the daily added. Informed sources meanwhile told al-Akhbar that Salam called Berri after departing the Baabda Palace, asking him for “new names,” with the Speaker telling him that he “will not be late in sending the names along with Hezbollah,” advising him to “hurry up in devising a cabinet line-up and announcing it within days.” Salam is meanwhile “totally ignoring the Free Patriotic Movement when he talks about the Christian share, as if he is seeking to push MP Jebran Bassil not to take part,” the sources added.

Aoun urges parties to shun 'wrangling over quotas'
Naharnet/January 30, 2025
President Joseph Aoun has called on the country’s political parties to “shun bickering, narrow policies and wrangling over shares.”He added that “all ministries belong to Lebanon, the same as the Council of Ministers.”
“Sects should be represented in Cabinet through pioneers who enjoy independence over their decisions,” the president said.

President Joseph Aoun affirms commitment to reforms in Lebanon during meeting with UN coordinator
LBCI/January 30, 2025
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun assured U.N. Resident Coordinator and Humanitarian Coordinator for Lebanon, Imran Riza, that implementing reforms will be a top priority for the new government once formed. During their meeting at the Baabda Palace on Wednesday afternoon, Aoun reaffirmed Lebanon's commitment to enacting these reforms to achieve the anticipated economic recovery. He also expressed Lebanon's readiness to cooperate with U.N. organizations to support these efforts. Riza congratulated Aoun on his election as president and reiterated the United Nations' full readiness to assist Lebanon in implementing the necessary reforms. He highlighted that U.N. experts, based on their respective fields, could collaborate with Lebanese officials and decision-makers to facilitate these efforts, enabling Lebanon to benefit from available international funding. The discussion also touched on the damages Lebanon sustained due to the recent Israeli aggression. Riza noted that a rapid loan of $250 million had been proposed, based on the U.N.'s assessment of the destruction, to aid Lebanon in addressing the consequences of the attacks.

The struggle to finalize Lebanon's cabinet amid sectarian disputes: President Aoun calls for urgent government formation
LBCI/January 30, 2025
Despite President Joseph Aoun's urgency to form a full-fledged government capable of securing parliamentary confidence, the process remains stalled. Aoun is rapidly pushing for a cabinet allowing him to travel abroad with a team of specialized ministers, each responsible for their respective portfolios.
However, negotiations have yet to yield a final agreement. Prime Minister-designate Nawaf Salam met with Aoun on Wednesday, presenting an incomplete cabinet lineup regarding ministerial distribution and names. Most of the proposed ministers are non-partisan figures endorsed by various political forces based on their qualifications. According to LBCI sources, disagreements persist over appointments, particularly regarding names proposed by Hezbollah for portfolios other than the Finance Ministry. Meanwhile, Salam's inner circle maintains that the primary obstacle remains the Finance Ministry. Salam has reportedly made no promises to any party of a specific ministry or nominee, insisting that all selections are based on competence. While sources close to him indicate that the cabinet formation is nearing completion, one major hurdle continues to grow: Sunni representation. Unlike the Christian factions—who, despite their differences, have widely supported the new administration—several Sunni leaders feel excluded from the decision-making process. MP Faisal Karami, the latest to voice concerns, met with Salam on Thursday and called for consistent standards across sects. Karami argued that Sunni leaders should also have a say if Shiite and Christian parties are consulted on ministerial appointments. Karami's criticism was prompted by Salam's proposal to appoint a woman from Tripoli to the cabinet without prior consultation with Sunni political figures. He insisted that any nominee should either have his endorsement or be discussed within the National Accord Bloc he represents. He noted that the bloc has competent, politically unaffiliated candidates who could serve effectively. Karami inferred from his discussions with Salam that the Prime Minister-designate is intent on selecting technocrats rather than political figures. He suggested this move could mean that decision-making authority within the cabinet will ultimately rest with the president and prime minister alone.

Israeli drone strikes vehicle in Yarin
Associated Press/January 30, 2025
An Israeli drone raided Thursday an engineering vehicle in the town of Yarin in south Lebanon, local media reports said, as Israeli soldiers fired machineguns at the southern town of Markaba. Two civilians were later lightly wounded on the outskirts of Tallousa near Markaba, as a drone struck near their motorbike. Late on Wednesday, another vehicle was targeted in the Yohmor-Shqif region, also in the south. The Israeli army spokesperson said the drone targeted an engineering vehicle that constituted a violation of the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon. He added that Israel "will act to remove any threat to the State of Israel and its citizens."Five Lebanese people were wounded earlier on Wednesday in a village where civilians were protesting for Israeli soldiers to let them access their lands. The Health Ministry said the strike in Majdal Selm hit "families" trying to reenter their villages. Despite a Sunday deadline, Israel's military did not withdraw from southern Lebanon under the terms of its ceasefire with Hezbollah. Protests have since been held daily, and the Israeli military has sometimes responded with gunfire, killing 26 people. The U.S. and Lebanon announced a ceasefire extension until Feb. 18. On Tuesday, two Israeli strikes wounded 36 people in Nabatiyeh. The Israeli military said it targeted "a Hezbollah truck and an additional vehicle that transferred weapons."The strikes were north of the Litani River. The ceasefire prohibits Hezbollah from having a military presence south of the river. One of the strikes hit an amusement park, leaving it in ruins with shattered bumper cars, a twisted Ferris wheel and carousel. "This city is meant as an entertainment facility for children," said Haitham Alam, the park's manager.

Air France says will resume flights to Beirut Saturday
Agence France Presse/January 30, 2025
Air France will resume service to Beirut this Saturday, initially with five weekly flights, the airline announced. Transavia, the low cost subsidiary of the Air France-KLM group, will resume its flights to the Lebanese capital on February 13, starting with three flights a week, it. Both airlines had ceased serving Beirut in September as tensions rose in the region.

History of technocracy: Can Lebanon's leaders accept a true technocratic government?
LBCI/January 30, 2025
Since Lebanon's independence, the country has seen 11 technocratic governments—nine before the Taif Agreement and two after. However, most so-called technocratic governments included ministers who were handpicked by party leaders or sectarian figures while not officially affiliated with political parties. These ministers often served as a convenient shield for political leaders when things were running smoothly but were also used as tools for obstruction when needed. Lebanon has witnessed various forms of political maneuvering under the guise of technocracy, from so-called "king ministers" to boycotting parliamentary sessions and obstructing the quorum to paralyze governance. One of the rare examples of a government that embodied true technocratic principles was the cabinet formed at the start of President Fouad Chehab's tenure in 1958, led by Prime Minister Rashid Karami. This government was dominated by professionals and experts rather than traditional politicians, aiming to implement administrative and developmental reforms that defined the Chehabist era. Ministers from various sects, chosen for their competence rather than political allegiances, left a lasting impact on the country's institutions. Figures like Philippe Takla, Edward Hunayn, Hassan Mcharafieh, and Ahmad Al-Arabi are still remembered for their contributions to state-building, free from sectarian or party constraints. Their legacy remains tied to the vision of President Chehab, who sought to establish a modern, institutional state governed by the rule of law and an independent judiciary. Now, with consultations underway for the formation of a government under Prime Minister-designate Nawaf Salam, discussions about a new technocratic administration have resurfaced. The question remains whether Lebanon's current political class is ready to embrace a cabinet of independent professionals—one that prioritizes institutional integrity, aligns with global developments, and refuses to be a tool for any leader, sect, or party. Are today's leaders truly capable of shouldering such a responsibility?

PM-designate Nawaf Salam calls Grand Mufti, reaffirms commitment to government formation
LBCI/January 30, 2025
Prime Minister-designate Nawaf Salam contacted the Grand Mufti of the Lebanese Republic, Sheikh Abdel Latif Derian, to inquire about his health and wish him a speedy recovery. The phone call also served as an opportunity to discuss the general situation in the country. Salam reaffirmed to the Grand Mufti his commitment to the standards he has set for forming the new government.

Health Ministry releases updated cumulative report on Israeli attacks on Lebanon's healthcare sector
LBCI/January 30, 2025
The Lebanese Public Health Ministry released an updated cumulative report detailing the Israeli attacks on the health sector in Lebanon, including hospitals, primary healthcare centers, and emergency medical organizations. According to the report, the attacks on emergency medical associations included 237 incidents, resulting in 201 killed, 253 injuries, and targeting 67 centers. Ambulance vehicles were also heavily affected, with 177 ambulances and 59 firefighting vehicles attacked. In addition, 18 rescue vehicles were targeted. In terms of hospitals, the report highlighted 68 attacks on healthcare facilities, 38 of which were directly targeted. Eight hospitals were forced to close, while seven operated partially. Two hospitals remain forcibly closed. The attacks resulted in 16 killed and 74 injured individuals, with 25 healthcare vehicles damaged. The report also detailed 63 attacks on primary healthcare centers, 58 of which were forced to close, and 10 were destroyed entirely. Additionally, 50 centers sustained partial damage. In its introduction, the Public Health Ministry emphasized that this document serves to record the violations against healthcare workers and facilities during the Israeli aggression. The report aims to hold perpetrators accountable, ensuring that these violations are not ignored or repeated. It also honors the memory of healthcare workers who lost their lives in the line of duty, underscoring the need to reaffirm the sanctity of healthcare. "Attacking the healthcare sector is an attack on shared human values, and the international community must uphold international humanitarian law, hold violators accountable, and prevent such atrocities from occurring again," the report concluded.

To What Extent Can a Leader Make Independent Decisions?
David Sahyoun/This is Beirut/January 30/2025
How can we lay claim to freedom of choice when the unconscious shapes our decisions? Leaders, driven by psychic forces beyond their grasp, navigate between the illusion of control and the reality of their limitations. Humility thus becomes the gateway to a more authentic freedom.
Far from being purely rational actors, leaders—like all human beings—are constantly influenced by unconscious forces that shape their choices, distort their perceptions, and foster illusions of control. The freedom each person believes they possess is, in truth, far more constrained than it appears. Every individual constructs their own subjective representation of the world, shaped by their personal history, past experiences, beliefs, and values.
The unconscious wields a dominant influence over our psyche, shaping the majority of our behaviors, choices, and decisions. It is well established that our unconscious drives, rooted in the id, fundamentally dictate our actions. The ego is continually pulled between these primal forces and the demands of the superego, creating a constant tension that underpins every decision-making process. This psychic dynamic operates beneath the surface of apparent rationality. Indeed, every leader perceives and interprets their environment through a psychic reality shaped far more by language and the unconscious than by any supposed objective perception. This mediation profoundly alters the perception of situations through a complex web of emotions, fantasies, and unconscious representations residing within the leader’s psyche. Thus, even a seemingly straightforward situation can be reframed as an existential threat under the sway of fantasies that deeply distort the perception of self and others.
Winnicott's concept of the false self uncovers a critical truth about leadership: leaders develop a social façade that allows them to navigate external demands but inevitably severs them from their deeper sense of authenticity. This psychic disconnection significantly compromises their freedom of decision, confining them to behaviors shaped by unconscious forces and internalized external pressures.
Unconscious repetition patterns illustrate how unresolved childhood conflicts systematically infiltrate the professional sphere. A leader may unconsciously project an Oedipal, fraternal, or sibling rivalry onto a colleague, thereby recreating primitive conflicts that shape organizational power dynamics. These unconscious frameworks inexorably influence strategic decisions and professional relationships.
Rationalization is another defense mechanism that emerges as a key process in leaders. This psychological mechanism transforms decisions driven by unconscious impulses and anxieties into choices that appear rational. For example, when a leader cites a lack of information to justify a decision, they often mask a deep-seated fear of confronting an uncomfortable reality. While this defense momentarily protects the ego, it hinders a genuine understanding of the underlying issues.
Thus, personal subjectivity acts as an inescapable filter of all reality, naturally extending to the professional realm. Every leader inevitably interprets their environment through a psychic lens shaped by their personal history. This unconscious framework profoundly alters the perception of situations, to the extent that an ordinary competitor can be perceived as an existential threat under the influence of unresolved primitive anxieties. Objective reality is thus consistently reconfigured by the psychic forces that inhabit the leader.
Leaders are often perceived as being overwhelmed by an illusion of omnipotence, which is heightened by their dominant position. Their excessive narcissism fosters a fantasy of absolute control that conceals their core vulnerabilities. It makes the acceptance of any form of criticism intolerable, as the leader’s narcissism is often an attempt to compensate for a deep-seated sense of inferiority. This dynamic is dangerously amplified by the isolation inherent in their role. Surrounded by subordinates who constantly validate their views, they become ensnared in a delusional bubble, cut off from any confrontation with reality. This narcissistic spiral undermines any genuine opportunity for self-examination.
Cognitive biases also play a significant role as major determinants of managerial behavior, with confirmation bias driving leaders to select information that reinforces their pre-existing beliefs. These psychological mechanisms create the illusion of rational decision-making, even though the decisions are directly shaped by deeply rooted unconscious dynamics.
Another recurring mechanism that plays a central role in this dynamic is denial. By refusing to confront a reality perceived as threatening, the psyche protects itself from immediate discomfort, but this protection comes at the high cost of disconnecting from reality. Another key mechanism is projection, which leads the leader to project their own repressed anxieties and desires onto others, profoundly distorting their perception of professional relationships. This is mirrored in employees as well, within a dynamic of emotional transfer, where they may relive past emotional experiences in their relationship with the leader. These unconscious defenses significantly limit the leader's ability to objectively understand situations and exercise informed leadership. Confronted with this psychological complexity, the path to authentic freedom is outlined through the teachings of Michel de Montaigne. His philosophy does not advocate for mere surface-level modesty, but calls for a lucid and courageous acknowledgment of our fundamental limitations. He presents an "ethic of modesty" that can be particularly enriching for contemporary leadership: it requires the leader to relinquish illusions of omnipotence and adopt a stance of critical openness and ongoing self-examination. This approach involves a dual process: acknowledging the determining influence of unconscious psychological forces while cultivating what Montaigne refers to as a "well-formed mind," one that can question its own certainties and embrace contradiction as a source of enlightenment rather than resistance. Essential humility thus stands as a fundamental lever for enlightened leadership, as well as for all human conduct. Far from being a weakness, it fosters a healthy dynamic: it strengthens collective cohesion, builds trust, and nurtures a culture of continuous improvement. This approach allows the leader to refine a realistic perception, a critical skill for navigating the complexities of decision-making. Cultivating this humility requires an essential prerequisite: achieving emotional maturity, embracing otherness and differences as a source of enrichment, enabling, as Montaigne puts it, "to move toward those who contradict me." The teachings of this wise philosopher resonate strongly: authentic power must be rooted in humble conduct, anchored in a profound understanding of oneself and others.

All Hope Lost?
Marc Saikali/This is Beirut/January 30/2025
On January 9, at last, after more than two years of deadlock, a “real” President was elected. A man of integrity and independence, committed to Lebanon and its people. Hopes of reconstruction, development and justice began to take shape.
Then came the end of the 60-day truce—without the government having prepared a Plan B. As a result, Hezbollah seized the opportunity left by the incomplete withdrawal of the Israeli army. “Spontaneously,” the residents of the southern villages insisted on returning to their homes despite the risks. Caught off guard, the political authorities saw the Lebanese army react intelligently, as it has done for years. It escorted the people in order to limit violence. Despite the army’s efforts, 24 people tragically lost their lives.
They were immediately declared “martyrs of the resistance” by the pro-Iranian militia, which exploited the chaos to regain political influence. A triumphant return to the decades-old triad imposed on all Lebanese: “Army, People, Resistance.” So here we are, engaged in a second “liberation” of the South—or at least, that’s how Hezbollah and its allies are presenting it. The goal: to ensure the militia retains its weapons at all costs, despite UN resolutions, in a country emerging from five disastrous years which include a war that Hezbollah lost. This strategy is built on denial. Now, against all logic, anyone who does not believe in victory against Israel is dubbed a traitor.To drive the message home, hordes of armed young men on motorcycles paraded the streets of the capital—an act of intimidation meant to silence a population skeptical of these successive claims of victory. As usual, without the army’s intervention, these provocations could have escalated into a civil war, the people have had enough of proxy wars. Meanwhile, the designated Prime Minister struggles to form a government. The “Lebanese farce,” as some diplomats call it, is back in full force, with every political faction scrambling to secure as many ministerial positions as possible to serve its own interests. These recurring episodes have already eroded the international community’s confidence in Lebanon’s ability to pull itself out of its downward spiral. Without confidence, investments will not return, there will be no money to rebuild the country, revive the economy or implement the necessary reforms. The ruins are here to stay for now. The President cannot fix everything alone. Those whose only political ambition is to obstruct him remain omnipresent. Once again, the hope for better days is slipping away, as if a sinister force is relentlessly tormenting a people who are denied the right to dream. But as Victor Hugo once said, “There is in the human heart a chord that always vibrates to the thrill of impossible hopes.”

Will Hezbollah Learn from the Disasters of Its War and “Descend from Its Perches”?!
Hussein Ataya/Janoubia Website/January 30/2025
(Free translation from Arabic by: Elias Bejjani)
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2025/01/139655/
Introduction
Hezbollah must take a hard look at the devastation it has inflicted on Lebanon and the Shiite community through its reckless war against Israel. Hezbolah has plunged itself into a delusional cycle of false victories, arrogance, and self-deception while ignoring the catastrophic consequences of its actions. Will it finally wake up to reality, acknowledge its failures, and face the truth?
A Leadership Blind to Reality
Hezbollah’s leadership has a longstanding inability to comprehend the geopolitical shifts occurring in the region. Throughout its history, it has struggled to analyze these changes and adapt accordingly. Even now, despite the harsh realities unfolding before its eyes, it continues its sterile political rhetoric, clinging to arrogance and a profound ignorance of the facts on the ground. It remains trapped in its outdated ideological cocoon, repeating hollow slogans such as “resistance” and “we won.”
The so-called “support war” that Hezbollah launched on October 8, 2023, and sustained until November 27, 2024, ended with the humiliating ceasefire agreement—an accord signed after grueling negotiations conducted under relentless fire and destruction. The negotiations, led by Hezbollah’s ally Nabih Berri, were overseen by both the party’s old and current leadership, who were fully aware of every painful detail in the American-backed ceasefire resolution. Despite the severe conditions imposed on Hezbollah—conditions that amounted to an admission of defeat—the party immediately embarked on its usual propaganda campaign, declaring victory. It went as far as to claim that this so-called triumph surpassed its supposed win in the 2006 war.
However, the facts tell a very different story. Israeli intelligence deeply infiltrated Hezbollah’s ranks, facilitating the assassination of its senior leaders—first, second, and third-tier commanders—including the entire Jihadist Council. Yet, despite these devastating losses, Hezbollah continues its deceptive narratives, parroting the same rhetoric that preceded its humiliating defeat. If this is victory, what would defeat look like?
The Farce of Resistance
Last weekend, Hezbollah orchestrated a theatrical provocation by pushing civilians to march toward villages in southern Lebanon still under Israeli occupation. The party’s leadership, instead of taking responsibility for its failures, resorted to its usual blame game—accusing the Lebanese state of delaying the enemy’s withdrawal and even criticizing the Lebanese army for not “liberating” the remaining occupied areas. This absurdity reaches new heights when one considers that Hezbollah waged this war unilaterally, without the approval of the Lebanese state or its army.
Even more outrageous is that the same Hezbollah leadership that failed to protect itself from Israeli infiltration now demands that the Lebanese state take responsibility for its reckless war. The war did not just deal a severe blow to Hezbollah’s so-called resistance—it delivered a fatal strike to the party’s very core. Yet, despite these crushing setbacks, Hezbollah refuses to learn from its mistakes.
A Devastated South and a Betrayed People
Hezbollah’s war has categorically disproven its claim of protecting Lebanon, its south, and its people. On the contrary, this so-called “resistance” has proven utterly incapable of defending itself. Instead, it has consistently used the southern Lebanese population as human shields while hiding among civilian homes. The result has been catastrophic: increased casualties among innocent citizens and a level of destruction unprecedented in Lebanon’s modern history.
The devastation in Lebanon’s south, its suburbs, and the Bekaa Valley is immense. More than thirty towns and villages have been completely obliterated, erased from the map, and now exist only in the memories of those who once called them home. Families have lost their properties, their livelihoods, and their future—all sacrificed for Hezbollah’s delusions.
Last weekend’s Hezbollah-staged provocation only led to more Lebanese bloodshed and an even greater loss of innocent lives, all to serve the party’s internal political ambitions. This reckless disregard for human life should serve as a final wake-up call.
Time for Hezbollah to Face Reality
Hezbollah must recognize the new realities before it is too late. Its leadership must abandon arrogance and embrace reason, not only to salvage what little credibility remains but to ensure its own survival in Lebanon’s evolving political landscape. The recent war proved beyond any doubt that no political party—no matter how heavily armed—can protect itself with weapons alone. True protection comes from the legitimacy of the state, its army, and its institutions.
It is time for Hezbollah to apologize to the Lebanese people and abandon the state of denial in which it is trapped. The party must acknowledge that its reliance on foreign backers has failed, that the so-called “unity of arenas” was nothing more than an illusion that led to ruin. Its reckless war has achieved nothing but death, destruction, and irreversible damage to Lebanon.
Finally, one fundamental question remains:
Has Hezbollah learned its lesson? Will it finally surrender its weapons, as stipulated in the ceasefire agreement, or will it continue to drag Lebanon into endless wars with its empty rhetoric and false bravado?

Lebanon’s prime minister-designate is unlikely to confront Hezbollah
David Daoud/MENA/January 30/2025
After a two-year vacancy, Lebanon finally has a president. On January 9, Joseph Aoun was swept into office as its fourteenth holder to Lebanese and international acclaim. More importantly, if less glamorously, Lebanon has also selected a prime minister-designate to form a cabinet. Nawaf Salam—a former Palestine Liberation Organization and Fatah militant turned Lebanese diplomat who also served as president of the International Court of Justice—is now expected to assume the premiership. As the head of Lebanon’s true executive authority, lifting the country out of its compounding crises—not the least of which is the question of what will become of Hezbollah and its arms—will fall upon Salam. His chances of success are far from clear. What is clear is that given Lebanon’s dire economic state, its postwar reconstruction needs, and the balance of political power in the country, Salam is highly unlikely to meaningfully confront Hezbollah and risk escalating internal conflict during his premiership.
The powers of the prime minister
Under Lebanon’s pre-civil war constitution, the presidency—earmarked by convention for a Maronite, the country’s dominant Christian sect—was Lebanon’s preeminent and most powerful office. The Taif Agreement of 1989, which ended the Lebanese Civil War, amended the constitution and shuffled Lebanon’s balance of power to better accord with the best estimate of the country’s new demographic realities. In part, it expanded the power of the Sunni-designated post of prime minister and his cabinet at the presidency’s expense—creating a balance between two offices that would now operate as mutual counterweights.
Today, according to the Lebanese constitution, the cabinet “set[s] the general policy of the State in all domains, draws up bills and organizational decrees,” and “Oversees the implementation of laws and regulations, and supervises the activities over all the State’s institutions, including civil, military, and security administrations and institutions without exception.” If he cobbles together a cabinet and then gains the parliament’s confidence within thirty days, Salam will become the latest beneficiary of that expanded power.
Lebanon’s political landscape
But Salam and his cabinet are unlikely to usher in fundamental changes.
Lebanon’s next parliamentary elections are set for May 2026. Salam therefore has a year and a half, at most, to tackle a wide range of issues, from a collapsed economy and poor infrastructure to security challenges, before his government dissolves by operation of law. His government will be responsible for fully implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and the November 27, 2024, cease-fire deal with Israel. And Salam, who has not yet fully assumed the premiership, has already confronted and overcome a legitimacy crisis.
Salam’s candidacy won the support of eighty-four of Lebanon’s 128 parliamentarians. But that wasn’t supposed to happen. His predecessor and longtime ally of Hezbollah, Najib Miqati, was set to retake the office, reportedly as part of the guarantees and assurances that presidential candidate Aoun gave Hezbollah and the Amal Party—the so-called Shia duo—in exchange for backing Aoun’s election. When many of the parties that had seemingly committed to Miqati switched their votes at the last minute to Salam, first Hezbollah and then Amal responded by withholding their support. The pro-Hezbollah newspaper Al-Akhbar decried what it called a “total American coup” while the head of the group’s Loyalty to the Resistance parliamentary bloc, Mohammad Raad, angrily accused Salam’s backers of “sever[ing]” the conciliatory hand Hezbollah had extended by voting for Aoun.
The Shia duo thus denied Salam the backing of the only two representative parties of Lebanese Shias—likely the country’s largest and fastest-growing sect. Their statements also left it ambiguous as to whether they would join or support Salam’s government. While not constitutionally required, because Lebanon continues to operate on the basis of sectarian power sharing and consensus, convention would require Salam’s cabinet to have pan-sectarian support. Without it, the cloud of illegitimacy and “exclusion” of one of Lebanon’s constituent components would hang over his government. Salam and Aoun therefore reportedly scrambled to placate the Shia duo—with Salam sending them assurances that his designation wasn’t intended to exclude them, and Aoun stepping in to mediate.
Salam and the Shia duo appear to have smoothed matters over. Caught off guard, Hezbollah and Amal’s intransigence was only temporary political muscle-flexing to extract concessions or guarantees from Salam. This was a similar tactic to when they withheld their votes from Aoun during the first round of voting for the president on January 9. Whatever the eventual composition of Salam’s future government or the content of its policy statement, they sought to ensure that Salam would uphold the president’s assurances that were supposed to come through Miqati—and not move against Hezbollah, its arms, or its shadow state. To be sure, Salam is closer to a consensus candidate than the anti-Hezbollah pugilists Ashraf Rifi and Fouad Makhzoumi, the preferred candidates of the old-guard opposition and activist opposition, respectively, who withdrew in favor of Salam. Nevertheless, Salam is not a partner and known quantity like Miqati. And an unfriendly prime minister could theoretically initiate the process of disarming Hezbollah. After all, Lebanon’s armed forces are constitutionally “subject to the authority of the Cabinet”—and not the president, who is only their nominal commander.
Toeing the line
But Salam was always unlikely to pick a fight with Hezbollah. Salam’s list of vital tasks is long, and his time in office could be short. The Shia duo are not marginal societal actors. Hezbollah alone won 356,122 of the 1,951,683 votes cast in the 2022 parliamentary elections—the most of any party by 150,000 votes—and two separate 2024 polls showed that 85-93 percent of Shias in Lebanon support the group. Amal won an additional 191,142 votes. At best, clashing with them would be met with the obstructionism and political paralysis at which the Shia duo—and especially Hezbollah—excels. At worst, given their popularity, it would be flirting with civil war. But their compliance, at minimum, would enable Salam and his government to pursue at least some of its goals.
Salam must steer Lebanon through economic recovery, update and upgrade the country’s decayed infrastructure, enact political and judicial reform, and begin the work of postwar reconstruction. These are heavy lifts for a normally functioning state, and for Lebanon they may be impossible—even without compounding these challenges by trying to disarm Hezbollah. Therefore, confronting the group will likely drop to the bottom of Salam’s priorities, if it isn’t absent from his agenda entirely.
The danger of Israel resuming its campaign against Hezbollah, the main inducement for Lebanon to act against the group, diminished considerably under international and US pressure with Aoun’s election. Pressure on Israel to refrain from escalating again in Lebanon is only likely to increase, including from the Trump administration, as Salam forms his government. Salam wouldn’t be the first Lebanese politician to deem it unwise to risk igniting a civil war by pushing to disarm Hezbollah to stave off a renewal of conflict between Hezbollah and Israel. Another Lebanese civil war could last at least a decade and would devastate the entire country. Another full-scale Israel-Hezbollah war, in contrast, is now unlikely to recur for years, would probably be relatively short-lived, and its destruction would likely fall largely on Hezbollah-dominated areas.
Reports indicate that Salam’s intended cabinet policy statement will mirror Aoun’s inaugural speech. Based on Salam’s own promise to “fully implement Resolution 1701 and all terms of the [November 27] cease-fire agreement,” it will likely incorporate Aoun’s promise to monopolize force in the hands of the Lebanese state. Some have interpreted these ambiguous words as a vow to disarm Hezbollah. But Lebanon has long interpreted these terms idiosyncratically to exclude disarming the group. As Salam proceeds with the formation of his government, and if he succeeds in securing his premiership, he is very likely to fall back on these interpretations to avoid a clash with Hezbollah that will transform his term into a paralyzed failure.
*David Daoud is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where he focuses on Israel, Hezbollah, and Lebanon affairs.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/lebanon-nawaf-salam-confront-hezbollah/

Naim Qassem’s most defiant speech yet as Hezbollah secretary-general
David Daoud/FDD's Long War Journal/January 30, 2025
https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2025/01/analysis-naim-qassems-most-defiant-speech-yet-as-hezbollah-secretary-general.php
Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem’s last speech, delivered on Monday, was his most defiant to date. Qassem spoke one day after the expiration of the November 27 Israel-Lebanon ceasefire deal’s 60-day timetable for the withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) from south Lebanon.
The prior day had witnessed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of predominantly Shiite south Lebanese defy Israeli orders and seek to return to border towns and villages still occupied by the IDF—a human procession reportedly instigated by Hezbollah. Qassem’s combativeness was likely encouraged by this massive turnout and its overall pro-Hezbollah character. The group’s continued ability to mobilize the Shiite masses was a demonstration of strength not only to the Israelis but also to Hezbollah’s domestic Lebanese opponents, who would contemplate exploiting the group’s current military degradation to move against it.Qassem described his speech, which coincided with the 27th of the Islamic month of Rajab—traditionally believed to be the date of the Islamic prophet Mohammad’s “Night Journey”—as an “accounting” and a “narrative.” Qassem began in a typical formulaic manner, recounting recent events and offering salutations, with a special dedication to “the struggling [al-mujahid] Palestinian people and their resistance in Gaza, the West Bank, and the ’48 Lands [Israel] on achieving a ceasefire.” He also lauded the “partners to this victory, the Islamic Republic of Iran … dear Yemen … and dear Iraq’s people and Shiite religious authority [marja’iyya] and [Popular] Mobilization [Forces]” and praised “Lebanon, which bravely offered blood and sacrifices, including the most eminent of the ummah’s martyrs, sayyedHassan Nasrallah, in support of Gaza.”
Qassem continued to frame “Al Aqsa Flood”—the war begun after Palestinian armed factions attacked Israel on October 7, 2023—as a momentous victory that restored the centrality of the Palestinian cause “even in the West” and exposed Israel as a weak and “murderous warring gang working towards the extermination of humanity” that will eventually be swept away “God willing … as this Palestinian people achieve the liberation of its land from the river to the sea.”
Qassem broke down the remainder of his speech into six points. The first two, recounting the recent war and Hezbollah’s losses, were interrelated. He began by exaggerating the magnitude of the group’s recent fight with Israel. Qassem described the fight as an “aggression with global, American, Western support” that “respected no law, brooked no sanctity, killing humans and destroying stone and tree and life with no limits,” stressing the “tremendous gap between the vast American-Israeli military capability and that of the Resistance—no matter the capabilities it acquired.” Qassem drilled down on this contrast between the “Israeli-American exceptional military superiority” and Hezbollah’s comparatively meager military means but argued that Hezbollah’s ultimately superior strength rested upon the inevitable “triumph of justice over injustice.”
Having thus framed the contest between the two sides—overwhelming, American-backed Israeli military might vs. a plucky resistance organization whose strength is derived from the power of belief and the justice of its cause—Qassem conceded that Hezbollah had indeed suffered tremendous, unprecedented military setbacks during the last war.
“Some of this [Hezbollah support] base has questions and was surprised by what happened,” Qassem said. “This was a tremendous event and war, and some of its outcomes were unexpected,” he explained before offering Hezbollah’s closest-ever admission of a military defeat at Israel’s hands.
Because of the capabilities that Hezbollah had amassed over the years, Qassem said, “many assumed we would defeat Israel and deal it a mortal blow.” Many, he said, also assumed that Hezbollah’s accumulated deterrence against Israel and its unbroken record of prior military victories—as the group’s narrative frames all its past engagements—would hold and continue. Hezbollah’s supporters, Qassem said, were, therefore, shocked at the spate and extent of the organization’s losses in materiel and men, “chief among them the greatest of the martyrs, sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.” He also admitted that Israeli intelligence’s successful penetration of Hezbollah’s organizational apparatus had facilitated these losses.
But while Qassem’s words approximated an admission of defeat, they were far from one. He employed rhetorical sleight of hand, lowering his audience’s expectations. “We must understand … that the Resistance cannot be military stronger, and we can never assume that its victory is military,” Qassem said. “The Resistance’s victory over Israel is [through] its faith, youth, women, children, elders, offerings, blood of its leaders, in the sacrifices it offers,” he explained. “That is how the Resistance prevails,” Qassem continued, insisting that the military component was but one element of victory, with the more important aspects being faith, belief, and the ability to withstand and offer great sacrifices.
Here, Qassem claimed, Hezbollah had delivered in spades. Not only had it achieved “the two best things, martyrdom and victory … victory because we remained in the battlefield and the Resistance will persist,” but the group had also dealt Israel heavy blows and foiled its plans. Despite Israel, as he claimed, “deploying five divisions comprised of 75,000 soldiers,” Hezbollah “confronted them with legendary steadfastness, exceptional bravery, and the determination of martyrdom.” Israel’s massive war machine was thus denied entry into Lebanon, “save for some hundreds of meters”—its goals of destroying Hezbollah and stoking domestic Lebanese strife foiled. Meanwhile, it was Hezbollah that inflicted “massive losses among the ranks of the Israeli army, and throughout the Israeli entity, denying them safety or stability, with economic, social, political, operational, and psychological consequences,” until “Israel asked, through America, for a ceasefire.”
It was at that point, Qassem said, “[Hezbollah] agreed with the Lebanese state to a ceasefire.” “This,” he claimed, “was a victory.” Qassem concluded with a particularly obnoxious phrase—“Record this as a victory”—that he kept repeating throughout his speech, likely intending for Hezbollah’s propaganda apparatuses to turn it into a popular meme, much like they did with his predecessor Nasrallah’s phrases and gestures.
So, in Qassem’s narrative, Hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire from a position of strength—an agreement for which Israel had effectively begged. “We agreed to a ceasefire because we had suffered aggression and the aggressor requested to end its aggression,” he said, adding, “We agreed to the end of the aggression because we did not want it or a war to begin with,” a falsehood belied by Hezbollah initiating unprovoked attacks against Israel on October 8, 2023. Because Hezbollah had not wanted a war, he said, it was only “natural for us to accept a ceasefire.” Qassem also said his group had agreed to a ceasefire to comply with the Lebanese state’s decision to enter into such an agreement.
Now, Qassem claimed, Hezbollah had decided to strictly adhere to the ceasefire’s terms despite Israel allegedly violating the deal “almost 1,350 times by air, land, and sea.”
“We, as Hezbollah, complied. We were in constant dialogue with [Lebanon’s] political authorities. At one point, I’ll admit, we thought to respond to the violations,” Qassem said, but the Lebanese authorities advised against it. “They told us … it would be better to be a little patient … we adhered despite Israel’s violations. We thought to wait, and God would help us, and to remain as patient as possible despite the losses being inflicted and, God willing, the situation would improve.”
This patience paid off, Qassem claimed, with the immediate return of hundreds of thousands of Lebanese to their hometowns along the border, “which coincided with the [end] of the November 27 ceasefire, at 4 am.” With that event, he said, “the victory celebrations spread to all areas [of Lebanon] … while the Resistance fighters remained in the battlefield, not leaving it for one second.”
Qassem alleged that as the deal’s sponsor, the United States—which he described as a fox guarding a henhouse—failed to restrain Israel despite Lebanese governmental pressure. Here, as with every other mention of Washington in his speeches, Hezbollah’s secretary-general sought to direct his audience’s hatred toward the United States—which the group has always considered its primary enemy, with Israel merely serving as America’s “tool” or “forward military base.”
Qassem then claimed that Israel’s violations and the Lebanese state’s inability to halt them proved Lebanon’s need for Hezbollah. “It became clear that when the resistance fighters were fighting, Israel didn’t dare come forward. But after the ceasefire and the political track, it began entering villages and doing as it pleases. So, what kept [Israel] at bay? Politics or the Resistance? Therefore, this is a confirmation that the Resistance is needed to confront the Israeli enemy.”
Turning to Hezbollah’s domestic opponents, Qassem portrayed them as stooges of the United States, whose hopes of ending the group had been foiled by its victory. Indeed, he stressed, the triumph had only come through adherence to Hezbollah’s golden tripartite equation of “Army-People-Resistance.” The Lebanese Army, by protecting the throngs of Lebanese—mostly Hezbollah supporters—who returned to their border villages, had together acted as a “resistance,” thus confirming the effectiveness and durability of the tripartite equation. Bizarrely, Qassem then insisted that Hezbollah would not accept Israel remaining in Lebanon beyond the 60-day withdrawal timetable and denied that the Lebanese government had accepted an extension until February 18—despite caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati agreeing to precisely that arrangement.
Praising France’s demand for an immediate Israeli withdrawal, Qassem threatened that an extension of the IDF’s stay in Lebanon would transform the Israeli army into an occupying force in Hezbollah’s eyes—with all the attendant consequences. “Hezbollah’s position … is that we are confronting an occupation committing aggression and refusing to withdraw. And the resistance has the right to act in accordance with what it believes to be appropriate regarding the form and nature of the confrontation and its timing. This is our message to everyone; let them understand from it what they wish,” Qassem threatened. He also called upon all of Lebanon, not just “the Resistance,” to deal with Israel accordingly to end its military’s continued presence in the country.
The final part of Qassem’s speech dealt with domestic politics and the government formation process. The Hezbollah secretary-general expressed his group’s sense of ease and comfort with Lebanon’s post-war political direction. He explained that Hezbollah voted for Joseph Aoun as the president of Lebanon to promote national unity. Others, he said, had chosen a different path, and thus surprised the group by selecting Nawaf Salam as prime minister-designate over long-time Hezbollah ally Najib Mikati. This outcome, Qassem said, was intended to put Hezbollah on a collision course with Aoun. However, he stated, “We acted wisely because we want consensus, we want a country, a government, a state that can stand on its two feet, and national accord. So, we cooperated with the prime minister-designate, and thank God matters between us and him are proceeding.”
Now, Qassem added that it was not Hezbollah that was obstructing the government’s formation, but other factions that demanded specific ministries and appointments. “But our relations with the prime minister[-designate] and the president are fine, thank God, and we have no problems or obstructions,” he said.
Qassem also seemed to hint that Hezbollah may have opted not to join Salam’s potential cabinet directly. He stressed that the incoming government’s role would be to achieve unity on a national level, not the government-formation level, and that Salam alone would “choose the method of [government] formation” to best position Lebanon to “confront domestic and foreign challenges.” This statement does not necessarily suggest that Salam is seeking confrontation with Hezbollah or to exclude the group. Rather, it could be part of a quid pro quo between Hezbollah and the incoming premier: the group will support his premiership, and, in exchange, Salam will allocate the ‘Shiite share’ of the cabinet to candidates approved by Hezbollah and its allied Amal party but not directly affiliated with the maligned groups.
This political sleight of hand would satisfy both sides. By helping select acceptable ministers, Hezbollah would be assured that Salam’s government would not move against its interests or arms. In addition, those ministers not being directly affiliated with Hezbollah would facilitate the group’s and Salam’s shared goals—which Qassem enumerated in his speech—of ejecting Israel from Lebanon “by all means” and achieving post-war reconstruction. After all, a seemingly Hezbollah-free Lebanese government would be better positioned to mobilize the international community to pressure Israel to withdraw from Lebanon and seem a more worthwhile and attractive recipient for reconstruction aid.
In the meantime, Qassem concluded, Hezbollah was sparing no effort to move along the reconstruction process. He said the group had already surveyed 270,000 residential units and offered reconstruction or housing assistance to almost 200,000 people but required more time and patience from its supporters.
*David Daoud is Senior Fellow at at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies where he focuses on Israel, Hezbollah, and Lebanon affairs.

Letter to President Trump from U.S.-Lebanon Friendship Caucus
United States Congress
Washington, D.C.
January 28, 2025
President Donald J. Trump
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear President Trump,
As Co-Chairs of the U.S.-Lebanon Friendship Caucus in Congress, we look forward to working with you and your Administration to advance the interests of the United States and its partners in the Middle East.
As you may know, we represent engaged and active constituent communities from the Lebanese diaspora in our districts and take great pride in our Lebanese American heritage. In Congress, we have championed efforts to support stability in Lebanon as a U.S. partner, advocated for responsible funding of the Lebanese Armed Forces, and prioritized the elimination of Hezbollah and Iran’s malign influence in the region.
In recent weeks, Lebanon has undergone significant political shifts. A ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel has taken effect, and after more than two years of political deadlock, Lebanon has elected a new President and appointed a new Prime Minister. President Joseph Aoun is poised to bring stability to Lebanon with the trust and support of the United States and the international community. We were encouraged by President Aoun’s inaugural speech, which underscored his commitment to the rule of law, combating corruption, and moving beyond sectarian favoritism.
For too long, Lebanon has been held hostage by entrenched political elites who have enabled economic collapse, exacerbated a humanitarian and refugee crisis, and opened the door to Hezbollah and Iran’s destabilizing influence. The new government must now move forward with strength, uphold democratic principles, and restore the confidence of the international community under U.S. leadership.
We stand ready to support your Administration’s efforts to strengthen our partnership with Lebanon, reinforce stability in the region, and assist the Lebanese people in building a transparent, accountable, and functional government. As your national security team assesses ongoing and future U.S. engagement with Lebanon, we urge you to ensure that any financial or reconstruction assistance remains contingent on the following key policies:
Exclusion of Hezbollah from Government: Lebanon’s new government must not allow Hezbollah or its political proxies to hold any positions within the administration. Including Hezbollah in any capacity would directly undermine Lebanese sovereignty under the leadership of an independent president.
Government Representation Based on Merit, Not Political Influence: The Lebanese government must prioritize balanced representation within state institutions, appointing individuals based on their ability to serve the people rather than political affiliation or elite connections.
Commitment to a Peaceful Border Resolution: As efforts continue to secure a long-term resolution to the Israel-Lebanon border dispute, we support enforcement and compliance with existing United Nations resolutions or alternative diplomatic negotiations to ensure lasting stability.
We remain optimistic that, under its new leadership, Lebanon will emerge as a strong, independent, and prosperous partner of the United States in the Middle East. These positive changes will not only benefit the Lebanese people but will also advance democratic principles and regional stability.
In Congress, we are prepared to support your Administration’s diplomatic and security initiatives in Lebanon and the broader Middle East, including continued assistance to the Lebanese Armed Forces. We look forward to collaborating with you in pursuit of peace through strength, reinforcing our commitments to key allies such as Israel and Lebanon, and reaffirming U.S. leadership on the global stage.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on January 30-31/2025
Syrian Factions Appoint Ahmad Al-Sharaa as Transitional Leader
Damascus: Asharq Al Awsat/January 30/2025
The new Syrian administration announced on Wednesday the appointment of Ahmad Al-Sharaa as interim president, following the overthrow of former president Bashar Al-Assad more than a month ago. Al-Sharaa has been entrusted with forming a legislative council to oversee the transition after the dissolution of the People’s Assembly and the suspension of the 2012 Constitution. According to the official Syrian news agency (SANA), military administration spokesperson Colonel Hassan Abdul Ghani stated that Al-Sharaa would assume the functions of the presidency of the Syrian Arab Republic and represent it in international forums. He added that Al-Sharaa had been authorized to form a temporary legislative council that would remain in place until a permanent constitution is drafted and enacted, with all exceptional laws suspended. The announcement did not specify the duration of the transitional period or provide details on the national dialogue conference, which the new administration had previously pledged to organize. However, the administration introduced significant political and security reforms, including the dissolution of all security agencies affiliated with the former Assad regime and the establishment of a new security institution. The Baath Party and all other National Progressive Front parties were also disbanded, along with their affiliated organizations and committees. A ban was imposed on reestablishing these parties under any new name, and their assets were transferred to the state. Additionally, all military factions, revolutionary political bodies, and civil organizations were merged into state institutions. Speaking at the Syrian Revolution Victory Conference, Al-Sharaa outlined his priorities, emphasizing the need to fill the power vacuum, maintain civil peace, build state institutions, revive the economy, and restore Syria’s regional and international standing. He described Damascus as a wounded and humiliated mother, bleeding yet defiant, calling on her people to save their nation. He stressed that while liberation was a crucial step, the true challenge now lay in rebuilding and advancing Syria. Foreign Minister Asaad Al-Shibani underscored the administration’s commitment to establishing a Syria founded on freedom, justice, and national dignity, where all citizens feel a deep sense of belonging and sacrifice for their homeland. He emphasized that the new leadership was focused on reassuring the international community and clearly presenting Syria’s vision for the future. Strengthening ties with Arab nations and enhancing regional cooperation were also key priorities, alongside efforts to contribute to peace in a region weighed down by decades of conflict. Al-Shibani further announced that the administration had successfully negotiated exceptions and suspensions to US and EU sanctions, a move expected to accelerate Syria’s economic recovery and attract international support.

Syrian leader Sharaa pledges to form inclusive government
Reuters/January 30, 2025
DAMASCUS: Syria’s newly appointed president, Ahmed Al-Sharaa, said on Thursday he will form an inclusive transitional government representing diverse communities that will build institutions and run the country until it can hold free and fair elections. Sharaa addressed the nation in his first speech since being appointed president for the transitional period on Wednesday by armed factions that ousted former Syrian President Bashar Assad in a lightning offensive last year. The armed group that led the offensive, Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham, has since set up an interim government that has welcomed a steady stream of senior Western and Arab diplomatic delegations keen to help stabilize the country after 13 years of civil war.Sharaa in his speech said he would form a small legislative body to fill the parliamentary void until new elections were held, after the Syrian parliament was dissolved on Wednesday. He said he would also in the coming days announce the formation of a committee that would prepare to hold a national dialogue conference that would be a platform for Syrians to discuss the future political program of the nation. That would be followed by a “constitutional declaration,” he said, in an apparent reference to the process of drafting a new Syrian constitution. Sharaa has previously said the process of drafting a new constitution and holding elections may take up to four years.

Qatar's Emir Tells Sharaa 'Urgent Need' for Inclusive Syrian Government
Damascus: Asharq Al Awsat/January 30/2025
Visiting Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani emphasized the "urgent need" to form an inclusive Syrian government during a meeting Thursday with the country's new interim president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, the Qatari royal court said. The emir's trip to Damascus -- the first by a head of state since the opposition toppled president Bashar al-Assad less than two months ago -- comes a day after Sharaa was appointed interim president for an unspecified transitional period. It also follows a visit by Qatar's prime minister this month. The emir "stressed the urgent need to form a government representing all spectrums" of Syrian society in order "to consolidate stability and move forward with reconstruction, development and prosperity projects,” the royal court statement said, congratulating Sharaa on his appointment. Syria's new authorities on Wednesday said Sharaa had also been tasked with forming a transitional legislature. They announced the dissolution of all armed groups involved in Assad's overthrow, as well as the former government's army. Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shibani said discussions with the Qatari delegation included reconstruction in the country devastated by nearly 14 years of civil war. "We discussed a comprehensive framework for bilateral cooperation concerning reconstruction," Shibani said during a press conference with Qatari Minister of State at the foreign ministry, Mohammed al-Khulaifi. He said their talks covered "vital sectors including infrastructure... investment and banking services, paving the way for economic recovery, health and education.”

Saudi Leadership Congratulates Al-Sharaa on Assuming Presidency of Syria
Asharq Al Awsat/January 30/2025
Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud sent a cable of congratulations to President Ahmed Al-Sharaa on the occasion of assuming the presidency of Syria during the transitional phase. The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques expressed his sincere wishes for Al-Sharaa, hoping for his success in leading Syria toward a prosperous future. He also wished him continued good health and happiness, as well as further progress and prosperity for the Syrian people. For his part, Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Crown Prince and Prime Minister, also sent a cable of congratulations to Al-Sharaa and wished him success in leading Syria.

Behind closed doors: Israel expands military presence in Syria, establishes new buffer zone
LBCI/January 30/2025
Citing heightened security threats along its borders, Israel has expanded its military deployment in Syria and established a new buffer zone within Syrian territory. The move is aimed at preventing hostile elements, including ISIS fighters, from approaching the border region. Israeli forces stationed in Syria have been reinforced with additional equipment, mobile shelters, and other essential supplies to sustain their presence for at least a year. As part of its preparations, Israel has set up surveillance towers inside Syrian territory and bolstered its defenses, revealing that it has intercepted multiple infiltration attempts by armed fighters into areas under its control. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, who recently visited Israeli-controlled areas in Syria, reaffirmed his country's commitment to maintaining a presence in strategic locations, particularly Mount Hermon. Meanwhile, the Israeli Air Force has continued its intelligence-gathering operations over Syrian airspace and along the Lebanese border, citing efforts to prevent weapons transfers to Hezbollah. Tel Aviv has also deemed Hezbollah's recent launch of a drone toward Israel a "red line," further escalating regional tensions.

US airstrike in Syria kills senior operative of Al-Qaeda affiliate
Reuters/January 31, 2025
The US military said it killed a senior operative of an Al-Qaeda-affiliated militant group in an airstrike in northwest Syria on Thursday. The airstrike, part of an ongoing effort to disrupt and degrade militant groups in the region, resulted in the death of Muhammad Salah Al-Za’bir of the Hurras Al-Din group, the US Central Command said in a statement.

Hamas Can Never Govern Gaza or Threaten Israel Again’: Rubio to Egyptian Foreign Minister
Flash Brief/FDD/January 30/2025
Hamas Remains in Control of Gaza: Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty on January 28 that “Hamas can never govern Gaza or threaten Israel again” following the current war. Rubio also “reinforced the importance of holding Hamas accountable,” according to a State Department readout of the call. Despite losing a significant number of its fighters during the 15-month war, Hamas has managed to cling to power in the aftermath of the Gaza ceasefire deal. Palestinians Convicted of Murder to Relocate to Qatar, Turkey: Turkey and Qatar will reportedly accept Palestinian terrorists convicted of murder who were released from Israeli jails in exchange for hostages held by Hamas. Israel, which plans to release 737 Palestinians serving life sentences as part of the first phase of the Gaza ceasefire deal, has insisted that the most serious convicts are not returned to either Gaza or the West Bank. Egypt temporarily accepted 70 convicted murderers released last week. Of these, 15 are expected to be relocated to Turkey and the remainder to Qatar. Turkey and Qatar Have Supported the Iran-backed Hamas: Qatar provided funding to Hamas while hosting the group’s leaders in Doha and amplifying a virulently anti-Israel message through its state-sponsored global media network, Al Jazeera. Meanwhile, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has expressed his support for the terrorist group on numerous occasions since its massacre of Israelis on October 7, 2023, even hosting the group’s remaining leaders on January 29.
FDD Expert Response
“Secretary Rubio highlights that Hamas’s actions, especially those on October 7, reveal the Islamist group’s ongoing threat to Israel. By demonstrating a pattern of irrational behavior, Hamas has become a persistent danger. Thus, prioritizing Hamas’s removal from power in Gaza is essential for ensuring stability in the region. However, it is crucial to have a viable alternative in place to ensure that this removal is successful.” — Joe Truzman, Senior Research Analyst and Editor at FDD’s Long War Journalز “This present situation is reminiscent of 2011, when Turkey and Hamas agreed to host convicted Hamas terrorists in exchange for the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. From that point onward, Hamas established deep links in Turkey and used the country, along with the opportunities provided by a friendly Erdogan government, to plan, fund, and carry out terrorist attacks in Israel. By choosing to host convicted Hamas murderers, Ankara is again giving Hamas a chance to regroup and reorganize, allowing it to once again engage in acts of terror.” — Sinan Ciddi, Non-Resident Senior Fellow
“Qatar already hosts Hamas’s political leadership. Now, the emirate is slated to absorb dozens of convicted murderers. Qatar’s next move will be key. Will Doha provide Hamas and Co. time and space to regroup or prove itself a good-faith partner in the fight against terrorism?” — Natalie Ecanow, Senior Research Analyst

‘Dangerous for the Entire World’: Israeli Envoy to Moscow Warns Against Russian Pact With Iran
Flash Brief/FDD/January 30/2025
Israeli Ambassador to Moscow Criticizes New Iran-Russia Agreement: Simona Halperin, Israel’s ambassador to Russia, criticized the newly agreed Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between Tehran and Moscow on January 27, adding that any attempt at strengthening Iranian military and economic capabilities “is dangerous for the entire world and particularly for Israel.” Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Iranian counterpart, Masoud Pezeshkian, signed the treaty on January 17, aiming to expand military and economic ties.
No Plans for Phone Call Between Netanyahu and Putin: Halperin said that a phone conversation between Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not expected in the near term but that Moscow and Jerusalem maintain diplomatic ties through official channels. By contrast, upon beginning his second term, President Donald Trump invited Netanyahu to be the first foreign leader to visit the White House, with their meeting scheduled for February 4.
Dugin Highlights Russia-Iran Military Ties and Strategic Alliance: Prominent Russian ideologue Aleksandr Dugin, who has close ties to Putin, published a new article arguing that Russia can provide Iran with a “nuclear umbrella” that guarantees the Iranian regime’s survival, while Tehran could help Moscow establish military bases with access to warm-water ports. Dugin also suggested that Iran serves as a better strategic ally to Russia than China, adding that the Russia-Iran alliance strengthens Putin’s position in negotiations with Trump.
FDD Expert Response
“The dictators in Russia and Tehran have made common cause. Both want to diminish American power. Both want to be great emperors. That requires the conquest of foreign lands and peoples. They are in league with Beijing, Pyongyang, and other authoritarian regimes in what may accurately be called an Axis of Aggressors. Only the United States can lead the effort to thwart the ambitions of these neo-imperialist enemies of America and the free world.” — Clifford D. May, Founder & President
“Naturally, the axis of authoritarians and aggressors that has emerged is deepening their political and security ties with one another. While it is imperative to look for where there is breadth versus depth in the Iran-Russia relationship, the trendline is nonetheless a worrying one for the United States and the West. To that end, the latest Iran-Russia agreement will further formalize ties between the two, with the more important and worrisome elements likely hidden from public view.” — Behnam Ben Taleblu, Iran Program Senior Director and Senior Fellow
“Dugin openly discusses how Russia can leverage its ties with Iran during negotiations with Trump. Therefore, Trump must not fall for Putin’s plans regarding Iran. We must not trick ourselves into believing we understand our enemy by assuming that he thinks like us. Russia’s strategic deception succeeds not so much because of Putin’s ability to deceive Washington but rather because of Washington’s tendency to deceive itself.” — Ivana Stradner, FDD Research Fellow

Trump's Envoy: Rebuilding Gaza Could Take 10-15 Years
Asharq Al Awsat/January 30/2025
There is "almost nothing left" of Gaza and rebuilding the enclave could take 10 to 15 years, US President Donald Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff told Axios in an interview at the end of his trip to the region on Thursday.
"People are moving north to get back to their homes and see what happened and turn around and leave ... there is no water and no electricity. It is stunning just how much damage occurred there," Witkoff told Axios. Witkoff left Israel on Thursday several hours after Hamas released another eight hostages who were being held in Gaza and Israel released 110 Palestinian prisoners as part of the ceasefire deal. The White House envoy spent much of his day on Wednesday in the Gaza Strip inspecting the situation from the ground and from the air. He was the first US official to visit Gaza in 15 years.

Northern Gaza Residents: Stuck in Open Air Living
Gaza: Asharq Al Awsat/January 30/2025
The return of Palestinian refugees from southern Gaza to the north has been difficult, especially due to the extensive damage to homes and infrastructure in the area. Many residents, who had hoped for better conditions than life in tents, have found little relief. After months of living in tents during the Israeli conflict, they returned to the north only to find few homes available, with some even unable to find space to set up their tents. The return of nearly 800,000 displaced people to northern Gaza has created significant challenges for the Hamas-led Gaza government. The situation has revealed unexpected difficulties, particularly as Israel has not yet kept its promise to deliver much-needed relief supplies, such as tents and caravans. The sight of massive destruction has overshadowed the living conditions in Jabalia Camp and the towns of Beit Lahia and Beit Hanoun for many returning residents. This has forced local authorities, according to sources speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, to expand bulldozing efforts in several key areas, increasing the space available for tents to shelter residents. However, the task has been complicated by the difficulty of acquiring the necessary equipment to clear rubble and debris. Mohammed Abu Obeid, a resident of Jabalia Camp, told Asharq Al-Awsat that the situation worsened when authorities were unable to provide sufficient water for residents. This has led people to rely on water deliveries via trucks, which transport large amounts from Gaza City to the camp. The goal is to provide each family with approximately 50 liters of water daily, but Abu Obeid noted that this amount is hardly enough. Abu Obeid pointed out that residents are unable to find any nearby power sources. As night falls, they are forced to remain in their tents or, for those who still have homes or managed to salvage a room from heavily damaged buildings, stay there with their families.
“We didn’t expect life to be this grim, this full of hell,” he remarked. Suhad Abu Hussein, a resident of the camp, shared that she spent her first night back in northern Gaza sleeping in the open. She waited until the second day, when technical teams managed to clear a small portion of rubble which allowed them to begin setting up available tents. Hussein explained that she is currently living in a tent just three meters in size. However, she faces significant challenges due to the lack of water and any power source, leaving residents in complete darkness without even basic street lighting. Gaza’s municipality has warned that the lack of services will make life even harder for displaced people returning to their areas. They explained that the water supply only covers 40% of the city, and the water available doesn’t meet the residents’ needs due to damage to water networks. More than 75% of the city's central wells have been destroyed.
The municipality stressed that it cannot provide even basic services to the displaced without heavy machinery. It urgently needs equipment to repair wells and sewage networks. Despite limited resources, efforts continue to clear streets and remove rubble to help the displaced return and allow residents to move around. Israel has blocked the entry of heavy machinery, tents, caravans, and other supplies. Hamas has been in talks with mediators to address these restrictions. Ahmed Al-Asi, a young man from Beit Lahia, affirmed to Asharq Al-Awsat there are no bakeries in his town or in Jabalia Camp. He has to travel more than 6 kilometers to Gaza City’s Nasr neighborhood every day to buy bread for his family of 18, spending about 40 shekels ($12) daily.

Hamas Confirms Israel Killed Mohammed Deif Last Year
Asharq Al Awsat/January 30/2025
Hamas confirmed on Thursday the death of Mohammed Deif, the head of its military wing, six months after Israel announced he was killed. This is the first statement Hamas' armed wing, the al-Qassam Brigades, has released on Deif’s condition since the Israeli military said last August that he was killed in airstrike in southern Gaza the month before. Thursday's announcement culminated months of speculation about Deif’s fate. Hamas had not explicitly confirmed or denied Israel’s claim. Hamas’ longtime shadowy military leader was one of the alleged masterminds of the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel that sparked the war in Gaza. For years, he topped Israel’s most-wanted list. He gained mythical status among Palestinians, surviving a string of Israeli assassination attempts and not showing his face in public for decades.

Israel Delays Prisoner Release after Chaotic Hostage Handover
Asharq Al Awsat/January 30/2025
Hamas handed over three Israelis and five Thai hostages in Gaza on Thursday, but Israel delayed the expected release of Palestinian prisoners after chaotic scenes at one of the handover points, where large crowds swarmed around the captives. Arbel Yehud, 29, abducted from Kibbutz Nir Oz in the Hamas-led assault on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, looked fearful and struggled to walk through a surging crowd as armed militants handed her to the Red Cross in a tense scene in the southern city of Khan Younis, Reuters reported. Another Israeli hostage, Gadi Moses, 80, was also released along with five Thai nationals working on Israeli farms near Gaza when the militants burst through the border fence, the Israeli military said. The mother of one of the Thais watched a livestream of the scene anxiously from her home in the northeastern Udon Thani province. "Please, let my son walk out now, I want to see his face," Wiwwaro Sriaoun, 53, said as the footage on her phone showed a vehicle moving slowly through the crowd. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the sight of their handover amid the swarming crowds was shocking and threatened death to anyone hurting hostages. He urged mediators to ensure the scene would not be repeated. A total of 110 Palestinian prisoners were expected to be freed on Thursday as part of the phased agreement that halted fighting in the shattered coastal territory earlier this month. An Israeli official involved in the operation said buses carrying the detainees had been instructed to return to prisons in an apparent response to the chaotic handover. Netanyahu and the Defense Minister Israel Katz said they had ordered the delay in releases "until the safe exit of our hostages in the next phases is assured".An Israeli official said later that understandings had been reached, and Palestinian prisoners would be released at 1700 (1500 GMT). A Palestinian source said the Red Cross had told Hamas the Palestinian prisoners would be released on Thursday. Earlier, in Jabalia in northern Gaza, an Israeli soldier, Agam Berger, wearing an olive green uniform, was led through a narrow alley between heavily damaged buildings and over piles of rubble before being handed to the Red Cross. Netanyahu has faced criticism in Israel for not having sealed a hostage deal earlier after the security failure that enabled the Oct. 7 Hamas assault.

UNRWA Still Operating Despite Israel Ban
Asharq Al Awsat/January 30/2025
The UN Palestinian relief agency UNRWA is continuing to deliver assistance and services in the Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem on Thursday, said UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric as a ban on the agency in Israel came into effect. Israel cut ties with the UN agency after accusing it of providing cover for Hamas militants. UNRWA is banned from operating on Israeli soil, and contact between it and Israeli officials will also be forbidden. UNRWA has provided support for Palestinian refugees around the Middle East for more than 70 years, but has long clashed with Israeli officials, who have repeatedly accused it of undermining the country's security. The hostility intensified following Hamas's October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, with accusations that UNRWA employees took part in the assault. After the law came into effect, the Norwegian government said Thursday it would contribute $24 million to the UN agency. "Gaza is in ruins, and UNRWA's help is more necessary than ever," Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide said.

Biden quietly approved South Africa’s pro-Hamas envoy. Trump should fire him.
Max Meizlish and Richard Goldberg/The Hill/January 30/2025
https://thehill.com/opinion/5111731-south-africa-foreign-policy-rejection/
These are the words of South Africa’s new ambassador to Washington, Ebrahim Rasool, who quietly presented his diplomatic credentials to then-President Joe Biden earlier this month. As an emissary of the country’s African National Congress, Rasool has long supported the terrorist group Hamas, defended Iran and strengthened South Africa’s ties with Russia. Biden should have never allowed Rasool to enter the country, let alone approve his service as ambassador. President Trump should correct Biden’s mistake and demonstrate that the ANC’s brand of anti-Western foreign policy — one that embraces Russia, China, Iran and Hamas — will no longer be tolerated. Trump should rebuke the ANC by cutting off Rasool and swiftly revoking his credentials — or at the very least encouraging Rasool to step down on his own accord. In other words, Rasool should get the full Trump treatment and be told in no uncertain terms: “You’re fired.” Rasool’s track record represents all that is wrong with South Africa’s foreign policy under the ANC. He has hosted senior Hamas operatives. He has reportedly praised Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin as “one of the greatest inspirations.” Just two weeks before the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas terror attack against Israel, Rasool gloated about receiving a signed keffiyeh from the group’s former political leader, Ismail Haniyeh, whom Israel assassinated last July.
More recently, Rasool chaired South Africa’s state-owned Development Bank of Southern Africa, which has been a key partner in supporting the anti-Western BRICS framework and increasing ties between South Africa and Russia’s largely sanctioned financial system.
Rasool represented the corrupt government of former South African President Jacob Zuma in the U.S. from 2010 through 2015, so he is no stranger to Washington. But his values are increasingly at odds with our own. Under ANC leadership, South Africa has hosted Russian and Chinese warships for joint naval drills; welcomed a sanctioned Russian military-linked vessel; and supported Iran’s inclusion in BRICS. These actions serve authoritarian interests but do nothing to meet the needs ordinary South Africans. Rasool’s nomination ultimately underscores the ANC’s growing disconnect from the needs of its own citizens. South Africa faces staggering unemployment, a water crisis and widespread corruption. At a time when South Africa should be working to rebuild its economy and restore its international credibility, the ANC has chosen to send a figure whose record reflects hostility toward democracy and the West.
Although the Biden administration appeared to look the other way on South Africa, Congress has not. Lawmakers, including Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim Risch (R-Idaho), are questioning South Africa’s participation in the African Growth and Opportunity Act, a key regional trade program that is up for renewal this year. Others have called for a comprehensive review of South Africa’s defense cooperation with the likes of China, Russia and Iran. Rasool’s appointment only heightens these concerns and could push South Africa closer to economic isolation.
By rejecting Rasool, Trump has a rare chance to combat the ANC’s toxic foreign policy while affirming America’s commitment to a better future for South Africa. The ANC’s declining majority has opened the door to more pro-Western voices — those who want to rebuild the country’s economy, fight corruption and forge stronger ties with the West.By standing firm against Rasool, Trump would be standing with the South Africans who oppose their government’s growing alliances with terrorists, dictators and enemies of global stability. Above all else, he would send an unmistakable message that malign foreign policies will no longer be met with silence or appeasement — they will be met with real consequences from the start.
**Max Meizlish is a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Richard Goldberg is a senior advisor.

Iranian-backed militias in Iraq face an uncertain future
Seth J. Frantzman/FDD's Long War Journal/January 30/2025
https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2025/01/iranian-backed-militias-in-iraq-face-an-uncertain-future.php
Iraq’s pro-Iranian militias face an uncertain future after the December fall of the Bashar al Assad regime in Syria and amid pressure from Iraqi authorities for armed groups to be disbanded or incorporated further into Iraq’s security apparatus under state control.
The militias, collectively known as Hashd al Shaabi, or the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), included several dozen brigades at the height of Iraq’s battle against the Islamic State (IS) in 2017. As the war on IS wound down, these groups partially integrated into Iraq’s sprawling security apparatus, including receiving government salaries. However, some of the most powerful militias continued to carry out independent operations.
The militias are now under pressure from various directions in Iraq. For example, Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein indicated in mid-January that the pro-Iranian militias should lay down their arms. However, Akram al Kaabi, the secretary general of Harakat Hezbollah al Nujaba, one of the militias, has rejected efforts to disarm his group and other members of what the militias call the “resistance (muqawama).” Kaabi’s comments were part of a January 24 report in Lebanon’s pro-Hezbollah Al Akhbar media.
Al Mada, a left-leaning newspaper in Iraq, has characterized Kaabi’s comments as potentially threatening US troops at the Al Assad base in Iraq. In 2019, the pro-Iranian militias began to increase rocket and drone attacks against US forces in Iraq and Syria. The dueling statements by militia and government leaders illustrate that Iraq is once again at an impasse regarding its powerful militias. Nevertheless, Baghdad’s calculations may have changed due to recent events in Syria.
As the Assad regime began to implode in early December, the Iraqi government sent forces to the Syrian border. The border between Iraq and Syria re-opened in 2019 when ISIS was defeated and had been a conduit for Iraq’s pro-Iranian militias entering Syria over the last several years. Among the militias that played a role on the Syrian side of the border was Kataib Hezbollah. The group has also been at the forefront of threats against US forces in Iraq and targeted American troops in Jordan in January 2024, killing three service members. With the Assad regime’s collapse, Iraq faced the prospect of militia members returning to the country, as well as Assad regime loyalists fleeing to Iraq. At least 2,000 Syrian soldiers crossed into Iraq and were eventually sent back to Syria in the third week of December.
As the militias lost their ability to operate in Syria, they also halted more than a year of attacks on Israel. Under the banner of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, several militias had been involved in repeated drone attacks on the Jewish state. On January 15, Nujaba’s Kaabi put out a statement saying the militias would suspend these attacks, a development that came in the context of the Gaza ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. However, the militias ending their role in Syria and attacks on Israel also ended some justifications for them to keep weapons outside of Iraqi state control.
The shifting ground underneath the militias has led to an avalanche of speculation in Iraq about these groups’ future. Iran seems nonplussed about this development, and the pro-regime Tehran Times claimed in early January that the PMU faces a “smear” campaign in Iraq. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei told Iraqi Prime Minister Shia al Sudani that the “Hashd al Shaabi is a crucial component of power in Iraq, and more efforts should be made to preserve it and to strengthen it even further.”
On January 14, as Sudani was visiting the United Kingdom, Al Mada reported that elements within the PMU had rejected integration into the Ministry of Defense or some other part of the state. At the same time, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hussein said that the presence of weapons in Iraq outside the control of the state was unacceptable. Two days later, an Al Mada report noted that Hussein had said that the issue of the PMU is an internal Iraqi matter, suggesting that Iran will not decide whether the militias remain outside state control. On January 19, Iraq’s Al Sumaria media included commentary about whether the PMU would be “dissolved,” illustrating how far the debate has progressed in Iraq.
On January 18, Russia’s RT Arabic claimed that three militias within the PMU, Kataib Hezbollah, Al Nujaba, and Ansar Allah al Awfiya, rejected calls to hand over their weapons. The UAE-based Erem News also reported that Kataib Hezbollah and Al Nujaba rejected disarmament. Ansar Allah al Awfiya, which makes up the 19th Brigade of the PMU, confirmed it refuses to disarm in a statement released on January 27.
In particular, Kataib Hezbollah has been at the vanguard of attacks on US forces in the past and is very close to the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). For instance, when Iranian IRGC-Quds Force head Qasem Soleimani was killed in a US drone strike in January 2020, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the head of Kataib Hezbollah and the deputy commander of Iraq’s PMF, was also killed.
Reporting from Israel, Seth J. Frantzman is an adjunct fellow at FDD and a contributor to FDD’s Long War Journal. He is the senior Middle East correspondent and analyst at The Jerusalem Post, and author of The October 7 War: Israel’s Battle for Security in Gaza (2024).

Saudi FM Receives Phone Call from Russian Counterpart
Asharq Al Awsat/January 30/2025
Saudi Minister of Foreign Affairs Prince Faisal bin Farhan bin Abdullah received a phone call on Thursday from his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, SPA reported. During the call, they reviewed relations between the two nations and discussed regional developments, exchanging views on issues of mutual interest.

Everyone Aboard an American Airlines Jet that Collided with an Army Helicopter is Feared Dead
Asharq Al Awsat/January 30/2025
Everyone aboard an American Airlines jet carrying 60 passengers and four crew members that collided with an Army helicopter was feared dead in what was likely to be the worst US aviation disaster in almost a quarter century, officials said Thursday. At least 28 bodies were pulled from the icy waters of the Potomac River after the midair collision Wednesday night when the helicopter apparently flew in the path of the jet as it was landing at Ronald Reagan National Airport near Washington, officials said. Crews were still searching for other casualties but did not believe there were any survivors, which would make it the deadliest US air crash in nearly 24 years, The AP reported. “We are now at the point where we are switching from a rescue operation to a recovery operation,” said John Donnelly, the fire chief in the nation’s capital. “We don’t believe there are any survivors.”The body of the plane was found upside down in three sections in waist-deep water. The wreckage of the helicopter was also found. Donnelly said first responders on Thursday were searching an area of the Potomac River as far south as the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, roughly 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) south of the airport. There was no immediate word on the cause of the collision, but officials said flight conditions were clear as the jet coming from Wichita, Kansas, with US and Russian figure skaters and others aboard, was making a routine landing when the helicopter flew into its path.
“On final approach into Reagan National it collided with a military aircraft on an otherwise normal approach," American Airlines CEO Robert Isom said. "At this time we don’t know why the military aircraft came into the path of the ... aircraft.”
Three soldiers were onboard the helicopter during a training flight, an Army official previously said. Images from the river showed boats around the partly submerged wing and the mangled wreckage of the plane's fuselage.
Investigators will try to piece together the aircrafts’ final moments before their collision, including contact with air traffic controllers as well as a loss of altitude by the passenger jet.
“I would just say that everyone who flies in American skies expects that we fly safely,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said. “That when you depart an airport, you get to your destination. That didn’t happen last night and I know that President Trump, his administration, the FAA, the DOT, we will not rest until we have answers for the families and for the flying public. You should be assured that when you fly, you’re safe.”Reagan Airport will reopen at 11 a.m. Thursday, the Federal Aviation Administration announced. The FAA previously said it would be closed until 5 a.m. Friday. Duffy, just sworn in earlier this week, was asked if he could reassure Americans that the United States still has the safest airspace.
“Can I guarantee the American flying public that the United States has the most safe and secure airspace in the world? And the answer to that is, absolutely yes, we do,” he said. “We have early indicators of what happened here. And I will tell you with complete confidence that we have the safest airspace in the world.”Likely the deadliest plane crash since November 2001. If everyone aboard the plane was killed, it will make it the deadliest US airline crash since Nov. 12, 2001, when an American Airlines flight just after takeoff crashed into a residential area of Belle Harbor, New York, killing all 260 people aboard.
The last major fatal crash involving a US commercial airline occurred in 2009 near Buffalo, New York. Everyone aboard the Bombardier DHC-8 propeller plane was killed, including 45 passengers, two pilots and two flight attendants. Another person on the ground also died, bringing the total death toll to 50. An investigation determined that the captain accidentally caused the plane to stall as it approached the airport in Buffalo. Passengers on Wednesday's flight included a group of figure skaters, their coaches and family members who were returning from a development camp that followed the US Figure Skating Championships in Wichita. “We are devastated by this unspeakable tragedy and hold the victims’ families closely in our hearts,” US Figure Skating said in a statement.
Two of those coaches were identified by the Kremlin as Russian figure skaters Evgenia Shishkova and Vadim Naumov, who won the pairs title at the 1994 world championships and competed twice in the Olympics. The Skating Club of Boston lists them as coaches and their son, Maxim Naumov, is a competitive figure skater for the US. What happened The FAA said the midair crash occurred before 9 p.m. EST in some of the most tightly controlled and monitored airspace in the world, just over 3 miles south of the White House and the Capitol.
American Airlines Flight 5342 was inbound to Reagan National at an altitude of about 400 feet (122 meters) and a speed of about 140 mph (225 kph) when it suffered a rapid loss of altitude over the Potomac River, according to data from its radio transponder. The Canadian-made Bombardier CRJ-701 twin-engine jet, manufactured in 2004, can be configured to carry up to 70 passengers. A few minutes before landing, air traffic controllers asked the arriving commercial jet if it could land on the shorter Runway 33 at Reagan National and the pilots said they were able. Controllers then cleared the plane to land on Runway 33. Flight tracking sites showed the plane adjust its approach to the new runway. Less than 30 seconds before the crash, an air traffic controller asked the helicopter if it had the arriving plane in sight. The controller made another radio call to the helicopter moments later: “PAT 25 pass behind the CRJ.” Seconds after that, the two aircraft collided. The plane’s radio transponder stopped transmitting about 2,400 feet (732 meters) short of the runway, roughly over the middle of the river. Video from an observation camera at the nearby Kennedy Center showed two sets of lights consistent with aircraft appearing to join in a fireball.The US Army described the helicopter as a UH-60 Blackhawk based at Fort Belvoir in Virginia. The helicopter was on a training flight. Military aircraft frequently conduct training flights in and around the congested and heavily-restricted airspace around the nation’s capital for familiarization and continuity of government planning.

Iraqi Shot Dead in Sweden Ahead of Verdict over Quran Burning
Asharq Al Awsat/January 30/2025
An Iraqi refugee was shot dead in Sweden late on Wednesday, just hours before he was due to receive a court verdict following a trial over burning the Quran, a court document showed on Thursday. Salwan Momika, 38, was shot in a house in the town of Sodertalje near Stockholm, public broadcaster SVT reported, citing unnamed police sources. Momika had burned copies of the Quran in public demonstrations in 2023 against Islam. A Stockholm court had been due to sentence Momika and another man on Thursday in a criminal trial over "offences of agitation against an ethnic or national group," but said the announcement of the verdict had been postponed, Reuters reported. The other defendant in the same court case posted a message on X on Thursday, saying: "I'm next.”Police confirmed that a man was shot dead in Sodertalje around 2200 GMT on Wednesday but did not comment further. "We are following the development of events closely to see what impact this may have on Swedish security," a Security Service spokesperson told Reuters, adding that it was a police matter and they were leading the investigation. Swedish media reported that Momika was streaming live on TikTok at the time he was shot. A video seen by Reuters showed police picking up a phone and ending a livestream that appeared to be from Momika's TikTok account. Sweden in 2023 raised its terrorism alert to the second-highest level and warned of threats against Swedes at home and abroad after the Quran burnings, many of them by Momika, outraged Muslims. While the Swedish government condemned the wave of Quran burnings in 2023, it was initially regarded as a protected form of free speech.

The Latest English LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources on January 30-31/2025
Continued chaos in Syria: Iraqi militias and an Alawite insurgency
Ahmad Sharawi/FDD's Long War Journal/January 30/2025
On January 25, a new Iraqi militia, Kataib Awliya’ al Haq (Guardians of Truth Brigades), announced its formation. So far, the group has issued a single statement displaying its full name, logo, and justification for its establishment.
The statement reads:
slamic Resistance —Kataib Awliya’ al-Haq
In the name of God, the Merciful
“We seek vengeance against the criminals.”
As part of our ongoing mission to defend the oppressed and resist oppressors, we condemn the crimes committed by Jolani’s terrorists [a reference to Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS)] in
Syria
against Alawite Shiites—blatant violations of human rights.
Therefore, Kataib Awliya’ al Haq remains committed to resisting these
Takfiri
groups. We will launch military operations as soon as possible and enter Syria from all directions to protect the Alawite sect.
God is the Supporter of the Believers
Little is known about the leadership of this group, as it has only released one statement and did not name any of its leaders or release pictures or videos. However, a close look at Kataib Awliya’ al Haq’s logo shows a distinct similarity with other Iraqi militias, namely, Saraya Awlia’ al-Dam (Companies of the Guardians of Blood).
The logos of Kataib Awliya’ al Haq and Saraya Awlia’ al Dam both display a fist holding an AK-47 springing from the map of Iraq and a circle surrounding the map marked with the words of each militia.
Kataib Awliya’ al Haq’s logo (left) and the logo of Saraya Awlia’ al Dam.
Saraya Awlia’ al Dam first gained attention on August 24, 2020, when it claimed responsibility for an attack on an Iraqi convoy allegedly transporting US goods and released dramatic footage of the incident.
The extent to which Kataib Awliya’ al Haq is genuinely preparing to enter Syria remains uncertain and cannot be determined by a single statement. However, one thing is clear: the Syrian coast—where clashes have repeatedly occurred between HTS-led forces and Syrian Alawites, as well as remnants of the Assad regime—could see further escalation.
Clashes have also erupted on the outskirts of Homs, a region with a significant Alawite, Shiite, and Sunni population. On January 24, more than 13 officers from the Assad regime’s Syrian Arab Army were killed in the village of Fahel in the Homs countryside. The ongoing violence in these areas will only fuel the growth of armed groups.
Calls for violence among former Assad loyalists have driven many Alawites to take up arms against HTS-led forces in the Syrian coastal governorates of Tartus and Latakia, as well as in Homs. Meqdad Louay Fatiha (Abu Jaafar), an Alawite and former officer in the Syrian Republican Guard, has been urging the Alawite community to resist HTS since the Assad regime’s downfall on December 8.
In his latest video on January 27, where he appears masked, Fatiha said, “From this day, I call on the community to not hand in their weapons, and whoever attacks the villages for military sweeps, kill them, kill them, kill them, and we will be supportive of you, god willing. And I will cooperate with a group of our brothers to do vengeful military operations in Latakia and its countryside in retaliation for the killing of our sons in Homs Governorate and what the members of HTS are doing in terms of stealing and looting in Jableh and Latakia.”
Other armed groups operating on the Syrian coast include the “Syrian Popular Resistance,” a pro-Assadist militia created in December 2024. The group vowed to kill HTS leaders in response to the extrajudicial killings of Christians, Alawites, and Shiites after the fall of the Assad regime.
Since December 8, the Syrian Popular Resistance has killed the following HTS and HTS-affiliated commanders:
Ahmad al Wazeer (Abu Akar)
Muhialddin al Turki
Akram al Siyah
Abdulrahman Qazali
Mohammad Khaled al Safadi
Salem Janbaz
Mohammad Abdul Qader Khalil (Abu Abdo Talbiseh)
Western Syria will be a key area to watch, as Assad loyalists remain trapped there but with access to weapons. It is highly likely that external actors will seek to exploit this chaos, particularly Iran, which has been accused of fueling the insurgency against HTS. Additionally, the region holds strategic value for the Islamic Republic’s broader ambitions, as it provides direct access to Lebanon, where its key proxy, Hezbollah, is eager to rearm and rebuild. A destabilized border corridor creates the ideal conditions for Iranian influence.
*Ahmad Sharawi is a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies focused on Iranian intervention in Arab affairs and the levant.

Qatar Seeks Nobel Peace Prize for Gaza Mediation Despite Enabling Hamas
Natalie Ecanow/FDD/Policy Brief/January 30/2025 |
A Qatari diplomat recently suggested that the emir of Qatar deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to end the war in Gaza that Doha effectively abetted. In a statement to The Jerusalem Post, Qatar’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, Sheikh Abdullah Al Thani, claimed that Qatar “played a pivotal role in ending the war” and that “in recognition of its sacrifices and leadership,” Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Sheikh Abdullah’s congratulations to his uncle are deceiving. Qatar has pumped upwards of $1 billion into Hamas-run Gaza, provided a haven for Hamas leaders and financiers, and legitimized Hamas propaganda on its state-owned media network Al Jazeera. Doha released a statement on October 7, 2023, holding “Israel alone responsible” for Hamas’s massacre. Yet despite its leverage over the terrorist group, Doha repeatedly failed to exert pressure on Hamas during months of negotiations.
Doha’s efforts to gaslight its role in the Gaza war continued on January 26, when Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani lamented during an interview with Israel’s Channel 12 “that it took [this long] to get an agreement.” Sheikh Mohammed claimed that “with every day we were delayed,” Doha “felt a sense of responsibility that [it] was costing a lot of lives, of the Gazans or of the hostages being held in Gaza.”
Qatar Seeks Acclaim for Ending War It Enabled
Qatar effectively enabled the conditions that rendered its diplomatic services necessary. In April 2024, a group of American and Israeli intelligence professionals concluded that the “Doha-Gaza Alliance at all levels — financial, political, and military — has resulted in the current regional upheaval.” Drawing on English, Arabic, and French sources, the group found that “Qatari funding and policies led directly to” Hamas’s October 7, 2023, invasion and that Qatar “benefits directly from the bloodshed and geopolitical fallout and unrest that result from its policies.”
Israeli Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli suggested in a December 2023 interview that relying on Qatar to broker a Gaza ceasefire is “as if the U.S. would turn to Pakistan, which once harbored Bin Laden, for moderation on behalf of itself.”
Doha Signals Acceptance of Hamas Returning to Power
During his interview with Channel 12, Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani argued that “a two-state solution will be the only way forward” and that governance in Gaza “is a decision for the Palestinians to take.” He left room for the possibility that Hamas will once again rule Gaza while recognizing that “the Israeli people also have the right to assurances of security on their border.” Already, thousands of Hamas operatives have redeployed throughout Gaza and begun to reassert control over the coastal enclave.
Hamas Must Not Be Allowed to Regain Control Over Gaza
Qatar appears comfortable concluding the Gaza war in a manner that will allow Hamas to reassert control. That sentiment squares with Doha’s historic allegiance to Hamas but is inconsistent with Israeli and American expectations. When the ceasefire took effect on January 19, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar maintained that “if [Hamas] will stay in power, the regional instability it causes might continue,” adding that “automatically” proceeding to the second phase of the ceasefire “is to accept Hamas’s wishes and Hamas’s demands.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed this sentiment on January 28, telling his Egyptian counterpart that “Hamas can never govern Gaza or threaten Israel again.”
As a sponsor of Hamas, Qatar has never been an honest broker in this conflict. If the Trump administration is intent on relying on Qatari mediators, it must do so soberly, understanding that Qatar’s loyalty lies with Hamas and that the emirate is predisposed to do the group’s bidding.
**Natalie Ecanow is a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). For more analysis from Natalie and FDD, please subscribe HERE. Follow Natalie on X @NatalieEcanow. Follow FDD on X @FDD. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on foreign policy and national security.

Memo to Trump: Beware the ‘Reverse Teddy’
Matt Pottinger/The Free Press./January 30/2025
I was proud to serve the president in his first term. But Trump’s strength in the Western Hemisphere could portend weakness in Europe and Asia in his second,
That was quick. A day after Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro denied entry to American planes returning deported Colombian migrants from the United States, Petro—who complained that the migrants were not being treated with “dignity”—not only backed down, but was retweeting President Donald Trump’s press secretary.
Trump had brought him to heel in a matter of hours with a threat of crippling tariffs and other sanctions.
With more than a little justification, Trump and his supporters are claiming victory and touting the Colombian’s cave as proof that America’s days of being pushed around—especially in its own hemisphere—ended January 20.
Perhaps so. After four years of relative neglect by the Biden administration—during which Beijing, Moscow, and even Tehran made deeper inroads into Latin America—Trump is already effecting a hard swing of the pendulum back toward American primacy in its neighborhood.
In a broader sense, though, this show of strength in America’s near-abroad could portend weakness if it comes at the exclusion of traditional foreign policy concerns in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
In his first term, Trump wisely resisted the temptation to retreat and let aggressive dictators expand their territory and influence across Eurasia—the supercontinent that accounts for three-quarters of the world’s population and nearly two-thirds of the world’s economy. By holding the line in the Western Pacific, Eastern Europe, and the Persian Gulf, Trump logged important achievements: delivering heavy blows to ISIS, negotiating Mideast peace agreements, ditching Washington’s accommodationist approach to China, and (in that rarest of successes for a U.S. president) keeping America out of new wars.
Those weren’t just headlines for me—I proudly served in the Trump White House, first as his senior director for Asia policy, and then as deputy national security adviser.
Now, however, there are signs that the president might succumb to the allure of hemispheric seclusion in his second term. Isolationists masquerading as “restrainers” are being maneuvered into mid-level positions at the Department of Defense—some of them critical of Trump’s policies that kept the peace. Trump himself toyed with the idea of withdrawing from NATO in his first term, though he thankfully held fast and successfully pressured allies to spend more on their defense.
He can build on the accomplishments of his first term, but only by recalling that “peace through strength” means more than merely refraining from foolish military adventures: It also means maintaining a forward military posture and projecting the resolve to use it when provoked.
Frustrating as the world can be, carving it up in a “spheres of influence” grand bargain would make it harder to tackle problems that voters gave Trump a mandate to solve.
You don’t have to read between the lines of Trump’s January 20 inaugural address to perceive that the Americas were his main focus. He pledged to designate Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations and reassert dominance over the Panama Canal. He spoke of America as a “growing nation” that “expands our territory,” fueling sales of Canada Is Not for Sale hats and putting Greenland into play. But with the exception of a namecheck for China and what he considers its control over the canal, Asia and Europe went unmentioned. The Middle East figured only in a brief reference to “the hostages . . . coming back home to their families.”
Trump’s is an understandable impulse. Decades of “free” trade hollowed out American industrial capacity and left us dependent on China’s hostile dictatorship for everything from prescription drugs to iPhones. What’s more, he’s right to want to curb Beijing’s regional influence, squeeze Chinese- and Russian-aligned socialist dictatorships in Venezuela and Cuba—not to mention keep his campaign promises to stop mass migration and drug trafficking.
Meanwhile, neoconservative dreams of fully democratizing Iraq and Afghanistan failed after long, costly wars. (As a Marine with three combat deployments, I felt the consequences of our strategic misjudgments firsthand.) Many Americans think this country is still overcommitted militarily and, correctly, that allies—Germany, I’m looking at you—spend far less on their defense in relative terms than the United States does, even after a decade of armed aggression by Russia.
Many, including Trump himself, have framed his focus on America’s near-abroad as a restoration of the Monroe Doctrine, which fell out of favor at the end of the Cold War, but which, in 1823, established the Western Hemisphere as a core U.S. foreign policy interest. President James Monroe put forth two rules: European powers should not meddle in our hemisphere and, in return, the United States would not interfere with Europe or its established territories.
Trump’s words about the Panama Canal and territorial expansion even evoke the famed Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, under which President Teddy Roosevelt intervened assertively in America’s near-abroad to ward off any temptation by distant powers to meddle. These interventions included, of course, engineering territorial space for a U.S. canal in Panama.
But while those were the first steps Uncle Sam took en route to global power, Trump should resist any urge to pull a “reverse Teddy”—throwing our weight around in the Americas in order to retrench into a merely hemispheric power.
The truth is that the U.S. must retain the capability, and resolve, to influence events in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East because they affect the livelihoods of ordinary Americans.
The loss of Taiwan to Beijing’s coercion, for example, would probably capsize Trump’s presidency with a stock market crash to rival 1929. America would suddenly be at China’s mercy for the cutting-edge computer chips that keep our digital economy aloft and that will decide who dominates the ultra-strategic field of artificial intelligence.
American withdrawal from the Eastern Hemisphere would cede much of Asia to Beijing, Europe to Moscow, and the oil-rich Middle East to Tehran and other hostile powers. And there is little to suggest dictators would stick to their respective spheres. Xi Jinping, a Leninist whose professed heroes are Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong, has made clear he is playing for global stakes, not hemispheric ones. Worse than that, he is harnessing Moscow and Tehran to help him achieve his aims. The common denominator holding them together? Enmity for the United States of America.
Generations of strategists have warned that allowing a strategic competitor to dominate Asia or Europe or even the Middle East could spell the demise of Washington as a great power, no matter how sturdy its redoubt in the Americas.
That’s why the United States could not afford to duck two world wars and a cold war in the 20th century. Now, as before, it would be better to stand our ground, contain aggressors, and keep the peace—rather than to withdraw support for our allies and ultimately invite more war.
All Trump has to do is remember the overall success of his first-term foreign policy. Then, my former boss not only strengthened America’s hand vis-à-vis China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Sunni terrorist groups like ISIS but also successfully deterred new conflicts. He was able to do so thanks to the leverage afforded by America’s forward military presence—and Trump’s demonstrated willingness to use our armed forces when provoked.
If Trump needs examples of how undue retrenchment can go wrong, all he has to do is examine his predecessor’s record: The Taliban overran the government of Afghanistan in 2021; Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale invasion on Ukraine in 2022; and Iran sponsored Sunni and Shia proxies to launch a seven-front war on Israel in 2023.
Effective deterrence would have been a lot cheaper than war. It requires both resolve and the means of backing it up, however. One of Trump’s reflexes is to view alliances mainly as cost centers. In fact, allies—and our forward bases in places like Japan, Europe, and the Mideast—are insurance policies against the costly wars Trump rightly seeks to avoid.
China’s leader wouldn’t hesitate to exploit the power vacuum created if Washington begins to pull back from Asia.
The idea that Beijing would keep to its side of the globe if only we would keep to ours is based on the fantasy that dictators are aiming for an equal “balance of power” with the United States. This concept, fashionable with some political scientists and journalists but absent from the historical record, is rejected explicitly by none other than Xi Jinping himself. As an internal Chinese military textbook on “Xi Jinping Thought” put it in 2018:
The Westphalian system was founded on the notion of a balance of power. But it has proven unable to achieve a stable world order. All mankind needs a new order that surpasses and supplants the balance of power
A new world order is now under construction that will surpass and supplant the Westphalian System.
There, in one paragraph, our most powerful adversary rejects a “balance of power” as a desirable end state, makes clear Beijing is aiming at a “new world order” targeting “all mankind,” and attacks the very idea of national sovereignty created by the Treaties of Westphalia that emerged from war-ravaged Europe in 1648. The textbook goes on to quote Xi saying, “our struggle and contest with Western countries is irreconcilable.” Good luck with that grand bargain.
Since China aims to be a global power with geopolitical clout in our hemisphere—and even runs covert “police stations” that harass Chinese dissidents and Americans citizens inside our borders—it is worth reminding Beijing that America is a resident power on both sides of the Atlantic and the Pacific, and that we aren’t going anywhere.
That would be a position that Teddy Roosevelt would be proud of.
*Matt Pottinger was the deputy national security adviser from 2019 to 2021. He chairs the China program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and is CEO of the research firm Garnaut Global LLC.

Jihadist Terror: Alive and Well in Africa
Nils A. Haug/Gatestone Institute./January 30, 2025
"The number of Christians intentionally murdered, let alone tortured, raped, kidnapped and forcibly converted to Islam far exceeds the number of Gazans killed unintentionally as Israel directs its fire at terrorists who hide behind civilians. Indeed, Israel is defending its population from the very same jihadist assaults faced by African Christians." — Charles Jacobs and Uzay Bulut, Gatestone Institute, December 25, 2024.
Africa, it seems, is simply not a priority for the West at this time -- and that appears exactly why China, taking advantage of this vacuum, is making deep inroads throughout Africa (and the other unprioritized continent, South America) economically, financially, and politically – predominantly through their "Belt and Road" seductive-sounding loan initiatives, many of which turn out to be debt-traps.
In a strategy described as ISIS's "global long game", the movement aims to permeate all of Africa. Currently, its affiliates successfully operate in "Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, Somalia, Mozambique, and West Africa."
Hence, it is imperative that the West, particularly the US and Europe, significantly increase its presence in Africa. Only in this way is there a chance of containing Islamist jihadism, and ensuring that democracy prevails on the world's second-largest continent; one with a population that could soon reach two billion.
Accordting to Lt. Col. Joseph G. Bruhl of the US Army's Southern European Task Force, Africa, "In 2019, Russia held the first-ever Russia-Africa summit—hosting 45 African heads of state. China holds a similar event called the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation. The U.S. hosts no such initiative." Why not?
Islamist extremists are focusing anew their efforts to establish a global Caliphate, through their usual tactics of terror and upheaval, by permeating the continent of Africa.
With Iran awaiting its fate from Western powers concerned about its nuclear advancement, Middle Eastern jihadist groups have faced crippling defeat through brilliantly planned retaliation by Israel -- aided, to an erratic extent, by the United States and United Kingdom.
Islamist extremists are focusing anew their efforts to establish a global Caliphate, through their usual tactics of terror and upheaval, by permeating the continent of Africa.
A report from the US-based Foreign Policy Research Institute notes that in 2024, although, a primary exponent of terror, Islamic State, "is no longer anchored in the Middle East, many of its most prolific and active branches are now located in Africa, where ISIS branches regularly claim attacks in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Mozambique, and Nigeria."
In a similar vein, the Africa Report this month called Africa "a growing breeding ground for terror activities," and quoted security analyst Beverly Ochieng saying: "Islamic State has in recent months publicised Africa as the go-to destination for activities and presence."
The accompanying map reveals escalating jihadist efforts in numerous African countries, most of which do not have the resources or ability to counter those often ruthless efforts. Even the vaunted African Union says, in an exposé, that it "lacks a coherent plan to fight terrorism" -- on the increase in the region.
As expected from radical Islamists, Christians in those nations are marked for elimination. "Africa has become the epicenter of radical Islamic terrorism," Charles Jacobs and Uzay Bulut point out.
"The number of Christians intentionally murdered, let alone tortured, raped, kidnapped and forcibly converted to Islam far exceeds the number of Gazans killed unintentionally as Israel directs its fire at terrorists who hide behind civilians. Indeed, Israel is defending its population from the very same jihadist assaults faced by African Christians."
The constant attacks upon defenseless Christians in Africa is shamefully ignored by most of the world's press. Intelligence agencies of the West's major powers are, no doubt, aware of this situation, but at this crucial stage for the Indo-Pacific, the Middle East and Ukraine, priorities are understandably focused elsewhere. Africa, it seems, is simply not a priority for the West at this time -- and that appears exactly why China, taking advantage of this vacuum, is making deep inroads throughout Africa (and the other unprioritized continent, South America) economically, financially, and politically – predominantly through their "Belt and Road" seductive-sounding loan initiatives, many of which turn out to be debt-traps.
The main instigator of jihadist terror in Africa still appears to be the Islamic State (ISIS). With ideologically like-minded groups – most of which are active iterations of the broader Muslim Brotherhood movement, promoted by Qatar through its Al-Jazeera television network – their ultimate aim is an Islamic Caliphate under Sharia law. ISIS is affiliated with Al-Shabaab – one of a number of splinter groups who operate in different regions of Africa. Al-Shabaab is predominantly active in Somalia, from where the group instigates attacks in Mozambique - a country that has common borders with Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Tanzania, South Africa, and Swaziland – all of which are highly vulnerable to Islamic influence and jihadist terror.
In a strategy described as ISIS's "global long game", the movement aims to permeate all of Africa. Currently, its affiliates successfully operate in "Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, Somalia, Mozambique, and West Africa." In short, from the most northernly part of Africa (Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia), extending south through Somalia to Mozambique -- while likely aiming for the southernmost tip of South Africa, Cape Point. In West Africa, ISIS has representation and influence in Nigeria, Mali, Central African Republic and Democratic Republic of Congo, and Mozambique in the east. The group uses violence wherever it goes.
The ultimate objective of Islamic jihadists, appears to be to penetrate the United States. Al-Qaida's leader Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, declared:
"The military work is to target firstly the head of global infidels America, and her ally Israel, and then her local allies who rule our countries. Targeting America aims at exhausting and haemorrhaging it, in order for it to end like the Soviet Union did, and isolate itself due to its military, human, and economic losses, and subsequently ease its grip on our countries, and its allies to begin falling one after another."
Furthermore, all Westerners are targets for attack. Al-Zawahiri continues:
"If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah and kill him in any manner or way."Consequently, it is in the interests of the West, especially the United States as the dominant military power and protector of global freedom, that assistance be rendered to those African countries, which, faced with Islamic jihadist terror, desire help. The reality in Africa is that there is no standing army in the 54-nation continent, south of the Sahara, which is capable of successfully countering and eliminating these terror attacks.
In Nigeria, the most populous country, the nation's Christians suffer continual attacks by ISIS, originally a splinter group of Boko Haram. Since 2009, more than 350,000 Nigerians have been murdered by Boko Haram, at least 30,000 of them under the nearly ten-year rule of Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari, who admitted having failed to keep his promise of securing Nigeria:
"In his inaugural address, Mr Buhari vowed to tackle 'head on' the Boko Haram insurgents who at the time had taken over several local government areas in Borno, Adamawa and Yobe states.
"He vowed to crush Boko Haram within three months and recover all the territories it had seized."
Despite apparently half-hearted efforts to eradicate the threat, Nigeria's military does not make much headway, reportedly largely due to corruption and "failure to address the root cause":
"Experts say that it is not that people in the north-east sympathise with Boko Haram and its splinter group, the Islamic State's West Africa Province, but that neglect from the authorities and desperation often drive people into the hands of the militants....
"He points to a lack of good governance that leaves the population impoverished, frustrated and uneducated as 'one huge root cause'".
The Africa Report of January 10, 2025, reports:
"Security experts say the Islamic State (IS) jihadist militant group is capitalising on issues such as severe governance challenges, political instability and weak institutions in Africa to surge and make territorial gains in regions across the continent."
The same contention applies to the East African nations of Tanzania, Kenya and Mozambique, and many others. While there are many paramilitary groups or private military contractors, as they prefer to be called, in Africa which engage in countering terrorism, these are often for-profit or politically affiliated; generally, to specific political entities who, for their own purposes, sub-contract them out.
South Africa, arguably the wealthiest country in Africa, nevertheless finds the ANC government poorly equipped and trained militarily and ill-prepared for jihadist incursions.
The US Department of State wrote in its "Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: South Africa":
"South Africa's border security is challenging because of its numerous land, sea, and air ports of entry for international travellers. Multiple South African law enforcement agencies police its borders, but they often are stove piped. Inadequate communication and equipment limit their border control ability."
Immensely mineral-rich and strategically located, Africa is a continent of vital importance to the West. It extends from the Mediterranean in the north to the Indian Ocean in the south. It is urgent that Western leaders appreciate the danger of further entrenchment of Islamist jihadism on the continent. That dubious statesman, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, was one of the first to warn of the insidious increase in Islamism in Africa.
Hence, it is imperative that the West, particularly the US and Europe, significantly increase its presence in Africa. Only in this way is there a chance of containing Islamist jihadism, and ensuring that democracy prevails on the world's second-largest continent; one with a population that could soon reach two billion. At the same time, China's efforts in Africa also need containing.
Concerning China's and Russia's African agenda, Lt. Col. Joseph G. Bruhl of the US Army's Southern European Task Force, Africa, wrote:
"Instead of a problem to be solved, China and Russia view Africa as an opportunity to be seized. From 2007-2017, U.S. trade with Africa dropped by 54% while China's grew by 220%. While Russia's total investment in Africa pales in comparison to the U.S. and China, it's growing—by 40% since 2015. In 2019, Russia held the first-ever Russia-Africa summit—hosting 45 African heads of state. China holds a similar event called the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation. The U.S. hosts no such initiative."
Why not?
*Nils A. Haug is an author and columnist. A lawyer by profession, he is member of the International Bar Association, the National Association of Scholars, a faculty member at Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the Academy of Philosophy and Letters. Dr. Haug holds a Ph.D. in Apologetical Theology and is author of 'Politics, Law, and Disorder in the Garden of Eden – the Quest for Identity'; and 'Enemies of the Innocent – Life, Truth, and Meaning in a Dark Age.' His work has been published by First Things Journal, The American Mind, Quadrant, Minding the Campus, Gatestone Institute, National Association of Scholars, Jewish Journal, James Wilson Institute (Anchoring Truths), Document Danmark, and others.
© 2025 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

When — and Why — Christians First ‘Demonized’ Muhammad
Raymond Ibrahim/The Stream/January 30, 2025
In a recent article, we saw the degree to which academics, such as Georgetown professor John Esposito, lie to whitewash Islamic violence and scapegoat Christians. Esposito claims that “[f]ive centuries of peaceful coexistence elapsed” between Muslims and Christians before the latter shattered that peace with the First Crusade in 1095 AD.
In reality, those “five centuries of peaceful coexistence” featured Islam violently conquering three-quarters of the Christian world, replete with massacres, mass enslavements, and the systematic destruction of churches — 30,000 of them under just one caliph (Hakim bi-amr Allah).
Now, let’s look at another similar lie emanating from another “authority” and “historian of religions”: former nun Karen Armstrong. Among other honors and accolades, she’s the bestselling author of many books, including A History of God; The Battle for God; Holy War; and Islam.
So surely she too must know her Islam, yes?
Maybe Not
In a 2007 article she wrote (which I addressed way back then) she made the following assertion:
Ever since the Crusades, people in the west have seen the prophet Muhammad as a sinister figure.… The scholar monks of Europe stigmatised Muhammad as a cruel warlord who established the false religion of Islam by the sword. They also, with ill-concealed envy, berated him as a lecher and sexual pervert at a time when the popes were attempting to impose celibacy on the reluctant clergy.
In other words, she’s saying that negative images of Muhammad began in Europe just before — and as a pretext to justify — the First Crusade of 1095.
In reality, of course, non-Muslims — chiefly Christians, since it was they who were conquered by and lived under Islam — have seen Muhammad as a “sinister figure,” and “sexual pervert” right from the start.
The oldest parchment that alludes to a warlike prophet was written in 634, a mere two years after Muhammad’s death. It has a man asking a learned Jewish scribe what he knows about “the prophet who has appeared among the Saracens” of Arabia. The elderly man, “with much groaning,” responded: “He is deceiving. For do prophets come with swords and chariot? Verily, these events of today are works of confusion. . . . You will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed.”
More History
Muhammad is first mentioned by name in a Syriac fragment, also written around 634. Only scattered phrases are intelligible: “many villages [in Homs] were ravaged by the killing [of the followers] of Muhammad and many people were slain and [taken] prisoner from Galilee to Beth,” and “some ten thousand” other Christians were slaughtered in “the vicinity of Damascus.”
Writing around 640, Thomas the Presbyter says that “there was a battle [probably Ajnadayn] between the Romans and the Arabs of Muhammad in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled. . . . Some 4,000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there. . . . The Arabs ravaged the whole region.” They even “climbed the mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in the monasteries of Qedar and Bnata.”
A Coptic homily, also written around the 640s, is apparently the earliest account to associate the invaders with (an albeit hypocritical) piety. It counsels Christians to fast, but not “like the Saracens who are oppressors, who give themselves up to prostitution, massacre and lead into captivity the sons of men, saying, ‘we both fast and pray.’”
Writing around 650, John of Nikiû said the Ishmaelite invaders and conquerors of Egypt were not just “enemies of God” but adherents of “the detestable doctrine of the beast, that is, Mohammed.”
But it is only toward the end of the seventh and beginning of the eighth centuries — still roughly four centuries before the First Crusade — that learned Christians became acquainted with and scrutinized the theological claims of Islam. The image of Muhammad went from bad to worse.
The First Historians
The best representative of this is Saint John of Damascus (b. 676), whose thorough analysis of Muhammad and Islam is the earliest of its kind. Based on his reading of the Koran and familiarity with other Islamic sources, he concluded that the only “miracle” Muhammad performed was to invade, slaughter, and enslave those who refused to submit to him — a “miracle that even common robbers and highway bandits can perform.” The prophet put whatever words best served him into God’s mouth, thus “simulating revelation in order to justify his own sexual indulgence”; he made his religion appealing and justified his own behavior by easing the sexual and moral codes of the Arabs and fusing the notion of obedience to God with war to aggrandize oneself with booty and slaves.
In the eighth century, Nicetas Byzantinos, who studied the Koran, presented it as the “most pitiful and most inept little book of the Arab Muhammad … full of blasphemies against the Most High, with all its ugly and vulgar filth,” particularly its claim that heaven amounted to a “sexual brothel.”
In his entry for the years 629–630, Theophanes the Confessor (b. 758) wrote:
He [Muhammad] taught his subjects that he who kills an enemy or is killed by an enemy goes to Paradise [Koran 9:111]; and he said that this paradise was one of carnal eating and drinking and intercourse with women, and had a river of wine, honey and milk, and that the women were not like the ones down here, but different ones, and that the intercourse was long-lasting and the pleasure continuous; and other things full of profligacy and stupidity.
Allah was denounced as an impostor deity, namely Satan: “I anathematize the God of Muhammad,” read one Eastern Roman canonical rite.
Central Tenet
Perhaps most importantly, Muhammad’s denial of and war on all things distinctly Christian — the Trinity, the resurrection, and “the cross, which they abominate” — proved that he was Satan’s minion. Thus, “the false prophet,” “the hypocrite,” “the liar,” “the adulterer,” “the forerunner of Antichrist,” and “the Beast” became mainstream epithets for Muhammad among Christians for centuries.
In short, it wasn’t only during the Crusades — when, as Armstrong would have it, popes desperately needed to demonize Mohammed and Islam in order to rally support for the Crusades — that Christians began to see him as a “sinister figure,” “cruel warlord,” a “lecher and sexual pervert” (Armstrong’s words, not mine). That’s how Christians saw him right from the start.
Incidentally, Armstrong’s claim that the scholar monks of Europe, “with ill-concealed envy, berated him as a lecher and sexual pervert at a time when the popes were attempting to impose celibacy on the reluctant clergy” seems to be a bit of projection. As an ex-nun who betrayed her own vows, perhaps it is she who harbors “ill-conceived envy” against her former colleagues who stayed the course?
Be that as it may, let us close by considering the parallels between Esposito’s lie and Armstrong’s: Although Muslims engaged in violence and conquest against Christians for nearly five centuries, Esposito claims that “five centuries of peaceful coexistence” passed between Muslims and Christians before the Crusaders ruined it all. And although Christians have always seen Muhammad as a “sinister figure,” Armstrong claims that this view was fabricated as a pretext to justify the Crusades.
In both cases, Muslims are exonerated of their demonstrably bad behavior and everything is, once again, blamed on those evil Christian Crusaders.
*Raymond Ibrahim, author of Defenders of the West and Sword and Scimitar, is the Distinguished Senior Shillman Fellow at the Gatestone Institute and the Judith Rosen Friedman Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Is There Another Way with Israel?
Hazem Saghieh/Asharq Al Awsat/January 30/2025
The "beneficial outcome" (or at least one of them) of the "harmful" “Al-Aqsa Flood," might be that it rid us of the idea that force is the solution to the Israel problem. Neither our many wars nor our resistance movements achieved their mission. As for the things that should be said, they absolutely must be said, today more than ever, regardless of how acrid they may be, the criticism and accusations they may draw, or how shocking they may seem to our common rhetoric and sensibilities.
The Palestinians’ immense pain cannot be allowed to continue, nor can the suffering of the Lebanese and others who pay the costs of the cause’s exploitation as a pretext. With Trump’s presidency, the situation becomes even more dire, and the stocks of disasters, displacement, and genocide rise.
What should be said is that we will not manage, neither in the near nor distant future, to bridge the gap with Israel: Israel’s relations with the world’s influential powers (let’s forget the call for turning East), its technical superiority, its nuclear weapons, its political and social makeup’s capacity to live with its contradictions in the shadow of war... In fact, it is likely to grow.
Besides, our societies do not want to keep up the fight, whose primary function has become furthering ends that have nothing to do with Palestine and the Palestinians. We are seeing Syria, which had been a pioneer of the religion of war, and of making lofty pretensions tied to it, turn away, both as a people and a government, from this doctrine.
Does this mean that we have no problem with Israel? Of course not. However, it does mean that there are other means, that do not entail or threaten violence, to address this problem. The history of major conflicts can offer suggestions for how to leave the world of war, and thereby influence Israel itself in ways that empower its moderate forces, which have been weakened by the climate of violence and militarization that has prevailed since signing the Oslo Accords, when its "peace camp" had been home to more than two-thirds of society. Such an approach allows us to bet on putting the two-state solution back on the table. The faster we move in that direction, the better our chances of success.
In the history of conflicts, we find the many wars that France and Germany have fought against one another. We can gloss over the last three of them: In 1870, the Prussians were not satisfied with defeating the French and seizing Alsace-Lorraine (15,000 km2), they also humiliated them by capturing their Emperor, Napoleon III, and then crowned their victory with German unification.
In 1914, France joined the global powers that fought and ultimately defeated Germany. The humiliating "Treaty of Versailles" was imposed on the Germans as a result, and it would become one of the reasons for the eventual rise of Nazism. In World War II, Germany occupied France with ease; this became the source of extraordinary shame that was expressed, in various ways, in French literature and cinema. In light of this history, the French and other Europeans were apprehensive about German unification in 1990, and President François Mitterrand was no exception. Nonetheless, he quickly took a different view and became enthused by this development, betting that the implications of its unity and strength could be absorbed into a European framework of mutual benefit to all. This vision led to the Maastricht Treaty, and later, the adoption of the Euro.
Japan and Korea have waged wars against one another since the seventh century. In the modern era, the former occupied the latter, between 1910 and 1945. During this time, and especially during World War II, more than half a million Koreans were killed, one million were subjected to forced labor, and a regime that ordained Korean women to “entertain” and “comfort” Japanese soldiers was imposed on them.
Only twenty years after that occupation ended, in 1965, the two countries normalized relations, but tensions and matters of contention remain, especially with regard to the question of compensation, which each side interprets differently. Nonetheless, the countries maintain a trade relationship worth billions of dollars annually, and they share economic, military, and security ties.
The Anglo-Irish conflict dates back to the mid-seventeenth century, with (Protestant) Cromwell’s occupation of (Catholic) Ireland and the large wave of settler migration that followed. In 1919-21, the Irish War of Independence broke out. After some twists and turns, it led to the partition of the country and the establishment of the Irish state in the south. Meanwhile, the conflict continued in the north until a settlement was reached, in 1998, that established a power-sharing arrangement that was satisfactory to the Catholics and by which Northern Ireland would remain part of Britain, reassuring the Protestants.
When India gained its independence and its Muslims seceded and established the state of Pakistan in 1947, it was ravaged by a civil war that displaced 14 million people and killed (in what is among the least precise estimates in modern history) somewhere between 200,000 and two million people. Like the Japanese and Koreans, the English and the Irish, the Indians and Pakistanis did not become enamored of one another. They have fought three wars since this conflict ended, and they are divided over a whole host of disputes, the most prominent of which is the status of Kashmir. Nevertheless, officials from the two countries continue to meet one another, trade with one another, and seek diplomatic solutions to the conflict. Our wars, the Palestinian and Arab wars with Israel, are not an exception to war, nor are they the most hateful and painful of wars. However, following in the footsteps of Mitterrand and the Europeans, who saw the European Union as the only way to contain what they saw as the threat of German aggression, might be the only way to tame and curb Israel’s belligerence.

What Happens After the Liberation of Khartoum
Osman Mirghani/Asharq Al Awsat/January 30/2025
In a week of swift military shifts, the Sudanese Armed Forces have completed the liberation of Bahri city, except for a few pockets that are currently being cleared. At the same time, there is little left to do to recapture Khartoum, and the army is advancing towards the capital from several fronts.
We can expect an official communique to be issued soon announcing the liberation of Khartoum and that the army has secured control of the Republican Palace, state ministries, and strategic facilities.
What are the implications of these developments? Militarily, it cannot, in any way, be said that the war has been settled- there is still a long road ahead. However, the balance of power has completely shifted in favor of the army, the joint forces, and the fighters it has mobilized.
The army leadership has said that after the battle to liberate Khartoum, they will advance to the Kordofan region and then to Darfur, where the nature of the battles will be entirely different. Instead of the difficult urban warfare, they have had to engage in so far, most of the fighting is expected to take place in relatively open areas. It is clear now that the war has now entered a critical phase, and that the initiative is firmly in the hands of the army and the forces fighting alongside it. This shift has been paralleled by another in the psychological and media war. The army’s supporters and the civilians residing in liberated areas are celebrating. Meanwhile, its opponents have consistently denounced the military and sought to downplay its achievements.
I consider their messaging to be deliberate misinformation. They are claiming that the army’s gains (the liberation of Madani, then Bahri, and now Khartoum) were the result of an agreement to set the stage for negotiations after the army had improved its military position and that the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have not collapsed but decided on a tactical retreat.
This narrative is not supported by facts on the ground. The RSF has made uncoordinated retreats from its positions, leaving behind weapons and fleeing west wherever possible, making it clear that it is in disarray. Moreover, their propaganda entirely ignores the army leadership’s reiterations that it is committed to deciding the war militarily, effectively ruling out any negotiations at this stage.
Talk of the army achieving these victories without combat, and the RSF voluntarily withdrawing from their positions as part of a "deal," fails to account for the army's long-term strategy, which General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan has likened their approach to "drilling with needle"- a slow and deliberate gains aimed that allow for rebuilding the army’s military capabilities while gradually wearing the RSF out. This strategy ultimately left the RSF surrounded from all directions, making it impossible for its forces to use their preferred tactic, which is to retreat and then try to go around the enemy.
Once they were surrounded, the RSF had two choices: either wage a suicidal battle under siege or flee. They chose the latter, abandoning their equipment in their retreat. Moreover, the "negotiated withdrawal" theory is undermined by the infighting within the RSF, which has led to a purge of prominent RSF commanders who were blamed for its recent losses and accused of abandoning the fight.Additionally, social media has been flooded with videos and recordings of RSF fighters criticizing their leadership and holding them responsible for their successive defeats.
In light of the above, what are the implications of Khartoum’s liberation, which we have every reason to believe is imminent?
Putting military consideration, and the expectations that Sudan’s armed forces will immediately press forward toward Kordofan and Darfur, to one side, another battle deserves our attention.
We will witness a battle to restore essential services and rebuild the capital’s infrastructure, to facilitate the return of its residents and the resumption of normal life. The return of displaced people to their homes will be a psychological and moral victory. They will return to their lives after having been forced to flee their neighborhoods, which were occupied by the RSF, with many of them being turned into military barracks, weapons depots, and storage sites for looted goods, and others outright destroyed.
Their return will also create immense challenges, and restoring electricity, water, healthcare, banking, and commercial services will have to be restored quickly.
Given that Khartoum (with its three major cities) is one of Sudan’s most densely populated areas, vast resources will be required to rise to this challenge. Clearing debris and deploying police forces to curb chaos must be the first steps, followed by reopening schools and universities.
The people also expect the government to resume its functions after returning to Khartoum. That must be a top priority, not only for its military, political, and symbolic significance but also because it would be the ultimate signal that citizens can return to their homes. After all, it would be untenable to ask people to return to the capital if the government itself were to remain in Port Sudan.
The government’s return would reassure the population and send a clear message to the world: the balance of this war has shifted, and, if the current trajectory continues, the conflict is about to end. Of course, the path ahead will not be easy. The war, with its complexities and the involvement of several foreign actors, has made that clear to everyone. However, it is fair to say that the worst may now be behind us. And maybe, the people will draw valuable lessons from this bitter experience.