English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News
& Editorials
For January 21/2026
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news
The Bulletin's Link on the
lccc Site
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2026/english.january
21.26.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 Elias Bejjaninews 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
Jesus Chooses 4 of his Disciples, Peter & Andrew his
brother, & James Son Of Zebedee & His Bother, John
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 04/18-25:
“As he walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon, who is called
Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the lake for they were
fishermen. And he said to them, ‘Follow me, and I will make you fish for
people.’ Immediately they left their nets and followed him. As he went from
there, he saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John, in
the boat with their father Zebedee, mending their nets, and he called them.
Immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed him. Jesus went
throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the good news
of the kingdom and curing every disease and every sickness among the people. So
his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought to him all the sick,
those who were afflicted with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics,
and paralytics, and he cured them. And great crowds followed him from Galilee,
the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and from beyond the Jordan.”
Titles For The Latest English LCCC
Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published
on January
20-21/2026
Video & Text: Commemorating the Annual Brutal Damour Massacre/Elias
Bejjani/January 21, 2025 From 2025 Archive
On Naim Qassem’s Speech: Insolence, Delusion, and Street-Level Vulgarity in Open
Rebellion Against Lebanon and the World/Elias Bejjani/January 19/ 2026
Spiritual & Historical Reflections on the Annual Feast of Saint Mar Matanios –
The Hermit Mor Mattai/Elias Bejjani/January 17/2026
Aoun hails disarmament progress: ‘Lebanon achieved in 1 year what it had not
seen in 4 decades’
Israel strikes Zebqine in south Lebanon, wounding one person
Aoun Hails State Control of Arms and Pledges Continued Reforms
Report: Aoun and Haykal vow to act in N. Litani prior to Washington visit
'What you see, not what you hear': Aoun says only army operating south of Litani
Berri says meeting with bin Farhan was 'excellent'
Report: KSA asks Bassil not to ally with Hezbollah in elections
Salam in Davos says discussed with UN 'more sustainable solutions' for Lebanon
Port blast indictment may be issued in two months
Lebanese Army Chief to Make Pivotal Visit to Washington Next Month
Lebanon and the Challenge of Re-Founding the State/Hanna Saleh/Asharq Al-Awsat/January
20/2026
The sermon as a shield: How Hezbollah replaces politics with sanctity/Makram
Rabah/English AlArabiya/January 20/2026
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous
Reports And News published
on January
20-21/2026
Syria Gives Kurds Four Days to
Accept Integration as US Signals End of Support
Syria Says Sharaa, Trump Discuss Kurdish Rights as Forces Deploy in Country’s
North, East
PKK Says Will 'Not Abandon' Syrian Kurds
Syrian Interior Ministry: 120 ISIS Members Escape from Prison amid Clashes
US envoy says purpose of anti-Daesh alliance with Kurds ‘largely expired’
US signals end of military support for Syria’s Kurdish forces, urges integration
Spokesman for Iran’s Armed Forces Warns Trump Against Taking Action Against
Khamenei
Iran FM Says Davos Appearance Cancellation Based On 'Lies'
Standoff with Iran over inspections cannot go on forever, IAEA chief says
Iran's protests in the dark: How credible is Germany's response?
Israel’s Netanyahu says no place for Turkish, Qatari soldiers in Gaza force
Israel orders Gaza families to move in first forced evacuation since ceasefire
Israeli authorities demolish UN compound in occupied East Jerusalem
Hamas Leaders Prepare for 'Safe Exit' from Gaza, Amid Doubts Over Return
Israeli crews target UN facilities for Palestinian refugees in east Jerusalem
European leaders endure a new level of public embarrassment as Trump dials up
the insults
US to cut roughly 200 NATO positions, sources say
Titles For The Latest English LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous
sources published
on January
20-21/2026
The
European Union's 'Woke Stasi Commissars': Europeans Turned into 'Second Class'
Citizens/Guy Millière/Gatestone Institute/January 20, 2026
Sudan's War Has a Center of Gravity: The Muslim Brotherhood Behind al-Burhan's
Regime/Robert Williams/Gatestone Institute/January 20/2026
Washington’s Human Rights Sanctions Against Tehran Won’t Halt Regime Brutality/Janatan
Sayeh & Bridget Toomey/FDD-Policy Brief/January 20/2026
It’s Time To Rethink Al Udeid Air Base/Natalie Ecanow/FDD-Policy Brief/January
20/2026
The Islamic Republic Kills, Europe Does Nothing/Janatan Sayeh/FDD-Policy
Brief/January 20/2026
The U.S. Designation of Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood Needs To Be
Strengthened/Ahmad Sharawi/FDD-Policy Brief/January 20/2026
Trump’s hesitation on Iran: Why a prompt strike, even if only symbolic, is
crucial/Jacob Nagel/The Jerusalem Post/January 20/2026
Is the new Turkish-Saudi-Pakistani defense pact an attempt at an Islamic NATO or
a strategic self-sabotage?/Sinan Ciddi, and William Doran/The National
Interest/January 20/2026
Iran: Accelerated or Deferred Wars/Dr. Nassif Hitti/Asharq Al-Awsat/January
20/2026
The Cheapest Solution/Samir Atallah/Asharq Al-Awsat/January 20/2026
Exciting Developments in the Yemeni File/Amal Abdulaziz al-Hazzani/Asharq Al-Awsat/January
20/2026
A Fragile Year in Office for Lebanon’s President… Amid Global Earthquakes!/Eyad
Abu Shakra/Asharq Al-Awsat/January 20/2026
Israel Won the War, So Why Is the Muslim Brotherhood Winning the Peace?/Hussain
Abdul-Hussain/This is Beirut/January 20, 2026
The Latest English LCCC
Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published
on January
20-21/2026
Video & Text: Commemorating the Annual Brutal Damour Massacre
Elias Bejjani/January 21, 2025 From 2025 Archive
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/01/126200/
The memory of the Damour Massacre, perpetrated by the Syrian Assad regime,
Palestinian terrorism, leftist and Arab nationalist groups, and jihadists on
January 20, 1976, remains etched in the Lebanese, Christian, moral, national,
and faith-based consciousness. It serves as a painful reminder of a brutal
chapter in Lebanon’s history and the resilient struggle of its free Christian
community.
On Naim
Qassem’s Speech: Insolence, Delusion, and Street-Level Vulgarity in Open
Rebellion Against Lebanon and the World
Elias Bejjani/January 19/ 2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/01/151257/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRlRrHRUmUg
Sheikh Naïm Qassem’s latest speech was not a mere slip of the tongue or a
momentary emotional outburst. It was a blatant declaration of total estrangement
from Lebanon as a state, and a brazen rebellion against the Lebanese
people—their institutions, their decisions, and their national dignity. It was a
speech drawn from the gutter language of the street, not from the position of a
political leader, deliberately confrontational, crude, and saturated with
arrogance and coercion.
When Qassem declares that Hezbollah’s weapons will remain “by force, over the
necks of the Lebanese,” he is not expressing a political stance; he is
effectively signing a document of internal occupation. That statement alone is
sufficient to strip away all the masks of “resistance,” “protection,” and
“defense of the homeland,” revealing the naked truth: we are facing an armed
organization that views the Lebanese as subjects, not citizens, and sees the
state as an obstacle to be smashed, not an authority to which it is accountable.
From Political Speech to Verbal Thuggery
What was labeled a “speech” was nothing more than a bundle of obscene,
street-level insults and a reckless flight forward. Qassem did not debate, did
not argue, did not reason. He insulted, threatened, and waved the specter of
civil war, as if Lebanon were a private estate and Lebanese blood merely a
bargaining chip.
He targeted the President of the Republic, attacked the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, and appointed himself guardian over the government, ordering it either
to submit, to silence itself, or to change course. This is not the language of
leadership; it is the language of a militia in distress. It is not a sign of
strength, but of weakness and fear. The tighter the noose grows around the
party’s regional patron in Tehran, the louder the shouting becomes in Beirut’s
southern suburbs, Hezbollah’s stronghold. And the closer Lebanon comes to a
serious reckoning over placing weapons exclusively under state authority, the
more Qassem emerges threatening that “not one stone will be left upon another.”
Weapons: From “Resistance” to Burden and Threat
The most dangerous aspect of Qassem’s speech is not merely its vulgarity or its
detachment from reality and actual capabilities, but its open contempt for
everything Lebanese—national sovereignty, civil peace, and its servile
submission to Iranian dictates.
He trivialized and leapt over international resolutions, trampled the Armistice
Agreement that binds Lebanon and prohibits any armed organization outside state
legitimacy, mocked Arab and international consensus, ignored Israel’s military
power, and insulted and derided the will of the vast majority of Lebanese who
want a normal state—without rogue weapons and without militias that know nothing
but stupidity, hatred, and the glorification and sanctification of suicidal
death.
When Qassem challenges the state and declares his weapons beyond any discussion,
he implicitly admits that these weapons no longer serve any national purpose.
They serve only one function: protecting the party’s apparatus and its
mini-state, even if that comes at the ruins of Lebanon itself.
Branding Sovereignty as Treason… to Cover Defeat
Qassem reverted to the easiest weapon of all: accusations of treason. Anyone who
demands state sovereignty is a “traitor.” Anyone who works through diplomacy is
a “tool.” Anyone who rejects his weapons is “inciting civil war.” But the truth
is far too clear to be concealed by insults: the party’s project has reached a
dead end. The illusions of “victory” can no longer feed a hungry people, rebuild
a destroyed city, or rescue a collapsed economy.
What Comes After This Defiance?
After this speech, silence is no longer an option, and evasiveness is no longer
acceptable. What Naïm Qassem said imposes firm and unequivocal steps on the
Lebanese government—not vague, grey statements:
The immediate expulsion of Hezbollah and Amal Movement ministers from the
government, because anyone who threatens the state cannot be a partner in
governing it.
A clear and official declaration of the end of the state of war with Israel, and
an end to its use as a pretext for retaining weapons.
The designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization at the national level,
consistent with its threatening and insurrectionary behavior.
The arrest of Hezbollah leaders involved in threatening civil peace and their
referral to the judiciary, rather than rewarding them with positions of power.
Conclusion
Naïm Qassem’s speech was not a defense of “resistance,” but a declaration of
open hostility toward Lebanon. It was not a show of strength, but a fit of
political panic. It was not directed at Israel or the outside world, but at the
Lebanese themselves—as if to tell them: “The state is finished, and we are the
alternative.”
Here lies the crux of the matter: Either a state, or Naïm Qassem. Either the
rule of law, or the logic of “by force, over your necks.”History does not
forgive the hesitant.
Spiritual & Historical
Reflections on the Annual Feast of Saint Mar Matanios – The Hermit Mor Mattai
Elias Bejjani/January 17/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/01/151190/
Who Is Saint Mar Matanios?
Saint Mar Matanios, known in the Syriac tradition as Mar Matthew the Hermit (Mor
Mattai), is one of the pillars of Eastern monasticism in the fourth Christian
century and the founder of the renowned Monastery of Mar Mattai near Nineveh. He
is regarded as one of the great ascetics who contributed to strengthening the
faith and spreading monastic life in the Church of the East. The Syriac and
Maronite Churches commemorate his annual feast on January 17.
Historical Timeline and Biography
Year of birth: approximately the first quarter of the fourth century (c. 300–305
AD)
Place of birth: the city of Amida (Diyarbakir) in Mesopotamia
Social background: from a family of status and influence, in a non-Christian
environment
Conversion to Christianity: in his youth, following a profound spiritual
experience that led him to faith in Christ
Entrance into monastic life: around 330–335 AD
First place of ascetic life: the mountains and wilderness near Nineveh
(present-day Iraq)
Foundation of the monastery: the nucleus of the Monastery of Mar Mattai around
363 AD, which later became a major monastic and spiritual center
Year of death: approximately 410–420 AD
Place of death: in his monastery near Nineveh
Recognition of sainthood (canonization): not by a conciliar decree as in the
Latin concept, but by the consensus of the Church and living tradition since the
fifth century; his name was included in the Syriac and Maronite Synaxaria
His Ascetic and Monastic Life
Mar Matanios chose the path of total renunciation, living a strict ascetic life
of fasting and vigil, constant prayer, inner silence, obedience, and humility,
rejecting all worldly glory. Many disciples gathered around him, and his ascetic
experience developed into an organized monastic movement that became one of the
foundations of Eastern Syriac monasticism.
His Miracles According to Church Tradition
The Synaxaria and spiritual biographies affirm that God glorified His saint
through many miracles, most notably the healing of the sick from incurable
physical illnesses, the casting out of evil spirits through prayer and the sign
of the Cross, the protection of believers and monks during times of persecution
and turmoil, and numerous miracles through his intercession after his death,
especially for the sick and the weak. These miracles are understood as signs of
the saint’s union with God, not as ends in themselves.
His Impact on Church and Monastic Life
Monastic impact:
The establishment of the model of communal monasticism in the East
The formation of generations of monks and bishops
The transformation of the Monastery of Mar Mattai into a spiritual and
theological school
Ecclesial impact:
The strengthening of Christian faith in religiously diverse regions
The consolidation of Syriac spiritual and liturgical identity
The offering of a living witness of holiness that drew believers to the Church
What the Maronite Synaxarion Says About the Saint
The Maronite Synaxarion presents Saint Mar Matanios as a holy ascetic monk who
abandoned wealth and worldly glory, dwelt in the wilderness out of love for
Christ, founded a monastery that became a beacon of holiness, and became
renowned for his powerful prayer and miracles. The Church celebrates his feast
annually on January 17, highlighting his ascetic virtues and effective
intercession.
The Relationship of Saint Mar Matanios with Lebanon
Although the saint’s life unfolded in Mesopotamia, his veneration reached
Lebanon through the Syriac–Maronite tradition. This is manifested in churches
bearing his name according to local tradition, ancient churches and monasteries
dedicated to him in Mount Lebanon and the North, especially in areas influenced
by Syriac heritage, as well as altars or side altars dedicated to him in some
Maronite churches.
Monasteries:There is a spiritual bond between Maronite monasteries in Lebanon
and Syriac monasticism that originated from the School of Mar Mattai. His name
is mentioned in liturgical books and monastic biographies circulated in
monasteries. It is worth noting that the spread of his name in Lebanon is
primarily spiritual and liturgical rather than directly historical.
Asceticism, and love are the true path to the salvation of humanity and of
nations
While, Saint Mar Matanios remains a witness that holiness shapes history, and
that the ascetic monk can be a father to generations and nations. On his
glorious feast, the Church renews her faith that prayer, asceticism, and love
are the true path to the salvation of humanity and of nations.
A Prayer to Saint Mar Matanios for Lebanon
O Saint of God, Mar Matanios, you who knew the path of peace in the heart of the
desert, and who made prayer a wall and a protection, we ask you today for
wounded Lebanon: protect its people from wars and destruction, ward off every
occupation, domination, and terrorism, bring an end to violence, killing, and
corruption, and deliver it from all the forces of evil that have disfigured its
face and suffocated its freedom.
Intercede, O Saint of God, that peace may return to the Land of the Cedars, that
the state may rise in truth and justice, and that the Lebanese may live in
dignity and security. Amen.
Clarifying Note: This text refers to Saint Mar Matanios (Mar Matthew the
Hermit), founder of the Monastery of Mar Mattai near Nineveh in Mesopotamia, and
should not be confused with Saint Matanios the Desert Dweller who lived in the
Egyptian wilderness, as they are two distinct saints belonging to different
ecclesial traditions.
NB: The information in this study is cited from various documented
ecclesiastical, theological, research, and media references.
*The author, Elias Bejjani, is a Lebanese expatriate activist
Author’s Email: Phoenicia@hotmail.com
Author’s Website:
https://eliasbejjaninews.com
Aoun hails disarmament
progress: ‘Lebanon achieved in 1 year what it had not seen in 4 decades’
NAJIA HOUSSARI/Arab News/January 20, 2026
BEIRUT: Lebanese President Joseph Aoun confirmed on Tuesday that the country’s
armed forces “are now the sole operational authority south of the Litani River,
despite doubts, accusations of treason, insults and slander.”Speaking at the
Presidential Palace in Baabda during a traditional New Year meeting with members
of the diplomatic corps and the heads of international missions, he highlighted
what he viewed as Lebanon’s achievements since he took office on Jan. 9, 2025.
The government’s approval in August and September last year of plans to bring
all weapons in the country under state control, and ensure the authority of the
state across all Lebanese territory using its own forces, was “no minor detail,”
he said. “Lebanon achieved in one year what it had not seen in four decades,” he
added, as he recalled taking office in a “deeply wounded state” that has
suffered decades of institutional paralysis and economic crises. Despite
campaigns of distortion, intimidation and misinformation, and Israel’s failure
to abide by the November 2024 ceasefire agreement, the changed reality on the
ground over the past 12 months speaks for itself, he said. “The truth is what
you see, not what you hear,” Aoun said, pointing out that “not a single bullet
was fired from Lebanon during my first year in office, except for two specific
incidents recorded last March, the perpetrators of which were swiftly arrested
by official authorities.”The army carried out “extensive operations” to clear
large areas of the country of illegal weapons regardless of who controlled them,
the president continued, in line with the terms of the Nov. 27 ceasefire
agreement with Israel, which he described as “an accord Lebanon respects and
that was unanimously endorsed by the country’s political forces.”These efforts
reflected a determination to spare the country a return to the “suicidal
conflicts that have come at a heavy cost in the past,” he added. Aoun stressed
his commitment during the second year of his presidency to restoring control of
all Lebanese territory to the exclusive authority of the state, securing the
release of prisoners, and the reconstruction of war-ravaged areas.
He said that southern Lebanon, like all of the country’s international borders,
would fall under the sole control of the Lebanese Armed Forces, putting a
definitive end to any attempts “to draw us into the conflicts of others, even as
those same parties pursue dialogue, negotiations and compromises in pursuit of
their own national interests.”
The Lebanese Army Command announced early this month the completion of the first
phase of its plans to disarm nonstate groups south of the Litani River. The
government is now awaiting an army report next month detailing its next steps.
Gen. Rodolphe Haykal, the army’s commander, has said that the plan “does not
have a specific time frame for completing this phase, which encompasses all
Lebanese regions.”A Lebanese official confirmed to Arab News that the army now
has exclusive control of territory south of the Litani River, and no other armed
forces or military factions have a presence there. Aoun’s affirmation of his
determination to “stay on course” came two days after Hezbollah leader Naim
Qassem gave a sharply worded speech that delivered both implicit and explicit
rebukes aimed at the president and Foreign Minister Youssef Raji. His criticisms
focused on their efforts to take control of weapons north of the Litani River,
following a declaration by Aoun that “the time for arms is over,” a position
that Hezbollah vehemently rejects in what appears to be an attempt to derail the
gradual, phased disarmament strategy embraced by the Lebanese government and the
international community. Progress in the efforts of the military to take control
of all weapons in the country hinges on securing vital logistical support for
the country’s armed forces, a condition tied to the International Conference for
Supporting the Lebanese Army and Internal Security Forces, which is due to take
place on March 5 in Paris.
Aoun told the diplomats that the conference is the result of efforts led by the
international Quintet Committee supporting Lebanon: the US, Saudi Arabia,
France, Qatar and Egypt. Archbishop Paolo Borgia, the papal ambassador to
Lebanon, speaking in his role as dean of the diplomatic corps, said that the
current crisis in the country serves “as a harsh test” that must remind
political leaders of their duty to prevent history from repeating itself.
He called for respect for all electoral processes as a vital part of any
nation’s democratic life, and for “genuine peace without weapons, one that can
disarm enemies through the convincing power of goodness and the strength of
meeting and dialogue.”He added: “Those holding the highest public offices must
give special attention to rebuilding political relationships peacefully, both
nationally and globally, a process grounded in mutual trust, honest negotiations
and faithful adherence to commitments made.”
Israel strikes Zebqine in
south Lebanon, wounding one person
Naharnet/January
20/2026
A man was wounded in an overnight Israeli strike on the southern town of Zebqine,
the health ministry said Tuesday. The strike comes as Israel intensified its
attacks on Lebanon, despite a ceasefire reached in November 2024, a week after
the Lebanese army said it had completed disarming Hezbollah south of the Litani
River. On Monday, the Israeli army conducted a series of strikes on at least
five villages -- Ansar, Zarariyeh, Kfar Melki, Nahr al-Shita and Buslaya, all in
south Lebanon north of the Litani river. Later on Tuesday, Israeli soldiers
entered the southern border towns of Kfarkela and Markaba and detonated three
houses, two of them in Kfarkela near the village square.
Aoun Hails State Control of Arms and Pledges Continued Reforms
This is Beirut/January
20/2026
President Joseph Aoun stressed on Tuesday that the Lebanese government last year
took a historic step by endorsing a plan aimed at confining weapons to state
authority and extending state control over Lebanese territory exclusively
through its own forces, calling the move a major turning point despite the
challenges of implementation. Addressing members of the diplomatic corps and
representatives of international organizations accredited in Lebanon, Aoun said
the plan was approved between August 5 and September 5 of last year, describing
it as an unprecedented shift in Lebanon’s modern history. “Let me say frankly
that in this field we have achieved what Lebanon has not known for 40 years,” he
said. Aoun emphasized that security on the ground reflects this shift, noting
that no shots were fired from Lebanese territory during the year of his
presidency, with the exception of two isolated incidents last March, whose
perpetrators were swiftly arrested by state authorities. “The truth is what you
see, not what you hear,” he said, adding that for more than ten months the
Lebanese Army and the armed forces alone have effectively controlled the area
south of the Litani River.
Reflecting on his first year in office, Aoun said he assumed responsibility for
a “deeply wounded state” after two decades of institutional paralysis following
Lebanon’s second independence in 2005. He underscored that the Lebanese Armed
Forces (LAF) have undertaken “enormous tasks” to clear large areas of illegal
weapons of all kinds and affiliations, in line with the November 27, 2024
agreement, which he described as an international commitment that Lebanon fully
respects. The president said the measures were driven not only by adherence to
international agreements, but by Lebanon’s own national interest, in order to
avoid “suicidal adventures” that have exacted a heavy toll in the past. He
pledged to continue on this path in the second year of his presidency, aiming to
restore full state authority over all Lebanese territory, secure the return of
detainees, and rebuild what was destroyed by attacks and reckless ventures. Aoun
stressed that southern Lebanon, like all of the country’s international borders,
must be placed exclusively under the control of the armed forces, “putting an
end once and for all to any attempt to draw us into the conflicts of others on
our land.”He welcomed the setting of a date for an international conference to
support the Lebanese Army and the Internal Security Forces, crediting the
efforts of the United States, Saudi Arabia, France, Qatar and Egypt within the
Quintet Committee, alongside other friendly nations. The conference is scheduled
to be held in Paris on March 5 under the patronage of French President Emmanuel
Macron. On the domestic front, Aoun highlighted what he described as major
progress on reforms, including the adoption of the long-awaited Judicial
Independence Law and the establishment of regulatory authorities for key sectors
long left vacant, enabling corruption and political clientelism. He also pointed
to the reconstitution of legitimate authorities through the holding of municipal
and local elections for the first time in nine years, and vowed to proceed with
parliamentary elections later this year. Concluding his remarks, Aoun expressed
optimism for the year ahead, telling diplomats that when they meet again around
the same time next year, Lebanon’s achievements will be greater, its
circumstances improved, and its people enjoying increased prosperity and
stability.
Report: Aoun and Haykal vow to act in N. Litani prior to Washington visit
Naharnet/January
20/2026
President Joseph Aoun and Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal have committed
to taking “a certain step in the North Litani region,” al-Akhbar newspaper
reported on Tuesday. The step will take place “prior to Haykal’s travel to
Washington next month,” the pro-Hezbollah daily added. Haykal is scheduled to
visit Washington from February 3 to 5, media reports said on Monday. Haykal will
present to Washington detailed military maps, and a list of Hezbollah sites and
tunnels, local TV network MTV said. According to the channel, Haykal will also
give deadlines for the implementation of the disarmament plan. In November, a
visit by Haykal was canceled just hours before he was set to depart for
Washington, after U.S. officials and senators criticized the Lebanese Army and
its chief, accusing them of not doing enough to disarm Hezbollah. The
cancellation included all high-level meetings at the Pentagon and Congress, as
well as an official reception at the Lebanese Embassy.
'What you see, not what you hear': Aoun says only army
operating south of Litani
Naharnet/January
20/2026
President Joseph Aoun stressed Tuesday in a press conference his commitment to
disarm Hezbollah and implement the state's monopoly on arms. "We want the south
only under the army's control," Aoun said, as he welcomed foreign diplomats and
ambassadors at the Baabda palace. "We want to rebuild all what has been
destroyed as a result of attacks and adventures."Aoun said his goal on the
international level, was "to restore Lebanon to its natural place and position
within the Arab fold, as well as within international and global legitimacy."
"This is what I have consistently worked to do, step by step, through ten visits
to brotherly Arab nations, four to friendly European countries, and through my
participation in three Arab, Islamic, and international events."Aoun said the
Lebanese army is today the only armed force south of the Litani river after it
disarmed Hezbollah there, invoking a phrase used by former Hezbollah leader
Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, "the truth is what you see, not what you hear"."What we
have seen with our own eyes is that not a single bullet has been fired from
Lebanon during the year of my presidency. This confirms that only the Lebanese
Army is operating south of the Litani River."
Berri says meeting with bin Farhan was 'excellent'
Naharnet/January
20/2026
To Saudi Arabia, it is important that the Lebanese decisions come from the
Lebanese state, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri said. Berri seemed satisfied
about a meeting he had with Saudi envoy Prince Yazeed bin Farhan. He told Assas
news portal, in remarks published Tuesday, that his meeting last week with bin
Farhan was "excellent.""To the Saudis it is crucial that the decision-making
power (in Lebanon) belong to the Lebanese state," Berri said, adding that he
agrees with Saudi Arabia on this. "This is also our position."Berri said that to
Saudi Arabia, the implementation of the president's inaugural speech and the
ministerial statement -- which both called for the state's monopoly on arms --
is essential."I am in favor of implementing them," he said.
Report: KSA asks Bassil not to ally with Hezbollah in elections
Naharnet/January
20/2026
Saudi envoy Prince Yazid bin Farhan made a “notable” visit last week to Free
Patriotic Movement chief Jebran Bassil during his talks in Beirut, ad-Diyar
newspaper said. FPM sources told the daily that the meeting witnessed “a
satisfactory atmosphere that can be capitalized on to repair the relation with
the kingdom, especially amid Bassil’s advanced and clear stances on arms
monopolization.”Informed sources meanwhile said Bassil may visit the kingdom if
he agrees to a Saudi demand for building “electoral alliances away from
Hezbollah.”“This would be very complicated for the FPM, which needs the Shiite
votes in several regions, and things are still unsettled amid polarization
between two currents within the political council -- the first calls for
accepting the Saudi demand amid the transformations in the region, and the
second believes that this political stance might have an electoral cost in
several regions, knowing that Bassil would have the final say,” the sources
added.
Salam in Davos says discussed with UN 'more sustainable solutions' for Lebanon
Naharnet/January
20/2026
Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said Tuesday that he has discussed with the United
Nations the enhancement of humanitarian aid to Lebanon. Salam was at the annual
meeting of The World Economic Forum in the Swiss Alps town of Davos, among 3,000
participants from 130 countries. He said he discussed with the U.N. the
transition from emergency response to more sustainable solutions.
Port blast indictment may be issued in two months
Naharnet/January
20/2026
Beirut port blast investigator Judge Tarek Bitar might issue his indictment in
the case in two months, ad-Diyar newspaper reported on Tuesday. “Bitar is
waiting for answers to judicial writs that he had sent abroad through which he
requested specific information related to the case,” the daily said. “He will
announce the indictment afterwards and will not be impeded by the new calls for
removing him,” ad-Diyar added. Authorities in Lebanon say the August 4, 2020
explosion was triggered by a fire in a warehouse where tons of ammonium nitrate
fertilizer had been stored haphazardly for years, despite repeated warnings to
senior officials. The blast was one of the world's largest non-nuclear
explosions, destroying swathes of the Lebanese capital, killing more than 220
people and injuring more than 6,500. Bitar resumed his investigation last year
as Lebanon's balance of power shifted following a war between Israel and
Hezbollah that weakened the militant group, which had spearheaded a campaign
against him. President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, who both took
office last year, have vowed to uphold the independence of the judiciary in a
country plagued by official impunity. Officials named in the port explosion
investigation had filed a flurry of lawsuits seeking to hamper its progress.
Lebanese Army Chief to Make Pivotal Visit to Washington Next
Month
Beirut: Caroline Akoum/Asharq Al-Awsat/January 20/2026
Lebanese army chief General Rodolphe Haykal is gearing up for an official visit
to Washington in early February, after the US cancelled meetings with him in
November. The visit comes at a sensitive time, preceding the Paris conference to
supporting the Lebanese army in March. Ministerial sources told Asharq Al-Awsat
that Haykal’s visit to Washington has been set for between February 3 and 5,
saying the army’s needs, cooperation between the US and Lebanese militaries, and
continued American support for the Lebanese army will be high on the agenda of
the talks.Military sources said that the visit’s postponement in November has
not frozen contacts between the two sides. On the contrary, intense contacts
have since been made to reschedule the visit, resulting in setting a new date
next month. The army’s plan to confiscate all unauthorized arms and extend state
authority over all Lebanese territory will most likely top the agenda of the
visit. This plan has drawn broad international attention. A statement issued by
the army command on January 8 regarding the achievement of the objectives of the
first phase of the weapons-control plan will constitute a key component of
Haykal’s briefing to US officials. The army said in that statement that it had
achieved the initial goal to clear non-state weaponry from the southern area
near the Israeli border by the end of 2025. It said it secured areas south of
the Litani River, excluding positions still held by Israeli forces, though there
was more work to be done clearing unexploded ordnance and tunnels. Haykal’s
briefing will most likely refer to the challenges hindering the full
implementation of the plan, foremost among them ongoing Israeli attacks and the
occupation of a number of sites inside Lebanese territory, in addition to the
establishment of buffer zones that restrict freedom of movement, as well as the
daily violations of the ceasefire agreement of November 27, 2024. The army chief
will also stress continued close cooperation with the United Nations Interim
Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and with the ceasefire monitoring committee known as
the mechanism, which held its last meeting on January 7 at the military level in
the absence of civilians.
Ministerial sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that the mechanism will not hold
meetings this month. “We are awaiting the return of the US general who is
abroad, as well as the appointment of a civilian representative to replace US
envoy Morgan Ortagus, who has been relieved of her duties,” they said.
Meanwhile, Lebanon continues its preparations for the Paris conference to
support the army, scheduled for March 5. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun told a
recent security meeting that the army and security forces should prepare
accurate reports on their needs and brief the conferees to secure the required
assistance for their institutions.
Lebanon and the Challenge of Re-Founding the State
Hanna Saleh/Asharq Al-Awsat/January 20/2026
Former minister and international financial expert Adel Afiouni says that
“changing the system and reform from within, working with elements of the ruling
class and to make gradual progress in the hope of saving the country, is a
theory that has failed a thousand times.”This assessment by a former minister
whose experience led him to refuse a post in the current government resonates
today. It seems like the country is almost immune to change at a time when
recovery and stability hinge on real solutions to two pivotal issues: the
monopolization of armament and reform. Lebanon’s intractability stands out. It
continues to resist change, despite the cataclysmic storm in the wake of the
“Al-Aqsa Flood” catastrophe, the Lebanese earthquake following the criminal war
of “support,” and before them the deliberately engineered financial collapse
that impoverished the country and humiliated its citizens. The state’s
performance presents a bleak picture, even a year into President Joseph Aoun’s
term and eleven months after the formation of Nawaf Salam’s government. The
president’s inaugural address, followed by the ministerial statement on the
basis of which the government received parliament’s confidence, included
promises and commitments that unleashed a wave of optimism that the country had
not witnessed since the Taef Agreement was signed over 35 years ago.
From the very first moment, it was clear that this challenge demanded a rupture
with the domineering establishment responsible for squandering Lebanon’s
sovereignty and the replacement of the “normal state” with an “estate” shared by
the militias of money and arms. It was evident that the restoration of
sovereignty, in its two dimensions, is the ultimate priority. One is asserting
the sovereignty of the state and its forces across the country, so that Lebanon
can regain its global standing and wage a diplomatic battle that exposes and
constrains the enemy’s ambitions to end the occupation that illegal arms had
summoned. The second is building financial sovereignty, which is also crucial
for restoring confidence, by rescuing people’s deposits and restructuring the
banking sector, doing away with the “zombie banks” that mirror the country’s
corruption.
Financial sovereignty requires genuine reform which shows the world that a
transparent system has been established in Lebanon, ensuring that the money of
depositors and investors is in safe hands and holding accountable those who
enriched themselves at the expense of the people. 420 days since the “ceasefire
agreement” and 330 days since the formation of this government, “significant but
insufficient” progress has been made on restricting arms south of the Litani.
Lebanon does not have the luxury of taking its time to implement the agreement:
disarming Hezbollah across Lebanon and dismantling the infrastructure of all
non-state actors, some of which operate under the cover of scout groups. That is
how to assert sovereignty and allow state forces to take responsibility for
protecting lives and land. The empty show of force must be stopped; that is,
those in power must break their silence over the lunacy of Hezbollah’s
secretary-general, Naim Qassem. “Disarming us... you’ll have to wait a long
time,” he insists; and in response to the president’s call for rationality,
“Resistance is the most rational,” and “rationality is making concessions to
Israel but preserving our strength.” Here, he looks past his and his party’s
responsibility for dangerous concessions in the ceasefire agreement that have
granted the Israeli enemy the “right” to attack the country whenever and however
it wishes. It continues to kill and destroy amid the absolute impotence of
Hezbollah, which had pleaded for a ceasefire at any price, even signing on to an
agreement that makes no reference to the return of the displaced and the
liberation of prisoners.
It is clear that Lebanon is not being re-founded after decades of dependency,
corruption, and subjugation. Faces have changed, but the collapse has not
stopped. Merit has largely been ignored and the regime has mostly succeeded in
covering up corruption and safeguarding the sectarian spoil-sharing system. The
country’s problems certainly won’t be addressed by a few cosmetic changes with
marginal impact. These authorities claiming to govern under the banner of
“reform” have done nothing of substance and preserved cronyism. It is no
exaggeration to say that the defeat Lebanon suffered in the catastrophe of the
“support” war has been addressed with approach that merely manages the
repercussions, whereas the natural response should have been a clean break
everything that caused the defeat and the collapse, whereby citizens stop paying
the price for “plunder” and accountability replaces impunity. Despite the
inclusion of technocrats, corrupt networks call the shots, and the country has
failed to adapt to the new reality; they “have learned nothing and forgotten
nothing,” to borrow from Talleyrand’s characterization of the Bourbons.They
leapfrogged over the requisites for restoring confidence. The draft “gap” law
imposes arbitrary haircuts on deposits to reduce costs on the thieves, thereby
exacerbating suffering and perpetuating the country’s isolation.They have
effectively removed crimes of theft, fraud, and money laundering from the penal
code, clashing with both the depositors and the International Monetary Fund. As
for those who looted public and private funds, they launched a campaign to seize
Lebanon’s gold reserves. Replacing the word “gap” with “theft” strengthened
their position of refusing to give back even a small portion of what they stole.
The latent October 17 uprising remains the framework for leading Lebanon out of
the era of power-sharing, subjugation, and misery. It did not fail; rather, it
broke barriers and removed the fig leaf concealing the shame of a mafioso
alliance. Despite repression and starvation, the October 17 uprising derives
strength from its commitment to the constitution and its implementation. Today,
it must rise to the challenge of launching an initiative that presents an
alternative to the Lebanese and removes the burdens of collapse and the
squandering of sovereignty from the shoulders of the general public.
The sermon as a shield: How
Hezbollah replaces politics with sanctity
Makram Rabah/English AlArabiya/January
20/2026
Every time Naim Qassem – Hezbollah’s secretary-general – speaks, he reminds us
of a fundamental problem in Lebanese politics: Power that refuses to justify
itself. His latest sermon/speech was not meant to convince, but to consecrate.
It was designed to make one political choice appear as destiny, one narrative as
sacred, and one-armed reality as unquestionable. This is not leadership. It is
theological blackmail. Qassem did not present a political argument. He
constructed a moral shield. By beginning with long religious invocations,
invoking prophetic missions, and framing his message as a journey toward “truth”
and “perfection,” he sought to relocate his political positions from the realm
of debate into the realm of sanctity. Once a position is sanctified,
disagreement becomes not just wrong, but immoral. That is not persuasion – it is
insulation.
This method is his first weakness. In republics, legitimacy is earned through
accountability, evidence, and public consent. Qassem offers none of these.
Instead, he offers certitude. And certitude is the currency of authoritarian
politics.The second weakness is his casual use of absolute claims without proof.
When Qassem declares that three million people marched in Tehran or that there
were “no violations” for over a year, he is not reporting facts – he is
manufacturing them. In serious political discourse, numbers require
verification. In mobilization speeches, numbers are talismans: they exist to end
discussion, not to inform it. They create emotional gravity where empirical
grounding is absent. From there, Qassem relies on a familiar tactic: Collapsing
complexity into conspiracy. In his telling, protests in Iran are not expressions
of social grievance or political frustration – they are foreign plots. Those who
dissent are not citizens; they are “agents.” Economic suffering is acknowledged
only as a vulnerability exploited by saboteurs. This framing absolves power of
responsibility. If unrest is always foreign, then governance is never the
problem – and repression becomes an act of patriotism.
He imports this same logic into Lebanon, where it becomes even more corrosive.
Qassem claims to speak in the name of sovereignty, yet his sovereignty is
selective. It applies against Israel and the United States, but not internally.
It is invoked against external threats, but suspended when it comes to the most
basic requirement of sovereignty: the state’s monopoly over force. Here lies his
central contradiction. He repeatedly affirms that the Lebanese state is
responsible for defending the country, that official documents prioritize
sovereignty, and that national unity is essential. But he simultaneously insists
that the most decisive instrument of war and peace must remain outside that
state. The result is a strange fiction: a sovereign state that does not decide,
and a resistance that does.
To justify this contradiction, Qassem deploys emotional coercion. “If we disarm,
who will protect us from Israel?” It is a question meant to close, not open,
debate. It assumes only two futures: his weapons, or national helplessness. This
is false. States do not defend themselves through militias. They defend
themselves through institutions, strategies, diplomacy, deterrence, and
legitimacy. What he presents as realism is actually an admission of
institutional failure – followed by a demand to make that failure permanent.
Even more dangerous is his treatment of dissent. Those who argue for arms under
the authority of the state are not engaged – they are delegitimized. They become
“agents,” “fitna-makers,” and tools of foreign agendas. This is not rhetoric; it
is a political doctrine. It teaches followers that disagreement is treason, and
that power does not need to explain itself to those it rules.
What Qassem does not offer is what Lebanon desperately needs: a governing
vision. There is no serious discussion of reconstruction, institutional
collapse, judicial paralysis, capital flight, or the erosion of public trust.
There is no roadmap for economic recovery, no theory of the state, no conception
of citizenship beyond sacrifice. The speech glorifies endurance, but offers no
future. He speaks of “building the state,” but treats the state as a prop rather
than a project. A real state is not built through slogans. It is built through
clear chains of command, transparent decision-making, civilian oversight, and a
shared definition of national interest. None of these exist when war and peace
are decided outside institutions. The most revealing part of his argument is his
metaphor: Sovereignty is the foundation; disarmament is an “upper floor.” But in
practice, the upper floor has swallowed the foundation. The existence of an
armed actor above the state does not delay sovereignty – it prevents it. It
invites external wars, international isolation, and internal paralysis. It turns
Lebanon into a message board for regional conflicts rather than a country.
History cannot serve as a permanent permit. Resistance against occupation once
played a role. That does not entitle any group to eternal exemption from the
republic. Lebanon’s postwar tragedy has been the normalization of exception:
everything is temporary, sacred, or unavoidable – except the state. Qassem’s
speech ultimately confuses resistance with governance. It treats confrontation
as a political program and sacrifice as a substitute for policy. But countries
are not run on symbolism. They are run on institutions. And institutions cannot
function when authority is fragmented by design. A real defense strategy begins
with a single principle: the Lebanese decision must be Lebanese. Not Iranian.
Not American. Not Israeli. Not factional. Sovereignty is not a slogan – it is a
structure. It means that no group, however revered, can act on behalf of
everyone else. Qassem’s sermon tries to place a political reality under divine
light so that it cannot be questioned. But Lebanon cannot be governed by
liturgy. It needs accountability, evidence, and a state that does not outsource
its survival.
A speech that fears doubt is not a roadmap. It is a confession.
The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous
Reports And News published
on January
20-21/2026
Syria
Gives Kurds Four Days to Accept Integration as US Signals End of Support
Asharq Al-Awsat/January 20/2026
Syria's government set a four-day deadline on Tuesday for Kurdish-led forces to
agree on integrating their last enclave into the central state as their former
main ally, the United States, urged them to do so. US envoy Tom Barrack in a
social media post described integration as the "greatest opportunity" the Kurds
now have in Syria. He added that the original purpose of the Syrian
Democratic Forces as a counterweight to ISIS militants had largely expired, and
that the US had no long-term interest in retaining its presence in Syria,
signaling the apparent end of Washington's backing. The SDF, which has lost
swathes of territory during government advances in recent days, said it
accepted a ceasefire agreement with the Damascus government and that it would
not engage in any military action unless attacked. A Syrian government
statement said it had reached an understanding with the SDF, long backed by the
United States in the battle against ISIS, for it to devise an integration plan
for Hasakah province or risk state forces entering two SDF-controlled cities.
The government announced a four-day ceasefire and said it had asked the SDF to
submit the name of a candidate to take the role of assistant to the defense
minister in Damascus as part of the integration. The swift reversal for the SDF
along one of Syria's main faultlines marks the biggest shift in territorial
control in Syria since Sharaa toppled President Bashar al-Assad in 2024 and
raises questions over the security of facilities holding ISIS detainees.
Syria Says Sharaa, Trump
Discuss Kurdish Rights as Forces Deploy in Country’s North, East
Asharq Al-Awsat/January 20/2026
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa and US President Donald Trump discussed
guaranteeing Kurdish rights in a phone call on Monday, Syria's presidency said,
a day after Damascus reached a deal with Kurdish forces including a truce.
Sharaa met Mazloum Abdi, head of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, to
discuss the agreement, which includes integrating the Kurds' administration into
the state, but a Kurdish source with knowledge of the talks told AFP they were
not positive. Analysts said the deal -- following rapid government gains in
Kurdish-controlled territory after driving Kurdish fighters out of Aleppo city
earlier this month -- marked a blow for the minority's long-held ambitions of
preserving the de facto autonomy they had exercised in swathes of north and
northeast Syria for over a decade. In the phone call, Sharaa and Trump,
"emphasized the need to guarantee the Kurdish people's rights and protection
within the framework of the Syrian state", the Syrian presidency said. They
"affirmed the importance of preserving the unity and independence of Syrian
territory" and discussed "cooperation on combating" the ISIS extremist group, it
added. Requesting anonymity, the Kurdish source with knowledge of Monday's talks
between Sharaa and Abdi said differences concerned "the mechanism for
implementing the terms of the agreement". Despite the ceasefire, brief clashes
erupted on Monday evening in Raqqa city, with an AFP correspondent hearing heavy
bombardment.
The SDF said government forces shelled the Al-Aqtan prison "which holds ISIS
members and leaders, in an attempt to storm it".Raqqa was once the extremist
group's de facto capital in Syria. A defense ministry source later told AFP that
the clashes had halted, without elaborating.
'Stability' -
Sunday's agreement included the Kurdish administration's immediate handover of
Arab-majority Deir Ezzor and Raqqa provinces to the government, which will also
take responsibility for ISIS prisoners and their families held in Kurdish-run
jails and camps.
A defense ministry map published on Monday showed the government controlled all
of Deir Ezzor and Raqqa provinces, while the eastern parts of Hasakeh province
were still under Kurdish control. In Deir Ezzor province, an AFP correspondent
saw military vehicles heading east of the Euphrates, while cars and pedestrians
waited at a bridge leading to the eastern bank. Driver Mohammed Khalil, 50, told
AFP that "we hope things will be better than before. There was... no freedom"
under the SDF. Teacher Safia Keddo, 49, said that "we're not asking for a
miracle, we just want stability and a normal life".Authorities announced a
curfew in Hasakeh province's Shadadi after the army said the SDF released ISIS
detainees from the town's prison, while the Kurds said they lost control of the
facility after an attack by Damascus. The sides had earlier traded blame for
attacks that the military said killed three soldiers. The SDF had seized swathes
of Deir Ezzor and Raqqa provinces as they expelled ISIS during Syria's civil
war, supported by an international coalition led by Washington.
'Protecting civilian lives' -
Raqqa resident Khaled al-Afnan, 34, said "we support Kurdish civil rights... but
we don't support them having a military role". Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, a close ally of Damascus who is hostile to the SDF, hailed Syria's army
for its "careful" offensive despite what he called "provocations". EU foreign
policy chief Kaja Kallas instead said "all military activities must cease
immediately". The SDF on Sunday withdrew from areas under its control including
the Al-Omar oil field, the country's largest, and the Tanak field. Local
fighters from tribes in the Arab-majority Deir Ezzor province sided with
Damascus and seized the areas before the arrival of government forces. The SDF's
Abdi said Sunday he agreed to the deal to avoid civil war and end a conflict
"imposed" on the Kurds. Mutlu Civiroglu, a Washington-based analyst and expert
on the Kurds, said the government's advance had raised "serious doubts about the
durability" of the ceasefire and a March agreement between the government and
the Kurds. Sharaa had on Friday issued a decree granting the Kurds official
recognition, but the Kurds said it fell short of their expectations.In Qamishli,
the main Kurdish city in the country's northeast, activist Hevi Ahmed, 40, said
Sunday's deal was "a disappointment after years of hope that the Syrian
constitution might contain a better future for the Kurds".
PKK Says Will 'Not Abandon' Syrian Kurds
Asharq Al-Awsat/January 20/2026
Outlawed Kurdish militants in Türkiye will "never abandon" Kurds in Syria
following an offensive by Damascus, a leader of the PKK armed group said, quoted
by the Firat news agency Tuesday. Syrian forces began an offensive nearly two
weeks ago which pushed Kurdish-led SDF forces out of the northern city of
Aleppo, and expanded over the weekend to push deep into territory that has been
held by Kurdish forces for over a decade. "You should know that we will not
leave you alone. Whatever the cost, we will never leave you alone.. we as the
entire Kurdish people and as the movement, will do whatever is necessary," Murat
Karayilan of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) was quoted as saying by Firat. A
close ally of Syria's new leadership that overthrew Bashar al-Assad in December
2024, the Turkish government is simultaneously leading a drive to reach a
settlement with the PKK -- listed as a terror group by Türkiye and its Western
allies. Karayilan said the Damascus-led offensive was an "attempt to nullify"
the peace process in Türkiye. "This decision by international powers to enable
these attacks, will be a black mark for the US, the UK, Germany, France and
other international coalition states," he said. On Monday, at least 500 people
rallied in Türkiye’s Kurdish-majority city of Diyarbakir against the Syrian
offensive. Clashes erupted when police tried to break up the protest. The
pro-Kurdish DEM party, the third largest force in the Turkish parliament, called
for a rally on Tuesday in the town of Nusaybin, located on the border with
Syria.
Syrian Interior Ministry: 120 ISIS Members Escape from
Prison amid Clashes
Asharq Al-Awsat/January 20/2026
Syria's ministry of interior said Tuesday that 120 ISIS members escaped from a
prison in northeast Syria a day earlier, amid clashes between government forces
and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, which guards the prison. Security
forces recaptured 81 of the escapees, “while intensive security efforts continue
to pursue the remaining fugitives and take the necessary legal measures against
them,” The Associated Press quoted the statement as saying. The SDF and the
government have traded blame over the escape at a prison in the town of
Shaddadeh, amid the breakdown of a ceasefire deal between the two sides. Also
Tuesday, the SDF accused “Damascus-affiliated factions” of cutting off water
supplies to the al-Aqtan prison near the city of Raqqa, which it called a
“blatant violation of humanitarian standards.”The SDF, the main US-backed force
that fought ISIS in Syria, controls more than a dozen prisons in the northeast
where some 9,000 ISIS members have been held for years without trial. Under a
deal announced Sunday, government forces were to take over control of the
prisons from the SDF, but the transfer did not go smoothly. On Monday, Syrian
government forces and SDF fighters clashed around two prisons housing members of
ISIS in Syria’s northeast. The clashes came as SDF chief commander Mazloum Abdi
was said to be in Damascus to attempt to solidify a ceasefire deal reached
Sunday that ended days of deadly fighting during which government forces
captured wide areas of northeast Syria from the SDF. Abdi issued no statement
after the meeting and the SDF later issued a statement calling for “all of our
youth” to “join the ranks of the resistance," appearing to signal that the deal
had fallen apart. Interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa postponed a planned trip to
Germany Tuesday amid the ongoing tensions in northeast Syria.
US envoy says purpose of
anti-Daesh alliance with Kurds ‘largely expired’
AFP/January 20, 2026
DAMASCUS: US envoy Tom Barrack said on Tuesday that the existence of a friendly
government in Damascus meant the reason for Washington’s alliance with Syrian
Kurds against the Daesh group had “largely expired.”“The original purpose of the
SDF as the primary anti-ISIS force on the ground has largely expired, as
Damascus is now both willing and positioned to take over security
responsibilities, including control of Daesh detention facilities and camps,” he
said. Syria on Tuesday announced a ceasefire with Kurdish forces and gave them
four days to agree on integrating into the central state. Barrack described the
offer of integration into the central Syrian state with citizenship rights,
cultural protections and political participation as the “greatest opportunity”
the Kurds have. Later, a White House official said the United States is
monitoring with “grave concern” developments in Syria and urged all relevant
parties to continue negotiating in “good faith.”“We urge all parties to exercise
maximum restraint, avoid actions that could further escalate tensions, and
prioritize the protection of civilians across all minority groups,” the White
House official said./
US signals end of military
support for Syria’s Kurdish forces, urges integration
Al Arabiya English/20 January/2026
The Trump administration on Tuesday effectively signaled an end to US military
support for Syria’s Kurdish forces, while praising the new Syrian government and
its willingness to fight ISIS across the country. The shift comes amid some of
the most intense clashes to date between Damascus and the US-backed Syrian
Democratic Forces (SDF), with both sides accusing the other of failing to uphold
previously agreed-upon arrangements. The SDF has been reluctant to integrate
with the Syrian government following the fall of Bashar al-Assad, under Syrian
President Ahmed al-Sharaa. In a lengthy post on X, US Special Envoy for Syria
Tom Barrack said the greatest opportunity for Syria’s Kurds lay in a post-Assad
transition under al-Sharaa. He said this would offer full integration into a
unified Syrian state with equal rights, which were denied under the Assad
regime. Barrack also noted that the US military presence in northeastern Syria
was historically justified as a counter-ISIS partnership with the SDF. A US
official told Al Arabiya English on Tuesday that the US military is not guarding
ISIS prisons in Syria. The official said that fewer than 200 low-level detainees
from local areas escaped from al-Shaddadi earlier in the week, but that Syrian
government forces recaptured many of them as they moved in and gained control of
the prison. Barrack praised the SDF for helping defeat ISIS, detaining thousands
of ISIS militants, and guarding ISIS camps such as al-Hol and al-Shaddadi. “At
that time, there was no functioning central Syrian state to partner with—the
Assad regime was weakened, contested, and not a viable partner against ISIS due
to its alliances with Iran and Russia,” Barrack said. He added that the
situation has now fundamentally changed, praising al-Sharaa’s government and
noting that it recently joined the Global D-ISIS Coalition. This, Barrack said,
signaled “a westward pivot and cooperation with the US on
counterterrorism.”“This shifts the rationale for the US-SDF partnership: the
original purpose of the SDF as the primary anti-ISIS force on the ground has
largely expired, as Damascus is now both willing and positioned to take over
security responsibilities, including control of ISIS detention facilities and
camps,” Barrack said. Last week, al-Sharaa signed a decree aimed at safeguarding
the rights of Kurds in Syria, including protections against ethnic and
linguistic discrimination. He also called on displaced Kurdish Syrians to return
to their towns and villages, saying there would be no preconditions other than
laying down their weapons. The decree recognizes Kurdish as a “national
language” in Syria and declares Nowruz a national holiday. On Tuesday, Barrack
again urged the Kurds to take what he called “a unique window” to integrate into
the new Syrian state and participate in political life. He said the
opportunities offered by the new government were “far beyond the semi-autonomy
the SDF held amid civil war chaos.” Barrack also stressed that the United States
has no interest in a long-term military presence in Syria. Instead, he said
Washington’s focus is limited to two priorities: ensuring the security of ISIS
detention facilities and facilitating talks between the SDF and Damascus.
Spokesman for Iran’s Armed
Forces Warns Trump Against Taking Action Against Khamenei
Asharq Al-Awsat/January 20/2026
A spokesman for Iran’s armed forces on Tuesday warned US President Donald Trump
not to take any action against the country’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, days
after Trump called for an end to Khamenei’s nearly 40-year reign. “Trump knows
that if any hand of aggression is extended toward our leader, we not only cut
that hand but also we will set fire to their world,” Gen. Abolfazl Shekarchi
said. His comments came after Trump, in an interview with Politico Saturday,
described Khamenei as “a sick man who should run his country properly and stop
killing people” and added that “it’s time to look for new leadership in
Iran.”Tension between the US and Iran has been high since a violent crackdown by
authorities on protests that began over Iran’s ailing economy on Dec. 28. Trump
has drawn two red lines for the countyr — the killing of peaceful protesters and
Tehran conducting mass executions in the wake of the demonstrations. A US
aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, which had been in the South China Sea
in recent days had passed through the Strait of Malacca by Tuesday,
ship-tracking data showed. Multiple US media reports quoting anonymous officials
have said the Lincoln was on its way to the Middle East. It likely would still
need several days of travel before its aircraft would be in range of the
region.The death toll from the protests has reached at least 4,484 people, the
US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency said Tuesday. The agency has been
accurate throughout the years of demonstrations and unrest in Iran, relying on a
network of activists inside the country that confirms all reported fatalities.
The AP has been unable to independently confirm the figure.The death toll
exceeds that of any other round of protest or unrest in Iran in decades, and
recalls the chaos surrounding the 1979 revolution. Although there have been no
protests for days, there are fears the number could increase significantly as
information gradually emerges from a country still under a government-imposed
shutdown of the internet since Jan. 8. Iranian officials have not given a clear
casualty figure, although on Saturday, Khamenei said the protests had left
“several thousand” people dead and blamed the United States. It was the first
indication from an Iranian leader of the extent of the casualties. A further
26,127 people have been arrested, according to the Human Rights Activists News
Agency. Comments from officials have led to fears of some of those detained
being put to death in Iran, one of the world’s top executioners. Iran’s national
police chief, Gen. Ahmad Reza Radan, said Monday that people turning themselves
in would receive more lenient treatment than those who don’t. “Those who were
deceived by foreign intelligence services, and became their soldiers in
practice, have a chance to turn themselves in,” he said in an interview carried
by Iran’s state television Monday. “In case of surrender, definitely there will
be a reduction in punishment. They have three days to turn themselves in.”He did
not elaborate on what would happen after the three days.
Iran FM Says Davos
Appearance Cancellation Based On 'Lies'
This is Beirut/January 20, 2026
Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi hit out at the World Economic Forum in
Davos for cancelling his appearance over a crackdown on recent protests, saying
the decision was based on "lies and political pressure".Protests in Iran sparked
by economic strain in late December exploded into the biggest challenge to the
Iranian leadership in years, with the full scale of the violent crackdown yet to
emerge due to an internet blackout. Iranian Foreign Minister was slated to speak
on Tuesday at the annual gathering of global elites in Switzerland but was
disinvited after the WEF said it would not be "right" due to the "loss of lives
of civilians in Iran over the past few weeks". Araghchi said his appearance was
cancelled "on the basis of lies and political pressure from Israel and its
US-based proxies and apologists", in an X post late Monday. He called it a
"blatant double standard" to disinvite him while inviting Israel after its war
in Gaza, saying it "conveys moral depravity and intellectual bankruptcy".
Iranian officials have said the recent demonstrations were peaceful before
descending into "riots" fuelled by Iran's arch-foes, the United States and
Israel, in an effort to destabilize the nation. Araghchi's post on X was
accompanied by a video saying the demonstrations were a "terror operation"
spurred by Israel's Mossad spy agency.Rights groups say they have verified at
least several thousand protesters killed by Iranian security forces, with some
estimates putting the true figure as high as 20,000 dead. The Norway-based NGO
Iran Human Rights, which has verified the deaths of at least 3,428 protesters,
said on Monday that "all indications are that this massacre was planned and
carried out with full coordination" by the Islamic republic. AFP
Standoff
with Iran over inspections cannot go on forever, IAEA chief says
Dave Graham and Francois Murphy/Reuters/January 20/2026
DAVOS, Switzerland,/The standoff with Iran over accounting for its stock of
highly enriched uranium and inspecting nuclear facilities bombed by the United
States and Israel cannot go on forever, U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Rafael
Grossi said on Tuesday.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has inspected all 13 declared nuclear
facilities in Iran that were not bombed, but has been unable to inspect any of
the three key sites that were bombed in June - Natanz, Fordow or Isfahan -
Grossi told Reuters in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
Iran must first file a report to the IAEA on what happened to those sites and
material, including an estimated 440.9 kg of uranium enriched to up to 60%
purity, close to the roughly 90% weapons-grade level. That is enough material,
if enriched further, for 10 nuclear bombs, according to an IAEA yardstick.
NO 'A LA CARTE' OPTION
Iran has not submitted that special report to the IAEA.
"This cannot go on forever because at some point, I will have to say, 'Well, I
don't have any idea where this material is,'" which would mean there was no
guarantee the material had not been diverted or hidden, Grossi said. "I do not
have that conviction or conclusion at the moment, but what we are saying to Iran
is that they need to engage."Iran says it is fully cooperating with the IAEA.
Its government could not immediately be reached for comment. It is now at least
seven months since the IAEA last verified Iran's stock of highly enriched
uranium. Its own guidance is that it should be done monthly.
Grossi said he was exercising "diplomatic prudence," but that Iran had to meet
its obligations as a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. "This cannot
go on like this for a long time without me, unfortunately, having to declare
them in non-compliance," he said, noting that parties to the NPT do not have an
"a la carte" option where they can pick and choose what to comply with. Asked if
the issue could be resolved this spring, he said: "That is a reasonable time
frame."
LATEST INSPECTIONS WERE IN DECEMBER
One of the "real world" realities Grossi said he must face is the influence of
diplomatic efforts aimed at reaching a broader agreement between Iran and the
United States that have been spearheaded by U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff.
"I cannot ignore it, and I wish it well so that there can be an understanding
without the looming threat of new military activity over there or something of
the sort," he said. The IAEA said in November it had inspected most of Iran's
nuclear facilities that were not struck in the U.S. and Israeli attacks. It has
since carried out further inspections until late December, Grossi said.
It was not possible, however, to carry out inspections during civil unrest, he
said, referring to recent protests that prompted a severe crackdown by the
Islamic Republic. Iranian officials have indicated the unrest has stopped, he
said."They said that things are calm and they are in control, etc.," Grossi
said. "If this is the situation, shouldn't we resume (inspections)?" Grossi
said he would meet Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi in "a matter of days,
weeks."
Iran's
protests in the dark: How credible is Germany's response?
Johanna Urbancik/Euronews/January 20/2026
The nationwide protests that have rocked Iran in recent weeks have also sent
shockwaves through the Iranian diaspora around the world. Alongside growing
economic hardship in the Islamic Republic, widespread anger over corruption
within the regime has fuelled the unrest, which started in late December.
Authorities have responded with brutal force and a "digital blackout," shutting
down internet access in an effort to suppress dissent. In an interview with
Euronews, German-Iranian artist and doctor Maryam said that "you first have to
grasp what is happening in Iran and how the protests have grown exponentially",
adding that their scale was not immediately apparent. "You live with tension,
fear and hope all at once," said the artist, who is known in the music industry
under her stage name Maryam.fyi. "Every time a new wave of protests breaks out,
you ask yourself: is this the moment, is this the day the regime will finally
fall, or will they manage to crush everything again? Is this the last time this
fight for freedom will be waged, and can it be won this time?"According to a
report compiled by doctors in Iran and cited by The Times, at least 16,500
people were killed in what the newspaper described as a "genocide in digital
darkness". On Monday, the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency said it
had verified at least 4,029 deaths, with another 9,049 cases under review.
Euronews cannot independently verify the figures.
Eyewitness reports have described extreme violence and thousands of dead and
injured.
Iran expert Ali Fathollah-Nejad described the events as a "massacre of historic
proportions" on German public broadcaster ZDF on Monday morning. "Even for
someone who has worked on this region for more than twenty years, I have never
witnessed anything like this in such a short period of time. We are now hearing
eyewitness accounts that describe scenes beyond comprehension," he said. A
so-called "phased restoration" of internet access has reportedly been promised,
yet many Iranians are still cut off from the outside world by a blackout that
started on 8 Jan.
For relatives abroad, the uncertainty over the fate of family members, friends
and others back home is agonising. Maryam said that the uncertainty felt
"oppressive" and "depressing". Due to her public profile and regular media
appearances, she now has very few contacts left in Iran as she is unwilling to
risk putting anyone in danger.Even so, she sees how many of her friends cannot
reach their families, or have learned that relatives were killed during the
protests.
'Complete abuse of all kinds of principles'
Activists estimate that several thousand protesters were severely injured during
the demonstrations. As in the 2022 protests, reports again highlight a troubling
rise in head and eye injuries. According to an analysis by The Conversation,
such injuries represent a form of political repression rooted in a long cultural
tradition, in which blinding symbolises disempowerment and the stripping of
legitimacy. Today, the aim is not only to punish individuals, but also to
prevent them from seeing, documenting and exposing state violence, argues
Firouzeh Nahavandi, a Belgian sociologist of Iranian origin. "The regime
deliberately shoots at life-threatening parts of the body and even makes sure,
for example, that blood is sprayed to spread fear and terror," Maryam said. Yet
many of the injured are said to have avoided hospitals out of fear, amid growing
reports that protesters are being arrested directly at medical wards. "This is,
of course, a complete abuse of all the principles behind such a profession,"
said Maryam, who is also a doctor. She recalled accounts of injured people being
examined to determine how they were hurt, and turned away if they had sustained
gunshot wounds. "It was assumed they were protesters and, as 'terrorists',
deemed legitimate targets," she said.
'Help is on its way'
After the unrest started, US President Donald Trump said he would help
demonstrators if the regime began killing or executing them. "Help is on the
way," he said last week, urging Iranians to keep protesting. Trump said that the
US military wouldn't intervene after he was assured that no executions would
take place for the time being. Maryam said she never believed military
intervention was the right approach. Instead, support should focus on restoring
internet and mobile phone access "so that people can organise themselves".
"Right now, all these people who are willing to risk their lives for freedom and
for a revolution are cut off from the internet and unable to organise," she told
Euronews."That’s what makes the situation so dire. People are being flooded with
propaganda and fear, which keeps the regime in power, while they themselves are
unable to coordinate."Last week, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz also said he
believed the Iranian regime is "effectively finished", and that regime change is
imminent. Yet Maryam said she is is sceptical of Merz's expressions of
solidarity. "The German government had the chance to support the people three
years ago, and even before that, but it didn’t take it. Instead, it continued
doing business with Iran," she stressed. "It's hardly news that the Iranian
people are oppressed by an Islamist regime." "Germany was still one of Iran's
strongest trading partners in recent years. Statements like this feel deeply
hypocritical to me," she added. In her view, asylum procedures for Iranians
could be made much easier, deportations could be halted, or the Iranian
ambassador to Berlin could be expelled. "So much could be done, but it isn’t
happening. That's why, until there are concrete actions, I see this as little
more than lip service."A nationwide ban on deportations to Iran was in place in
Germany until the end of 2023, before being lifted in January 2024. Since then,
deportations have depended on individual asylum or residence decisions. Figures
from the Federal Office for Migration show that around 5,817 Iranians applied
for asylum in 2024. Of those, 2,249 were granted protection status, while 3,880
applications were rejected. Despite the ongoing internet blackout, images and
videos of the protests continue to emerge: bloodied bodies, body bags lying in
the streets, and security forces patrolling neighbourhoods. According to reports
from Bayerischer Rundfunk, a regional public service broadcaster in Germany, the
protests have subsided, but armed militias are still present on the streets.
Prices for everyday goods have reportedly continued to rise, leaving little sign
of economic relief for the population. "The Iranian diaspora and German
politicians must put aside their differences and unite to do everything possible
for the freedom of the Iranian people," Maryam said. "This is a moral
obligation. And our society should be out on the streets in the largest possible
numbers, in solidarity, to demand an end to these atrocities," she added.
Israel’s Netanyahu says no
place for Turkish, Qatari soldiers in Gaza force
AFP/20 January/2026
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed Monday there would be no place for
Turkish or Qatari soldiers in post-war Gaza and reiterated Israel’s objection to
the composition of a US-backed advisory panel for the Palestinian territory. As
part of US President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan to end the war in Gaza, the
White House announced last week a “Board of Peace,” chaired by Trump himself, a
Palestinian committee of technocrats meant to govern the war-wracked territory,
and a second “Gaza executive board” that appears designed to have a more
advisory role. Netanyahu has previously expressed objections to the make-up of
the “Gaza executive board.”“In the Gaza Strip, we are on the eve of phase two of
the Trump plan. Phase two means one simple thing: Hamas will be disarmed and
Gaza will be demilitarized,” Netanyahu said in parliament. “There will be no
Turkish or Qatari soldiers in the Gaza Strip,” he added, in an apparent
reference to the International Stabilization Force (ISF) for the territory set
out under the Trump plan. It is yet to be determined which contingents will make
up the force, which will be tasked with providing security in Gaza and training
a new police force to succeed Hamas. Trump on Friday named US Major General
Jasper Jeffers to head the ISF in Gaza. On Monday, Netanyahu went on to say: “We
have a certain disagreement with our friends in the United States regarding the
composition of the advisory council that will accompany the processes in
Gaza.”Netanyahu’s office objected on Saturday to the composition of the “Gaza
executive board,” which includes Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and Qatari
diplomat Ali al-Thawadi, alongside other regional and international officials.
“The Prime Minister has instructed the Foreign Affairs Minister to contact the
US Secretary of State on this matter,” a statement from Netanyahu’s office said
on Saturday. It did not explain the reason for its objection, but Israel has
previously objected strongly to any Turkish role in post-war Gaza, with
relations between the two countries deteriorating sharply since the war began in
October 2023. The “Board of Peace” was originally conceived to oversee the
rebuilding of Gaza, but the charter does not appear to limit its role to the
occupied Palestinian territory. The Palestinian technocratic committee,
meanwhile, held its initial meetings last week in Cairo.
Israel orders Gaza families
to move in first forced evacuation since ceasefire
Nidal al-Mughrabi/Reuters/January 20, 2026
CAIRO, - Israeli forces have ordered dozens of Palestinian families in the
southern Gaza Strip to leave their homes in the first forced evacuation since
October's ceasefire, as residents and Hamas said on Tuesday the military was
expanding the area under its control. Residents of Bani Suhaila, east of Khan
Younis, said the leaflets were dropped on Monday on families living in tent
encampments in the Al-Reqeb neighbourhood. “Urgent message. The area is under
IDF control. You must evacuate immediately,” said the leaflets, written in
Arabic, Hebrew, and English, which the army dropped over the Al‑Reqeb
neighbourhood in the town of Bani Suhaila. In the two-year war before the U.S.
brokered ceasefire was signed in October, Israel dropped leaflets over areas
that were subsequently raided or bombarded, forcing some families to move
several times. Residents and a source from the Hamas militant group said this
was the first time they had been dropped since then. The Israeli military did
not immediately respond to a request for comment.
SIDES FAR APART ON NEXT PHASES
The ceasefire has not progressed beyond its first phase, under which major
fighting has stopped, Israel withdrew from less than half of Gaza, and Hamas
released hostages in return for Palestinian detainees and prisoners. Virtually
the entire population of more than 2 million people are confined to around a
third of Gaza's territory, mostly in makeshift tents and damaged buildings,
where life has resumed under control of an administration led by Hamas. Israel
and Hamas have accused each other of major breaches of the ceasefire and remain
far apart on the more difficult steps planned for the next phase.
Mahmoud, a resident from the Bani Suhaila area, who asked not to give his family
name, said the evacuation orders impacted at least 70 families, living in tents
and homes, some of which were partially damaged, in the area. "We have fled the
area and relocated westward. It is maybe the fourth or fifth time the occupation
expanded the yellow line since last month," he told Reuters by phone from Khan
Younis, referring to the line behind which Israel has withdrawn. "Each time they
move it around 120 to 150 metres (yards) inside the Palestinian-controlled
territory, swallowing more land," the father-of-three said.
HAMAS CITES STATE OF HUMANITARIAN DISRUPTION
Ismail Al-Thawabta, director of the Hamas-run Gaza government media office, said
the Israeli military had expanded the area under its control in eastern Khan
Younis five times since the ceasefire, forcing the displacement of at least
9,000 people. “On Monday, 19 January 2026, the Israeli occupation forces dropped
warning leaflets demanding the forced evacuation of the Bani Suhaila area in
eastern Khan Younis Governorate, in a measure that falls within a policy of
intimidation and pressure on civilians,” Thawabta told Reuters. He said the new
evacuation orders affected approximately 3,000 people. “The move created a state
of humanitarian disruption, increased pressure on the already limited shelter
areas, and further deepened the internal displacement crisis in the
governorate,” Thawabta added. Israel's military has previously said it has
opened fire after identifying what it called "terrorists" crossing the yellow
line and approaching its troops, posing an immediate threat to them. It has
continued to conduct air strikes and targeted operations across Gaza. The
Israeli military has said it views "with utmost severity" any attempts by
militant groups in Gaza to attack Israel.Under future phases of the ceasefire
that have yet to be hammered out, U.S. President Donald Trump's plan envisages
Hamas disarming, Israel pulling out further, and an internationally backed
administration rebuilding Gaza. More than 460 Palestinians and three Israeli
soldiers have been reported killed since the ceasefire took effect. Israel
launched its operations in Gaza in the wake of an attack by Hamas-led fighters
in October 2023 which killed 1,200 people, according to Israeli tallies.
Israel's assault has killed 71,000 people, according to health authorities in
the enclave.
(Reporting by Nidal al-Mughrabi; Editing by Alison Williams)
Israeli authorities
demolish UN compound in occupied East Jerusalem
John Sudworth/BBC/January 20/2026
Israeli demolition teams, accompanied by police, have begun tearing down the
headquarters of the UN's Palestinian refugee agency, Unrwa, in occupied East
Jerusalem. Israel says it owns the land on which the compound stands and accuses
Unrwa - the organisation that provides aid, education and healthcare to
Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza - of being infiltrated by Hamas.
The agency has denied the allegations and says its premises are protected under
international conventions. Israel's action comes in the wake of a controversial
law passed last year which banned Unrwa from operating in Israel and occupied
East Jerusalem. UN Secretary General António Guterres condemned the demolition,
with his spokesperson calling for the Israeli government to "return and restore
the compound" to the United Nations "without delay". On Tuesday morning, the
demolition crews made quick work of the compound that has stood on this site for
decades. The heavy machines ripped into the corrugated metal roofs and tore down
walls, leaving piles of tangled debris in their wake. Israel said no UN
personnel were present on site when its actions began. Unrwa has been under
increasing pressure from the Israeli authorities. The law, passed in January
2025, severing all state contact with the refugee agency, had already been
making itself felt. What is Unrwa and why has Israel banned it? A health clinic
in East Jerusalem was recently forced to close and electricity companies had
begun the process of shutting off power to a number of Unrwa properties. But
there's no doubt that this action was unexpected and unprecedented. The head of
Unrwa, Philippe Lazzarini, posted on social media calling it an "open and
deliberate defiance of international law, including of the immunities and
privileges of the United Nations". Britain's Middle East Minister Hamish
Falconer said he was "appalled" by reports that Israeli crews had begun
demolishing a United Nations headquarters in East Jerusalem. UN premises are
protected under international treaty, making them immune from "search,
requisition, expropriation and any other form of interference". But Israel says
that those protections have been made null and void because of its allegation
that Unrwa staff were involved in the 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attacks.A
statement from Israel's foreign ministry confirming that the demolition was
taking place called the organisation a "greenhouse for terrorism". The UN admits
that nine Unrwa staff may have been involved on 7 October but it says Israel has
not provided any evidence for its claim that the agency's been more widely
infiltrated by Hamas. Israel's far-right National Security Minister, Itamar Ben
Gvir, who was on site watching the demolition, described it as marking an
"historic day". On the edge of compound from where journalists were filming was
Aryeh King, the deputy mayor of Jerusalem, also from the far-right of Israeli
politics. He told the BBC that Unrwa was a "Nazi" organisation and said he
"didn't care" what the UN had to say about international law. Despite the
demolition of its headquarters and the targeting of its other premises in East
Jerusalem, Unrwa's work in the West Bank and Gaza continues. It employs
thousands of staff and has, since its founding in 1949, been providing welfare
and vocational training for Palestinian refugees and their descendants in the
occupied territories. But its activities have been seriously impacted by the war
in Gaza. The UN says more than 300 Unrwa staff have been killed in Israeli
strikes and the organisation also faces an acute funding crisis, prompted in
part by the Israeli allegations of complicity. Hundreds of staff have been laid
off in recent weeks. Israel, though, is doubling down, saying the "possession
and evacuation" of other Unrwa buildings will follow. UN Secretary General
Antonio Guterres has already threatened to take Israel to the International
Court of Justice over its laws targeting Unrwa and its assets.
The demolition marks a significant widening of the rift.
Hamas Leaders Prepare for
'Safe Exit' from Gaza, Amid Doubts Over Return
Gaza: Asharq Al Awsat/January 20/2026
Sources within Hamas in Gaza revealed that senior figures in the movement are
preparing for a “safe exit” from the enclave following arrangements related to
Gaza’s future under the second phase of the ceasefire agreement, which the
United States announced had begun last week. Three Hamas sources told Asharq Al-Awsat
that several prominent political and military leaders who survived the war are
preparing to leave the territory. One source said the departure would be
voluntary and carried out under specific arrangements, with full coordination
with the Hamas leadership abroad. Another source noted that other leaders,
particularly military figures, categorically reject leaving Gaza under any
circumstances. Throughout nearly two years of war, Hamas officials have
repeatedly stated their rejection of removing the movement’s leadership from the
Strip. The sources separately provided Asharq Al-Awsat with the names of several
leaders believed likely to depart, though it is refraining from publishing them
due to the inability to contact them promptly. Some of these figures were
recently appointed to leadership positions in Hamas’ political bureau in Gaza as
part of new organizational arrangements aimed at rebuilding and restructuring
the movement. According to the same sources, a number of former prisoners
released in the 2011 exchange deal for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit — who now
oversee key portfolios within Hamas leadership — are expected to be among those
traveling to Türkiye. However, a senior Hamas leader based outside Gaza denied
the reports, telling Asharq Al-Awsat that the issue of leaders leaving the Strip
“has not been raised.”Another source inside Gaza declined to comment, saying
only that he had no knowledge of the matter. Sources in Gaza said the exit would
likely be “without return, at least for several years,” with those leaders
likely to end up residing in several countries. Other sources said some leaders
would leave temporarily to hold meetings in Egypt with security officials on
critical issues related to Gaza’s governmental security forces and other key
files, before returning to the Strip. In September, Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview with Fox News that Israel was
considering providing safe passage for Hamas leaders to leave Gaza under certain
conditions, as part of a plan being prepared by US President Donald Trump, which
entered into force in October. Israel’s public broadcaster reported that Hamas
leaders would most likely head to Qatar or Türkiye if they left Gaza. Israel’s
Channel 12 previously reported that Hamas officials told US officials they were
prepared to accept a limited relocation of military leaders and some operatives
from Gaza. On Jan. 14, US envoy Steve Witkoff officially announced the launch of
the second phase of the ceasefire, which includes Hamas relinquishing control of
Gaza, establishing a Palestinian technocratic committee to administer the
enclave, initiating a comprehensive disarmament process, and launching
large-scale reconstruction projects. Hamas welcomed the announcement, saying it
had fulfilled all requirements for completing the first phase and moving to the
second, while continuing discussions with mediators over options regarding its
weapons and those of other Palestinian factions.
Israeli crews target UN
facilities for Palestinian refugees in east Jerusalem
SAM METZ/Associated Press/January 20/2026
JERUSALEM (AP) — Israeli forces on Tuesday targeted at least two United Nations
facilities, pushing forward with a crackdown against the U.N. agency for
Palestinian refugees tasked with delivering humanitarian services to millions of
people across the region. Crews began bulldozing the United Nations Relief and
Works Agency ’s offices in Sheikh Jarrah and fired tear gas at a vocational
school in Qalandia, marking Israel’s latest and most dramatic step against UNRWA.
Israel has long railed against the agency, accusing it of being infiltrated by
Hamas and saying that some of its employees were involved in the October 2023
attack that triggered Israel’s two-year war in Gaza. UNRWA leaders have said
they took swift action against the employees accused of taking part in the
attack, and have denied allegations that the agency tolerates or collaborates
with Hamas. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Tuesday condemned
Israel’s destruction of the agency's compound and called for it to be returned
to the U.N.'s control. “The Secretary-General views as wholly unacceptable the
continued escalatory actions against UNRWA, which are inconsistent with Israel’s
clear obligations under international law," said Farhan Haq, the deputy U.N.
spokesperson. Roland Friedrich, the agency's West Bank director, said UNRWA
received word that demolition crews and police arrived at their east Jerusalem
headquarters early on Tuesday. Staff have not operated out of the facility for
almost a year out of safety concerns, but Israeli forces confiscated devices and
forced out private security guards protecting the facility. “What we saw today
is the culmination of two years of incitement and measures against UNRWA in east
Jerusalem,” Friedrich said. He said forces also began firing tear gas outside
the vocational school on the outskirts of Jerusalem on Tuesday afternoon before
ultimately leaving. More than 300 young refugees receive job training in
technology and welding there. Some children on their way home from the school
were overcome by the tear gas and a 15-year-old was hit in the eye with a rubber
bullet, according to the Palestinian Authority’s Jerusalem governorate, which
monitors Palestinian affairs in the area.
Israeli leaders celebrate demolition
Israel’s Foreign Ministry said the demolition enforced a new law banning UNRWA,
noting that Israel owns the site and rejecting UNRWA’s claims that the move
violated international law. Israel has long claimed the agency has an
anti-Israel bias. Often with little evidence, it says UNRWA employs and
maintains ties with militant groups including Hamas. The U.N. has ardently
denied such claims and UNRWA has said it acts quickly to purge any suspected
militants among its staff. UNRWA's mandate is to provide aid and services to
some 2.5 million Palestinian refugees in Gaza, the occupied West Bank and east
Jerusalem, as well as 3 million more refugees in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. The
group has for years maintained infrastructure in refugee camps and also run
schools and provided health care. But its operations were curtailed last year
when Israel’s Knesset passed legislation severing ties and banning it from
functioning in what it defines as Israel — including east Jerusalem. The agency
said the demolitions could imperil operations at the vocational center in
Qalandia and heath facility in Shu'afat, where it still provides education and
health services. An Israeli flag was seen hoisted above the facility in the
Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, where some Israeli politicians arrived on the scene
to celebrate the organization's fate. National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir
called it “a historic day.”
'This must be a wake-up call'
The demolition marked the culmination of years of criticism from Israel and its
leaders. Since the start of the Israel-Hamas war more than two years ago, it has
ramped up such attacks, saying the militants used UNRWA facilities and seized
aid. It has provided little evidence for the claims, which the U.N. has denied.
The International Court of Justice said in October that Israel must allow the
agency to provide humanitarian assistance in Gaza. Since Israel passed its law
banning the agency last year, its facilities — schools and health centers — and
its headquarters have repeatedly been closed, raided or left unprotected.
“This must be a wake-up call," Philippe Lazzarini, UNRWA's commissioner-general,
said in a statement on X. “What happens today to UNRWA will happen tomorrow to
any other international organisation or diplomatic mission, whether in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory or anywhere around the world.”
More aid groups in Gaza face pressure
Israel's ban on UNRWA dovetailed with broader efforts to deregister aid groups
operating in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. Israel has passed laws requiring
nongovernmental organizations not to hire staff involved in activities that
“delegitimize Israel” or support boycotts, demanding they register lists of
names as a condition of being allowed to work. Israel told dozens of groups —
including Doctors Without Borders and CARE — that their licenses would expire at
the end of 2025. The organizations say the rules are arbitrary and warned that
the new ban would harm people desperately in need of humanitarian aid.
Settler violence in the West Bank rose last year
The Israeli military said Tuesday that attacks carried out by Jewish settlers
against Palestinians and Israeli security forces in the West Bank increased by
27% last year compared with 2024. There were 867 reports of “nationalistic
crimes” — with the number of severe incidents up by more than 50%, according to
internal statistics from the Israeli military and the country’s Shin Bet
domestic security service. Mounting settler violence in the West Bank has
emptied villages since the war between Israel and Hamas erupted, according to
B’Tselem, an Israeli rights group helping the residents. The Israeli military
has carried out large-scale operations in the West Bank targeting militants that
have killed hundreds of Palestinians. There also has been a rise in Palestinian
attacks on Israelis. Israeli authorities have a mixed relationship with
settlers, at times dismantling unauthorized outposts while also deploying forces
to protect them from Palestinians.
**Julia Frankel and Shlomo Mor in Jerusalem and Edith M. Lederer and Farnoush
Amiri in New York contributed reporting. Find more of AP’s coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/israel-hamas-war
European leaders endure a new level of public embarrassment as Trump dials up
the insults
Analysis by CNN's Andrew Carey/January 20/2026
“Shockingly, our ‘brilliant’ NATO Ally, the United Kingdom, is currently
planning to give away the Island of Diego Garcia, the site of a vital U.S.
Military Base, to Mauritius, and to do so FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER.”
Welcome to Tuesday, Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Like many of his peers,
Britain’s leader has sought to keep Donald Trump close since the start of his
second administration a year ago, figuring flattery was the best approach to
navigating the US president’s narcissistic vagaries. Now, though, as Trump
prepares to fly to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Starmer too finds himself
joining the ranks of those either insulted by the US President, and/or finding
their private messages to him shared with the world. “The UK giving away
extremely important land is an act of GREAT STUPIDITY,” Trump wrote on his Truth
Social platform, adding that it was, “another in a very long line of National
Security reasons why Greenland has to be acquired.”Perhaps Trump’s tirade was
triggered by remarks made by the British prime minister on Monday – that the
president’s threat to put tariffs on allies, to get his way over Greenland, was
“completely wrong.” Whatever it was, it served to affect a 180-degree switch on
what had previously been White House support for Britain’s decision to hand over
a group of islands in the Indian Ocean to Mauritius. US Secretary of State Marco
Rubio praised the deal in May as a “historic agreement” and “monumental
achievement.” UK government figures sent out to talk to the media immediately
afterwards urged coolness. “I would be in favor of keeping calm and trying to
sit this out a bit, see what happens next. We’re getting this bevy of messages
and so on at the moment,” senior Labour politician Emily Thornberry told the
BBC. She was certainly right about Trump’s use of his social media account
overnight. France’s President Emmanuel Macron was another one caught in the
maelstrom. Shortly before posting an apparently AI-generated image of himself in
the White House showing European leaders a map of North America, in which both
Canada and Greenland were colored with the Stars and Stripes, Trump had pasted a
(real) message from Macron. As a sweetener, the French leader threw in a little
extra va-va-voom at the end. “Let us have a dinner together in Paris together on
Thursday before you go back to the US.”Perhaps it was aimed at stirring memories
of 2017, when the Macrons and the Trumps dined together at the Eiffel Tower on
Bastille Day after Trump had been guest of honor at the annual parade.
Regardless, those heady days are long gone. When Trump was asked by a reporter
on Monday for his reaction to Macron’s declining the offer of a place on his
“Board of Peace,” he immediately hit below the belt.“‘Well, nobody wants him
because he’s going to be out of office very soon.”
Other recent betrayals of private messages include Trump’s circulation of a
message to the Norwegian prime minister accusing Norway of snubbing him over the
Nobel Peace Prize, and his reading of a note slipped him by Marco Rubio -
apparently in confidence - during on-camera comments about Venezuela.
The ‘Daddy’ of them all In any account of toe-curling exchanges with Trump, the
current NATO secretary general is never far away. A tall man, Mark Rutte is
perhaps familiar with stooping low to avoid hitting his head. “Mr President,
Dear Donald. What you accomplished today in Syria is incredible. I will use my
media engagements in Davos to highlight your work there, in Gaza, and in
Ukraine. I am committed to finding a way forward on Greenland. Can’t wait to see
you. Yours, Mark” That object lesson in obsequiousness was also pushed out by
Trump on Truth Social. Rutte has form, of course. Famously, he once called Trump
“Daddy.”“And then Daddy has to sometimes use strong language to get it stopped,”
he said sitting opposite Trump at a NATO meeting last year. Trump, who loves to
frame international relations in a way that, well, just about anybody could
understand, had just compared Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to a playground
fight. “You know, they fight like hell. You can’t stop them. Let them fight for
about two to three minutes, then it’s easy to stop them.” The language is facile
and vacuous, but those on-camera encounters are revealing. “I mean, what would I
say in that situation?” we ponder, feeling a sympathetic twinge for the NATO
secretary general, as we watch his brain scramble a response. Democratic
governor of California Gavin Newsom told Sky News he had had enough of the
craven behavior. “I should have brought a bunch of knee pads for all the world
leaders. I mean, handing out crowns, the Nobel prizes that are being given away.
It’s just pathetic,” he said.Europe’s elite gathering in Switzerland ahead of
Trump’s arrival on Wednesday might envy such cockiness. As the stakes for Europe
appear to get ever higher, the challenge of how to deal with the US president
just appears to get madder by the moment.
US to cut roughly 200 NATO
positions, sources say
Reuters/January 21, 2026
WASHINGTON: The United States plans to reduce the number of personnel it has
stationed within several key NATO command centers, a move that could intensify
concerns in Europe about Washington’s commitment to the alliance, three sources
familiar with the matter said this week.
As part of the move, which the Trump administration has communicated to some
European capitals, the US will eliminate roughly 200 positions from the NATO
entities that oversee and plan the alliance’s military and intelligence
operations, said the sources, who requested anonymity to discuss private
diplomatic conversations.Among the bodies that will be affected, said the
sources, are the UK-based NATO Intelligence Fusion Center and the Allied Special
Operations Forces Command in Brussels. Portugal-based STRIKFORNATO, which
oversees some maritime operations, will also be cut, as will several other
similar NATO entities, the sources said. The sources did not specify why the US
had decided to cut the number of staff dedicated to the NATO roles, but the
moves broadly align with the Trump administration’s stated intention to shift
more resources toward the Western Hemisphere.
The Washington Post first reported the decision.
TRUMP RE-POSTS MESSAGE IDENTIFYING NATO AS THREAT
The changes are small relative to the size of the US military force stationed in
Europe and do not necessarily signal a broader US shift away from the continent.
Around 80,000 military personnel are stationed in Europe, almost half of them in
Germany. But the moves are nonetheless likely to stoke European anxiety about
the future of the alliance, which is already running high given US President
Donald Trump’s stepped-up campaign to wrest Greenland away from Denmark, raising
the unprecedented prospect of territorial aggression within NATO. On Tuesday
morning, the US president, who is scheduled to fly to the World Economic Forum
in Switzerland in the evening, shared another user’s post on social media that
identified NATO as a threat to the United States. The post described China and
Russia as merely “boogeymen.” Asked for comment, a NATO official said changes to
US staffing are not unusual and that the US presence in Europe is larger than
it has been in years. “NATO and US authorities are in close contact about our
overall posture – to ensure NATO retains our robust capacity to deter and
defend,” the NATO official said.
The White House and the Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment.
MILITARY IMPACT UNCLEAR, SYMBOLIC IMPACT OBVIOUS
Reuters could not obtain a full list of NATO entities that will be affected by
the new policy. About 400 US personnel are stationed within the entities that
will see cuts, one of the sources said, meaning the total number of Americans at
the affected NATO bodies will be reduced by roughly half.
Rather than recalling servicemembers from their current posts, the US will for
the most part decline to backfill them as they move on from their positions,
the sources said. The drawdown comes as the alliance traverses one of the most
diplomatically fraught moments in its 77-year history. Trump famously threatened
to withdraw from NATO during his first presidential term and said on the
campaign trail that he would encourage Russian President Vladimir Putin to
attack NATO members that did not pay their fair share on defense. But he
appeared to warm to NATO over the first half of 2025, effusively praising NATO
Secretary-General Mark Rutte and other European leaders after they agreed to
boost defense spending at a June summit. In recent weeks, however, his
administration has again provoked alarm across Europe. In early December,
Pentagon officials told diplomats that the US wants Europe to take over the
majority of NATO’s conventional defense capabilities, from intelligence to
missiles, by 2027, a deadline that struck European officials as unrealistic. A
key US national security document released shortly after called for the US to
dedicate more of its military resources to the Western Hemisphere, calling into
question whether Europe will continue to be a priority theater for the US. In
the first weeks of 2026, Trump has revived his longstanding campaign to acquire
Greenland, an overseas territory of Denmark, enraging officials in Copenhagen
and throughout Europe, many of whom believe any territorial aggression within
the alliance would mark the end of NATO. Over the weekend, Trump said he would
slap several NATO countries with tariffs starting February 1 due to their
support for Denmark’s sovereignty over the island. That has caused European
Union officials to mull retaliatory tariffs of their own.
The Latest English LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous
sources published
on January
20-21/2026
The European Union's 'Woke Stasi Commissars': Europeans Turned into 'Second
Class' Citizens
Guy Millière/Gatestone
Institute/January 20, 2026
The EU sanctions have resulted in grotesque consequences for both men. Their
bank accounts in the EU have been frozen. They cannot use their credit cards.
They have no right to enter EU countries. Baud is subsisting on the food stored
in his house in Belgium.... According to one report, "[h]is ability to travel
inside the EU was revoked. He cannot even return to his own country." The French
government, which sanctioned both men while providing no proof of guilt or
affording them due process, has asked that the sanctions be extended to all EU
member countries. While one might disagree with what the two men said and wrote,
freedom of speech is, or should be, one of the fundamental principles of a
democratic society, which France and the EU purport to be.
France's request that the EU sanction "propagandists," and the EU's decision to
take arbitrary measures without even asking France for any proof of wrongdoing
or offering any kind of due process, signals that what is happening in France
could easily spread to the rest of Europe. The EU already has in place crippling
censorship measures for online media and social networks. The DSA [Digital
Services Act] decrees that social media and websites must "police what they
publish" or risk high fines. It is, of course, the European Commission itself
that decides what is "illegal" or "harmful", so it can issue whatever judgments
it wants. During the 2024 US election campaign, when Elon Musk said he would
conduct an interview with then-candidate Donald Trump on X, the social media
Musk owns, Thierry Breton, then European Commissioner for Internal Market and
Services and the "mastermind" behind the DSA, sent Musk a letter saying that the
EU could levy fines against X if the interview contained "illegal content."
Musk, replying that he did not accept threats, went ahead with the interview.
The EU promptly fined X €120 million (about $140 million) in December 2025 for
breaching the DSA. Musk described the EU officials as "woke Stasi commissars"
and added, "The EU should be abolished".
The DSA was written by unelected, unaccountable, untransparent and irremovable
senior EU officials, then voted in by the European Parliament, which has no real
power and is just an approval body for what the European Commission decides. The
DSA was not voted on by the national parliaments of EU member states. All
citizens of EU member countries are now faced with a mandated requirement to
which they never agreed.
The European Commission, apparently not content with that, is reportedly
planning to go further. It is preparing a new law, "Chat Control", which would
allow the "automatic scan[ning] of private content (texts, images, videos) sent
through messaging platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram, or prompts sent to AI
platforms (e.g. ChatGPT) [that] would take place 'client-side,' before its
encryption, meaning directly on your phone, tablet or computer." The "Chat
Control" software would then "forward any material flagged as prohibited to law
enforcement agencies." This would herald potential total control of every online
conversation and the impossibility of speaking freely without being monitored.
Every effort is being made by those in power within the ruling structures of the
EU to ensure that parties in favor of national sovereignty and opposed to
uncontrolled immigration and the Islamization of Europe are kept out of power,
despite the exploding support from voters.
The fatal vulnerability of all democracies is that politicians are usually more
concerned with seeking votes and keeping their jobs than about where their
countries are going.
Undermining freedom of speech, freedom of the media, and freedom of political
choice -- as well as treating disagreements on important issues such as foreign
policy, immigration, Islamization and national sovereignty as punishable crimes
-- has become an integral part of the erosion of European civilization. The idea
of democracy was born in Europe, but European countries and the EU are
painstakingly throwing it away.
Every effort is being made by those in power within the ruling structures of the
European Union to ensure that parties in favor of national sovereignty and
opposed to uncontrolled immigration and the Islamization of Europe are kept out
of power, despite the exploding support from voters. December 15. France. Two
men, Jacques Baud and Xavier Moreau, who commented online about the war in
Ukraine, discovered that they were among 12 people being sanctioned by the
European Union for allegedly spreading propaganda for the Russian government.
Some of the 12 people are propagandists, just not them. No evidence so far has
proven that they had any ties with either the Russian government or Russian
intelligence agencies.
Baud, who lives in Belgium, is both a former colonel in the Swiss Army and a
former member of the Swiss Strategic Intelligence Service. He has published
several books on the war in Ukraine, and apparently uses various sources, most
not Russian. He appears on radio in France, Belgium and Switzerland. Moreau, a
former captain in the French Army, lives in Russia, where he created a
consultancy business, Sokol Holding, for several embassies, and Stratpol, a
website for geopolitical analysis. Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, he
has used many sources, some Russian, most not.
The EU sanctions have resulted in grotesque consequences for both men. Their
bank accounts in the EU have been frozen. They cannot use their credit cards.
They have no right to enter EU countries.
Baud is subsisting on the food stored in his house in Belgium. He has also been
deprived of his right to speak on EU television or radio stations. According to
one report, "[h]is ability to travel inside the EU was revoked. He cannot even
return to his own country." Lawyers are trying to help him obtain authorization
to travel back to Switzerland.
Xavier Moreau, in Russia, also has an apartment in Paris. He cannot even pay his
French property taxes. Lawyers are trying to help him find a way to pay what the
French government claims he owes.
The French government, which sanctioned both men while providing no proof of
guilt or affording them due process, has asked that the sanctions be extended to
all EU member countries. The French government and the EU did not even send them
a letter to inform the two men of the sanctions against them, let alone give
them an opportunity to defend themselves or prove their innocence in a court of
law. The decisions against them appear arbitrary and authoritarian.
While one might disagree with what the two men said and wrote, freedom of speech
is, or should be, one of the fundamental principles of a democratic society,
which France and the EU purport to be. Political disagreements should not lead
to punishment.
It would be a mistake to think that the sanctions against these men are a
mistake or just a simple and regrettable slip-up. It is part of a trend.
The French government has increasingly been making overbearing decisions that
infringe on freedom of speech. An official French institution, Arcom, in charge
of controlling what is said on French television and radio, has the power of
life and death over them. In February 2025, Arcom decided to close a French
television channel, C8. Arcom claimed that C8 did not respect its "public
service" obligations. C8's main talk show host, Cyril Hanouna, has often
criticized French President Emmanuel Macron and has invited commentators who are
never invited on other talk shows, such as members of the "yellow vest revolt"
or physicians who disagreed with Macron's decisions during the Covid-19 crisis.
Macron reportedly asked members of the French government to boycott Hanouna;
several accused him of belonging to the "far right". Arcom -- claiming that
Hanouna spoke "disrespectfully" to both the socialist mayor of Paris, Anne
Hidalgo, and a leftist member of the national assembly, Louis Boyard -- imposed
heavy fines on the channel: €300,000 ($350,000) for Hidalgo and €3.5 million
($4,000,000) for Boyard; then simply decided to close the channel. Four hundred
people lost their jobs. Hanouna could, theoretically, create a new talk show on
a different channel, but his new employer strongly "invited" him to adopt an
"apolitical tone".
In June 2025, TV Libertés, a small, private television station that includes
commentators who criticize Macron and often disagree with French foreign policy,
was confronted with the closure of its bank accounts -- forcing it to the brink
of bankruptcy. The bank gave no explanation; it just said that the decision had
been made "at a high level". TV Libertés could survive by opening a bank account
at a different bank, but what just happened could easily happen again -- and the
channel might not survive.
What happened to TV Libertés was also visited upon Marc Touati, a French
economist who produces a successful weekly podcast. Not only was his bank
account closed, but also the accounts of his wife and children. Again, the bank
gave no explanation other than, again, that the decision had been made "at a
high level".
Macron, responding to a journalist who asked him if he wanted to control
information in France, said:
"I think it would be important to have labels given by professionals who can say
'This complies with ethical standards,' or 'This comes from people who
manipulate information' ; it's a dangerous matter, information."
Philippe de Villiers, a businessman, former Member of the National Assembly and
former Secretary of State for Culture, replied:
"A Ministry of Truth is what Macron dreams of, but he doesn't know that it has
already been imagined, in a book by Orwell."
France's request that the EU sanction "propagandists," and the EU's decision to
take arbitrary measures without even asking France for any proof of wrongdoing
or offering any kind of due process, signals that what is happening in France
could easily spread to the rest of Europe. The EU already has in place crippling
censorship measures for online media and social networks.
The European Commission (the executive arm of the EU that writes European laws
and directives and then enforces them) in 2023 created the Digital Services Act
(DSA). It aims to control the content of social media and websites (every
newspaper, magazine, TV, or radio station has a website) and to forbid content
defined as "illegal" or "harmful". The DSA decrees that social media and
websites must "police what they publish" or risk high fines. It is, of course,
the European Commission itself that decides what is "illegal" or "harmful", so
it can issue whatever judgments it wants.
During the 2024 US election campaign, when Elon Musk said he would conduct an
interview with then-candidate Donald Trump on X, the social media Musk owns,
Thierry Breton, then European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services and
the "mastermind" behind the DSA, sent Musk a letter saying that the EU could
levy fines against X if the interview contained "illegal content."
Musk, replying that he did not accept threats, went ahead with the interview.
The EU promptly fined X €120 million (about $140 million) in December 2025 for
breaching the DSA. Musk described the EU officials as "Woke Stasi commissars"
and added, "The EU should be abolished".
The DSA was written by unelected, unaccountable, untransparent and irremovable
senior EU officials, then voted in by the European Parliament, which has no real
power and is just an approval body for what the European Commission decides. The
DSA was not voted on by the national parliaments of EU member states. All
citizens of EU member countries are now faced with a mandated requirement to
which they never agreed.
The European Commission, apparently not content with that, is reportedly
planning to go further. It is preparing a new law, "Chat Control", which would
allow the "automatic scan[ning] of private content (texts, images, videos) sent
through messaging platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram, or prompts sent to AI
platforms (e.g. ChatGPT) [that] would take place 'client-side,' before its
encryption, meaning directly on your phone, tablet or computer."
The "Chat Control" software would then "forward any material flagged as
prohibited to law enforcement agencies." This would herald potential total
control of every online conversation and the impossibility of speaking freely
without being monitored.
Freedom of speech -- one of the main components of democracy, which goes
hand-in-hand with political freedom -- is under severe threat in the EU. One
report characterized the EU's attitude toward citizens' online participation as
"Europe's tech law has turned Europeans into second-class digital citizens."
In Romania's 2024 presidential election, polls showed that Calin Georgescu, the
leading candidate in the first round, would win. Georgescu, highly critical of
the EU, was advocating for his country to regain more sovereignty. Pressure from
the EU, amid unproven rumors that he benefitted from "Russian interference," led
to the cancellation of the second round of the election. When the presidential
election was held again in 2025, Georgescu was banned from running.
In Germany, the AfD (Alternative for Germany) is now the country's strongest
political party. Its program is nationalist and conservative. The AfD supports
free market economics and backing the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel.
Germany's domestic intelligence agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of
the Constitution, classified the AfD as a "right-wing extremist" group.
Understandably, its rivals, other German political parties, would evidently be
happy to see it banned and permanently excluded from German political life.
In France, on May 31, 2025, a court -- on the pretext of misappropriation of EU
funds -- handed down a four-year prison sentence to National Rally Party leader
Marine Le Pen, and banned her from holding public office for five years. Le Pen,
who had been favored to win the 2027 presidential election, has appealed, but it
is unlikely that a court will overturn the sentence. Her party's next-in-line,
Jordan Bardella, could also reportedly win the presidential election, but in the
summer of 2025 police, acting on the orders of the National Financial
Prosecutor, seized documents concerning him from the party headquarters, and he
is expected to be prosecuted and convicted on some pretext, as well.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán refuses to allow mass immigration into his
country -- which was already occupied by the Islamic Ottoman Empire for nearly
160 years (1541-1699). He does not appear eager for a return to that and is
determined to defend Hungary's sovereignty. As a result, he faces significant EU
pressure, which includes heavy fines imposed on Hungary.
The political positions of Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico and Czech Prime
Minister Andrej Babiš are similar to Hungary's; they too could soon face the
same EU punishments as Orbán.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who shares many of Orban's positions, is
currently an exception – she has no problem with the EU. Italy, however, already
has admitted vast numbers of migrants. They now number roughly 9% of the
population -- but reportedly commit 30% of the crimes, often against other
migrants. Last October, Human Rights Watch urged "Italy to end its migration
cooperation agreement with Libya, saying the arrangement 'has proven to be a
framework for violence and suffering, and should be revoked, not renewed.'"
Every effort is being made by those in power within the ruling structures of the
EU to ensure that parties in favor of national sovereignty and opposed to
uncontrolled immigration and the Islamization of Europe are kept out of power,
despite the exploding support from voters.
Historian Daniel Pipes calls these parties "civilizationist": their main aim is
to save European civilization, whereas those in power within the ruling
structures of the EU seem ready to let European civilization fade away.
US Vice President J.D. Vance, in saying that Europe is eroding free speech and
core democratic values, shocked most European leaders, yet every day shows how
right, if not inordinately diplomatic, he was.
Europe, according to the Trump administration's 2025 National Security Strategy,
is not just in decline, but risks "civilizational erasure." Most European
leaders again appeared ruffled, offended and shocked, but the words, sadly,
appear true.
The fatal vulnerability of all democracies is that politicians are usually more
concerned with seeking votes and keeping their jobs than about where their
countries are going.
Undermining freedom of speech, freedom of the media, and freedom of political
choice -- as well as treating disagreements on important issues such as foreign
policy, immigration, Islamization and national sovereignty as punishable crimes
-- has become an integral part of the erosion of European civilization. The idea
of democracy was born in Europe, but European countries and the EU are
painstakingly throwing it away. It would be most unfortunate if old
authoritarian temptations from a hundred years ago were to resurface in Europe
just when they finally seemed to have been eradicated.
Those in power in France and within the ruling structures of the EU have been
increasingly violating the fundamental principles upon which the "European
project" was founded. These rulers seem indifferent to the possibility that they
are leading Europe to its irrevocable doom.
**Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27
books on France and Europe.
© 2026 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute.
Sudan's War Has a Center of Gravity: The Muslim Brotherhood Behind al-Burhan's
Regime
Robert Williams/Gatestone Institute/January 20/2026
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22209/sudan-war-muslim-brotherhood
Since the outbreak of full-scale war in April 2023, Muslim Brotherhood loyalists
have not merely supported the Sudanese army — they have embedded themselves
within its operational, intelligence, and political core.
In effect, the war has allowed the [Muslim] Brotherhood's defenders to re-enter
the state through the back door, under the cover of national defense.
Politically, Brotherhood-aligned parties and media outlets have worked
aggressively to undermine ceasefire efforts, reject negotiations, and
delegitimize civilian alternatives, framing the war as an existential struggle
against "foreign agents" and "enemies of Islam." This rhetoric is not incidental
— it is designed to justify indefinite conflict while positioning the
Brotherhood as an indispensable wartime ally.
While the Brotherhood and al-Qaeda differed ideologically – with al-Qaeda
preferring armed struggles and the adherents of the Brotherhood preferring
gradual infiltration and political power – they converged tactically. Sudan
served as a permissive environment where extremist networks could operate with
minimal restraint.
Under Brotherhood-dominated governance, Sudan hosted Osama bin Laden from 1991
to 1996.....
The Brotherhood's relationship with Hamas further illustrates its role as a
regional facilitator of militant movements.
For Iran, Sudan offered geographic reach. For the followers of the Brotherhood,
Iranian support provided leverage, resources, and regional relevance. Ideology
proved secondary to shared enemies and mutual utility.
[T]he Muslim Brotherhood is not an external influence on al-Burhan's regime — it
is its ideological and organizational backbone.
A regime such as Sudan's, whose core is built on a movement with a documented
history of hosting al-Qaeda, financing Hamas, cooperating with Iran, and
undermining democratic transitions, cannot serve as a reliable partner for
stability.
Sudan's war has many fronts, but its center of gravity remains the same. Until
the grip of the Brotherhood's extremists on the state is broken, peace will
remain elusive — and instability will remain policy.
At the core of the Sudanese military regime led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan
lies a deeply entrenched ideological and organizational force: the
revolutionaries of the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood.
By any serious measure, the Sudanese military regime led by General Abdel Fattah
al-Burhan does not operate in isolation. At its core lies a deeply entrenched
ideological and organizational force: the revolutionaries of the Sudanese Muslim
Brotherhood.
While international attention has largely framed Sudan's war as a struggle
between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), this
binary obscures a more consequential reality. The conflict is also the latest
chapter in the Brotherhood's decades-long project to dominate the Sudanese state
— by force when necessary, by infiltration when possible, and by regional
alliances when useful.
The Brotherhood as a Wartime Power Broker
Since the outbreak of full-scale war in April 2023, Muslim Brotherhood loyalists
have not merely supported the Sudanese army — they have embedded themselves
within its operational, intelligence, and political core.
Brotherhood-linked networks mobilized thousands of former intelligence officers,
Islamist cadres, and veterans of earlier jihadi campaigns to fight alongside the
SAF. These fighters were organized into ideologically driven militias, most
prominently the Al-Bara ibn Malik Battalion, alongside formations such as the
Shield of the Homeland and North Shield. According to documented reporting,
these units received arms, financing, and logistical support through official
military channels, blurring the line between state forces and Islamist militias.
Politically, Brotherhood-aligned parties and media outlets have worked
aggressively to undermine ceasefire efforts, reject negotiations, and
delegitimize civilian alternatives, framing the war as an existential struggle
against "foreign agents" and "enemies of Islam." This rhetoric is not incidental
— it is designed to justify indefinite conflict while positioning the
Brotherhood as an indispensable wartime ally.
The creation of so-called "popular resistance" structures, endorsed by al-Burhan's
command, has provided the Brotherhood's worldview with a new institutional
incubator after the formal dissolution of its former ruling party. In effect,
the war has allowed the Brotherhood's defenders to re-enter the state through
the back door, under the cover of national defense.
A Proven Pattern: From al-Qaeda to the Present
This strategy is not new. The Brotherhood's wartime posture today mirrors its
behavior during the 1990s, when Sudan became one of the world's most important
hubs for transnational jihadist networks.
Under Brotherhood-dominated governance, Sudan hosted Osama bin Laden from 1991
to 1996, providing him safe haven, business opportunities, and operational
freedom. During this period, al-Qaeda established financial, agricultural, and
training infrastructure inside Sudan — facilitated by state protection.
The consequences were global. Sudan was later linked to:
The 1995 attempted assassination of Egypt's president in Ethiopia
The 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
The 2000 attack on the USS Cole
These links resulted in Sudan's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism — a
designation that would last for nearly three decades.
While the Brotherhood and al-Qaeda differed ideologically – with al-Qaeda
preferring armed struggles and the adherents of the Brotherhood preferring
gradual infiltration and political power – they converged tactically. Sudan
served as a permissive environment where extremist networks could operate with
minimal restraint. The lesson is clear: when empowered by the state, the covert
Brotherhood has historically enabled forces far more radical than itself.
Hamas, Finance, and the Infrastructure of Militancy
The Brotherhood's relationship with Hamas further illustrates its role as a
regional facilitator of militant movements.
Beginning in the early 1990s, Sudan hosted Hamas offices, personnel, and
investment vehicles. Brotherhood leader Hassan al-Turabi acted as a political
sponsor and mediator, helping Hamas consolidate its regional standing. Over
time, Hamas benefited from preferential business treatment, tax exemptions, and
unrestricted capital flows through Sudanese companies and charities.
After the fall of Omar al-Bashir in 2019, Sudanese authorities dismantled a
network of Hamas-linked companies, seizing real estate, agricultural land,
factories, media outlets, and financial firms valued in the tens of millions of
dollars. U.S. sanctions later confirmed that Sudanese-based financiers had
transferred approximately $20 million to Hamas through these structures.
Sudan was not merely a financial hub — it was a logistical corridor.
Iran: Pragmatic Alliance, Strategic Consequences
Despite Sunni-Shia differences, the Brotherhood's relationship with Iran was
driven by strategic pragmatism. Sudan served as a transit point for Iranian
weapons destined for Hamas, particularly between 2009 and 2012. Arms originating
in Iran and post-Gaddafi Libya moved through Sudan toward Gaza, contributing to
Israel's decision to strike Sudanese targets multiple times during that period.
For Iran, Sudan offered geographic reach. For the followers of the Brotherhood,
Iranian support provided leverage, resources, and regional relevance. Ideology
proved secondary to shared enemies and mutual utility.
The Core of al-Burhan's Regime
Taken together, these patterns lead to an unavoidable conclusion: the Muslim
Brotherhood is not an external influence on al-Burhan's regime — it is its
ideological and organizational backbone.
The Brotherhood affiliates supply:
Fighters and militias that reinforce the SAF
Intelligence and security expertise embedded in state institutions
Political justification for prolonged war
Regional networks capable of mobilizing finance, propaganda, and external
support
Al-Burhan's leadership, in turn, provides the Brotherhood loyalists with
legitimacy, arms, and access to the state — replicating the same bargain that
sustained Islamist rule under Omar al-Bashir.
This symbiosis explains why international pressure for negotiations has
repeatedly failed. Any meaningful transition to civilian rule would dismantle
the Brotherhood's reconstituted power — and that is precisely what the current
regime cannot afford.
Why This Matters for the United States
For U.S. policymakers, Sudan's crisis cannot be resolved by focusing solely on
personalities or battlefield dynamics. The structural role of the Muslim
Brotherhood must be confronted.
A regime such as Sudan's, whose core is built on a movement with a documented
history of hosting al-Qaeda, financing Hamas, cooperating with Iran, and
undermining democratic transitions, cannot serve as a reliable partner for
stability.
Ignoring this reality risks repeating the mistakes of the 1990s — when Sudan was
treated as a conventional state actor, even as it incubated networks that would
later destabilize the region and threaten U.S. interests.
Sudan's war has many fronts, but its center of gravity remains the same. Until
the grip of the Brotherhood's extremists on the state is broken, peace will
remain elusive — and instability will remain policy.
**Robert Williams is based in the United States.
© 2026 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute.
Washington’s Human Rights Sanctions Against Tehran Won’t Halt Regime Brutality
Janatan Sayeh & Bridget Toomey/FDD-Policy Brief/January 20/2026
The Trump administration issued its first round of Iran-related human rights
sanctions on January 15, almost three weeks after Iranians took to the streets
in the largest protests in the Islamic Republic’s history. Two days earlier,
President Donald Trump told the Iranian people demonstrating for regime change
to, “Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big
price.”Regime forces, supplemented by around 5,000 terrorists deployed from
Tehran’s network of regional militias, have slaughtered between 12,000 and
20,000 peaceful protestors with heavy military equipment. They have even
executed injured protestors inside hospitals. Despite this flagrant violation of
Trump’s red line, the ongoing violent crackdown, and the continuing internet
blackout, Iranians continue to protest.
Designation Names Serious Human Rights Abusers
The Treasury Department designated Ali Larijani, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme
National Security Council, for leading the violent crackdown at the behest of
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Treasury’s statement noted that, “Larijani was one
of the first Iranian leaders to call for violence in response to the legitimate
demands of the Iranian people.”The action also identified four commanders in
Iran’s Law Enforcement Forces and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) for
committing “multiple atrocities targeting Iranian civilians.” The designations
mark the first time that the current Trump administration has invoked a 2010
Executive Order entitled “Designating Iranian Officials Responsible for or
Complicit in Serious Human Rights Abuses.”As part of the Trump maximum pressure
campaign to cut off funding for the Islamic Republic, the designation also
included 18 individuals and entities involved in Iran’s illicit shadow banking
network, which finances the regime.
Security Forces Terrorize Families of Victims
Plainclothes regime forces and IRGC members have reportedly raided the homes of
protesters killed in recent demonstrations, fired shots into walls, verbally
abused family members, and pointedly emptied household refrigerators during
widespread food shortages and soaring prices.
Security officials also instructed families to appear at dawn to receive the
bodies of their slaughtered loved ones, ordering that burial ceremonies be
carried out individually and completed overnight to prevent large gatherings at
funerals. Families were threatened that failure to comply would result in the
bodies being buried in mass graves.
Authorities also demanded payment for the killings, charging 2.5 billion rials
per bullet fired at the victim, roughly $1,700, and imposing a fee of 7 billion
rials, about $4,700, for the release of a body.
Judiciary Reinforces Repression Through Legal Means
Iran’s Prosecutor General Mohammad Movahedi Azad, authorized the regime’s law
enforcement agencies to identify and report the assets of protesters. He claimed
that the measure was meant to function as a deterrent, calling on individuals
and companies claiming financial losses to submit documentation so that the
authorities can pursue punitive action against protesters and their supporters.
The head of the judiciary, Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei, declared that no
“leniency or tolerance” would be shown, promising expedited prosecutions while
praising the aggressive measures adopted by the armed forces. The judiciary has
also labeled unarmed protestors as “terrorists,” falsely accusing them of
operating on behalf of the U.S. and Israel. Protestors face the charge of
moharebeh (enmity against God) — a capital offense which the regime often uses
to justify the execution of political activists. These statements are not mere
threats. The Islamic Republic is the world’s highest per-capita executioner. In
2025, the regime carried out roughly 1,500 executions, nearly double the 975
recorded in 2024.
There Are High Costs to Inaction
Threats and condemnations can postpone executions, but they cannot prevent them
entirely. Failure to act decisively risks losing momentum on the ground,
squandering an unprecedented opportunity for the U.S. while the internal
legitimacy of the regime is eroded and its military weakened six months after
extensive Israeli and U.S. strikes. Non-kinetic measures such as cyber
operations and psychological operations can help, but to meaningfully aid
Iranians, the calculus on the ground must shift so that the regime’s apparatus
of repression faces a clear risk.
*Janatan Sayeh is a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies (FDD), where he focuses on Iranian domestic affairs and the Islamic
Republic’s regional malign influence. Bridget Toomey is a research analyst at
FDD, where she focuses on Iranian proxies. For more analysis from Janatan,
Bridget, and FDD, please subscribe HERE. Follow Janatan on X @JanatanSayeh and
Bridget @BridgetKToomey. Follow FDD on X @FDD and @FDD_Iran. FDD is a
Washington, DC-based, non-partisan research institute focused on national
security and foreign policy.
It’s Time To Rethink Al Udeid Air Base
Natalie Ecanow/FDD-Policy Brief/January 20/2026
It’s been a busy week at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. On January 14, the U.S.
military started evacuating some troops from America’s largest base in the
Persian Gulf region in anticipation of potential strikes against Iran. The U.S.
Embassy in Doha also advised staff to “limit non-essential travel” to Al Udeid.
However, the skies over Iran remained quiet, and U.S. troops began returning to
the base on January 15. Al Udeid hosts approximately 10,000 troops and is home
to U.S. Central Command’s (CENTCOM) forward headquarters. One day before issuing
these advisories, the U.S. inaugurated an air defense operations cell at Al
Udeid to “enhance integrated air and missile defense.” CENTCOM Commander Adm.
Brad Cooper said that the “cell will improve how regional forces coordinate and
share air and missile defense responsibilities across the Middle East.” While
improving coordination on regional security is laudable, it is a mistake to
saturate Qatar with U.S. military infrastructure.
Al Udeid Is in Iran’s Crosshairs
While the threat against the U.S. base may not have materialized this week, it
did last summer. In June, Iran launched a ballistic missile attack against Al
Udeid after the U.S. carried out strikes against Iran’s nuclear program. The
United States and Qatar successfully defended against the attack. A
congressional report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for
2026 acknowledged “the risk posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s missile and
drone capabilities to Al Udeid Air Base.”
Beyond Geography, Qatar Stands With Iran
As protests against the Iranian regime swelled, Qatar’s prime minister discussed
“advancing bilateral cooperation” between Doha and Tehran during a phone call on
January 13 with the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. He
had a similar conversation on January 15 with Iran’s foreign minister.
Meanwhile, Doha launched a full-court press to convince the United States to
hold its fire. Former Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al-Thani
said on January 13 that, “We disagree with Iran on many issues,” but that the
Trump administration, not the Iranian regime, must turn down the temperature in
the region. “There must be a unified Gulf position, if possible, to try to
persuade America to enter into serious and short negotiations to end the crisis
and tension,” he said. A Saudi source told the media that Saudi Arabia, Qatar,
and Oman “led a long, frantic, diplomatic last-minute effort to convince
President Trump to give Iran a chance to show good intention.”
It’s a Mistake To Place All of America’s Eggs in Qatar’s Basket
Qatar has indicated more than once that it doesn’t want the United States to
launch attacks against Iran from Al Udeid Air Base. Moreover, by concentrating
American military assets in Qatar, the United States grants Doha leverage over
American decision making — a reality made more dangerous by Qatar’s warm
relationship with the Islamic Republic. To mitigate the risks of concentrating
American military elements at Al Udeid, the Pentagon should replicate elsewhere
in the region some of the capabilities and functions housed at the base.
**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.
The Islamic Republic Kills, Europe Does Nothing
Janatan Sayeh/FDD-Policy Brief/January 20/2026
The EU and European nations — purely symbolically — called Iranian ambassadors
on January 13 to account for the Islamic Republic’s mass killing of as many as
12,000 unarmed demonstrators, even as protests against the regime continued. On
that day, the United Kingdom, European Union — and EU members Germany, Italy,
France, and Spain in an individual capacity — summoned the Islamic Republic’s
envoys to explain Tehran’s brutal behavior.
Tehran rejects the numbers and claims that the popular movement is contained,
but the internet remains shut down and security forces are stepping up patrols.
People are coming out despite the threat of bullets now or expedited trials that
could end in executions later.
Absent meaningful consequences for the Islamic Republic, summons and tongue
lashings have fallen flat, protecting no one and deterring nothing.
Killings in Iran Mirror Assad’s Mass Killings in Syria
Europe’s harsh disapproval also greeted the 2012 Houla massacre, when more than
100 civilians, including many children, were killed in central Syria. They were
murdered by a combination of heavy shelling and close-range executions — all
attributed to pro-regime forces. France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy,
Spain, and the Netherlands expelled Syrian diplomats in weak protest. Over the
next 12 years, Bashar al-Assad’s forces killed hundreds of thousands more.
This recent slaughter is not the first time the regime in Tehran has killed
innocent protesters, nor is this the first tepid response from Europe. The
Zahedan “Bloody Friday” massacre occurred amid the 2022 “Women, Life, Freedom”
movement, when security forces killed roughly 100 demonstrators, including at
least 17 children. In the 2019 Bloody November protests, authorities killed an
estimated 1,500 protesters nationwide, including about 150 in the Mahshahr
massacre.
Europe’s response to Assad’s early massacres was inadequate, yet the response to
Islamic Republic’s killing amounts to even less.
Iran Used EU-Made Weapons and Tech To Repress Protests
During the 2022 protest wave, shotgun cartridges bearing the logo of a
French-Italian manufacturer were recovered from streets where security forces
fired at demonstrators. Many were killed and hundreds were blinded or partially
blinded. The shells had somehow made their way into the country despite EU
sanctions imposed in 2011 that were intended to prohibit exporting equipment
usable for internal repression.
Islamic Republic authorities used Nokia Siemens Networks surveillance technology
in the late 2000s to keep an eye on dissidents. The EU-developed systems were
embedded in Iran’s telecom network, enabling security services to monitor
emails, phone calls, and online activity. During the 2009 protests that followed
the presidential election, the regime used this to identify activists and carry
out arrests.
Tehran Hunts Down Iranian Dissidents Across Europe
In 2024, the U.S. Treasury and the United Kingdom jointly sanctioned a network
tasked with assassinating Iranian dissidents and opposition activists in the UK
at Tehran’s behest. The network, led by Iran-based narcotics trafficker Naji
Sharif Zindashti, operated under the guidance of the Iranian Ministry of
Intelligence and carried out assassinations and kidnappings across multiple
European countries. The European Union sanctioned eight operatives tied to the
same network in July 2025 for transnational repression. Separately, Dutch
authorities accused Tehran of attempting to assassinate an Iranian dissident in
the Netherlands in 2024, while Metropolitan Police counterterrorism leadership
stated in 2023 that police and Britain’s intelligence agency, MI5, had foiled 15
Iranian plots to kidnap or kill UK-based dissidents.
Washington Should Push EU States To Cut Diplomatic Ties With Tehran
Europe has failed to impose meaningful consequences on Iran for its terror plots
across the continent, let alone for what has been done to the Iranian people at
home. Washington should press EU member states and the United Kingdom to expel
Iranian ambassadors and suspend diplomatic relations, mirroring the steps taken
against Assad’s regime during the civil war there. The United States should also
push the European Union and the United Kingdom to designate the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization for its role in repression
inside Iran and in plotting attacks on European soil.
Janatan Sayeh is a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies
(FDD), where he focuses on Iranian domestic affairs and the Islamic Republic’s
regional malign influence. For more analysis from the author and FDD, please
subscribe HERE. Follow Janatan on X @JanatanSayeh. Follow FDD on X @FDDand @FDD_Iran.
FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on
national security and foreign policy.
The U.S. Designation of Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood Needs
To Be Strengthened
Ahmad Sharawi/FDD-Policy Brief/January 20/2026
Following the U.S. designation of the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood as a
Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT), Jordan has accelerated its
crackdown on the Islamist group. The U.S. decision is a positive step, but not
enough. In the absence of parallel designations targeting Jordanian
Brotherhood-affiliated individuals and charities, several of which continue to
provide material support to Hamas, these networks continue to operate lawfully.
Jordanian authorities reportedly charged leaders of the Jordanian Brotherhood
with using funds raised for humanitarian relief in Gaza to provide financial
support to Hamas. Among those accused were the brotherhood’s General Inspector
Murad Adaileh, his deputy Ahmad Zarqan, and other members of the Shura Council,
the decision-making authority within the organization.
The charges followed an investigation by Jordanian authorities which discovered
that the Jordanian Brotherhood had funneled over $40 million to Hamas through a
clandestine financial network. According to the investigation, the Jordanian
Brotherhood relied on 44 affiliated associations and charitable fronts across
Jordan “under the guise of supporting Gaza.” Under Jordanian law, funds raised
for humanitarian purposes cannot be directed to non-charitable organizations
overseas or to domestic political campaigns.
Hamas’s Influence Within the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood
Over the past decade, Hamas has increased its influence within the Jordanian
Brotherhood. A 2017 assessment concluded that “Hamas worked in an organized
fashion with the Jordanian Brotherhood … injecting huge amounts of money to
recruit members,” steadily assembling a Hamas-aligned faction that came to
dominate the Shura Council. The Jordanian Brotherhood’s political wing, the
Islamic Action Front, which has not yet been sanctioned by Washington, even
leveraged its pro-Hamas stance during the Gaza war to secure an electoral
victory, exploiting the conflict to collect donations for the people in Gaza
without “any evidence of coordination with humanitarian or international relief
mechanisms.”
The Jordanian Brotherhood has been explicit in calling for Hamas to be permitted
to reopen its offices in Jordan, which were shuttered by the authorities in
1999. After the October 7, 2023, Hamas assault on Israel, brotherhood-affiliated
protesters often wore Hamas headbands, chanting in Arabic, “All of Jordan is
Hamas!”
Many Charities in Jordan Continue To Operate Despite Government Ban
After a Jordanian Brotherhood plot to manufacture rockets and drones was exposed
last year, the Jordanian authorities began targeting the organization through
the enforcement of a 2020 judicial ruling that banned it outright. Yet Jordanian
Brotherhood-affiliated organizations remain deeply entrenched across Jordan’s
education, health, and social services sectors, where they operate under the
guise of charitable work.
In June 2025, the government moved against one such entity, the Green Crescent
Charity, which specializes in foster care and the provision of educational,
social, and health care services to impoverished families. The charity is headed
by Hamzah Mansour, a senior Jordanian Brotherhood figure and former
parliamentarian affiliated with the Islamic Action Front. The organization was
deemed by the authorities to have violated Jordanian law by launching
fundraising campaigns without obtaining the required licenses. However, the
majority of the 44 affiliated entities identified by the investigation remain
operational. Amman has offered no explanation for why these organizations were
not targeted. Critically, the Islamic Charity Center Society, which is
considered the social welfare arm of the Jordanian Brotherhood, was spared.
The U.S. Should Target the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood’s Full Network,
Including Charities, Companies, and Individuals
Following the United States’ designation of the Jordanian Brotherhood, any
charity, company, or individual faces the risk of designation by the Treasury if
it provides material support to the organization, particularly through financial
assistance or fundraising. Charities, companies, or individuals acting on the
Jordanian Brotherhood’s behalf, including by serving as a representative, should
also be targeted alongside those it directly owns or controls.
*Ahmad Sharawi is a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies (FDD). For more analysis from Ahmad and FDD, please subscribe HERE.
Follow Ahmad on X @AhmadA_Sharawi. Follow FDD on X @FDD. FDD is a Washington,
DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and
foreign policy.
Trump’s hesitation on Iran: Why a prompt strike, even if only symbolic, is
crucial
Jacob Nagel/The Jerusalem Post/January 20/2026
The world, including Israel, went to sleep a few days ago with the understanding
and expectation of a significant American strike on Iran, following the brutal
suppression of protests, the indiscriminate killing of thousands (and perhaps
tens of thousands) of demonstrators, and President Donald Trump’s promises of
imminent assistance. Yet, despite all the signs, the world awoke to a reality in
which President Trump had still not struck, reminiscent of what happened in the
past under President Obama in Syria.
Because President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke during the day
preceding the “planned strike” (the call was confirmed by both Jerusalem and
Washington, though its content was not disclosed), reports began spreading on
social media like wildfire that Netanyahu had asked Trump to delay the strike,
or perhaps even not to strike at all, in order to give Israel time to prepare
for a response. As a result, inside those reports, responsibility for the fact
that the United States did not strike Iran was placed solely on Israel.
Regardless of whether these reports are true, partially true, or not true at
all, it is crucial to understand and internalize that the responsibility and the
decision rest with President Trump alone. This is a principled and highly
important decision, and even if he consults with the Prime Minister of Israel
and perhaps other leaders in the Middle East, anyone familiar with Trump and his
decision-making style must know that the decision, apparently still not taken,
resides solely between the President’s own ears.
In the days before the “planned strike’, we witnessed the materialization of all
the preliminary indicators leading to a strike: recommendations for Americans to
leave Iran, the evacuation of families and non-essential personnel from US bases
in the Gulf, the deployment of some critical assets in the region, and the
explicit threats by the President and his aides. Despite all this, the strike
has not yet taken place, likely due to internal debates within the
administration, stemming primarily from the difficulty of defining a clear
objective and a desired endgame outcome for a possible strike, of whatever scope
is chosen. There is no indication that the administration has defined a goal of
toppling the regime and replacing it, particularly since it is clear that the
right way to do it is through the Iranian people, not via an external actor.
The greatest danger is no strike at all
However, the great danger that must be prevented is that the chain of events
will lead to the United States ultimately not striking Iran at all, even
symbolically. In such a case, regardless of what was said in Netanyahu-Trump
conversations, Netanyahu will be blamed. Iranian protesters, who are already off
the streets out of fear of brutal repression, will conclude that they have no
one to rely on and that help will not come from any external actor;
consequently, they will not return to the streets.
President Trump, as part of his campaign for the Nobel Prize, will then declare
that thanks to his clear threats, calm has returned to the streets of Iran, and
now is the time to enter negotiations with Khamenei and his associates on all
disputed issues. This is a realistic and catastrophic scenario, because it is
clear how it would end. Not once in the past has entering the negotiating room
with Iran produced a good agreement, except for the Iranians.
Because this scenario is realistic and highly likely if there is no strike, and
because President Trump is apparently still deliberating, it must be made clear
to him, regardless of what was said in previous conversations, that he must
strike Iran. Preferably, there should be a broad American strike on
infrastructure facilities, regime institutions, and on the entities and
individuals who led the suppression of the protests. But even if a broad strike
is not approved, a symbolic strike may still avert the danger of drifting into
calm that leads to negotiations whose outcome would be highly problematic for
both the United States and Israel. If, despite this, the recommendation is not
accepted and we will arrive at an undesirable US–Iran negotiation, then after
the Israeli-US campaign that destroyed large parts of Iran’s nuclear
infrastructure, ballistic missiles, and drones, only one objective should remain
for negotiations: the complete dismantlement of whatever remains of the nuclear
and ballistic missiles programs and capabilities. We must not continue creating
illusions, partial and incremental agreements, and diplomatic “games”.
A new round of talks with Iran
The problem is that the president’s special envoy Witkoff, together with Jared
Kushner, are apparently pushing for a new round of talks with Tehran, inspired
by Qatar, Turkey, and even Saudi Arabia, and we must stop it in time.
Trump’s old ultimatum to Tehran was sharp and clear: “Accept the terms of the
United States or face the consequences.” This threat must remain, accompanied by
determination. Any entry into negotiations without clear preconditions that Iran
must fulfill could be dangerous. Now, after Iran’s capabilities have been
severely damaged and the state is close to security and economic collapse, the
threshold for entering talks must be very high. Any negotiations must begin only
after Iran meets concrete, verifiable preliminary demands.
Iran enriched uranium to high levels in violation of IAEA decisions, attacked
Israel directly from Iranian territory, and launched hundreds of ballistic
missiles, more than a thousand drones, and dozens of cruise missiles against
civilian and military targets. Iran must dismantle all nuclear infrastructure
and missile and UAV production infrastructure and sites, destroy existing
stockpiles, and halt any development of delivery systems capable of carrying
nuclear warheads, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that can
also threaten the United States.
In the past, Iran has specialized in exploiting diplomacy to buy time, deceive,
and mislead while continuing to advance its programs, as it is doing today,
focusing on building new underground capabilities that are currently presented
as benign but will, in the future, be outfitted with facilities to develop
nuclear and ballistic capabilities that cannot be struck from the air, according
to foreign reports. The United States must continue on the path President Trump
declared during the protests in Iran and provide the assistance and answers he
promised to Iranian citizens yearning for change. External support would
reignite the flames and the protests and might lead to the breaking of the
protective front shielding the current corrupt regime, and to its replacement by
the Iranian people.
**Brig. Gen. (res.) Jacob Nagel is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense
of Democracies (FDD) and a professor at the Technion. He served as National
Security Advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu and as the head of the National
Security Council (acting).
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-883616
Read in The Jerusalem Post
Is the new Turkish-Saudi-Pakistani defense pact an attempt at an Islamic NATO or
a strategic self-sabotage?
Sinan Ciddi, and William Doran/The National Interest/January 20/2026
The idea of a budding “Islamic NATO” under Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia
might seem bold and fresh in a period of Middle Eastern “realignment.” But don’t
dismiss it out of hand as the emergence of a symbolic new regional alliance: the
trilateral convergence risks creating conflicting security commitments. In the
event that a pact is signed, NATO’s southern flank might face strategic
incoherence if Ankara’s obligations were to diverge from the alliance’s
priorities, challenging coordination with Washington and European partners.
Given Pakistan’s status as a nuclear power, the pact could perpetuate strategic
ambiguities. Even if official language doesn’t extend Pakistan’s nuclear
umbrella to partners, the perception of potential nuclear backing for Saudi
Arabia—and, eventually, Turkey—could heighten crisis instability and
miscalculation risks. One disgruntled state is India. Pakistan’s contentious
relationship with India is well-established. India has already expressed concern
over the emergence of the Saudi-Pakistan pact signed in September 2025. Adding
Turkey, whose ties with India are already fraught, is likely to intensify
strategic competition across the wider Indo-Middle East corridor.
Perhaps most worryingly, the pact between the three Muslim states is likely to
be perceived and possibly marketed as a counter-balancing initiative to Israel
and the Abraham Accords signatory states, which in turn is a motivator to harden
security competition throughout the region that could “destabilize already
fragile balances, undermine existing deterrence frameworks, and sharply increase
risks for Israel and Western interests.”
Whose NATO Is Turkey Loyal To?
It would be mere hypocrisy to suggest Turkey is forbidden from seeking strategic
alliances outside of NATO, after all, some of the United States’ most important
allies are non-NATO countries. But despite some analysts’ insistence that
concern over Turkey’s reduced commitment to NATO is missing the point, Ankara
joining a defense pact with Riyadh and a nuclear-armed Islamabad is a serious
conflict of interest.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s interest in the so-called “Islamic NATO” is
based on his desire to maneuver against the alliance to which Turkey has been a
party for 74 years. This avoidance and rejection of responsibility are clear
divergences from the mutual defense agreements Washington has pursued beyond
NATO. This presents a major problem for three NATO priorities worldwide:
protecting democracy, nuclear nonproliferation, and counterterrorism.
Riyadh and Islamabad might not be explicit adversaries of NATO, but Ankara’s
building of a mutual defense alliance with them is a mockery of the founding
pillars of “democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law” enshrined in the
1949 North Atlantic Treaty. Instead, such a nascent collective defense pact may
evolve into a treaty system for undemocratic dominance in the Middle East,
eschewing and opposing the interests of the United States, NATO, Israel, and
other democratic partners.
In seeking an alternative collective security agreement that seeks to combine
Turkey’s defense industrial base with Pakistani nuclear weapons, Erdogan may
very well try to advance Turkish power by reaching for the bomb. Partnering with
a volatile nuclear state with a history of selling atomic secrets—if the name AQ
Khan comes to mind—brings Ankara closer to circumventing the Non-Proliferation
Treaty. After all, Erdogan has long complained that he “cannot accept” NATO’s
insistence that his authoritarian regime and others should not possess such
weapons.
If Turkey places its defense and security visions in this new axis, NATO’s
counterterrorism mission will be a serious casualty owing to “Islamic NATO’s”
remarkably poor record. Shortly after the War in Afghanistan began, in which
thousands of NATO soldiers gave their lives, Pakistan became a sponge for the
Taliban and Al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden spent years hiding in Pakistan with the
knowledge and tacit approval of Pakistani intelligence, while Washington spent
billions on aiding Islamabad in counterterrorism.
Even in the absence of split loyalties, Erdogan’s Turkey sabotaged the global
counter-ISIS mission at every turn. One must not forget how Erdogan let jihadist
foreign fighters pour through Turkey into Iraq and Syria wholesale, or how he
“responded” to ISIS’s rise by attacking the Syrian Kurds, one of the last lines
of defense against the caliphate of murder.
A Golden Opportunity for China
China has never had much of a military footprint in the Middle East, which has
prevented the United States from engaging in the kind of great power competition
(GPC) it faces in the Indo-Pacific. Beijing’s interest instead concentrates on
the Belt and Road Initiative’s (BRI) projects across the region. Given
Pakistan’s role in this network, the Chinese Communist Party stands to benefit
from the defense pact, risking the spread of Beijing’s influence to a new level
in the Middle East. Given the scope of US missions in regional peacebuilding,
counterterrorism, and nonproliferation, Washington hardly needs more GPC threats
to worry about.
Turkey’s Dangerous Defense Pivot ...Is the new Turkish-Saudi-Pakistani defense
pact an attempt at an Islamic NATO or a strategic self-sabotage?
Sinan Ciddi/The National Interest
Chinese military influence in Pakistan is difficult to understate. In 2024, 81
percent of Pakistan’s arms imports came from China, with Islamabad and Beijing
inching closer together against growing US-India ties. This reliance makes
Pakistan the springboard for China to exploit the “Islamic NATO’s” acquisition
of US and NATO military technology.
Throughout BRI installations in Pakistan, China has deployed private military
contractors (PMCs) and members of the Ministry of State Security––Beijing’s
intelligence agency––and made the entire South Asian state a listening post. As
Saudi Arabia prepares to acquire both US-made F-35s and Sino-Pakistani JF-17s
for its air force, streamlined Pakistani-Saudi defense gets Chinese spies one
step closer to America’s sensitive military secrets.
Turkey’s NATO technologies and capabilities are just as vulnerable to Chinese
espionage under a collective defense agreement with Pakistan. Erdogan’s
never-ending quest to obtain F-35s notwithstanding, he has embraced the BRI and
touted his “Turkish dream” as a pursuit hand-in-hand with Xi Jinping’s “Chinese
dream” of global dominance. Erdogan’s subscription to the false promises of a
“benevolent” world order under Beijing’s auspices, combined with his penchant
for double-crossing NATO allies, should sound alarm bells across the Atlantic.
About the Authors: Sinan Ciddi and William Doran
Sinan Ciddi is a senior fellow on Turkey at the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies (FDD) in Washington, DC. Sinan has over two decades of research
experience focused on Turkish domestic politics and foreign policy, with bylines
in Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, Politico, Newsweek, The National Interest,
and 19FortyFive. He frequently provides commentary on various media outlets,
including BBC, CNN International, DW News, France 24, the Greek Current Podcast,
and CBS’s John Batchelor Show. Sinan is also an associate professor of national
security studies at Marine Corps University and an adjunct professor at
Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service.
**William Doran is a student at Georgetown University Walsh School of Foreign
Service and a research intern at the Turkey Program at the Foundation for the
Defense of Democracies.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/silk-road-rivalries/turkeys-dangerous-defense-pivot
Iran: Accelerated or Deferred Wars
Dr. Nassif Hitti/Asharq Al-Awsat/January
20/2026
After most had expected an imminent US/Israeli strike on Iran, it never
materialized. Matters have calmed somewhat for now, but questions around the
scale and timing of such a strike remain. Would it send a deterrent message to
Iran intended to compel a shift in its regional policy? Or, as others imagine,
would the goal be to pursue an open-ended, fully-fledged war to overthrow the
regime? This latter scenario, toppling the regime with a knockout blow, remains
unlikely given the nature of its political system and the regime’s ideological,
political, and military composition. However, the regime could be weakened, and
its top brass could be left to face difficult choices, which would further
contribute to undermining it. Changes in the region, most notably the change in
Syria, have undoubtedly significantly weakened Tehran’s hand, and thus its
strategic influence in the “power game” of the Levant. Of course, the
repercussions of the Israeli war are also significant; this is a war of
attrition on Lebanon, which remains unconstrained, as Lebanon has borne and
continues to bear heavy losses. One must also add the changes that have occurred
in Lebanon itself: the new authorities (presidency and government) have
repeatedly stressed that establishing a monopoly on arms is a priority for
allowing the state to regain its natural role as the sole authority to make
decisions of war and peace. Despite the difficulties, and notwithstanding some
progress in this area, it remains a top priority for the authorities and enjoys
broad popular support under the banner of moving toward reviving the 1949
Armistice Agreement, and ending Lebanon’s function as a “mailbox” in regional
conflicts.
Returning to the scenarios of a war on Iran, the objective of the US appears to
remain changing Iran’s policies, particularly in foreign political and security
regional affairs - that is what matters most to the international forces
confronting Tehran, more so than domestic issues like popular uprising, which
rang the alarm about domestic economic and livelihood challenges in particular.
These are challenges the authorities must address pragmatically if they are to
set the country on a path toward building stability rather than denying reality.
Even if the crisis can be contained for a short period, it would not be durably
resolved so long as the underlying causes of domestic social tensions remain
unresolved.
Many Arab and regional parties seeking stability in the Gulf and the Middle East
are working to mediate, contain the situation, halt escalation, and avert a war
that could lead to many possibilities. The triad of the “nuclear issue,”
“ballistic missiles,” and “proxies” involved in regional conflicts are the broad
themes of the so-called “6+1” negotiations, though they are nominally “the
nuclear issue.” These negotiations stumbled, stopped, and then began to return
in different forms and formulas, both direct and indirect.
At this sensitive stage of the confrontation and amid multiple possible
trajectories, there is a race between dialogue and conflict on the Iranian
front. President Trump’s insistence on “zero nuclear enrichment” in Iran is
among the most complex issues on the negotiating table, should talks resume.
Tehran categorically rejects this demand, insisting instead on its right to
enrichment under the terms and rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It
should be recalled that Iran now possesses enough enriched uranium to raise
enrichment levels to 90 percent, and thereby enter the nuclear club, within
months.
The American proposal to establish a regional enrichment center in the Gulf, in
which Iran would participate, presents an alternative to enrichment on Iranian
soil that has also been categorically rejected by Tehran. The role of Israel is
also a factor. A decisive question, at this highly complex regional moment, is
whether Israel can push Washington toward a war with Iran despite their
divergent priorities in the region. All these questions remain on indirect and
direct negotiation tables, and they are interconnected. Will rising tension,
accompanied by necessary yet insufficient signals of de-escalation we see from
time to time, reinforce containment and allow for a gradual return to
negotiations being the only option? Will we witness “limited wars” that send
messages and threats through controlled escalation? Or will we see an open-ended
war whose repercussions could extend beyond the immediate Iranian strategic
geographical theater, albeit to varying degrees? Could this be followed by a
return to negotiations under any framework? These are all questions that the
coming days, both near and farther ahead, will answer.
The Cheapest Solution
Samir Atallah/Asharq Al-Awsat/January 20/2026
Once again, diplomacy is advancing as a better solution than the costs and
horrors of war. In Iran, where Donald Trump was convinced by his allies' vision
of striking Iran. And in Greenland, where the small Kingdom of Denmark informed
the American President that the Arctic island is a sovereign part of it, as the
United States has recognized for a hundred years. The island's prime minister
informed the White House that the people who elected him believe that it is part
of Denmark, not America.
Europe quickly adopted the position of its Scandinavian partner, based on the
provisions of international law and the charters of the United Nations. No one
in Europe can agree to a precedent of this magnitude, because it opens the doors
to the dismantling of Europe again. It is, after all, a group of warring
kingdoms, duchies, and fiefdoms that knew no peace, and the diplomatic
alternative only after two world wars. The difference is enormous between the
two teams facing Trump: volcanic Iran in every direction, and Denmark snoozing
on the seas of ice from Europe to the Pole that has no end to its frost.
Diplomatic action was invented to save humanity from the barbarity of
annihilation. So that wars are the last resort. The results of both are the same
in all ages, and no matter how different or developed the weapons are. How
unfortunate that Iran chose from the beginning a policy of hostility everywhere.
It imposed on its entire neighborhood a climate of conflict and disagreement.
And it found in the "Road to Jerusalem" the pretext that the Arabs had
previously raised in their conflicts, and not in the conflict with Israel.
The attempts made by Arab countries have given diplomacy another chance before
the strike or explosion. Those who compared the situation in Iran with the
situation in Greenland missed the biggest difference, which is geography. The
Latin neighborhood is one thing, and the latent flames of the Middle East are
another, and the possibilities of fire in both cases are quite real: one with
limited fire, and the other that could drag half the world along with America.
Exciting Developments in the Yemeni File
Amal Abdulaziz al-Hazzani/Asharq Al-Awsat/January 20/2026
The statement by the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) on
the involvement of 21 individuals and entities in financing the Houthi militia
was shocking. The statement said the targeted individuals form the financial and
logistical infrastructure that enables the Houthis to continue their military
operations and threaten navigation in the Red Sea. The sanctions imposed by the
Treasury were under Executive Order "13224" concerning counter-terrorism.
The statement was a surprise to many, even to those who had suspicions for
years. We have known since the beginning of the war a decade ago that the
Houthis possessed only primitive weapons, and their combat experience did not
extend beyond tribal infighting. Moreover, they had no military or intelligence
training. The situation changed after Iran sent its advisors and advanced
weapons, including medium- and long-range missiles, to Yemen. The Houthis
transformed from a faction owning rifles and pistols into a well-armed and
highly trained militia. Riyadh made every political effort to resolve the Yemeni
crisis peacefully according to the outcomes of negotiations agreed upon by all
Yemenis. These outcomes have become part of United Nations resolutions. However,
the Houthis did not comply because they are not the masters of their own fate as
Iran controls their actions.
The question here is: Did Saudi Arabia need a coalition to support the
legitimacy in Yemen? And what is the nature of the need? Military? Political?
Financial? Saudi Arabia decided to form the coalition out of a desire for an
Arab movement to act against the dismantling of Yemen, the wasting of its
capabilities, and the destruction of the future of its children. Riyadh received
a response from several countries at the time, and yet, it did not really need
any assistance from any country.
From a military perspective, no country in the coalition that was established in
2015 has the military capabilities that the Kingdom possesses. Its air force
rivals Israel's, it has ground forces in Hadramout, and its naval forces possess
advanced monitoring equipment.
On the political level, the Houthi threat gives the Kingdom the right to defend
its territories. It explained its position to the UN, which in turn issued
resolutions based on negotiations organized by the Kingdom between the parties
to the conflict. Financial and logistical support and the provision of the
necessities of life for Yemenis and health and education projects... etc., are
guaranteed by the King Salman Humanitarian Aid and Relief Center. Saudi Arabia
has spent billions of dollars to protect Yemenis from the horrors of war.
Practically, Saudi Arabia did not need any country, except that it wanted the
coalition to be an Arab entity that supports legitimacy in Yemen.
Before the US statement, the Southern Transitional Council, which claimed to
protect the right of southerners to establish an independent state,
disintegrated, and it became clear that some of its leaders were opportunists
with their own personal goals. The dissolution of the STC turned out to be a
blessing because it allowed the realignment of the loyal southern leaders under
one cause. Today, the southern leaders are consulting in Riyadh to pursue their
interests away from intrusive parties or figures seeking their personal
benefits.
As for the Houthis, who are the main issue, we must remember that years ago, the
Saudi Air Force could have destroyed Sanaa and Saada in an hour. The only reason
that prevented it from doing so was the safety of the people. The Houthis are
known to using people as human shields, a well-known Iranian strategy that is
used by Hezbollah and Hamas. The reality is that despite refocusing attention on
the southern cause and the need to resolve it, and with the revelations about
the Houthis' source of funding, the Yemeni cause has become more complicated,
especially with foreign parties seeking to drag Yemen into the conflicts of
other countries and involving Israel as an influential party. The Yemenis are
the owners of their land and if they themselves don't want to save their country
from war, then no one, no matter their good intentions, will be able to help
them.
A Fragile Year in Office for Lebanon’s President… Amid
Global Earthquakes!
Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Al-Awsat/January 20/2026
A year into the term of Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, the debate rages on in a
political environment that can hardly agree on a vision or an approach, and a
population that harsh experiences have not taught the importance of reaching a
bare minimum consensus.
Today, Lebanon’s problems seem like a drop in the ocean of the region’s
troubles, indeed the troubles of the world as a whole. Let us begin from our
immediate surroundings and then move farther afield: geographically, no
countries are closer to Lebanon than Syria and Israel. While the shadow of the
Assads (father and son) has gone after decades, the situation with Israel is
entirely different. Syria is a fraternal entity, indeed a twin. That, of course,
has never been the case for the “relationship” with Israel since it was
established on the ruins of Palestine, its identity, and the interests of its
people, Arab brothers to the Lebanese people, after the Nakba of 1948. Indeed,
Lebanon and the Lebanese have long stood by their brothers and sisters, and have
paid, and continue to pay, the price for Israel’s insistence on erasing
Palestinian identity and denying Palestinians their human and political rights.
The ongoing assaults on Lebanese territory, including Palestinian refugee camps,
led to the emergence of resistance movements- Arab nationalist and leftist
before they acquired an Islamic identity with direct support from Iran through
Hezbollah.
Today, however, Iran itself finds itself “at the eye of the storm.” Israel
succeeded in weakening Hezbollah and cutting off supplies through Syria
following the fall of the Assad regime. Accordingly, developments in Iran will
inevitably affect Lebanon and others across the Near East. There is also a
broader dilemma: the “fate” of a regional actor the size of Iran, with its
influence, reach, and the cultural and sectarian loyalties tied to it. One of
the real dangers in the region, particularly for Arab states neighboring Iran,
lies in what current developments will produce, regardless of the final outcome.
The “virus” of a fragmented and divided Iran will not necessarily be confined to
its territory; the contagion may spread among all of its ethnic, linguistic,
religious, and sectarian components beyond its borders. At that point, redrawing
maps becomes very likely.
Conversely, if the major adversaries of the Tehran regime, led by the
“Washington–Tel Aviv axis,” succeed in toppling the “rule of the mullahs” while
preserving the state under a Persian nationalist leadership like that of the
former shah’s regime—the prospects for reassuring coexistence with Arab
neighbors may be slim. Here, history stands as a witness: the era of the
“policeman of the Gulf,” the problems of the Shatt al-Arab, and the occupied
Gulf islands.
These memories are not easy to erase, and will most likely never be erased if
Israel’s Likud imposes its vision for the region’s future and presses ahead,
fragmenting any large, viable entity across West Asia.
Accordingly, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon (and of course the Gulf states and the
Arabian Peninsula, not to mention Türkiye and Egypt) will feel the impact of
events in Iran, whatever the final outcome.
In other words, the “regional order” is now facing a serious and dangerous test.
It could disappear before a clear vision of an alternative order has had time to
mature. We are no stronger than Europe, which wakes up and goes to sleep
anxious. There too, a “regional order” has been threatened with collapse since
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s intervention in Ukraine and then US President
Donald Trump’s intervention in Venezuela.
In Europe as a whole, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) stands on
the brink of the abyss. The island of Greenland is turning into a “detonator”
that could wipe out all the political convictions around which political elites
and networks of strategic interests were shaped. Yesterday, Canadian Prime
Minister Mark Carney, whose country shares the longest land border with the
United States, broke one a taboo by concluding a series of massive trade
agreements with China. Western analysts immediately interpreted this step as a
“practical response” to Washington’s demand that Canada become the 51st US
state. Likewise, the successive signals of “solidarity” with Denmark by a number
of Western European countries over Greenland point to the collapse of trust in
the United States, their strongest Western ally. It is well known that these two
factors have changed the calculus of Europe’s institutional elites, who sense a
degree of “harmony” between Presidents Trump and Putin. The European–American
scene has grown even more complex with the decline of many moderate parties (on
the right, center, and left) in Western Europe and the rise of the hard right
across the continent. In parallel with this rise, the far right has won several
battles in Latin America, while ambiguity around the BRICS, the silent political
and economic bloc, remains. Many eyes are now fixed on the options available to
BRICS, especially on whether Washington can weaken China’s momentum by prying
India away from the group. Beyond all of that, the future of Africa will be
particularly intriguing.
Israel Won the War, So Why Is the Muslim Brotherhood Winning the
Peace?
Hussain Abdul-Hussain/This is Beirut/January 20, 2026
The new regional order taking shape appears to be a haunting inversion of the
post-9/11 era. At the time, the U.S. smashed Sunni powers, the Taliban and
Saddam Hussein, incidentally empowering Iran and its sprawling proxy network.
Washington even called Shia Islamism the more “reasonable” alternative and
partnered with Tehran against Sunni jihadists. Today, Washington is poised to
make a similar mistake. Hamas’s October 7 massacres of at least 1,200 Israelis
shattered illusions about the rationality of Iran’s so-called “Axis of
Resistance,” and spurred Jerusalem to deliver crushing blows to Tehran and its
proxies. Having witnessed the destruction of the Shia axis, Washington is
betting on different iterations of the Muslim Brotherhood as a "moderate"
counterweight. Sunni jihadis, turbocharged by Qatar’s soft power, are now
rushing to fill the regional power void.The collapse of the Iranian-led Shia
Islamist order has been swift. In Lebanon, Hezbollah's diminished influence
opened doors for the new government, which has yet to grasp the opportunity. In
Syria, the fall of the Assad regime in late 2024—starved of Iranian support—led
to a rapid takeover by Islamist forces led by Ahmad al-Sharaa. While Sharaa has
traded his fatigues for business suits and rebranded his movement as a
technocratic administration, his group’s jihadist DNA casts a shadow over Syria
and the region. Ideally, the collapse of Iran’s proxy network should have
strengthened the Abraham Accords, with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and
Morocco having already provided the blueprint for normalization with Israel,
pragmatic governance, and economic modernization. Yet, the post-war reality has
tilted toward a repackaged version of radical Sunni jihadism. Qatar and Turkey
have been the architects of this shift. Leveraging its vast natural gas wealth,
Doha has funneled tens of billions into regional influence, positioning itself
as the indispensable mediator and financier of the new Levant. In Syria, Qatar
and Turkey have emerged as the primary backers of the Sharaa government,
providing debt settlements and infrastructure investment that have effectively
bought the new regime’s legitimacy. While the West has offered sanctions relief
in the name of humanitarian stability, it has inadvertently subsidized the rise
of an Islamist-leaning state. In Gaza, the dynamic is equally perilous.
Qatar and Turkey have successfully redirected the international discourse from
"disarmament" to "reconstruction." Billions in aid, ostensibly for civilian
welfare, are flowing through networks that critics argue sustain the very Muslim
Brotherhood ideology that birthed Hamas.
In Lebanon, while the government fails to disarm Shia Hezbollah, the Sunni
loyalists of Sharaa are surging. Civil war is brewing as the Lebanese state
continues going in circles. Sharaa in Syria and Muslim Brotherhood affiliates in
Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen are performing a masterclass in "taqiyya," feigning
moderation to secure Western aid and diplomatic recognition while consolidating
Islamist control locally. Once entrenched, these groups will inevitably revert
to their true aims. Their core ideology remains fundamentally incompatible with
the existence of a Jewish state or Western liberal influence. By embracing
Turkey and Qatar’s vision for the region, the U.S. is enabling a rollback of the
progress made by the Abraham Accords. Even in Saudi Arabia, where modernization
has been the watchword, the creeping influence of a triumphant Sunni Islamist
bloc has blocked the drive toward normalization. Saudi press and social media
are now on an all-out campaign against both the U.S. and Israel. Washington must
reverse course before the Muslim Brotherhood’s "peace" becomes as deadly as
Hamas’s war. The U.S. should treat the emerging Muslim Brotherhood sphere of
power as a strategic threat comparable to the Iranian axis. Support must be
redirected exclusively to non-Islamist governments, and reconstruction aid must
be conditioned on the absolute disarmament of militant groups and a formal
rejection of Brotherhood ideology.
Israel’s battlefield victories have provided a rare, historic opportunity to
cleanse the region of extremist vetoes. If the U.S. allows Qatar and Turkey to
fill the void with "Islamism Lite," Washington will soon find that it has merely
traded one existential threat for another. Only by championing the pragmatic,
inclusive model of the Abraham Accords can the Middle East finally achieve a
lasting peace.
Selected Face Book & X tweets/
January 20/2026