English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News
& Editorials
For January 24/2026
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news
The Bulletin's Link on the
lccc Site
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2026/english.january 24.26.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
Then Jesus summoned his twelve disciples and gave
them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to cure every disease
and every sickness
Saint Matthew 10/01-07/:”Then Jesus summoned his twelve disciples and
gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to cure every
disease and every sickness. These are the names of the twelve apostles: first,
Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and
his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax-collector;
James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot,
the one who betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent out with the following
instructions: ‘Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the
Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go,
proclaim the good news, “The kingdom of heaven has come near.”
Titles For The Latest English LCCC
Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published
on January
23-24/2026
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
Israeli tank fires near Lebanese army and UNIFIL patrol amid escalating tensions
Drone strikes miss car twice in southwest Baalbek
Israel holds drill for 'emergency scenarios' on Lebanon border
Aoun asks Council for South to offer aid to residents affected by Israeli
attacks
Aoun says state 'obligated' to assist 'our people' displaced by war
Berri after meeting Aoun: Our meetings are always excellent
Pro-Hezbollah journalists summoned over anti-Aoun remarks
Lebanon PM says IMF wants rescue plan changes as crisis deepens
Report: US, Vatican, Israel and Iran discussing Hezbollah in Oman
AUB President among 100 most influential people in oncology in 2025
Salam, Macron Discuss Lebanese Sovereignty, Security and Reforms in Paris
Salam Says Lebanon to Expand State Control as International Confidence Grows
Yoav Gallant: Lebanon at a Crossroads
The Dhimmis and the “Umarian Conditions”/Colonel Charbel Barakat/January 23/2026
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous
Reports And News published
on January
23-24/2026
Video- Link to an interview with Dr. Walid Phares, Middle East Expert:
"Something BIG is About To Go Down in Iran..."
Trump launches Board of Peace, Gaza looms as test case while questions linger
about scope
Huckabee: UN risks irrelevance due to ‘incompetence,’ Board of Peace not a
‘threat’
Trump says ‘armada’ heading towards Iran as Guards chief warns US, Israel
‘Iran will find out when it’s time’: Huckabee warns Tehran may face new US
action
US to deploy aircraft carrier and military assets to Middle East amid Iran
tensions
US, in control of oil dollars, heaps pressure on Iraq over Iranian influence
UK’s Starmer calls Trump’s remarks on allies in Afghanistan ‘frankly appalling’
Top US military general visited Syria’s front lines to ensure ceasefire with SDF
Take back and prosecute your jailed Daesh militants, Iraq tells Europe
How the US controls Iraq’s oil revenues
Iraq PM says European countries should take back IS detainees
Europeans among 150 high-ranking IS members transferred to Iraq
134,000 displaced in northeast Syria after clashes between govt, Kurds
Syria’s interior ministry says took over al-Aktan prison
Syrian government says it controls prison in Raqqa with Daesh-linked detainees
Turkey celebrates as Syrian government makes gains against Kurdish-led force
Israel aims to ensure more Palestinians are let out of Gaza than back in
Kushner's vision for rebuilding Gaza faces major obstacles
Ukraine, Russia, US teams to discuss territory in UAE
Russia, Ukraine sit for tense talks in UAE on thorny territorial issue
At least 5,002 killed in Iran protests as Trump says US 'armada' approaching
Mexico weighs stopping oil shipments to Cuba amid concerns of Trump retaliation:
Sources
Titles For The Latest English LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous
sources published
on January
23-24/2026
'If the
Bad Guys Start Shooting, It Comes Over Greenland' vs. Europe's Strategic
Myopia/Pierre Rehov/Gatestone Institute/January 23, 2026
The mission behind Trump’s Board of Peace is simple — and critics keep getting
it wrong/Jonathan Schanzer/New York Post/January 23, 2026
Over the Barrel of a Gun: Syria’s Deal With the SDF/Ahmad Sharawi/Real Clear
World/January 23/2026
Trump Administration Should Be Wary of Granting Qatar and Turkey Executive Power
in Gaza/Aaron Goren & Ben Cohen/FDD-Policy Brief/January 23, 2026 |
Erdogan chooses the ayatollahs over the Iranian people/Sinan Ciddi/Washington
Examiner/January 23/2026
US Treasury sanctions entities for supporting Hamas/Joe Truzman/FDD's Long War
Journal/January 23/2026 |
Question: When is civil disobedience allowed for a Christian?/GotQuestions.org/January
23/2026 |
Morocco takes centre stage in global peace architecture at Davos/Said Temsamani/The
Arab Weekly/January 23/2026
Why Israel will not intervene to overthrow the Iranian regime/David
Powell/January 23/2026
Peace for Land, Not Land for Peace/Hussain Abdul-Hussain/Algemeiner
bloggers/January 23/2026
Selected Face Book & X tweets/ January 23/2026
The Latest English LCCC
Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published
on January
23-24/2026
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.
Israeli tank fires near
Lebanese army and UNIFIL patrol amid escalating tensions
NAJIA HOUSSARI/Arab News/January 23, 2026
BEIRUT: An Israeli tank opened fire near a joint Lebanese army and UNIFIL patrol
on Friday afternoon, in the latest incident to heighten tensions along the Blue
Line. The tank shell reportedly landed near Wadi Al-Asafir, south of the town of
Khiam, where the Lebanese army and UNIFIL were conducting a field operation. The
fire was said to have come from a newly established Israeli position in the
Hamams area, according to eyewitnesses. A Lebanese military source told Arab
News: “This is not the first time Israeli forces have targeted Lebanese army and
UNIFIL units. Similar incidents have occurred during operations south of the
Litani River, and UNIFIL has previously issued statements condemning such
actions.”Earlier on Friday, an Israeli drone fired three missiles at a vehicle
in Baalbek, eastern Lebanon, in a failed assassination attempt. Witnesses said
the first strike hit a car traveling on the Majdaloun-Baalbek road. The driver,
believed to be Palestinian, managed to escape, tossing his phone out before
parking near Dar Al-Amal Hospital. The drone fired a second missile that missed,
resulting in material damage only. A third strike followed, but the target was
not injured. The attacks come amid renewed Israeli skepticism over Lebanon’s
efforts to confiscate weapons south of the Litani River. Israeli officials
dismissed Beirut’s recent announcement of completing the first phase of the
disarmament plan as a “media stunt to buy time.” Lebanese officials insisted
that progress was being made under a phased national strategy backed by
international partners. On Friday, President Joseph Aoun met with Parliament
Speaker Nabih Berri to address the Israeli escalation, which this week included
the bombing of residential areas north of the Litani River, displacing dozens of
families. Aoun has faced mounting criticism from Hezbollah-aligned activists for
his repeated insistence on the state’s exclusive authority over arms. A social
media campaign launched Thursday accused the president of betraying the
resistance, using defamatory language in videos widely circulated online.
Despite the backlash, Berri is said to be supportive of Aoun’s position. A
Lebanese official told Arab News, “Berri continues to play a mediating role and
agrees that the real problem lies in the lack of international pressure on
Israel to respect the ceasefire and end its violations.”Aoun told a visiting
delegation from the Southern Border Towns Association on Friday that Lebanon’s
stability is impossible without security in the south. “We are coordinating with
the army to reinforce their presence in the border villages,” he said. “Our
primary demand in the mechanism meetings remains the safe return of displaced
residents and the release of prisoners.”Meanwhile, the Public Prosecutor’s
Office has begun summoning individuals accused of insulting Aoun online,
including journalist Hassan Alik, who failed to appear on Friday. The
Presidential Palace told Arab News that the president had not filed a complaint
and that the judiciary acted independently in accordance with Lebanese law,
which criminalizes insults against the head of state. Alik’s lawyer, Alia
Moallem, filed a legal memorandum arguing that the summons violated the
constitution and press laws, stating the remarks fall within the scope of
journalistic work and freedom of expression.In a statement, the Lebanese Press
Editors Syndicate urged journalists to uphold responsible discourse during this
sensitive time, while reaffirming the importance of safeguarding freedom of
speech under Lebanese law.
Drone strikes miss car
twice in southwest Baalbek
Naharnet/January 23/2026
Two Israeli drone strikes missed twice on Friday their target, a car on a road
in southwest Baalbek. The strikes in Majdaloun and later in Douris only caused
material casualties, media reports said.LBCI said the strikes were Israel's
third attempt to target a military official from a Palestinian organization over
the past year, in different regions in Lebanon.
Under heavy U.S. pressure and fears of expanded Israeli strikes, Lebanon has
committed to disarming Hezbollah. But Israel has criticized the Lebanese Army's
progress as insufficient and has kept up regular strikes, usually saying it is
targeting members of the Iran-backed group or its infrastructure.
Israel holds drill for 'emergency scenarios' on Lebanon
border
Naharnet/January 23/2026
After two years of operations in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli army’s 401st
armored brigade completed its first brigade exercise on the northern border with
Lebanon, the Israeli army said. The Israeli military added that the exercise
aims to maintain and strengthen readiness for “a variety of emergency scenarios
and for the mission of protecting the communities on the Lebanese border.”The
exercise included “enemy-like scenarios, multi-scene defense events, evacuation
of wounded under fire, and provision of a logistical and technological response
in an emergency,” the army said.
Aoun asks Council for South to offer aid to residents
affected by Israeli attacks
Naharnet/January 23/2026
President Joseph Aoun held a meeting Friday in Baabda with Hashem Haidar, the
head of the state-run Council for South Lebanon. Haidar briefed the president on
the measures taken by the council to assist the residents of the southern
villages who have been affected by the Israeli attacks, the Presidency said in a
statement. Aoun for his part called on the council to continue offering aid and
anything needed by the residents, especially in terms of housing, nutrition and
health care.
Aoun says state 'obligated' to assist 'our people'
displaced by war
Naharnet/January 23/2026
President Joseph Aoun said he is incessantly urging the international community
to pressure Israel to halt its attacks on Lebanon, and that Lebanon's priority
is the return of the residents to their border villages and the release of
detainees from Israeli prisons.
"Lebanon cannot be safe without the safety of its South," Aoun told Friday a
delegation of the citizens displaced by war. "You are our people, and the state
is obligated to assist you." Aoun vowed that he will discuss reconstruction aid
and compensation with Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and Finance Minister Yassine
Jaber. "I agree with the Speaker and the Prime Minister on the necessity of
alleviating your suffering; this is our national duty," he said.
Berri after meeting Aoun: Our meetings are always excellent
Naharnet/January 23/2026
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri said Friday, after meeting with President Joseph
Aoun in Baabda, that his meetings with Aoun are "always excellent".The meeting
comes amid recent tensions between Hezbollah and the President over his
commitment to disarm the group. Berri and Aoun discussed the Israeli attacks on
south and east Lebanon and ways to help the residents of war-destroyed border
villages to return home, by providing the necessary support until they do.
Pro-Hezbollah journalists summoned over anti-Aoun remarks
Naharnet/January 23/2026
Pro-Hezbollah journalist Hassan Olleik said Friday he will not appear before
criminal investigators, after he was summoned by the Central Criminal
Investigation Department, over a video he posted on his platform, al-Mahatta, in
which he criticized President Joseph Aoun.Olleik accused Aoun of purchasing from
Serbia defective arms for the army under his command before being elected for
presidency. In a post on the X platform, Olleik said he will not appear before
the criminal investigators and that as a journalist, he should only be tried
before the Publications Court. Ali Berro, another pro-Hezbollah journalist and
social media influencer, was also summoned by Prosecutor General Jamal al-Hajjar
for attacking Aoun in a social media video recorded near the Baabda Palace.
Lebanon PM says IMF wants
rescue plan changes as crisis deepens
Reuters/January 23, 2026
DAVOS, Switzerland: The International Monetary Fund has demanded amendments to a
draft rescue law aimed at hauling Lebanon out of its worst financial crisis on
record and giving depositors access to savings frozen for six years, Prime
Minister Nawaf Salam said. The “financial gap” law is part of a series of reform
measures required by the IMF in order to access its funding and aims to allocate
the losses from Lebanon’s 2019 crash between the state, the central bank,
commercial banks and depositors. Salam told Reuters the IMF wants clearer
provisions in the hierarchy of claims, which is a core element of the draft
legislation designed to determine how losses are allocated. “We want to engage
with the IMF. We want to improve. This is a draft law,” Salam said in an
interview at the World Economic Forum annual meeting in the Swiss mountain
resort of Davos. “They wanted the hierarchy of claims to be clearer. The talks
are all positive,” Salam added. In 2022, the government put losses from the
financial crisis at about $70 billion, a figure that analysts and economists
forecast is now likely to be higher. Salam stressed that Lebanon is still
pushing for a long-delayed IMF program, but warned the clock is ticking as the
country has already been placed on a financial ‘grey list’ and risks falling
onto the ‘blacklist’ if reforms stall further. “We want an IMF program and we
want to continue our discussions until we get there,” he said, adding:
“International pressure is real ... The longer we delay, the more people’s money
will evaporate.”The draft law, which was passed by Salam’s government in
December, is under parliamentary review. It aims to give depositors a guaranteed
path to recovering their funds, restart bank lending, and end a financial crisis
that has left nearly a million accounts frozen and confidence in the system
shattered.
The roadmap would repay depositors up to $100,000 over four years, starting with
smaller accounts, while launching forensic audits to determine losses and
responsibility. Lebanon’s Finance Minister Yassine Jaber, who is driving the
reform push with Salam, told Reuters it was essential to salvage a hollowed-out
banking system, and to stop the country from sliding deeper into its cash-only,
paralyzed economy. The aim, Jaber said, is to give depositors clarity after
years of uncertainty and to end a system that has crippled Lebanon’s
international standing. He framed the law as part of a broader reckoning: the
first time a Lebanese government has confronted a combined collapse of the
banking sector, the central bank and the state treasury. Financial reforms have
been repeatedly derailed by political and private vested interests over the last
six years and Jaber said the responsibility now lies with lawmakers.
Failure to act, he said, would leave Lebanon trapped in “a deep, dark tunnel”
with no way back to a functioning system. “Lebanon has become a cash economy,
and the real question is whether we want to stay on the grey list, or sleepwalk
into a blacklist,” Jaber added.
Report: US, Vatican, Israel and Iran discussing Hezbollah
in Oman
Naharnet/January 23/2026
Major contacts over Lebanon are being led by Washington and the Vatican and
Israeli, U.S. and Iranian officials are meeting in Oman, Lebanon’s Nidaa al-Watan
newspaper reported on Friday. “Shuttle meetings are taking place in the
Sultanate of Oman revolving around rearranging the regional landscape, from Iran
to Lebanon. Hezbollah is on the negotiating table, and both the Americans and
Israelis are discussing this file; therefore, public statements do not reflect
the reality of what is happening under the table,” the daily said. “Hezbollah's
current adherence to its weaponry and its escalating rhetoric stem from the fact
that this arsenal is a subject of negotiation. On one hand, Hezbollah seeks to
secure political gains and refuses to lay down its arms for nothing in return.
On the other hand, the Iranians intend to play the ‘weapons card’ to the very
end, offering it in the ‘buying and selling market’ and refusing to concede it
-- especially since the head of the regime is now under threat and in danger,”
the newspaper added. It reminded that President Joseph Aoun had recently visited
Oman to “request mediation and facilitate the issue of limiting weapons” to the
state. “Aoun succeeded in highlighting the file, particularly since Oman
maintains channels of communication with the U.S., Israel and Iran, and any
potential settlement may lead to a resolution of the weapons issue without the
need for internal conflict,” Nidaa al-Watan said.
AUB President among 100 most influential people in oncology
in 2025
Naharnet/January 23/2026
Dr. Fadlo Khuri, president of the American University of Beirut (AUB) and an
internationally recognized oncologist, has been named among the 100 most
influential people in oncology in 2025 by OncoDaily, the leading global media
platform dedicated to cancer research, clinical practice, innovation, and
oncology leadership. "The 100 Most Influential People in Oncology in 2025
recognizes the changemakers in cancer care who have helped shape current
practice in oncology and continue to drive innovation and research towards
better outcomes, advocacy, philanthropy, leadership, and education," the
announcement stated. In response to the news, Khuri said it has been his
personal mission to treat patients with cancer, to study the disease, its
biology, prevention, and treatment. "Even as I transitioned into more
administrative roles, I have remained connected with the public health
implications of this disease and its prevention, through the enactment and
support vigorous smoking cessation and cancer prevention programs.""My
nomination among these influential global changemakers in cancer care at this
stage in my career, or at any stage for that matter, reinforces my unwavering
commitment to the field," he added.
Salam, Macron Discuss
Lebanese Sovereignty, Security and Reforms in Paris
This is Beirut/23 January/2026
On Friday evening, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam met with French President Emmanuel
Macron in Paris to discuss Lebanon’s internal reforms and consolidation of state
control.
Salam reiterated that the Lebanese state is committed to its goal of
confiscating all non-state weapons on Lebanese territory. Macron stated that
France will continue to back the Lebanese Armed Forces as the sole bearer of
arms. With the UNIFIL mandate not being renewed, Salam urged Macron that an
alternative is needed to continue third-party monitoring of Lebanon’s southern
border. Both praised the mechanism monitoring the ceasefire and support
strengthening it. As a major backer on the world stage and permanent member of
the UN security council, France is an important partner in the Lebanese state’s
efforts to claim its sovereignty. In the meeting, Macron reaffirmed France’s
support for Lebanon’s efforts to restore full state sovereignty and stay on
course for implementing the necessary reforms to recover from the country’s
prolonged crises.
The two leaders also discussed Israel’s role in Lebanon’s current situation.
Salam emphasized that it is critical for Lebanon’s sovereignty that Israel stop
its violations of the ceasefire between the two countries and that it withdraw
from the points along the border that it still occupies. Much of the dialogue
centered on Lebanese security issues in preparation for a March 5
French-Saudi-led conference in Paris that aims to generate financial support for
the Lebanese army and security forces. Macron and Salam alsoo spoke about the
multi-point draft financial gap law intended to address Lebanon’s banking and
financial crisis. More talks between Lebanon and its international partners will
be underway as all parties prepare for their upcoming conference in March,
particularly as Lebanon continues negotiation of an agreement with the IMF in
support of its recovery.
Salam Says Lebanon to Expand State Control as International
Confidence Grows
This is Beirut/23 January/2026
Prime Minister Nawaf Salam announced in Davos, Switzerland on Thursday that
Lebanon has full operational control over southern Lebanon and will expand
operations north of the Litani river as international engagement with Lebanon
increases.
Salam outlined a two-part policy driving the Lebanese state’s governance goals:
institutional and financial reform and restoring the Lebanese state’s monopoly
on arms possession. He highlighted actions taken to move towards these
objectives, citing a new law passed that strengthens the judiciary with a
mechanism that appoints state employees. This has established a regulatory
framework that is capable of overseeing important areas such as
telecommunications and electricity. In the statement, Salam also declared that
Lebanese territory south of the Litani river is under full Lebanese sovereignty
for the first time since prior to the outbreak of civil war in 1975. The
Lebanese cabinet has approved a plan to initiate the second phase of restoring
full Lebanese state sovereignty, expanding its focus north of the Litani river.
He urges that Hezbollah take part in the Lebanese political system as a
political party rather than an independent organization with a regional agenda.
Salam further adds that Lebanon intends to utilize diplomatic and political
means to garner international pressure for stopping attacks on the country from
Israel and securing Israel’s withdrawal from the five occupied points in the
south. As Lebanon strengthens its sovereignty, Nidaa al-Watan confirmed Salam’s
recent meetings with representatives from international organizations including
UNHCR, the World Bank, OCHA, and IMF head Kristalina Georgieva. This engagement
reflects the increased international confidence in Lebanon.
Yoav Gallant: Lebanon at a Crossroads
This is Beirut/23 January/2026
Former Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant wrote an article titled “Written in
Ink, Signed in Fire,” in which he offers a description of the history of the
Arab-Israeli conflict, arguing that agreements alone do not produce lasting
peace unless they are backed by military superiority that imposes facts on the
ground. In the article, Gallant writes: “In the Arab world, rejection of
Israel’s right to exist as a state is not a new concept. However, over the
years, more Arab countries have gradually begun to accept Israel’s legitimacy.
Two of the four countries bordering Israel today have maintained peace
agreements for decades, even during periods of turmoil. As the balance of power
in the region changes, a fundamental question emerges: what makes an agreement
‘good’ in the Middle East?”Gallant says that Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah
offers Lebanon a historic opportunity. He asserted that Hezbollah portrayed
itself as a “defender of Lebanon,” while stripping the state of sovereignty and
dragging its people toward ruin. By striking its infrastructure and forcing its
arms north of the Litani, the “occupying force” was removed, he added. He writes
that many Lebanese—Christians, Druze, Sunnis, and even some Shiites—understand
this reality and implicitly acknowledge that Israel has done more for Lebanon’s
independence in a few months than any other actor has in decades. Whether
Lebanon’s leaders seize this opportunity, he says, depends on their courage.
Just as Egypt and Jordan turned battlefield realism into peace agreements
serving their national interests, Lebanon must recognize that a militia loyal to
Tehran offers neither prosperity nor security. “For Israel,” Gallant concludes,
“the matter is clear: words, declarations, and even agreements carry little
weight. What matters is performance on the ground. Agreements formalize
understandings, but peace emerges only when war convinces your enemy that
achieving its goals is impossible—and it endures only as long as the ability to
enforce it remains.”
The Dhimmis and the “Umarian Conditions”
Colonel Charbel Barakat/January 23/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/01/151380/
Muslims often state that the Prophet allowed the Christians of Najran to refrain
from embracing Islam in exchange for paying the jizya, on the grounds that they
did not participate in military conscription or fighting in the cause of
religion. This arrangement was then applied to Christians and Jews living under
Sharia rule. From one perspective, this argument may appear acceptable in the
context of an occupying authority dealing with the inhabitants of a conquered
land: all citizens are expected to contribute to the defense of the state,
either through military service or by paying a financial substitute—namely the
jizya—which functioned as a tax contributing to warfare expenses and soldiers’
salaries.
However, the question arises with regard to the “Umarian Conditions” attributed
to Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab, one of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and a figure
widely regarded as a symbol of justice. It is often said that Umar refused to
pray inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre so that Muslims would not later
confiscate it on the grounds that their caliph had prayed there. Yet it was Umar
ibn al-Khattab himself who accepted these conditions and approved their
application to Christians and Jews—referred to in the Qur’an as the People of
the Book. These regulations became known as the Umarian Conditions and were
enforced wherever Muslims were able to impose them, from Central Asia to Eastern
Europe, North Africa, and even Spain and Portugal (al-Andalus). What, then, were
these conditions, what did they stipulate, and how were they implemented
throughout history? This is the subject of this study.
The basis of the Umarian Conditions is attributed to a narration transmitted by
Ismail ibn Ayyash, who stated:
“Several scholars reported that the people of al-Jazira wrote to Abd al-Rahman
ibn Ghanm, saying:
‘When you came to our land, we requested security for ourselves and for the
followers of our religion, on the condition that we impose upon ourselves the
following obligations:
We shall not build in our cities or surroundings any new church, monastery,
hermitage, or monk’s cell, nor shall we restore any that have fallen into ruin,
nor any located in Muslim quarters.
We shall not prevent Muslims from entering our churches by night or by day, and
we shall open their doors to passersby and travelers.
We shall not shelter spies in our churches or homes, nor conceal deceit against
Muslims.
We shall not ring our bells except quietly inside our churches, nor display
crosses upon them, nor raise our voices in prayer or reading in the presence of
Muslims.
We shall not bring crosses or religious books into Muslim markets.
We shall not hold public religious processions, including Easter or Palm Sunday,
nor raise our voices over our dead, nor light fires with them in Muslim markets.
We shall not keep pigs near Muslims, nor sell wine, nor openly practice
polytheism, nor invite anyone to our religion.
We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims, nor prevent any of
our relatives from converting to Islam.
We shall adhere to our distinctive dress and not imitate Muslims in clothing,
headgear, footwear, hairstyles, mounts, speech, or names. We shall shave the
front of our heads, fasten belts around our waists, refrain from engraving
Arabic on our rings, refrain from riding saddles, carrying weapons, or wearing
swords.
We shall show respect to Muslims in gatherings, guide them on the road, stand
when they wish to sit, and not look into their homes.
We shall not teach our children the Qur’an.
We shall not engage in trade jointly with Muslims unless the Muslim has
authority over the transaction.
We shall host any Muslim traveler for three days and provide him food from our
means.
We guarantee this upon ourselves, our descendants, our wives, and our poor.
Should we violate any of these conditions, then we forfeit our protection, and
you may deal with us as with those who oppose and rebel.’”
Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanm forwarded this document to Umar ibn al-Khattab, who
replied approving it and adding two additional conditions: that they must not
purchase Muslim captives, and that whoever strikes a Muslim voids his covenant.
Abd al-Rahman then enforced these terms upon the Romans residing in the cities
of the levant.
Thus, Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab adhered to the conditions transmitted to him by
Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanm, claiming that they had been proposed by the Christian
population themselves. However, these conditions were not imposed on Arab
Christian tribes inhabiting the Syrian desert, such as Taghlib, Qays, and Tanukh
in northern Syria, nor on the Ghassanids in the south, nor on the Lakhmids (Manadhira)
in Iraq. Moreover, the Mardaites and Maronites, who inhabited the mountains of
Lebanon from Jurjuma in the north to the Galilee in the south, repeatedly raided
the Umayyad capital of Damascus during the reign of Mu‘awiya, founder of the
Umayyad state. These attacks forced the Muslims to halt their attempts to
conquer Constantinople and instead pay an annual tribute to stop the raids,
under a thirty-year treaty sponsored by the Byzantine emperor.
This agreement remained in effect throughout the reigns of four Umayyad caliphs:
Mu‘awiya, his son Yazid, Mu‘awiya ibn Yazid, and Marwan ibn al-Hakam, who
inherited a collapsing state beset by revolts in Iraq while Ibn al-Zubayr
controlled the Hijaz and even barred the Umayyads from Mecca. Marwan responded
with brutal force. His governor al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf bombarded and destroyed the
Kaaba with catapults, killed Ibn al-Zubayr, and crucified him. Marwan then sent
al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf to Iraq who crushed the rebellions through violence and
terror, restoring stability.
He later sought to eliminate resistance in Lebanon by offering Emperor Justinian
II double the tribute previously paid to the defenders of Lebanon if the emperor
would neutralize them. Justinian deported twelve thousand fighters from Lebanon
to Armenia, dismantled what historians called the “Copper Dam” and attacked the
remaining Maronite forces. This led to the isolation of the Maronites in the
Lebanese mountains, their rebellion against imperial authority, and the election
of a patriarch who defied the emperor. While Marwan secured the Bekaa entrances
and removed the threat to Damascus, he was unable to impose the Umarian
Conditions on the mountain populations, who became increasingly isolated from
surrounding cities.
During the reign of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, grandson of Umar ibn al-Khattab, the
enforcement of the Umarian Conditions was revived with renewed severity. Church
restoration and monastic construction were banned wherever possible across
Syria, and many churches and monasteries—especially in Egypt—were destroyed.
Under the Abbasids, who relied heavily on Persian elements to overthrow Umayyad
rule, efforts were made to weaken Arab tribal influence within the Muslim
armies. This fueled tensions between Arabs and the Shu‘ubiyya movement, whose
adherents sought hadiths and legal opinions that justified the oppression of
Arabs and non-Muslims alike. Prophetic Noble Hadith—regardless of their absence
from the Qur’an—became authoritative sources of legislation. Under Harun
al-Rashid and later al-Mutawakkil, Arab Christian tribes were given the choice
between conversion to Islam or submission to the Umarian Conditions.
Consequently, these humiliating restrictions reemerged, prompting further
migration of Arab Christian tribes toward the Lebanese coast and the Bekaa
Valley.
With the entry of the Fatimids into Egypt, these rulers initially eased the
enforcement of the so-called Umarian Conditions. They even allowed Christians
and Jews among the People of the Book to hold certain governmental positions,
which significantly reduced the application of Sharia law and the Umarian
restrictions that distinguished non-Muslims from the general population.
However, the wars waged by al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah against the Byzantines led him
to embrace a wave of religious extremism. He reinstated the destruction of
churches, imposed distinctive clothing on non-Muslims, persecuted them in
various ways, and forced many to convert to Islam. After a truce was concluded,
he reversed course and permitted those who had been forcibly converted to return
to their original faiths. As a result, seven thousand Jews reportedly renounced
Islam in a single day, along with many Copts who had been coerced into
conversion.
Nevertheless, these persecutions—during which approximately 30,000 churches were
destroyed in Egypt, Palestine, and the Lebanese coastal cities, most notably the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre—served as a major catalyst for the Crusades, which
expelled the Fatimids from Lebanon and Syria and led to the establishment of the
Kingdom of Jerusalem.
After the Crusades and the rise of the Ayyubids, control over several cities and
fortresses led to truces and agreements that provided some protection to
civilians from direct persecution. Yet with the advent of the Mamluks,
persecution reached its peak. It was no longer limited to non-Muslims subjected
once again to versions of the Umarian Conditions; rather, Ibn Taymiyyah’s fatwas
permitted the killing of those who adhered to Islamic sects outside the four
Sunni schools. He declared Shiites, Ismailis, Druze, and Alawites to be heretics
and legitimized their killing.
Some Mamluk rulers went further by forcibly depopulating entire regions. After
occupying areas of southern Lebanon and destroying the fortresses of Safad,
Tebnin, Hunin, and others, inhabitants were forced to relocate more than forty
kilometers inland, under the pretext of supporting the Crusaders. Villages were
emptied, homes destroyed, and it is said that in areas such as Keserwan, the
land was even salted to prevent cultivation. Baybars also invented a procession
known as the Festival of Nabi Musa, deliberately scheduled to coincide with the
Christian Easter procession, in order to prevent Christians from celebrating
freely and to humiliate them by confronting them with a rival Muslim
demonstration.
His successor Qalawun later infiltrated Maronite regions in Jubbah Bsharri
through deception, destroyed villages, killed inhabitants, and besieged the
people of Hadath in a cave where they had sought refuge. When Patriarch Daniel
al-Hadashiti reorganized resistance and prevented the Mamluks from entering the
fortress between Bsharri and Ehden, the sultan again resorted to deception,
pretending to negotiate peace. Upon the patriarch’s arrival, he was arrested and
executed, after which the devastation continued before the attack on Tripoli.
The Maronites eventually regrouped and defeated the Mamluks in the battles of
al-Madfun and al-Fidar, restoring protection to their regions. This forced the
Mamluks to accept the reality and leave them alone. However, humiliating
conditions were imposed wherever possible in coastal cities, contributing to
Maronite isolation in the mountains and their separation from the coast. This
led to a harsh lifestyle marked by scarcity, effort, and near-ascetic
discipline—yet they endured.
When the Christian ruler of Cyprus launched a swift raid on Alexandria, the
Mamluk response was retaliation against the Maronites. A new wave of repression
followed, targeting anyone captured by Mamluk forces. The authorities demanded
the surrender of the patriarch to halt the abuses. Patriarch Gabriel II of
Hajoula, who was hiding in a cave, eventually surrendered himself. The Mamluk
governor of Tripoli ordered his execution and forbade his followers from knowing
where he was buried.
The Mamluk era was extremely harsh for non-Muslims throughout the region. Beyond
the Umarian Conditions, persecution intensified to the point that entire regions
were depopulated. With the arrival of the Ottomans, many believed they had been
freed from tyrannical rule. Yet the new rulers proved no less oppressive—and
often harsher—especially toward non-Muslims. Distinctive clothing colors were
imposed on Christians and Jews; they were forbidden from riding horses or
carrying weapons; they were required to walk on the left side of Muslims and
were sometimes ordered to utter humiliating phrases such as “Move left, infidel”
or even to walk in the gutter at the center of the road.
These regulations extended even to footwear colors and burial practices,
requiring official permission for funerals and prohibiting burial near Muslim
cemeteries. Such practices continued even after European consulates were
established in Ottoman cities like Aleppo, Tripoli, and Beirut. A documented
case appears in the book History of the United States of America and the Syrian
Immigrants, printed in Brooklyn in 1902, describing a merchant who asked the
Austrian consul to intervene with the sultan merely to change the color of his
shoes.
When Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent visited Aleppo, the Maronite patriarch sent
a priest fluent in Turkish to petition for reduced taxes on farmers. The priest
explained that while paying a quarter of production as tax was acceptable,
paying half constituted injustice. The sultan replied:
“Tell the patriarch that we have decided as follows: the olive harvest shall be
divided—half for the farmer and half for the state; one quarter is justice, and
one quarter is injustice.”
In the final years of the Ottoman Empire, allied with the European Axis powers,
officers of the Committee of Union and Progress—notably Talaat Pasha, Enver
Pasha, and Jamal Pasha—carried out religious massacres against Christian
populations. These included the Armenian Genocide (approximately one million
victims), the Sayfo massacres against Syriacs, Assyrians, and Chaldeans (around
500,000), and massacres against Greeks and Pontic Greeks.
Jamal Pasha, as ruler of Syria and Lebanon, enforced conscription, dragged
Lebanese into his army, prohibited Christians and Jews from bearing arms, and
used them for forced labor. He imposed a blockade on Mount Lebanon, leading to a
famine that killed more than 200,000 people.
After the war, these officers used Soviet-supplied funds and weapons to form
paramilitary forces, resettling populations and exploiting them again to protect
their interests and conceal their crimes—actions rooted in a mentality shaped by
centuries of dhimma.
In Egypt after World War I, the Muslim Brotherhood emerged, calling for stricter
treatment of non-Muslims through the re-imposition of Sharia and dhimma laws,
aiming to restore caliphal authority in response to Western influence. Similar
ideologies spread to Pakistan and Afghanistan, especially under the Taliban,
where persecution persists.
In Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism arose in the eighteenth century, enforcing Sharia
rigorously in alliance with the House of Saud. Only in recent years has Crown
Prince Mohammed bin Salman attempted to curb its excesses by dismantling the
mutawa system.
In Iran, the rule of the Wilayat al-Faqih has resulted in systematic repression,
executions, and terrorism against dissenters, Sunnis, and other religious
minorities.
Finally, ISIS (the Islamic State) revived policies of killing non-Muslims,
beheadings, and forced conversions to terrorize populations into submission.
Similar groups, such as Boko Haram in Africa, continue these practices. These
movements—often linked ideologically to the Muslim Brotherhood—seek to impose
Sharia by force, not only in the Middle East and North Africa but worldwide.
After this quick presentation of a reality lived by non-Muslims in these lands
for fourteen centuries, we can understand the fear of the Lebanese and others
among the People of the Dhimma of Islam’s control over authority in any country
in which they live. Consequently, we realize the importance of the Lebanese
experience, which does not appear to have succeeded in making Muslims in Lebanon
understand how to transcend the system of imposition that many of them dream of
implementing upon their partners in the (homeland) as soon as they are able to
seize control of the ruling regime.
From the moment Ibn Ghanam wrote to the Caliph ʿUmar ibn al-Khattab asking his
opinion about allowing the Romans of the Levant to live under Muslim control, to
the day when Hassan Nasrallah stood claiming credit before everyone that he
protects them from the “enemy,” this suffering endured by peoples and sects has
persisted, and they have lived with it under the fear that it might be dusted
off at any moment and by any arrogant tyrant who finds in it a means to impose
more suffering and discrimination upon the subjects—sometimes to satisfy his
vanity, and at other times certain desires.
The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous
Reports And News published
on January
23-24/2026
Video- Link to an interview with Dr. Walid Phares, Middle East
Expert: "Something BIG is About To Go Down in Iran..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC0xmBVm6Ks
Trump launches Board of Peace, Gaza looms as test case while questions linger
about scope
The Arab Weekly/January 23/2026
US President Donald Trump on Thursday launched his Board of Peace, initially
designed to cement Gaza’s precarious ceasefire but which he foresees taking a
wider role in global conflict resolution, although he said it would work with
the United Nations. “Once this board is completely formed, we can do pretty much
whatever we want to do. And we’ll do it in conjunction with the United Nations,”
Trump said, adding that the UN had great potential that had not been fully
utilised. The US president, who will chair the board, invited dozens of other
world leaders to join, saying he wants it to address challenges beyond the
stuttering Gaza ceasefire, stirring misgivings that it could undermine the UN’s
role as the main platform for global diplomacy and conflict resolution. Regional
Middle East powers including Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab
Emirates and Qatar, as well as major emerging nations such as Indonesia and
Morocco have joined the board. Many Arab and Muslim nations have backed Trump’s
plans hoping they will lead to a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and balance
Israel’s aggressive policies.Global powers and traditional Western US allies
have been however more cautious. Some of Trump’s traditional allies in the West
questioned the disproportionate role to be played by Trump himself in steering
the board’s decisions at the expense of the United Nations and the $1 billion
requirement for countries wishing to secure a permanent slot on the board. But
many in the Middle East it is Gaza that will represent the main test case of the
board’s credibility.
Gaza first
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the board’s focus would be on making sure
the plan for peace in Gaza was fulfilled but that it could also “serve as an
example of what’s possible in other parts of the world”. Richard Gowan,
programme director for global issues and institutions at the International
Crisis Group, said the “Board of Peace” offered a sign of how Trump wants to
pursue diplomacy in his remaining three years in office. But he noted that the
board’s first task was Gaza, where Trump has proposed glitzy development but
which lies in rubble with a fragile ceasefire. “If Gaza implodes, the Board
won’t have a lot of credibility elsewhere.”Trump officials also unveiled
ambitious plans for a “New Gaza” during the ceremony at the World Economic
Forum, with the US leader describing the devastated Palestinian territory as
“great real estate”. “We’re going to be very successful in Gaza. It’s going to
be a great thing to watch,” President Donald Trump said while presenting his
“Board of Peace” conflict-resolution body in Davos. Jared Kushner, the US
president’s son-in-law, touted investments of at least $25 billion to rebuild
destroyed infrastructure and public services. Within ten years, the territory’s
GDP would be $10 billion, and households would enjoy average income of $13,000 a
year thanks to “100-percent full employment and opportunity for everybody
there”, he said. “It could be a hope. It could be a destination, have a lot of
industry and really be a place that the people there can thrive.”Ali Shaath,
Gaza’s recently-appointed the Palestinian technocratic committee leader in
charge of administering the enclave under Trump’s “Board of Peace”, has said the
Egyptian plan was the “foundation” of his committee’s reconstruction project.
Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, whose country had spearheaded in 2025 a
reconstruction plan for Gaza supported by Arab nations and welcomed by the
European Union.
“Next 100 days”
Kushner said the next phase of the Gaza ceasefire deal would address funding for
reconstruction in the territory, which lies mostly in ruins, as well as
disarmament by Gaza’s dominant Palestinian militant group Hamas, one of the most
intractable unresolved issues. “If Hamas doesn’t demilitarise, that would be
what holds this plan back,” Kushner said. “The next 100 days we’re going to
continue to just be heads down and focused on making sure this is implemented.
We continue to be focused on humanitarian aid, humanitarian shelter, but then
creating the conditions to move forward.”In a sign of progress on unresolved
elements of the first phase of the truce, Shaath said the Rafah border crossing
with Egypt, Gaza’s main gateway, would reopen next week. The ceasefire in Gaza,
agreed in October, has sputtered for months with Israel and Hamas trading blame
for repeated bursts of violence in which several Israeli soldiers and hundreds
of Palestinians have been killed. Each side rejects the other’s accusations.
Palestinian factions have endorsed Trump’s plan and given backing to a
transitional Palestinian committee meant to administer the Gaza Strip with
oversight by the board. Even as the first phase of the truce falters, its next
stage must address much tougher long-term issues that have bedevilled earlier
negotiations, including Hamas disarmament, security control in Gaza and eventual
Israeli withdrawal. Apart from the US, no other permanent member of the UN
Security Council, the five nations with the most say over international law and
diplomacy since the end of World War Two, has yet committed to join. Russia said
late on Wednesday it was studying the proposal after Trump said it would join.
President Vladimir Putin said Moscow was willing to pay $1 billion from frozen
US assets in the US “to support the Palestinian people”, state media said.
France declined to join. Britain said on Thursday it was not joining at present.
China has not yet said whether it will do so. The board’s creation was endorsed
by a United Nations Security Council resolution as part of Trump’s Gaza peace
plan. Israel, Argentina and Hungary, whose leaders are close allies of Trump and
supporters of his approach to politics and diplomacy, have said they will join.
Board members also include Rubio, Kushner, US envoy Steve Witkoff, and former
British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Huckabee: UN risks
irrelevance due to ‘incompetence,’ Board of Peace not a ‘threat’
Al Arabiya English/23 January/2026
US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee has said the United Nations risks being
sidelined by its own “incompetence” arguing that any challenge to its authority
would stem from internal shortcomings rather than competition from the newly
formed Board of Peace. “If the UN is threatened or rivaled, it will be because
of its own incompetence,” Huckabee said during an exclusive interview with
Counterpoints on Friday. His remarks came as questions mount over whether the
Board of Peace, chaired by President Donald Trump, could undermine existing
international bodies. Huckabee rejected the idea that the board was designed to
replace the United Nations, saying such a notion had “never been
discussed.”Instead, he said it aims to mobilize international participation to
end the war in Gaza and support postwar reconstruction. However, Huckabee was
sharply critical of the UN’s credibility, pointing to what he described as
failures within UN-affiliated bodies, including allegations that some staff
linked to UNRWA collaborated with Hamas. He also questioned the legitimacy of UN
bodies such as the Human Rights Council, arguing that taking guidance from
countries like Russia and North Korea undermines the organization’s standing.
“When you’re taking advice from Russia or North Korea, you strain your own
credibility,” he said. Huckabee said Trump remains willing to work with the UN
and has addressed it directly, but believes meaningful reform is necessary if
the organization is to regain trust. The ambassador defended Trump’s leadership
of the Board of Peace, describing the initiative as unprecedented in scope and
ambition, bringing together countries across political and geographical divides.
He said the board’s immediate focus remains the disarmament of Hamas, the return
of all hostages and the transition to a second phase centered on rebuilding
Gaza. “This wasn’t created because Israel did something,” Huckabee said. “It was
created because Hamas did something.”
Trump says ‘armada’ heading towards Iran as Guards chief warns US, Israel
The Arab Weekly/January 23/2026
President Donald Trump said on Thursday that the United States has an “armada”
heading toward Iran but hoped he would not have to use it, as he renewed
warnings to Tehran against killing protesters or restarting its nuclear
programme. US officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, say the aircraft
carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and several guided-missile destroyers will arrive in
the Middle East in the coming days. One official said additional air-defence
systems were also being eyed for the Middle East, which could be critical to
guard against any Iranian strike on US bases in the region. The deployments
expand the options available to Trump, both to better defend US forces
throughout the region at a moment of tensions and to take any additional
military action after striking Iranian nuclear sites in June. “We have a lot of
ships going that direction, just in case. I’d rather not see anything happen,
but we’re watching them very closely,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One
on his way back to the United States after speaking to world leaders in Davos,
Switzerland. At another point, he said: “We have an armada … heading in that
direction, and maybe we won’t have to use it.”
The warships started moving from the Asia-Pacific last week as tensions between
Iran and the United States soared following a severe crackdown on protests
across Iran in recent months. Trump had repeatedly threatened to intervene
against Iran over the recent killings of protesters there but protests dwindled
last week. The president backed away from his toughest rhetoric last week,
claiming he had stopped executions of prisoners.
He repeated that claim on Thursday, saying Iran cancelled nearly 840 hangings
after his threats. “I said: ‘If you hang those people, you’re going to be hit
harder than you’ve ever been hit. It’ll make what we did to your Iran nuclear (programme)
look like peanuts,'” Trump said. “At an hour before this horrible thing was
going to take place, they cancelled it,” he said, calling it “a good sign.”The
US military has in the past periodically surged forces to the Middle East at
times of heightened tensions, moves that were often defensive. However, the US
military staged a major build-up last year ahead of its June strikes against
Iran’s nuclear programme. Trump has said the United States would act if Tehran
resumed its nuclear programme after the June strikes on key sites. “If they try
to do it again, they have to go to another area. We’ll hit them there too, just
as easily,” he said on Thursday. Also on Thursday, the commander of Iran’s
Revolutionary Guards warned Washington that the force had its “finger on the
trigger” in the wake of mass protests and American threats of military action.
General Mohammad Pakpour warned Israel and the United States “to avoid any
miscalculations, by learning from historical experiences and what they learned
in the 12-day imposed war, so that they do not face a more painful and
regrettable fate”.“The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and dear Iran have
their finger on the trigger, more prepared than ever, ready to carry out the
orders and measures of the supreme commander-in-chief, a leader dearer than
their own lives,” he said, referring to Khamenei. Another senior military
figure, General Ali Abdollahi Aliabadi who leads the Iranian joint command
headquarters, meanwhile warned that in the case of an attack by the United
States, “all US interests, bases and centres of influence” would be “legitimate
targets” for the Iranian armed forces. Iran must report to the UN nuclear
watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, on what happened to sites
struck by the United States and the nuclear material thought to be there. That
includes an estimated 440.9 kg of uranium enriched up to 60 percent purity
which, if enriched sufficiently, could be enough for ten nuclear bombs,
according to an IAEA yardstick. The agency has not verified Iran’s stock of
highly-enriched uranium for at least seven months, which the watchdog advises
should be done monthly. It is unclear whether protests in Iran could also surge
again. The protests began on December 28 as modest demonstrations in Tehran’s
‘Grand Bazaar over economic hardship and quickly spread nationwide. The US-based
HRANA rights group said it has so far verified 4,519 unrest-linked deaths,
including 4,251 protesters, and has 9,049 additional deaths under review. An
Iranian official told Reuters the confirmed death toll until Sunday was more
than 5,000, including 500 members ‘of the security forces. Asked how many
protesters were killed, Trump said: “Nobody knows … I mean, it’s a lot, no
matter what.”
‘Iran will find out when
it’s time’: Huckabee warns Tehran may face new US action
Al Arabiya English/23 January/202
Mike Huckabee warned Iran that the US may take further action if Tehran does not
change course, saying Iranian leaders have already seen that President Donald
Trump follows through on his threats. Speaking in an exclusive interview with
Counterpoints on Friday, Huckabee was asked about comments by Trump indicating
that a US armada is heading toward Iran. While declining to specify what action
may follow, Huckabee said Iran had been clearly warned before and should not
underestimate the president’s resolve. “Iran will find out when it’s time for
them to know,” Huckabee said, adding that Trump had already proven last summer
that his warnings are not rhetorical. “You got kicked pretty hard last summer,
and President Trump did exactly what he said he was going to do,” Huckabee told
Al Arabiya English Presenter Melinda Nucifora. He said the president had
repeatedly told Iran it would not be allowed to enrich uranium or acquire a
nuclear weapon, and accused Tehran of ignoring those warnings until Washington
acted. “They didn’t believe him. He proved that he meant it,” Huckabee said. The
US ambassador also criticized Iran’s domestic record, accusing its leadership of
killing protesters and diverting national resources to militant groups including
Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen rather than
addressing economic hardship at home. Huckabee said Trump remains skeptical of
Iranian claims that calm has been restored and executions have stopped, arguing
that Tehran’s long history of repression means any assurances would need to be
backed by evidence. “He’s going to want proof,” Huckabee said. “If he doesn’t
get it, that will be one of the bases upon which he makes his decision.”Asked
whether the region should prepare for another US intervention, Huckabee said he
did not sense an imminent threat but stressed the volatility of the Middle East
and the need for constant vigilance. “Nobody is sitting around thinking that the
opening salvos of Armageddon are about to happen,” he said. “But people here
understand that things can change very quickly.”Huckabee emphasized that any
decision on Iran would rest solely with Trump, adding that those who doubt the
president’s willingness to act “haven’t been paying attention.”
US to deploy aircraft
carrier and military assets to Middle East amid Iran tensions
Reuters/23 January/2026
An American aircraft carrier and other military assets will arrive in the Middle
East in the coming days, two US officials said Thursday, even as US President
Donald Trump voiced hopes of avoiding new attacks on Iran. US warships including
the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, several destroyers and fighter
aircraft started moving from the Asia-Pacific last week as tensions between Iran
and the United States soared following a severe crackdown on protests across
Iran in recent months. One of the officials said additional air defense systems
were also being eyed for the Middle East. The United States often increases US
troop levels in the Middle East at moments of heightened regional tensions,
something that experts note can be entirely defensive in nature. However, the US
military staged a major buildup last summer ahead of its June strikes against
Iran’s nuclear program, and later boasted about how it kept its intention to
strike a secret. Trump had repeatedly threatened to intervene against Iran over
the recent killings of protesters there but protests dwindled last week and
Trump’s rhetoric regarding Iran has eased. He has turned his gaze on other
geopolitical issues, including his pursuit of Greenland. On Wednesday, Trump
said he hoped there would not be further US military action in Iran, but said
the United States would act if Tehran resumed its nuclear program. “They can’t
do the nuclear,” Trump told CNBC in an interview in Davos, Switzerland, noting
major US airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities in June 2025. “If they do it,
it’s going to happen again.”It is now at least seven months since the UN nuclear
watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, last verified Iran’s stock of
highly enriched uranium. Its own guidance is that it should be done monthly.
Iran must file a report to the IAEA on what happened to those sites that were
struck by the United States and nuclear material thought to be there, including
an estimated 440.9 kg of uranium enriched to up to 60 percent purity, close to
the roughly 90 percent weapons-grade level. That is enough material, if enriched
further, for 10 nuclear bombs, according to an IAEA yardstick. It is unclear
whether protests in Iran could also surge again. The protests began on December
28 as modest demonstrations in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar over economic hardship and
quickly spread nationwide. The US-based HRANA rights group said it has so far
verified 4,519 unrest-linked deaths, including 4,251 protesters, 197 security
personnel, 35 people aged under 18 and 38 bystanders who it says were neither
protesters nor security personnel. HRANA has 9,049 additional deaths under
review. An Iranian official told Reuters the confirmed death toll until Sunday
was more than 5,000, including 500 members of the security forces.
US, in control of oil
dollars, heaps pressure on Iraq over Iranian influence
Reuters/23 January/2026
Washington has threatened senior Iraqi politicians with sanctions targeting the
Iraqi state — including potentially its critical supply of oil revenue sourced
via the Federal Reserve Bank of New York — should Iran-backed armed groups be
included in the next government, four sources told Reuters. The warning is the
starkest example yet of US President Donald Trump’s campaign to curb
Iran-linked groups’ influence in Iraq, which has long walked a tightrope between
its two closest allies, Washington and Tehran. The US warning was delivered
repeatedly over the past two months by the US Charges d’Affaires in Baghdad,
Joshua Harris, in conversations with Iraqi officials and influential Shi’ite
leaders, including some heads of Iran-linked groups via intermediaries,
according to three Iraqi officials and one source familiar with the matter who
spoke to Reuters for this story. Harris and the embassy did not respond to
requests for comment. The sources requested anonymity to discuss private
discussions. Since taking office a year ago, Trump has acted to weaken the
Iranian government, including via its neighbor Iraq. Iran views Iraq as vital
for keeping its economy afloat amid sanctions and long used Baghdad’s banking
system to skirt the restrictions, US and Iraqi officials have said. Successive
US administrations have sought to choke that dollar stream, placingsanctions on
more than a dozen Iraqi banks in recent years in an effort to do so.But
Washington has never curtailed the flow of dollars from the oil revenues of
Iraq, a top OPEC producer, sent via the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to the
Central Bank of Iraq. The US has had de facto control over Iraq’s oil revenue
since it invaded the country in 2003. Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani’s
office, the Central Bank of Iraq and Iran’s mission at the United Nations did
not respond to requests for comment. “The United States supports Iraqi
sovereignty, and the sovereignty of every country in the region. That leaves
absolutely no role for Iran-backed militias that pursue malign interests, cause
sectarian division, and spread terrorism across the region,” a US State
Department spokesperson told Reuters, in response to a request for comment.The
spokesperson did not answer Reuters questions about the sanction threats. Trump,
who bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities in June, threatened to again intervene
militarily in the country during protests last week.
No armed groups in new government
Among the senior politicians to whom Harris’ message was passed were Prime
Minister al-Sudani, Shia politicians Ammar Hakim and Hadi Al Ameri, and Kurdish
leader Masrour Barzani, three of the sources said. The conversations with Harris
started after Iraq held elections in November in which al-Sudani’s political
bloc won the single-largest bloc of seats but in which Iran-backed militias also
made gains, the sources said. The message centered on 58 members of parliament
views by the US views as linked to Iran, all the sources said. “The American
line was basically that they would suspend engagement with the new government
should any of those 58 MPs be represented in cabinet,” one of the Iraqi
officials said. The formation of a new cabinet could still be months away due
to wrangling to build a majority. When asked to elaborate “they said it meant
they wouldn’t deal with that government and would suspend dollar transfers,”
the official said. The US has had de facto control over oil revenue dollars from
Iraq, a top OPEC producer, since it invaded the country in 2003. Iran has long
supported an array of armed factions in Iraq. In recent years, several have
entered the political arena, standing for election and winning seats as they
seek a slice of Iraq’s oil wealth.
UK’s Starmer calls Trump’s remarks on allies in Afghanistan ‘frankly appalling’
Reuter/January 24, 2026
LONDON: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called US President Donald Trump’s
comments about European troops staying off the front lines in Afghanistan
insulting and appalling, joining a chorus of criticism from other European
officials and veterans.
“I consider President Trump’s remarks to be insulting and frankly appalling, and
I’m not surprised they’ve caused such hurt for the loved ones of those who were
killed or injured,” Starmer told reporters. When asked whether he would demand
an apology from the US leader, Starmer said: “If I had misspoken in that way or
said those words, I would certainly apologize.”Britain lost 457 service
personnel killed in Afghanistan, its deadliest overseas war since the 1950s. For
several of the war’s most intense years it led the allied campaign in Helmand,
Afghanistan’s biggest and most violent province, while also fighting as the
main US battlefield ally in Iraq. Starmer’s remarks were notably strong coming
from a leader who has tended to avoid direct criticism of Trump in public.
Trump told Fox Business Network’s “Mornings with Maria” on Thursday the United
States had “never needed” the transatlantic alliance and accused allies of
staying “a little off the front lines” in Afghanistan. His remarks added to
already strained relations with European allies after he used the World Economic
Forum in the Swiss ski resort of Davos to again signal his interest in acquiring
Greenland. Dutch Foreign Minister David van Weel condemned Trump’s remarks on
Afghanistan, calling them untrue and disrespectful. Britain’s Prince Harry, who
served in Afghanistan, also weighed in. “Those sacrifices deserve to be spoken
about truthfully and with respect,” he said in a statement.
’WE PAID IN BLOOD FOR THIS ALLIANCE’
“We expect an apology for this statement,” Roman Polko, a retired Polish general
and former special forces commander who also served in Afghanistan and Iraq,
told Reuters in an interview. Trump has “crossed a red line,” he added. “We
paid with blood for this alliance. We truly sacrificed our own
lives.”Britain’s veterans minister, Alistair Carns, whose own military service
included five tours including alongside American troops in Afghanistan, called
Trump’s claims “utterly ridiculous.”“We shed blood, sweat and tears together.
Not everybody came home,” he said in a video posted on X. Richard Moore, the
former head of Britain’s MI6 intelligence service, said he, like many MI6
officers, had operated in dangerous environments with “brave and highly
esteemed” CIA counterparts and had been proud to do so with Britain’s closest
ally. Under NATO’s founding treaty, members are bound by a collective-defense
clause, Article 5, which treats an attack on one member as an attack on all. It
has been invoked only once — after the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York
and Washington, when allies pledged to support the United States. For most of
the war in Afghanistan, the US-led force there was under NATO command.
POLISH SACRIFICE ‘MUST NOT BE DIMINISHED’
Some politicians noted that Trump had avoided the draft for the Vietnam War,
citing bone spurs in his feet. “Trump avoided military service 5 times,” Ed
Davey, leader of Britain’s centrist Liberal Democrats, wrote on X. “How dare he
question their sacrifice.”
Poland’s sacrifice “will never be forgotten and must not be diminished,” Defense
Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz said. Trump’s comments were “ignorant,” said
Rasmus Jarlov, an opposition Conservative Party member of Denmark’s parliament.
In addition to the British deaths, more than 150 Canadians were killed in
Afghanistan, along with 90 French service personnel and scores from Germany,
Italy and other countries. Denmark — now under heavy pressure from Trump to
transfer its semi-autonomous region of Greenland to the US — lost 44 troops, one
of NATO’s highest per-capita death rates. The United States lost about 2,460
troops in Afghanistan, according to the US Department of Defense, a figure on
par per capita with those of Britain and Denmark. (Reporting by Sam Tabahriti
and Elizabeth Evans in London, Stine Jacobsen in Copenhagen and Terje Solsvik in
Oslo, Malgorzata Wojtunik in Gdansk, additional reporting by Andrew MacAskill,
Muvija M and James Davey in London and Bart Meijer in Amsterdam; Writing by Sam
Tabahriti; editing by Gareth Jones, Andrew Heavens, Ros Russell and Diane
Craft)
Top US military general
visited Syria’s front lines to ensure ceasefire with SDF
Joseph Haboush/Al Arabiya English/23 January/2026
The top US military commander for the Middle East made a discreet visit to Syria
this week to ensure that Damascus was upholding its commitment to a ceasefire
with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), Al Arabiya English has learned.
Adm. Brad Cooper, the head of United States Central Command (CENTCOM), entered
Syria after holding meetings in Iraq’s Kurdistan region with the SDF’s
leadership on Thursday. According to open-source flight tracking data, his
aircraft arrived in the region late Wednesday. SDF commander Mazloum Abdi
announced on Thursday that he had held a “productive and constructive” meeting
with Cooper and US Special Envoy for Syria Tom Barrack in Iraqi Kurdistan. Abdi
vowed to “diligently and with all our capabilities work to achieve genuine
integration and maintain the current ceasefire.”
The visit by the CENTCOM chief to Syria’s front lines was to conduct a tactical
assessment and verify that Syrian government forces had disengaged from fighting
with the SDF, an essential condition for the United States to safely proceed
with its mission to transfer ISIS detainees to Iraq. The transfer operation,
announced by the US military earlier this week, is expected to move at least
7,000 ISIS prisoners from Syria to Iraqi-controlled detention facilities. Cooper
also held a phone call on Wednesday with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa,
during which he emphasized the importance of Damascus adhering to the ceasefire
with the SDF and supporting the US transfer mission, according to a CENTCOM
readout. Cooper also told al-Sharaa that he expects Syrian forces to avoid any
actions that could interfere with the operation.Top US general tells Syria’s al-Sharaa
of need to adhere to SDF ceasefire
Middle East
Top US general tells Syria’s al-Sharaa of need to adhere to SDF ceasefire
Thursday’s visit to Syria underscores Washington’s seriousness about verifying
the ceasefire on the ground rather than taking any party at its word,
particularly the Syrian government, sources familiar with policy discussions
told Al Arabiya English. Both sides have accused the other of violating previous
agreements. The sources added that the United States remains deeply concerned
about the safety of Syria’s Kurdish population. Cooper’s visit and recent US
military engagement following the outbreak of clashes between Syrian government
forces and the SDF were intended to contain the situation swiftly and prevent
further escalation. Citing unnamed US officials, the Wall Street Journal
reported on Friday, that Washington was contemplating a full withdrawal of US
troops from Syria.
ISIS prisoners
Thousands of ISIS fighters, along with tens of thousands of affiliated women and
children, are being held in several prisons and detention camps, primarily in
northeastern Syria. These facilities were guarded by the SDF, which suffered a
stinging defeat in recent weeks following clashes with Syrian government forces.
The SDF has been reluctant to integrate with the Syrian government since the
fall of Bashar al-Assad. In a lengthy post on X on Tuesday, 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 praised the SDF for
helping defeat ISIS, detaining thousands of ISIS militants, and guarding ISIS
camps. “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 had 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.
Take back and prosecute
your jailed Daesh militants, Iraq tells Europe
AFP/January 24, 2026
RAQQA: Baghdad on Friday urged European states to repatriate and prosecute their
citizens who fought for Daesh, and who are now being moved to Iraq from
detention camps in Syria. Europeans were among 150 Daesh prisoners transferred
so far by the US military from Kurdish custody in Syria. They were among an
estimated 7,000 militants due to be moved across the border to Iraq as the
Kurdish-led force that has held them for years relinquishes swaths of territory
to the advancing Syrian army. In a telephone call on Friday with French
President Emmanuel Macron, Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani said
European countries should take back and prosecute their nationals. An Iraqi
security official said the 150 so far transferred to Iraq were “all leaders of
the Daesh group, and some of the most notorious criminals.” They included
“Europeans, Asians, Arabs and Iraqis,” he said. Another Iraqi security source
said the group comprised “85 Iraqis and 65 others of various nationalities,
including Europeans, Sudanese, Somalis, and people from the Caucasus region.”
They all took part in Daesh operations in Iraq, he said, and were now being held
at a prison in Baghdad. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that
“non-Iraqi terrorists will be in Iraq temporarily.” The Kurdish-led Syrian
Democratic Forces jailed thousands of militant fighters and detained tens of
thousands of their relatives in camps as it pushed out Daesh in 2019 after five
years of fighting.
How the US controls Iraq’s
oil revenues
Reuters/23 January/2026
The US, since its 2003 invasion of Iraq, has held effective control over the
country’s oil revenue dollars, giving Washington extraordinary leverage over
Baghdad’s affairs, with implications for regional dynamics involving Iran.
How does the US control Iraq’s oil revenues?
The US control over Iraq’s oil revenues primarily stems from the management of
Iraq’s oil income through the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. After the 2003
invasion, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), led by the US, established
the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI), which was held at the New York Fed. The DFI
was designed to collect Iraq’s oil revenues and use them for the country’s
reconstruction and development. It was also set up to protect the Iraqi oil
revenues from lawsuits and claims relating to Saddam Hussein’s rule.
Then-president George W. Bush signed an executive order, which has been renewed
by every president since, that set up the arrangement. The DFI eventually became
an account of the Central Bank of Iraq at the New York Federal Reserve, which
remains the case today.
What leverage does this give the US over Iraq?
Oil is Iraq’s most important revenue source, accounting for some 90 percent of
the state budget. This gives Washington significant sway over the country’s
economic and political stability. When the Iraqi government asked US troops to
leave the country in 2020, Washington reportedly threatened to cut Iraq’s access
to the New York Federal Reserve funds, with Baghdad ultimately backing down.
While the Iraqi government has gained more control over its financial affairs
since the early years of the US occupation, the ongoing relationship highlights
the enduring influence of the US on Iraq’s economic landscape, even as the
country seeks to assert its sovereignty and independence.
Why has the arrangement endured for so long?
Iraqi government officials, who spoke to Reuters anonymously, said the system
helped anchor Iraq’s financial stability and safeguards state finances. It
provides international confidence in the management of oil income, facilitates
smooth access to US dollars needed for trade and imports, and protects
revenues from external claims and financial shocks, including claims by
creditors and lawsuits, they said. The arrangement supports exchange-rate
stability and underpins confidence in the Iraqi economy, while working to
strengthen domestic financial institutions and assert greater economic
sovereignty, they added. It also allows the government to push back against
some actors, including Iran-allied groups, who want fewer restrictions on dollar
access. The US last year imposed sanctions on Iraqi banks and individuals it
accused of laundering money for Iran.
How has this arrangement impacted Iraq?
The heavy restrictions on US dollar supply into Iraq created a parallel,
informal market for dollars, creating a price spread between the official
exchange rate set by the central bank and that on the black market. The price
difference is essentially a risk premium for dealing outside the formal system.
Since US President Donald Trump returned to office for a second term, he has
pursued a maximum pressure campaign against Iran, with Iraq often caught in the
crossfire as Tehran has used it as a vital economic lung.
What is the current status of Iraq’s oil revenue management?
Iraqi oil revenues remain under the custody of the Federal Reserve Bank of New
York. CBI has historically used dollar auctions, formally known as the foreign
currency window, as the main mechanism to supply dollars. Private banks and
exchange houses could bid daily to purchase US dollars using Iraqi dinars. Iraq
formally ended the auction system at the beginning of 2025 after significant US
pressure, part of a broad crackdown on alleged siphoning of dollars to
sanctioned entities, especially Iran.
Iraq PM says European countries should take back IS
detainees
Agence France Presse/January 23/2026
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani told French President Emmanuel
Macron on Friday that European countries should repatriate IS detainees that
were transferred from Syria to Iraq as part of a US operation. During a
telephone call, Sudani "stressed the importance of countries around the world,
particularly European Union member states, assuming their responsibilities by
receiving those individuals who hold their nationalities" and prosecuting them,
according to a statement from his office. The Iraqi judiciary said on Thursday
it would launch legal proceedings against the Islamic State group detainees
transferred from Syria.
Europeans among 150 high-ranking IS members transferred to
Iraq
Agence France Presse/January 23/2026
Europeans were among 150 senior Islamic State group jihadist detainees
transferred from Syria to Iraq earlier this week as part of a U.S. operation,
two Iraqi security officials told AFP Friday. The group, which the U.S. military
transferred to Iraq on Wednesday, were "all leaders of the Islamic State group,
and some of the most notorious criminals," and included "Europeans, Asians,
Arabs and Iraqis," one security official said. Another security source said the
group included "85 Iraqis and 65 others of various nationalities, including
Europeans, Sudanese, Somalis, and people from the Caucasus region". He added
that they "all participated in IS operations in Iraq," including the 2014
offensive that saw the jihadist group seize large areas of Iraq and neighboring
Syria. "They are all at the level of emirs," the official added. They are now
held at a prison in Baghdad. The group is the first batch of 7,000 IS suspects,
previously held by Syrian Kurdish fighters, that the U.S. military said it will
transfer to prisons in Iraq. Thousands of suspected jihadists and their
families, including foreigners, have been held in detention centers and camps in
Syria since IS's defeat in 2019 at the hands of Kurdish-led forces backed by a
U.S.-led coalition. Washington announced the plan to transfer IS detainees after
the Kurdish-led forces relinquished swathes of territory under pressure from
Syrian government forces. The Iraqi judiciary said it would launch legal
proceedings against the IS detainees transferred from Syria.Iraqi courts have
handed down hundreds of death sentences and life prison terms to people
convicted of terrorism offences, including hundreds of foreign fighters -- some
caught in Syria and transferred across the border.
134,000 displaced in northeast Syria after clashes between
govt, Kurds
Agence France Presse/January 23/2026
More than 134,000 people have been displaced in northeast Syria, the United
Nations migration agency said Thursday, after clashes and a fragile ceasefire
deal between government and Kurdish-led forces, who have withdrawn from swathes
of territory. In the past three days, the number of internally displaced people
in Hasakeh province "has increased to approximately 134,803 individuals"
compared to 5,725 recorded on Sunday, the International Organization for
Migration said in a statement.
Syria’s interior ministry
says took over al-Aktan prison
Reuters/23 January/2026
Syria’s Interior Ministry said on Friday it had taken over al-Aktan prison in
the city of Raqqa in northeastern Syria, a facility that was formerly under the
control of Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The prison has been
holding detainees linked to the militant group ISIS, and witnessed clashes in
its vicinity this week between advancing Syrian government forces and the SDF.
It was not immediately clear how many ISIS detainees remain in al-Aktan prison
as the US military has started transferring up to 7,000 prisoners linked to the
extremist group from Syrian jails to neighboring Iraq.
US officials say the detainees are citizens of many countries, including in
Europe. “Specialized teams were formed from the counter-terrorism department
and other relevant authorities to take over the tasks of guarding and securing
the prison and controlling the security situation inside it”, the Interior
Ministry said in a statement. Under a sweeping integration deal agreed on
Sunday, responsibility for prisons housing ISIS detainees was meant to be
transferred to the Syrian government. The SDF said on Monday it was battling
Syrian government forces near al-Aktan and that the seizure of the prison by the
government forces “could have serious security repercussions that threaten
stability and pave the way for a return to chaos and terrorism”.The US transfer
of ISIS prisoners follows the rapid collapse of Kurdish-led forces in northeast
Syria. Concerns over prison security intensified after the escape on Tuesday of
roughly 200 low-level ISIS fighters from Syria’s Shaddadi prison. Syrian
government forces later recaptured many of them.
Syrian government says it
controls prison in Raqqa with Daesh-linked detainees
Reuters/January 23, 2026
Syria’s Interior Ministry said on Friday it had taken over Al-Aktan prison in
the city of Raqqa in northeastern Syria, a facility that was formerly under the
control of Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The prison has been
holding detainees linked to the militant group Daesh, and witnessed clashes in
its vicinity this week between advancing Syrian government forces and the SDF.
It was not immediately clear how many Daesh detainees remain in Al-Aktan
prison as the US military has started transferring up to 7,000 prisoners linked
to the militant Islamist group from Syrian jails to neighboring Iraq. US
officials say the detainees are citizens of many countries, including in Europe.
“Specialized teams were formed from the counter-terrorism department and other
relevant authorities to take over the tasks of guarding and securing the
prison and controlling the security situation inside it,” the Interior
Ministry said in a statement.
Under a sweeping integration deal agreed on Sunday, responsibility for prisons
housing Daesh detainees was meant to be transferred to the Syrian government.
The SDF said on Monday it was battling Syrian government forces near Al-Aktan
and that the seizure of the prison by the government forces “could have serious
security repercussions that threaten stability and pave the way for a return to
chaos and terrorism.”The US transfer of Daesh prisoners follows the rapid
collapse of Kurdish-led forces in northeast Syria. Concerns over prison security
intensified after the escape on Tuesday of roughly 200 low-level Daesh fighters
from Syria’s Shaddadi prison. Syrian government forces later recaptured many of
them.
Turkey celebrates as Syrian government makes gains against
Kurdish-led force
Associated Press/January 23/2026
Turkey is celebrating the latest developments in Syria, where the new government
has effectively defeated a major Kurdish-led force with an abrupt offensive.
Ankara has long viewed armed groups led by Kurds — an ethnic minority with large
populations in eastern Turkey, Iraq and northern Syria — as a threat as Turkey
as fought to quell the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, whose decades‑long
insurgency claimed tens of thousands of lives. Coming just a few months after
the Kurdish militant group in Turkey agreed to lay down its arms, the collapse
of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces is a major step toward Ankara's
regional goals. Kurdish group was swept aside by Syria's new government. In just
two weeks, Syria's Kurdish‑led Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF — once the main
partner of the United States against the militant Islamic State group in Syria —
lost most of its territory in northern Syria to an offensive launched by Syria's
interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa. The SDF was then forced to accept a deal
under which it would dissolve and merge tens of thousands of its fighters with
Syrian government's military as individuals rather than in a bloc, after the
failure of months-long negotiations on the integration of its troops into the
new Syrian army. The SDF was established a decade ago with U.S. support as a
coalition to fight IS. Its backbone was made up of a Syrian Kurdish armed group
affiliated with the PKK. Al-Sharaa took power after the ouster of the President
Bashar Assad's government in December 2024, and has been consolidating authority
while dealing with challenges from the remnants of pro-Assad groups as well as
some former opposition groups that want to maintain autonomy from Damascus. In
particular, minority religious and ethnic groups have viewed the new, Sunni
Arab-led government with suspicion. Turkey has been a key backer of al‑Sharaa,
providing political and military support to strengthen his government.
Washington declined to intervene on behalf of SDF, shifting its support to al-Sharaa's
nascent government and focusing on brokering a ceasefire. Turkey played a
behind-the-scenes role in the offensive. SDF's loss in Syria of "influence and
territorial hold is certainly a very favorable outcome for Turkey," said Sinan
Ulgen, director of the Istanbul-based EDAM research center. "The extension of
the capabilities of the new Syrian government is also another favorable
outcome."Ulgen cautioned, however, that the Syrian government's recent gains
could prove temporary if al-Sharaa fails to stabilize the northeast of the
country. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan extended congratulations to the
Syrian government in remarks to his ruling party's legislators on Wednesday.
"From the very beginning, Turkey has strongly defended the existence of a single
Syrian state," he said. "We have repeatedly declared that we will not consent to
any separatist structure along our southern borders that poses a threat to our
country's security." Turkey not only benefited from the developments but played
a supportive role, advising the Syrian government during operations that led to
the withdrawal of SDF forces from the city of Aleppo, Turkish security officials
said. Turkey's intelligence agency remained in contact with the Syrian
administration to prevent harm to civilians and the safe evacuation of SDF
members and their families from lost territory, according to the officials, who
spoke on condition of anonymity in line with regulations.Turkey also kept in
touch with the United States, the international coalition against the Islamic
State group, and other regional countries during the offensive, they said.
Obeida Ghadban, a strategic researcher at the Syrian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, said Turkey did not play a direct role in negotiations with the SDF but
that the Syrian government kept Ankara informed, both directly and through Tom
Barrack, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey and envoy to Syria. Kurdish group's
decline relieves some Turkey-US tensions. Also key to the Syrian government's
success was the willingness of the U.S. to see a former ally — the SDF —
dismantled. Experts say the SDF counted on Washington's support when it rejected
an earlier deal proposed by al-Sharaa.
Erdogan's warm personal ties with Donald Trump likely helped win the U.S.
president over, Ulgen said. But he added that the shift in U.S. policy was based
on the White House's assessment that its "interlocutor in Syria should be the
new government and not a non-state entity," referring to the SDF.
Israel refrains from intervening
The development also came despite tensions between Turkey and Israel over Syria.
Some SDF representatives openly called for Israeli intervention during the
recent clashes, citing Israel's past support for the Druze community during
violence in Syria's southern Sweida province. But Israel also chose to stand
aside. Ulgen said a key turning point was a recent meeting between Syrian and
Israeli officials in Paris, during which Syria effectively recognized Israel's
zone of influence along its southern border. Ozgur Unluhisarcikli, an expert on
Turkey at the German Marshall Fund, also said Syria and Israel reached a "tacit
agreement" on the SDF during the meeting in Paris but added that U.S. support
for the Syrian government played a key role.
Boost to Turkey's peace effort with the PKK
Turkish officials now hope that the integration of the SDF into Syrian
government structures will help advance Ankara's latest peace initiative aimed
at ending Turkey's own conflict with the PKK.In May, the PKK announced that it
would disarm and disband as part of reconciliation effort, following a call by
its imprisoned leader, Abdullah Ocalan. Last summer, the PKK staged a symbolic
disarmament ceremony in northern Iraq, where it has safe havens, and later
announced that it was withdrawing its remaining fighters from Turkey to Iraq.
The SDF, however, rejected pressure to follow suit, insisting that Ocalan's call
applied only to the PKK. "Now that handicap has been eliminated" Ulgen said. He,
however, cautioned that Ankara must still address potential frustrations among
its own Kurdish population, should tensions arise in Syria. On Tuesday, Turkey's
pro-Kurdish party, warned that any violence against Kurds in Syria would
undermine peace efforts in Turkey. "At a time when we are talking about internal
peace and calm, can there really be peace if Kurds are being massacred in Syria
and the feelings of Kurds in Turkey are ignored?" said the party's co-chair,
Tulay Hatimogullari.
Israel aims to ensure more
Palestinians are let out of Gaza than back in
Reuters/23 January/2026
Israel wants to restrict the number of Palestinians entering Gaza through the
border crossing with Egypt to ensure that more are allowed out than in, three
sources briefed on the matter said ahead of the border’s expected opening next
week. The head of a transitional Palestinian committee backed by the US to
temporarily administer Gaza, Ali Shaath, announced on Thursday that the Rafah
Border Crossing - effectively the sole route in or out of Gaza for nearly all of
the more than two million people who live there - would open next week. The
border was supposed to have opened during the initial phase of President Donald
Trump’s plan to end the war, under a ceasefire reached in October between
Israel and Hamas. Earlier this month, Washington announced that the plan had now
moved into the second phase, under which Israel is expected to withdraw troops
further from Gaza and Hamas is due to yield control of the territory’s
administration. The Gaza side of the crossing has been under Israeli military
control since 2024. The three sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity due
to the sensitivity of the issue, said it was still not clear how Israel planned
to enforce limits on the number of Palestinians entering Gaza from Egypt, or
what ratio of exits to entries it aimed to achieve. Israeli officials have
spoken in the past about encouraging Palestinians to emigrate from Gaza,
although they deny intending to transfer the population out by force.
Palestinians are highly sensitive to any suggestion that Gazans could be
expelled, or that those who leave temporarily could be barred from returning.
The Rafah Crossing is expected to be staffed by Palestinians affiliated with
the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority and monitored by EU personnel, as took
place during an earlier, weeks-long ceasefire between Israel and Hamas early
last year. The Israeli prime minister’s office did not immediately respond to a
request for comment for this story. The military referred questions to the
government, declining to comment. An Israeli official told Reuters the
government would determine when the border would open and that Palestinians
would not be able to leave or enter Gaza without approval from Israel. The
three sources said that Israel also wants to establish a military checkpoint
inside Gaza near the border, through which all Palestinians entering or leaving
would be required to pass and be subjected to Israeli security checks. Two other
sources also said that Israeli officials had insisted on setting up a military
checkpoint in Gaza to screen Palestinians moving in and out. The US Embassy in
Israel did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether
Washington supported Israel in limiting the number of Palestinians entering Gaza
or setting up a checkpoint to screen those entering and leaving. Under the
initial phase of Trump’s plan, the Israeli military partially pulled back its
forces within Gaza but retained control of 53 percent of the territory including
the entire land border with Egypt. Nearly all of the territory’s population
lives in the rest of Gaza, under Hamas control and mostly in makeshift tents or
damaged buildings. The sources said that it was not clear how individuals would
be dealt with if they were blocked by Israel’s military from passing through its
checkpoint, particularly those entering from Egypt. The Israeli government has
repeatedly objected to the opening of the border, with some officials saying
Hamas must first return the body of an Israeli police officer held in Gaza, the
final human remains of a hostage due to be transferred under the ceasefire’s
first phase. US officials in private say that Washington, not Israel, is
driving the rollout of the president’s plan to end the war.
Kushner's vision for rebuilding Gaza faces major obstacles
Naharnet/January 23/2026
Modern cities with sleek high-rises, a pristine coastline that attracts
tourists, and a state-of-the-art port that juts into the Mediterranean. This is
what Jared Kushner, U.S. President Donald Trump's son-in-law and Middle East
adviser, says Gaza could become, according to a presentation he gave at an
economic forum in Davos, Switzerland. In his 10-minute speech on Thursday,
Kushner claimed it would be possible — if there's security — to quickly rebuild
Gaza's cities, which are now in ruins after more than two years of war between
Israel and Hamas. "In the Middle East, they build cities like this ... in three
years," said Kushner, who helped broker the ceasefire in place since October.
"And so stuff like this is very doable, if we make it happen." That timeline is
at odds with what the United Nations and Palestinians expect will be a very long
process to rehabilitate Gaza. Across the territory of roughly 2 million people,
former apartment blocks are hills of rubble, unexploded ordnance lurks beneath
the wreckage, disease spreads because of sewage-tainted water and city streets
look like dirt canyons. The United Nations Office for Project Services says Gaza
has more than 60 million tons of rubble, enough to fill nearly 3,000 container
ships. That will take over seven years to clear, they say, and then additional
time is needed for demining. Kushner spoke as Trump and an assortment of world
leaders gathered to ratify the charter of the Board of Peace, the body that will
oversee the ceasefire and reconstruction process.
Here are key takeaways from the presentation, and some questions raised by it:
Reconstruction hinges on security. Kushner said his reconstruction plan would
only work if Gaza has "security" — a big "if."It remains uncertain whether Hamas
will disarm, and Israeli troops fire upon Palestinians in Gaza on a near-daily
basis. Officials from the militant group say they have the right to resist
Israeli occupation. But they have said they would consider "freezing" their
weapons as part of a process to achieve Palestinian statehood.
Since the latest ceasefire took effect Oct. 10, Israeli troops have killed at
least 470 Palestinians in Gaza, including young children and women, according to
the territory's Health Ministry. Israel says it has opened fire in response to
violations of the ceasefire, but dozens of civilians have been among the dead.
In the face of these challenges, the Board of Peace has been working with Israel
on "de-escalation," Kushner said, and is turning its attention to the
demilitarization of Hamas — a process that would be managed by the U.S.-backed
Palestinian committee overseeing Gaza. It's far from certain that Hamas will
yield to the committee, which goes by the acronym NCAG and is envisioned
eventually handing over control of Gaza to a reformed Palestinian Authority.
Hamas says it will dissolve the government to make way, but has been vague about
what will happen to its forces or weapons. Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007
from the Palestinian Authority. Another factor that could complicate
disarmament: the existence of competing armed groups in Gaza, which Kushner's
presentation said would either be dismantled or "integrated into NCAG." During
the war, Israel has supported armed groups and gangs of Palestinians in Gaza in
what it says is a move to counter Hamas. Without security, Kushner said, there
would be no way to draw investors to Gaza and or stimulate job growth. The
latest joint estimate from the U.N., the European Union and the World Bank is
that rebuilding Gaza will cost $70 billion.
Reconstruction would not begin in areas that are not fully disarmed, one of
Kushner's slides said. Kushner's plan avoids mention of what Palestinians do in
the meantime
When unveiling his plan for Gaza's reconstruction, Kushner did not say how
demining would be handled or where Gaza's residents would live as their areas
are being rebuilt. At the moment, most families are sheltering in a stretch of
land that includes parts of Gaza City and most of Gaza's coastline. In Kushner's
vision of a future Gaza, there would be new roads and a new airport — the old
one was destroyed by Israel more than 20 years ago — plus a new port, and an
area along the coastline designated for "tourism" that is currently where most
Palestinians live. The plan calls for eight "residential areas" interspersed
with parks, agricultural land and sports facilities. Also highlighted by Kushner
were areas for "advanced manufacturing," "data centers," and an "industrial
complex," though it is not clear what industries they would support. Kushner
said construction would first focus on building "workforce housing" in Rafah, a
southern city that was decimated during the war and is currently controlled by
Israeli troops. He said rubble-clearing and demolition were already underway
there. Kushner did not address whether demining would occur. The United Nations
says unexploded shells and missiles are everywhere in Gaza, posing a threat to
people searching through rubble to find their relatives, belongings, and
kindling. Rights groups say rubble clearance and demining activities have not
begun in earnest in the zone where most Palestinians live because Israel has
prevented the entry of heavy machinery. After Rafah will come the reconstruction
of Gaza City, Kushner said, or "New Gaza," as his slide calls it. The new city
could be a place where people will "have great employment," he said.
Will Israel ever agree to this?
Nomi Bar-Yaacov, an international lawyer and expert in conflict resolution,
described the board's initial concept for redeveloping Gaza as "totally
unrealistic" and an indication Trump views it from a real estate developer's
perspective, not a peacemaker's.
A project with so many high-rise buildings would never be acceptable to Israel
because each would provide a clear view of its military bases near the border,
said Bar-Yaacov, who is an associate fellow at the Geneva Centre for Security
Policy. What's more, Kushner's presentation said the NCAG would eventually hand
off oversight of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority after it makes reforms. But
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has adamantly opposed any proposal for
postwar Gaza that involves the Palestinian Authority. And even in the West Bank,
where it governs, the Palestinian Authority is widely unpopular because of
corruption and perceived collaboration with Israel.
Ukraine, Russia, US teams to discuss territory in UAE
Associated Press/January 23/2026
President Volodymyr Zelensky said negotiating teams from Washington, Moscow and
Kyiv would discuss territorial control of Ukraine's eastern Donbas region at
talks beginning Friday in the United Arab Emirates."The Donbas is a key issue.
It will be discussed in the modality that the three parties see fit in Abu Dhabi
today and tomorrow," Zelensky told journalists, including from AFP, in an online
briefing.
Russia, Ukraine sit for
tense talks in UAE on thorny territorial issue
Reuters/23 January/2026
Ukrainian and Russian negotiators met in Abu Dhabi on Friday to tackle the vital
issue of territory, with no sign of a compromise, as Russian attacks plunged
Ukraine into its deepest energy crisis of the four-year war. Kyiv is under
mounting US pressure to reach a peace deal in the war triggered by Russia's
full-scale invasion in February 2022, with Moscow demanding Kyiv cede its entire
eastern industrial area of Donbas before it stops fighting. Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelenskiy said the territorial dispute would be a top priority of the
talks in the United Arab Emirates. “The question of Donbas is key. It will be
discussed how the three sides... see this in Abu Dhabi today and tomorrow,” he
told reporters in a WhatsApp chat a day after talks with US President Donald
Trump at the World Economic Forum in Davos that yielded no immediate results.
The negotiations in the Gulf are expected to continue on Saturday morning,
Zelenskyy’s aide said. The talks unfold against a backdrop of intensified
Russian strikes on Ukraine’s energy system that have cut power and heating to
major cities like Kyiv, as temperatures hover well below freezing. Russian
President Vladimir Putin’s demand that Ukraine surrender the 20 percent it still
holds of the Donetsk region of the Donbas - about 5,000 sq km (1,900 sq miles) -
has proven a major stumbling block to a breakthrough deal. Zelenskyy refuses to
give up land that Russia has not been able to capture in four years of grinding,
attritional warfare. Polls show little appetite among Ukrainians for territorial
concessions.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday that Russia’s insistence on
Ukraine yielding the Donbas was “a very important condition.”A source close to
the Kremlin told Reuters that Moscow considers a so-called “Anchorage formula,”
which Moscow said was agreed between Trump and Putin at a summit last August,
to mean Russia controlling all of Donbas and freezing the current front lines
elsewhere in Ukraine’s east and south. Donetsk is one of four Ukrainian regions
Moscow said in 2022 it was annexing after referendums rejected by Kyiv and
Western nations as bogus. Most countries recognise Donetsk as part of Ukraine.
As Friday’s talks proceeded, the head of Ukraine’s top private power producer,
Maxim Timchenko, told Reuters that Ukraine needs a ceasefire that halts attacks
on energy, saying the situation was nearing a “humanitarian catastrophe.”Kyiv’s
energy minister said on Thursday that Ukraine’s power grid had endured its most
difficult day since a widespread blackout in November 2022, when Russia first
began bombing energy infrastructure.
Security guarantees agreed, Zelenskyy says
Zelenskyy said on Thursday in Davos that the Abu Dhabi talks would be the first
trilateral meetings involving Ukrainian and Russian envoys and US mediators
since the war began. Last year Russian and Ukrainian delegations had their first
face-to-face meeting since 2022 when they met in Istanbul. A top Ukrainian
military intelligence officer also had talks with US and Russian delegations in
Abu Dhabi in November. Ukraine has sought robust security guarantees from
Western allies in the event of a peace deal to prevent Russia, which has shown
little interest in ending the war, from invading again. Zelenskyy also told
reporters that a deal on US security guarantees for Kyiv was ready, and that he
was only waiting on Trump for a specific date and place to sign it. For its
part, Russia has floated the idea of using the bulk of nearly $5 billion of
Russian assets frozen in the United States to fund a recovery of
Russian-occupied territory inside Ukraine. Ukraine, backed by European allies,
demands that Russia pay it reparations. Asked about Russia’s idea, Zelenskyy
dismissed it as “nonsense.”Russia says it wants a diplomatic solution but will
keep working to achieve its goals by military means as long as a negotiated
solution remains elusive.
At least 5,002 killed in
Iran protests as Trump says US 'armada' approaching
Associated Press/January 23/2026
The toll in Iran's bloody crackdown on nationwide protests has reached at least
5,002 people killed, activists said Friday, warning many more were feared dead
as the most comprehensive internet blackout in the country's history crossed the
two-week mark.
The challenge in getting information out of Iran persists due to authorities
cutting off access to the internet on Jan. 8, even as tensions rise between the
United States and Iran as an American aircraft carrier group moves closer to the
Middle East — a force U.S. President Donald Trump likened to an "armada" in
comments to journalists late Thursday. The U.S.-based Human Rights Activists
News Agency offered the death toll, saying 4,716 were demonstrators, 203 were
government-affiliated, 43 were children and 40 were civilians not taking part in
the protests. It added that more than 26,800 people had been detained in a
widening arrest campaign by authorities. The group's figures have been accurate
in previous unrest in Iran and rely on a network of activists in Iran to verify
deaths. That death toll exceeds that of any other round of protest or unrest in
Iran in decades, and recalls the chaos surrounding Iran's 1979 Islamic
Revolution. Iran's government offered its first death toll Wednesday, saying
3,117 people were killed. It added that 2,427 of the dead in the demonstrations
that began Dec. 28 were civilians and security forces, with the rest being
"terrorists." Iran's theocracy in the past has undercounted or not reported
fatalities from unrest. The Associated Press has been unable to independently
assess the death toll, in part due to authorities cutting access to the internet
and blocking international calls into the country. Iran also reportedly has
limited journalists' ability locally to report on the aftermath, instead
repeatedly airing claims on state television that refer to demonstrators as
"rioters" motivated by America and Israel, without offering evidence to support
the allegation. The new toll comes as tensions remain high over Trump laying
down two red lines over the protests — the killing of peaceful demonstrators and
Tehran conducting mass executions. Iran's attorney general and others have
called some of those being held "mohareb" — or "enemies of God." That charge
carries the death penalty. It had been used along with others to carry out mass
executions in 1988 that reportedly killed at least 5,000 people. The U.S.
military meanwhile has moved more military assets toward the Mideast, including
the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and associated warships traveling with
it from the South China Sea. A U.S. Navy official, who spoke on condition of
anonymity to discuss military movements, said Thursday that the Lincoln strike
group is currently in the Indian Ocean. Trump said Thursday aboard Air Force One
that the U.S. is moving the ships toward Iran "just in case" he wants to take
action. "We have a massive fleet heading in that direction and maybe we won't
have to use it," Trump said. Trump also mentioned the multiple rounds of talks
American officials had with Iran over its nuclear program prior to Israel
launching a 12-day war against the Islamic Republic in June, which saw U.S.
warplanes bomb Iranian nuclear sites. He threatened Iran with military action
that would make earlier U.S. strikes against its uranium enrichment sites "look
like peanuts.""They should have made a deal before we hit them," Trump added.
The United Kingdom's Defense Ministry separately said its joint Eurofighter
Typhoon fighter jet squadron with Qatar, 12 Squadron, "deployed to the (Persian)
Gulf for defensive purposes noting regional tensions."
Mexico weighs stopping oil
shipments to Cuba amid concerns of Trump retaliation: Sources
Reuters/23 January/2026
The Mexican government is reviewing whether to keep sending oil to Cuba amid
growing fears within President Claudia Sheinbaum’s administration that Mexico
could face reprisals from the United States over the policy, which is a vital
lifeline for the Communist-run Caribbean island, according to three sources
familiar with the discussions. A US blockade of oil tankers in Venezuela in
December and the dramatic capture of President Nicolas Maduro this month have
halted Venezuelan oil shipments to Cuba, leaving Mexico as the single-largest
supplier to the island that suffers from energy shortages and mass blackouts.
Mexico’s pivotal role in sending oil to Cuba has also put the US’ southern
neighbor in Washington’s crosshairs. President Donald Trump has stressed Cuba is
“ready to fall” and said in a January 11 Truth Social post: “THERE WILL BE NO
MORE OIL OR MONEY GOING TO CUBA - ZERO!”
Publicly, Sheinbaum has said Mexico will continue oil shipments to Cuba, saying
they are based on long-term contracts and considered international aid. But the
senior Mexican government sources said the policy is under internal review as
anxiety grows within Sheinbaum’s cabinet that the shipments could antagonize
Trump. Mexico is trying to negotiate a review of the USMCA North American trade
pact, while also persuading Washington it is doing enough to combat drug cartels
and that US military action against the groups on Mexican territory is neither
welcome nor needed. The government review of Cuban oil shipments has not been
previously reported, and the sources requested anonymity to discuss the
sensitive matter. It remains unclear what ultimate decision the Mexican
government might take, with sources saying a complete halt, a reduction, and a
continuation in full are all still on the table. The Mexican presidency told
Reuters the country “has always been in solidarity with the people of Cuba” and
added that shipping oil to Cuba and a separate agreement to pay for the services
of Cuban doctors “are sovereign decisions.” The Cuban government did not respond
to a request for comment. A White House official said: “As the President stated,
Cuba is now failing on its own volition ... there will be no more oil or money
going to Cuba from Venezuela, and he strongly suggests Cuba makes a deal before
it is too late.”
Land attacks on cartels
In recent weeks, Trump has ratcheted up pressure on Mexico, saying the country
is run by the cartels and that ground attacks against them could be imminent.
Sheinbaum has repeatedly stressed that any unilateral US military action in
Mexican territory would be a grave breach of the country’s sovereignty. “There
is a growing fear that the United States could take unilateral action on our
territory,” one of the sources added. During a phone call last week, Trump
questioned Sheinbaum about crude and fuel shipments to Cuba and the presence of
thousands of Cuban doctors in Mexico, two of the sources said. Sheinbaum
responded that the shipments are “humanitarian aid” and that the doctors deal
“is in full compliance” with Mexican law, the sources familiar with the call
said. They added Trump did not directly urge Mexico to halt the oil deliveries.
The three sources said officials in Sheinbaum’s government are also
increasingly concerned about a growing presence of US Navy drones over the Gulf
of Mexico since December. Local media have reported, using flight-tracking data,
that at least three US Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton drones have conducted a
dozen flights over the Bay of Campeche, roughly following the route taken by
tankers carrying Mexican fuel to Cuba. These same reconnaissance aircraft were
spotted off the Venezuelan coast in December, days before the US attack on the
South American country. Sheinbaum has spearheaded an offensive against the
notorious Sinaloa Cartel and approved three unprecedented mass transfers of
nearly 100 drug kingpins to the United States. These measures have been praised
by high-ranking US officials, but Sheinbaum has repeatedly stated that
unilateral US action on Mexican soil represents a red line. “Very little of the
crude oil produced in Mexico is sent to Cuba, but it is a form of solidarity in
a situation of hardship and difficulty,” Sheinbaum said on Wednesday. “That
doesn’t have to disappear,” she added.
Cuba’s Mexican oil lifeline
Trump’s pressure campaign against Cuba dates back to his first term when he
reversed much of the historic rapprochement orchestrated by former Democratic
President Barack Obama, and has only increased since the Republican returned to
office a year ago. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a Cuban American, has been a
driving force behind Trump’s Venezuela policy, which he and other US officials
also see as potentially weakening Maduro’s Cuban allies. But the constraints on
Trump’s approach to Cuba are more daunting, given Havana’s regional and
international support, the entrenched nature of Cuba’s leadership and security
forces, and the ability the country has shown to withstand decades under a tough
US economic embargo. The largest island in the Caribbean relies heavily on fuel
imports of refined products to meet its demand for electricity generation,
gasoline, and aviation fuel. US sanctions and a deep economic crisis have
prevented the Communist government from purchasing enough fuel for years,
forcing it to depend on a small group of allies. Within Sheinbaum’s government,
the three sources said, there is a belief that Washington’s strategy of cutting
off Cuba’s oil could push the country into an unprecedented humanitarian
disaster, triggering mass migration to Mexico. For this reason, they added, some
in the government are pushing to maintain some fuel supplies to the island. With
Venezuelan supplies to Cuba stopped, it appears unlikely that other oil
producers would step in to make up the shortfall, given the US focus and heavy
military presence in the region. The US has seized tankers that had been
involved in the Venezuelan oil trade, vessels in the shadow fleet that supply
crude from countries under US sanctions, including Iran and Russia. Between
January and September last year, Mexico shipped 17,200 barrels per day of crude
oil and 2,000 bpd of refined petroleum products to Cuba worth approximately
$400 million, according to information reported by Mexican state oil company
Pemex to the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Latest English LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous
sources published
on January
23-24/2026
'If the Bad Guys Start Shooting, It Comes Over Greenland' vs. Europe's Strategic
Myopia
Pierre Rehov/Gatestone
Institute/January 23, 2026
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22226/greenland-europe-strategic-myopia
President Donald J. Trump saw what Europe could not, or perhaps would not: that
Greenland is not a quaint curiosity; in the 21st century, it is an essential
security asset and industrial necessity for the West. From the Arctic flight
path of Russian and Chinese intercontinental ballistic missiles to the Arctic
shipping lanes increasingly packed with Russian warships, Greenland's importance
has surged. The European Union, sadly, still seems to be having trouble emerging
from doctrinaire fantasies about its military preeminence, green transitioning,
and the illusion that the "Great Replacement" of Europeans and their values --
by immigrants and their values -- is merely a "conspiracy theory." Instead,
Europe is continuing to betray its industrial base and toss away strategic
opportunities.
Trump's push, no matter how undiplomatically articulated, was consistent with a
straightforward reality: You cannot safeguard Western security or technological
superiority if the strategic routes by land, sea and sky, as well as essential
raw materials, are controlled by your adversaries. The great European flaw --
from which it hopefully will soon recover -- is that its political, economic and
industrial policies are rooted in wishful thinking rather than in hard material
realities.
Europe's best move would be to allow the United States, which has both the will
and the capability, to secure a foothold in Greenland that allows it, along with
its allies, to shape and protect the future of the West. China's dominance in
rare earth processing is not a theoretical risk — it is a concrete vulnerability
for Western economies. Greenland offers a chance to diversify the supply and
break dependence on a self-declared enemy.
Europe's leaders, meanwhile, chase their vainglorious dreams.... just as these
leaders still keep believing -- or pretending to -- that millions of immigrants
from a totally different culture will adopt the laws and values of the West.
Europe's dismissive reaction is more than incomprehension; it is symptomatic of
a terrifying atrophy.
In the Arctic, and beyond, Trump is right -- and Europe, once again, is too vain
to learn.
President Donald J. Trump saw what Europe could not, or perhaps would not: that
Greenland is not a quaint curiosity; in the 21st century, it is an essential
security asset and industrial necessity for the West. Pictured: The US Space
Force's Pituffik Space Base, in Greenland, photographed on October 4, 2023.
(Photo by Thomas Traasdahl/Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images)
For decades, the world treated Greenland as a sentimental footnote in Arctic
mythology rather than a linchpin in global security and modern technology. This
was strategic negligence with real consequences.
By contrast, President Donald J. Trump saw what Europe could not, or perhaps
would not: that Greenland is not a quaint curiosity; in the 21st century, it is
an essential security asset and industrial necessity for the West. "Everything
comes over Greenland. If the bad guys start shooting, it comes over Greenland,"
he said.
From the Arctic flight path of Russian and Chinese intercontinental ballistic
missiles to the Arctic shipping lanes increasingly packed with Russian warships,
Greenland's importance has surged.
The US purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867 was also ridiculed as a "folly."
The European Union, sadly, still seems to be having trouble emerging from
doctrinaire fantasies about its military preeminence, green transitioning, and
the illusion that the "Great Replacement" of Europeans and their values -- by
immigrants and their values -- is merely a "conspiracy theory." Instead, Europe
is continuing to betray its industrial base and toss away strategic
opportunities.
Greenland's geopolitical significance was obvious to Trump before it became
fashionable to talk about the Arctic as a new theater of great-power
competition. Unlike the Brussels bureaucrats who mock and ignore both President
Trump and the potential danger, Trump recognized three facts early:
Greenland constitutes a strategic military platform for defending both the
Western Hemisphere and Europe, and for monitoring adversaries across the Arctic.
Melting Arctic ice will open up sea routes that could redefine maritime
aggression as well as opportunities for global commerce.
Greenland sits atop some of the world's richest deposits of rare earth elements
and critical minerals — materials essential for everything from electric
vehicles to missiles and microchips.
In 2019, Trump formally raised the idea of acquiring Greenland from Denmark —
not as an offbeat real estate idea, but as a strategic imperative for the United
States and the West. Even if the political optics are clumsy, the logic is
sound: keeping these assets out of Chinese or Russian hands -- as well as their
ability to use the Arctic for nuclear and ballistic missile attacks on the West,
not to mention integrating Greenland's assets into the Western supply chain --
is vital.
According to multiple sources, Greenland has deposits of rare earth minerals
among the largest outside China, and hosts 25 of the 34 minerals deemed
"critical raw materials" by the European Commission. Rare earth elements —
neodymium, dysprosium, terbium — are essential for permanent magnets in electric
motors, smart electronics, and defense systems such as radar and precision
guidance of air assets. Today, China controls roughly 70% of global rare earth
production and 90% of processing capacity, giving Beijing disproportionate
leverage over the global tech supply chain.
Trump's push, no matter how undiplomatically articulated, was consistent with a
straightforward reality: You cannot safeguard Western security or technological
superiority if the strategic routes by land, sea and sky, as well as essential
raw materials, are controlled by your adversaries.
Europe's positive response is most welcome. Prior to this week, for example,
while the US had moved to secure mining investment — the Trump-era Export-Import
Bank considered a $120 million loan to fund the Tanbreez rare earth mine in
Greenland — European politicians were negotiating memoranda of understanding and
long-term value chains that only delay real production.
The great European flaw -- from which it hopefully will soon recover -- is that
its political, economic and industrial policies are rooted in wishful thinking
rather than in hard material realities.
It was not always so. Europe for centuries led the way in upholding civil
liberties, equal justice under law, and the values of individual liberty that
spring from the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Reformation and the
Enlightenment. Europe was once a leader in heavy industry: cars, steel, coal,
and defense manufacturing. Today, Europe struggles to keep up with global
competitors in sectors that require strategic minerals. Instead, the technocrats
in Brussels fixate on ideological goals — often at odds with cultural and
economic viability as well as industrial competitiveness.
The European Union's decision to phase out combustion engines by 2035 epitomizes
this disconnect. In Brussels, electric vehicle (EV) mandates were hailed as a
triumph of green policy. For many policymakers in France and Germany, it was a
moral high ground: a cleaner planet, fewer emissions. What could possibly go
wrong?
The scientific reality, alas, tells a more nuanced story. Electric vehicles
produce zero tailpipe emissions, yet their environmental footprint is not the
utopian "silver bullet" that most Europeans assume. EVs require extensive
mining, processing, and battery production — all of which consume energy and raw
materials, the application of which can be just as damaging to the planet even
if sourced from half a world away.
Moreover, the claim that EVs solve particulate pollution is overstated: they
still emit particles from tire and brake wear — and because they are heavier
than traditional cars, non-tailpipe particulate concerns persist.
The European Parliament's own studies acknowledge the "environmental challenges
throughout the life cycle of battery electric vehicles," noting that carbon
footprints depend heavily on raw material extraction, production methods, and
electricity sources.
Europe traded industrial strength for half-baked environmental virtue signaling,
and now must source more and more critical materials — such as those found in
Greenland — just to keep its green fantasies alive.
This disconnect highlights two core challenges:
Europe lacks secure supply chains. Dependence on Chinese rare earth elements
undermines strategic autonomy.
Europe's industrial policies, driven by environmental ideology rather than
material science, risk hollowing out its manufacturing base.
Meanwhile, Trump's America is not afraid to focus on where security for the
West, chips for the West and rare earths for the West actually lie.
Today, international news outlets highlight Greenland's burgeoning role in
great-power politics. Melting sea ice will open Arctic shipping lanes, and both
Russia and China are increasing their Arctic presence. Greenland's geographic
position — guarding the gateway between the Arctic and Atlantic — makes it
invaluable for missile interception, military surveillance, and future naval
operations.
Western analysts confirm what Trump grasped years earlier: Greenland is not
remote; it is central. It lies at the intersection of climate change's strategic
effects, great-power competition, and the global scramble for critical minerals.
Rather than laugh or dismiss Trump's interest as "absurd," European leaders
might have asked a more serious question: Why was Trump so intent on it? Today
we have answers — and they vindicate Trump's instinct.
From a geopolitical lens, the competition for Arctic influence is real. China,
although at its closest point is 900 miles from the Arctic, quixotically brands
itself a "near-Arctic state" and has sought a presence through scientific
expeditions and infrastructure investments. Russia maintains military
facilities. Europe's best move would be to allow the United States, which has
both the will and the capability, to secure a foothold in Greenland that allows
it, along with its allies, to shape and protect the future of the West.
Many Europeans, sadly, will remain content with soft power and diplomatic
protests. In 2026, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent even suggested that
European "weakness" justified increased American presence in Greenland -- a
statement that, for all its bluntness, reflected Europe's default strategic
vacuum.
Critics of Trump's Greenland policy often frame it as brash or impractical.
Viewed objectively, it is grounded in three hard realities:
Control of strategic geography matters in a multipolar world.
Critical minerals are national security assets.
Policies divorced from reality -- including the erosion of Western values by
migrants, many of whom at best are conflicted about assimilating -- invite
decline.
These are principles that any serious global power must recognize. Europe has
yet to fully grasp them.
Rare earth elements power wind turbines, electric vehicle motors, fiber-optic
communication, defense systems, and advanced semiconductors. China's dominance
in rare earth processing is not a theoretical risk — it is a concrete
vulnerability for Western economies. Greenland offers a chance to diversify the
supply and break dependence on a self-declared enemy.
Trump's effort to involve the U.S. Export-Import Bank in financing Greenland's
Tanbreez rare earth mine is evidence of an administration that connects mineral
security to national security — a connection Brussels bureaucrats still struggle
to make.
Europe's leaders, meanwhile, chase their vainglorious dreams. As their economies
sink, these leaders still insist on green regulations, assuming that the raw
materials their regulations require will be plentiful, without even first
securing them, just as these leaders still keep believing -- or pretending to --
that millions of immigrants from a totally different culture will adopt the laws
and values of the West.
To sustain EV production at scale, batteries require lithium, cobalt, nickel,
and rare earth elements — yet Europe, lacking domestic sources, keeps relying on
foreign supply chains that are increasingly unreliable.
This view appears to be a genuine strategic blind spot. While American
policymakers debate hard choices over Greenland, European policymakers debate
emission targets and bureaucratic carbon accounting. Those matters are not
unimportant, but they are insufficient when divorced from the physical realities
of production and supply.
Europe's obsession with ideology over industry has consequences:
Loss of auto industry competitiveness as EV mandates make production more
expensive and dependent on imported materials.
Increased reliance on foreign sources, especially China, for critical inputs
like rare earth elements.
A strategic deficit in Arctic influence at a time when climate change may begin
to reshape global trade routes.
Compare this with Trump's approach: bold, unapologetically strategic, and
grounded in material interest. Trump did not simply call Greenland "important"—
he acted. Whether through investment, diplomatic pressure, or territorial
negotiation, his policy treats Greenland as what it is: a linchpin in the
emerging Arctic century.
Greenland is not a romantic artifact from some explorer's diary. It is a
geographic chokepoint with defense implications, a repository of minerals that
will power future technologies, and a strategic fulcrum in the Arctic's
geopolitical contest. Trump's focus on Greenland is not whimsy — it is realism.
Europe's dismissive reaction is more than incomprehension; it is symptomatic of
a terrifying atrophy. While Brussels applauds itself for lofty climate goals and
soft power diplomacy, Trump identifies what truly matters: power, resources,
geography, and readiness to act.
In a world where strategic competition between the US, China, and Russia
intensifies, Europe's fixation on ideological policies rather than material
security reveals a profound misunderstanding of the geopolitical game. Trump saw
past the fog of political correctness; Europe sadly still remains lost in it.
History will remember this period not for what Europeans dreamed, but for what
was accomplished by those who understood the stakes. In the Arctic, and beyond,
Trump is right -- and Europe, once again, is too vain to learn.
**Pierre Rehov, who holds a law degree from Paris-Assas, is a French reporter,
novelist and documentary filmmaker. He is the author of six novels, including
"Beyond Red Lines", "The Third Testament" and "Red Eden", translated from
French. His latest essay on the aftermath of the October 7 massacre " 7 octobre
- La riposte " became a bestseller in France. As a filmmaker, he has produced
and directed 17 documentaries, many photographed at high risk in Middle Eastern
war zones, and focusing on terrorism, media bias, and the persecution of
Christians. His latest documentary, "Pogrom(s)" highlights the context of
ancient Jew hatred within Muslim civilization as the main force behind the
October 7 massacre.
© 2026 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute.
The mission behind Trump’s Board of Peace is simple — and critics keep getting
it wrong
Jonathan Schanzer/New York Post/January 23, 2026
https://nypost.com/2026/01/21/opinion/the-mission-behind-trumps-board-of-peace-is-simple-and-critics-keep-getting-it-wrong/
President Trump is making big moves the world over. From nabbing Venezuelan
dictator Nicolás Maduro to threatening the conquest of Greenland to pushing for
a Ukraine-Russia cease-fire, Trump’s foreign policy plate is full. The World
Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, is still buzzing about it.
Overshadowed by these bigger headlines but no less important is Trump’s newly
minted Board of Peace. The board is designed to implement the president’s
20-point peace plan for the war-torn Gaza Strip, as endorsed verbatim by the UN
Security Council in November.
Notable critics, including French President Emmanuel Macron, assert that Trump —
through this new board that he personally and indefinitely oversees — is trying
to supplant the United Nations as part of a wider overhaul of the international
system that, in the wake of World War II, produced the UN, NATO and many of the
other organizations that are steadily losing relevance today. One can understand
Macron’s concern: The board’s charter does not mention Gaza but describes a
broader mission to promote stability and secure peace in any area threatened by
conflict. That sounds a lot like the UN.
Not a military alliance
However, according to Trump administration officials speaking off the record,
the Board of Peace has not been conceived as a direct challenge to the UN.
Rather, it should be seen as one of several multilateral entities, like the G20
or the World Bank Group, that could help nudge a flailing UN in the right
direction.
It is also not a military alliance, whereas NATO is. Nevertheless, some
countries are anxious that the board will undermine NATO’s purpose as an
alliance designed to counter Russian influence. To the horror of our NATO
allies, Trump invited Russian strongman Vladimir Putin to join this new board,
along with Putin’s ally, Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko. This comes at
a time when NATO is facing unprecedented strain over the dispute between
Washington and European capitals over the fate of Greenland and military support
for Ukraine. The coming months will give a clearer sense of where the board is
headed. Gaza is an enormous challenge. The board would be wise to deal with that
situation first before pivoting to other international conflicts. The Trump
administration has already made some initial steps, forming a subcommittee
within the board that will be responsible for managing Gaza. Prominent American
and international figures have joined (even as France and Germany have
declined). A Palestinian figure now sits atop the National Committee for the
Administration of Gaza. And momentum is slowly building for a Hamas-free Gaza.
Still, the board’s key tasks — disarming Hamas terrorists and installing an
International Stabilization Force — remain ahead. However, the inclusion of
figures representing Qatar and Turkey, both long-standing and continued patrons
of Hamas, raises an uncomfortable question: Will Doha and Ankara continue to
back their terrorist client in Gaza, or will they work with the Trump
administration to end Hamas rule in Gaza and begin reconstruction of the Strip?
To be clear, Qatar and Turkey bear significant responsibility for the brutal
Oct. 7 attack on Israel and the subsequent wars that have raged more than two
years. Including them on the Board of Peace looks like rewarding bad behavior.
Position of influence
While some critics have charged that the board is Trump’s international loyalty
test, this perception could actually redound to Trump’s benefit. He should
demand that Qatar and Turkey banish Hamas from their territories and end all
support. This should be the condition for their continued inclusion.
If Gaza becomes a success story, then one could easily imagine the board
addressing other global challenges, from the Russian war against Ukraine to the
appalling humanitarian crisis triggered by the conflict in Sudan.
The jackals at the UN are watching nervously. If Trump succeeds, it will be a
further sign of their failures.
**Jonathan Schanzer is executive director at the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies. Follow him on X @JSchanzer.
Over the Barrel of a Gun: Syria’s Deal With the SDF
Ahmad Sharawi/Real Clear World/January 23/2026
https://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2026/01/22/over_the_barrel_of_a_gun_syrias_deal_with_the_sdf_1160144.html
“Our Kurdish people, descendants of Saladin, beware of believing claims that we
seek harm against you,” Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa said in a televised
address on January 16 to Syria’s Kurdish community. The speech was delivered
amid a dangerous escalation between Damascus and the Kurdish-led Syrian
Democratic Forces (SDF), which has been a U.S. counterterrorism partner.
The SDF controlled roughly 30 percent of Syria following its role in defeating
the Islamic State, most of it east of the Euphrates River, a natural barrier
separating SDF-held territory from government-controlled areas, with only a
handful of SDF positions west of the river. Sharaa followed the speech by
signing a presidential decree granting Syrian Kurds a slate of long-denied
rights, including recognition of Kurdish as a national language, designation of
Nowruz, a celebration observed by Iranian peoples as a national holiday, and the
restoration of citizenship to stateless Kurds.
The decree corrected longstanding injustices and resonated with Kurdish
civilians long denied basic rights, but its synchronization with battlefield
escalation indicates it was deployed primarily as leverage against the SDF,
meant to drain grassroots support from the group weakening it militarily and
forcing it to accede to terms favorable to Damascus. The decree did not emerge
from negotiations with the SDF but was issued over its head, signaling to
Syria’s Kurdish community that the group played no role in securing their
newfound rights and that Damascus alone sets the terms of political inclusion.
Sharaa eventually extracted sweeping concessions from a chastened SDF, wielding
both coercion and conciliation.
Even as Sharaa spoke, Syria intensified its military campaign against the SDF
across multiple contested areas along the Euphrates. The government made rapid
gains at key strategic locations. By stripping the SDF of the Kurdish-rights
card, one of its few remaining sources of leverage, Sharaa forced the SDF back
to the table.
This combined strategy produced results. A new integration framework, widely
seen as favoring Damascus, expands central government control over formerly SDF-held
areas in Deir Ezzour and Raqqa, and mandates the absorption of SDF fighters into
the official Syrian military as individuals, rather than intact units. The
latter point had been a core Damascus demand and a key stumbling block for the
SDF despite a March agreement to bring the sides together.
While the March accord, signed by SDF commander Mazloum Abdi and Sharaa, called
for integrating SDF forces into the Syrian army, it never defined a mechanism to
do so. That ultimately sank the talks. The SDF had insisted on retaining local
control over its troops and preventing Syrian army entry into its territory,
citing security risks and the absence of credible guarantees following sectarian
violence committed by Damascus’ forces elsewhere. The government refused the
SDF’s conditions for several reasons, not the least of which is Turkey’s
influence over Damascus. Turkey considers the SDF’s core component, the People’s
Defense Units (YPG), an extension of the PKK — a U.S. and Turkish-designated
terrorist organization.
Turkey consistently rejected the incorporation of SDF commanders as officers in
the Syrian military and demanded that the group’s fighters be absorbed
individually, not as units, a blow to the Kurds ability to defend themselves
against Damascus, or Turkey itself, a position ultimately reflected in the final
integration framework.
Until the complete breakdown of talks in December, clashes were brief, often
lasting a single day and followed by talks to de-escalate. But Damascus’s
two-pronged attack — half charm, half armed — swept all before it.
In Aleppo, the SDF had long controlled the Kurdish-majority neighborhoods of
Sheikh Maqsoud and Ashrafiyeh, isolated enclaves surrounded by government
territory, but SDF forces withdrew following four days of intense clashes. The
speed of the collapse emboldened Damascus to expand the fight across Aleppo
province, advancing into contested areas west of the Euphrates, including Deir
Hafer and Maskanah, where the SDF again pulled back. Each withdrawal accelerated
Syrian momentum, allowing government forces to take control over strategic nodes
along the SDF’s frontier, including Tabqa in Raqqa province, a critical position
that would allow Damascus to attack the city of Raqqa itself. Raqqa was the
SDF’s largest and most symbolically important stronghold.
Riding a wave of battlefield momentum, Sharaa appears convinced that pressure,
not talks, will deliver results. Reopening negotiations on provisions he already
agreed with the SDF in March offered little upside when force produced visible
gains that he could use to extort concessions from the SDF.
The SDF’s rapid collapse west of the Euphrates was due to internal fracturing.
Fighters of Arab origin — who make up the bulk of the SDF’s ranks, despite its
Kurdish leadership — defected or withdrew, allowing Syrian forces to walk into
previously SDF-held positions.
Sharaa gambled that the same dynamic could be replicated east of the Euphrates,
where, unlike Aleppo, the SDF holds contiguous territory. In those territories,
Arab fighters also dominate the SDF’s manpower, and Damascus made the bet that
sustained military pressure would trigger a wave of defections and withdrawal,
weakening the SDF’s defensive positions. Damascus also exploited deep-seated
local resentment toward SDF rule. These grievances sparked a tribal mobilization
that resulted in militias temporarily seizing control of large parts of Deir
Ezzour province and several districts across the Raqqa governorate.
The Syrian army did not enter those areas initially, because, unlike Aleppo and
areas west of the river, the SDF-held areas east of the Euphrates fall squarely
within the U.S. military’s sphere of operations. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)
warned Damascus against further escalation, and officials in Washington have
signaled that any renewed large-scale offensive could trigger the snapback of
sanctions against Sharaa.
Even as Sharaa cultivates a working relationship with Washington, pushing deeper
into SDF-held territory east of the Euphrates risked antagonizing Washington.
Instead, Damascus leveraged its military pressure to force the SDF into an new
integration deal on terms that favor the central government. Washington was
happy to endorse the deal, which is far more favorable to Damascus than the SDF,
leaving its longtime allies out in the cold. With Washington’s blessing, Syrian
troops entered areas east of the river.
The durability of this arrangement, however, is far from assured. Coercion may
secure SDF compliance in the short term, but without an enforcement mechanism
for the deal, fighting can start up again at any time — a lesson learned from
the unraveling of the March agreement.
Washington has rewarded Sharaa in the hope he can stabilize and reform Syria,
but stability remains elusive on multiple fronts: meaningful political inclusion
Syria appears stalled, accountability for sectarian massacres committed over the
past year remains absent, and it is still unclear whether Syria’s reconstituted
military is aligned with U.S. counterterrorism priorities, most notably, whether
jihadist elements will be excluded from its ranks.
Sharaa’s Syria remains a place of divisions, whatever the rhetoric coming from
Damascus.
**Ahmad Sharawi is a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies, focusing on Middle East affairs and the Levant.
https://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2026/01/22/over_the_barrel_of_a_gun_syrias_deal_with_the_sdf_1160144.html
Read in Real Clear World
Trump Administration Should Be Wary of Granting Qatar and Turkey Executive Power
in Gaza
Aaron Goren & Ben Cohen/FDD-Policy Brief/January 23, 2026 |
President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace is off the ground, and the first test of
its capabilities is to maintain a shaky ceasefire in Gaza.
The board, launched on January 16 and further outlined by Trump’s son-in-law,
Jared Kushner, at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 22, will oversee
a subcommittee named the Gaza Executive Board (GEB). The GEB is tasked with
facilitating the implementation of the Trump administration-brokered ceasefire
in Gaza.
However, the presence of Turkey and Qatar on the 11-member GEB could yet derail
the stabilization process. The United States assigned seats on the subcommittee
to senior officials from both nations, whose support for Hamas has been
copiously documented. Granting these officials a degree of influence over the
future of Gaza spells trouble for the neutral management of the ceasefire and
could allow Hamas to reestablish itself in the territory.
Gaza Executive Board Sparks Discord
According to the White House, the GEB will liaise with a government of
Palestinian technocrats responsible for working on the ground to rehabilitate
civil services. While the balance of power between the bodies is unclear,
Trump’s ceasefire states that the technocratic government will operate under the
GEB’s “oversight and supervision.”
Hours after the White House named the GEB’s roster, Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu voiced Jerusalem’s objection to its composition, rooted in
unease over the presence of Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and leading
Qatari lawyer Hassan Al-Thawadi.
Turkey and Qatar Are Not Likely To Act as Neutral Board Members
Both Qatar and Turkey have expressed animus toward Jerusalem, funding Hamas and
providing refuge for its leadership. They have issued scathing statements
against Israel replete with the same antisemitic tropes promoted by Hamas and
its international network of supporters.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan made Ankara’s support for Hamas clear
throughout the war in Gaza. In May 2024, Erdogan remarked that, “We don’t deem
Hamas a terrorist organization,” while boasting that Turkish hospitals were
treating some 1,000 Hamas terrorists at the time. The Turkish president has also
compared Netanyahu to Adolf Hitler and threatened to dispatch Turkish troops to
Israel to intervene on behalf of Hamas during the war in Gaza.
Meanwhile, on two occasions in late 2025, Fidan held meetings in Turkey with
Hamas delegations, during which he “emphasized” to his Hamas counterparts that
“Turkey continues to defend the rights of Palestinians.”
Congruently, Qatar is still home to at least two members of Hamas’s Political
Bureau, Khalil Al-Hayya and Khaled Meshaal. The emirate falsely claimed in 2024
that no Hamas leaders continued to reside in Doha. Meanwhile, Qatari state media
outlet Al Jazeera has amplified Hamas messaging throughout the war in Gaza.
Netanyahu earlier objected to Qatari and Turkish participation in the
International Stabilization Force, the proposed military backbone of Trump’s
Gaza plan. But including their representatives on the GEB will give both states
influence over Gaza’s future. Though the veto power of other members remains
unclear, there is a risk that Turkey and Qatar may slyly push for their ally
Hamas to retain arms through integration, despite the Trump administration’s
optimism that the terror group will surrender its weapons.
To Participate in GEB, Ankara and Doha Must Distance Themselves From Hamas
To head off hostile actions by Fidan and Al-Thawadi under the auspices of the
GEB, the Trump administration should condition Turkey and Qatar’s participation
in the subcommittee on their expulsion of Hamas officials and the termination of
all diplomatic and financial ties to the terrorist group.
With Hamas weakened and holding no living hostages, Qatar and Turkey’s mediation
in an active conflict is no longer required. Trump may opt to allow the two
states to preserve some ties to Hamas for the purpose of disarming the terrorist
organization, but if this is the case, then the surrender of weapons should be
executed within an agreed upon, and strictly enforced, timeframe.
Qatar’s participation should also hinge on its formal recognition of Israel’s
right to a sovereign existence as a Jewish state. Members of the GEB will be
expected to exhibit neutrality in their decisions regarding both Israel and the
Palestinians. Turkey maintains diplomatic relations with Israel; the U.S. should
require no less of Qatar.
**Ben Cohen is a senior analyst and the rapid response director at the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), where Aaron Goren is a research
analyst and editor. For more analysis from Aaron, Ben, and FDD, please
subscribe HERE. Follow Aaron on X @RealAaronGoren. Follow Ben on X @BenCohenOpinion.
Follow FDD on X @FDD. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research
institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.
Erdogan chooses the ayatollahs over the Iranian people
Sinan Ciddi/Washington Examiner/January 23/2026
While Iranian protesters are being beaten, imprisoned, and killed by the Islamic
Republic, Turkey’s government is busy running diplomatic interference for the
mullahs. Ankara’s effort, marshaled by Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, is not an
aberration or a miscalculation. Rather, it is a revealing confirmation of
Turkey’s long-standing ideological sympathy for Islamist regimes and movements
across the Middle East.
Turkish officials cloak their defense of Tehran in warnings about “regional
instability,” arguing that the collapse of the Islamic Republic could create a
dangerous power vacuum. But beneath this familiar talking point lies a simpler
truth: President Recep Tayyip Erdogan does not want to see Iran fall —
especially if its downfall would weaken a fellow Islamist regime and strengthen
Israel’s strategic position.
An Iran free of nuclear ambition and terrorist proxies would be a major victory
for Israel and the broader Western security order. For Erdogan, that outcome is
unacceptable.
To be sure, concerns about the risks of military confrontation with Iran are not
illegitimate. Even Turkey’s opposition Republican People’s Party has expressed
unease about escalation. Yet, Fidan’s public statements go far beyond mere
caution. They amount to both a wholesale absolution of Tehran’s crimes and a
betrayal of the Iranian people.
In comments published by Turkey’s state-run Anadolu Agency, Fidan denied that
Iran’s protests reflect a popular demand for regime change, dismissing them as
economically driven and therefore ambiguous. This is demonstrably false.
Iranians are risking their lives not for marginal economic relief, but to reject
a system that has crushed their freedoms for more than four decades. What began
as protests over hardship has unmistakably evolved into a nationwide repudiation
of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the Islamic Republic itself.
Fidan compounds this deception by blaming international sanctions, instead of
Iran’s own catastrophic governance, for the suffering of ordinary Iranians. But
this argument collapses under even minimal scrutiny. Tehran has repeatedly been
offered off-ramps: reduce repression, abandon nuclear brinkmanship, and stop
exporting terrorism. Instead, it has poured billions into Hezbollah, Hamas, and
regional militias while resuming its nuclear ambitions. Iran’s misery is
self-inflicted. It is not imposed by the outside world.
If Erdogan were genuinely concerned about the destabilizing effects of Iran’s
collapse, he would not have spent years helping prop up the regime economically.
In 2019, U.S. prosecutors charged Turkey’s state-owned Halkbank with fraud,
money laundering, and sanctions evasion, alleging that it helped Iran move
roughly $20 billion in restricted funds, some of it through the U.S. financial
system. Ankara’s record shows not restraint, but complicity.
Yet, the Turkey-Iran relationship is about more than money. It is also rooted in
ideological affinity. During the latest wave of Iranian protests, Fidan
emphasized Iran’s “importance” to Turkey, while Erdogan invoked “Muslim unity”
against Israel during the recent regional conflict. This rhetoric echoes the
worldview of Erdogan’s Islamist mentor, Necmettin Erbakan, who openly embraced
Tehran’s clerical leadership decades ago. The affinity between Ankara and Tehran
is neither tactical nor temporary. In fact, it is doctrinal.
What truly unsettles Erdogan, however, is not Iran’s regional role, but what
Iran’s protests might inspire at home. If an entrenched Islamist regime can be
challenged in Tehran, why not in Ankara? Indeed, Turkey’s own opposition has
begun drawing the connection. In Cumhuriyet, Turkey’s leading opposition
newspaper, voices from the CHP have condemned Iran’s repression and expressed
solidarity with its protesters.
Turkey’s domestic unrest is no abstraction. Since March 2025, the country has
witnessed some of the largest demonstrations in its republican history. In
January, CHP leader Ozgur Ozel led tens of thousands in Istanbul to protest the
continued detention of the city’s mayor and presidential contender, Ekrem
Imamoglu. What began as outrage over a single arrest has grown into a broader
movement against Erdogan’s erosion of the rule of law.
Turkey is not Iran. It still holds elections, maintains a viable opposition, and
lacks a tradition of revolutionary upheaval. But those distinctions are
narrowing. Should Erdogan manipulate the 2028 presidential race by permanently
sidelining Imamoglu, he may push Turkish society past a breaking point.
Ankara’s eagerness to smother Iran’s democratic aspirations is nothing short of
an act of regime self-preservation. A free Iran would embolden Turks to
challenge the Islamist kleptocracy hollowing out their own institutions. That is
why the United States and its democratic allies must stand unequivocally with
the Iranian people. They should do so, and not only for Iran’s future, but to
ensure that the hope of democracy does not disappear across the region.
**Sinan Ciddi is a senior fellow on Turkey at the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies (FDD) in Washington, DC. 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://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/beltway-confidential/4428127/erdogan-chooses-the-ayatollahs-over-the-iranian-people/
Read in Washington Examiner
US Treasury sanctions
entities for supporting Hamas
Joe Truzman/FDD's Long War Journal/January 23/2026 |
The United States Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced
on January 21 that it sanctioned a network of organizations it says are covertly
controlled by Hamas. The move aims to limit the Islamist group’s ability to
raise funds while improving international mechanisms for supporting legitimate
Palestinian civil and humanitarian needs.
OFAC said the sanctions targeted entities that raised funds for Hamas, which is
designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States and other
countries, through sham charities and organizations that claimed to have
supported Palestinian causes.
Among the entities designated were the Gaza-based Waed Society, the Al Nur
Society, the Qawafil Society, the Al Falah Society, Merciful Hands, and the Al
Salameh Society.
According to OFAC, members of Hamas’s internal security forces were formally
assigned to work inside several of the organizations, including the Waed Society
and Al Salameh Society. Treasury said documentary evidence seized from Hamas
after the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel showed the group provided fighters
with detailed instructions on how to navigate Hamas’s internal bureaucracy to
request projects and services from affiliated charities.
OFAC said that the Waed Society received direct funding from Hamas to carry out
projects in Gaza and was tasked by the terrorist group with advocating on behalf
of Hamas fighters captured while fighting Israeli forces. The department said
that the Al Nur Society and the Al Falah Society were “similarly funded” and had
transferred funds to Hamas’s military apparatus.
Funds from Al Nur were used to pay Hamas members and provide services to
fighters, OFAC said. Al Falah, it added, transferred more than $2.5 million to
Hamas over a recent three-year period. Merciful Hands was also controlled by
Hamas’s so-called military wing, OFAC detailed, with some of its funding and
operational instructions coming directly from the terrorist group.
The Al Salameh Society and the Qawafil Society were likewise tasked and financed
by Hamas to support the organization and execute projects intended to benefit
its operations.
OFAC said that the Waed Society, the Al Nur Society, the Qawafil Society, and
the Al Falah Society were designated under Executive Order 13224 “for materially
assisting, sponsoring or providing financial, material or technological support
to Hamas.” OFAC designated Merciful Hands and the Al Salameh Society under
Executive Order 13224 “for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or for
having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly,
Hamas.”
OFAC also sanctioned the Popular Conference for Palestinians Abroad (PCPA),
which it said serves as a political front for Hamas. OFAC designated the PCPA
under the same provisions as Merciful Hands and the Al Salameh Society. PCPA’s
founder, Zaher Birawi, was also listed among OFAC’s designations under Executive
Order 13324 for “having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial,
material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support
of, the PCPA.”
Hamas issued a statement on January 22 condemning the designations, saying that
it considered the decisions to be “unjust and oppressive, built upon incitement
by the criminal Zionist entity.”
*Joe Truzman is an editor and senior research analyst at FDD’s Long War Journal
focused primarily on Palestinian armed groups and non-state actors in the Middle
East.
https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2026/01/us-treasury-sanctions-entities-for-supporting-hamas.php
Read in FDD's Long War Journal
Question: When is civil
disobedience allowed for a Christian?
GotQuestions.org/January 23/2026 |
Answer: The emperor of Rome from AD 54 to 68 was Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus
Germanicus, also known simply as Nero. The emperor was not known for being a
moral and ethical person, to say the least. In AD 64 the great Roman fire
occurred, with Nero himself being suspected of arson. In his writings, the Roman
senator and historian Tacitus recorded, “To get rid of the report [that he had
started the fire], Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite
tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the
populace” (Annals, XV).
It was during the reign of Nero that the apostle Paul wrote his epistle to the
Romans. While one might expect him to encourage the Christians in Rome to rise
up against their oppressive ruler, in chapter 13, we find this instead:
“Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is
no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they
who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a
cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of
authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a
minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it
does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who
brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in
subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For
because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting
themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax
is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor” (Romans
13:1–7).
Even under the reign of a ruthless and godless emperor, Paul, writing under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, tells his readers to be in subjection to the
government. Moreover, he states that no authority exists other than that
established by God, and that rulers are serving God in their political office.
Peter writes nearly the same thing in one of his two New Testament letters:
“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a
king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment
of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God
that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free
men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as
bondslaves of God. Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the
king” (1 Peter 2:13–17).
Both Paul’s and Peter’s teachings have led to quite a few questions from
Christians where civil disobedience is concerned. Do Paul and Peter mean that
Christians are always to submit to whatever the government commands, no matter
what is asked of them?
A Brief Look at the Various Views of Civil Disobedience
There are at least three general positions on the matter of civil disobedience.
The anarchist view says that a person can choose to disobey the government
whenever he likes and whenever he feels he is personally justified in doing so.
Such a stance has no biblical support whatsoever, as evidenced in the writings
of Paul in Romans 13.
The extremist patriot says that a person should always follow and obey his
country, no matter what the command. As will be shown in a moment, this view
also does not have biblical support. Moreover, it is not supported in the
history of nations. For example, during the Nuremberg trials, the attorneys for
the Nazi war criminals attempted to use the defense that their clients were only
following the direct orders of the government and therefore could not be held
responsible for their actions. However, one of the judges dismissed their
argument with the simple question: “But gentlemen, is there not a law above our
laws?”
The position the Scriptures uphold is one of biblical submission, with a
Christian being allowed to act in civil disobedience to the government if it
commands evil, such that it requires a Christian to act in a manner that is
contrary to the clear teachings and requirements of God’s Word.
Civil Disobedience—Examples in Scripture
In Exodus 1, the Egyptian Pharaoh gave the clear command to two Hebrew midwives
that they were to kill all male Jewish babies. An extreme patriot would have
carried out the government’s order, yet the Bible says the midwives disobeyed
Pharaoh and “feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them,
but let the boys live” (Exodus 1:17). The Bible goes on to say the midwives lied
to Pharaoh about why they were letting the children live; yet even though they
lied and disobeyed their government, “God was good to the midwives, and the
people multiplied, and became very mighty. Because the midwives feared God, He
established households for them” (Exodus 1:20–21).
In Joshua 2, Rahab directly disobeyed a command from the king of Jericho to
produce the Israelite spies who had entered the city to gain intelligence for
battle. Instead, she let them down via a rope so they could escape. Even though
Rahab had received a clear order from the top government official, she resisted
the command and was redeemed from the city’s destruction when Joshua and the
Israeli army destroyed it.
The book of 1 Samuel records a command given by King Saul during a military
campaign that no one could eat until Saul had won his battle with the
Philistines. However, Saul’s son Jonathan, who had not heard the order, ate
honey to refresh himself from the hard battle the army had waged. When Saul
found out about it, he ordered his son to die. However, the people resisted Saul
and his command and saved Jonathan from being put to death (1 Samuel 14:45).
Another example of civil disobedience in keeping with biblical submission is
found in 1 Kings 18. That chapter briefly introduces a man named Obadiah who
“feared the Lord greatly.” When the queen Jezebel was killing God’s prophets,
Obadiah took a hundred of them and hid them from her so they could live. Such an
act was in clear defiance of the ruling authority’s wishes.
In 2 Kings, the only apparently approved revolt against a reigning government
official is recorded. Athaliah, the mother of Ahaziah, began to destroy the
royal offspring of the house of Judah. However, Joash the son of Ahaziah was
taken by the king’s daughter and hidden from Athaliah so that the bloodline
would be preserved. Six years later, Jehoiada gathered men around him, declared
Joash to be king, and put Athaliah to death.
Daniel records a number of civil disobedience examples. The first is found in
chapter 3 where Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to bow down to the golden
idol in disobedience to King Nebuchadnezzar’s command. The second is in chapter
6 where Daniel defies King Darius’ decree to not pray to anyone other than the
king. In both cases, God rescued His people from the death penalty that was
imposed, signaling His approval of their actions.
In the New Testament, the book of Acts records the civil disobedience of Peter
and John towards the authorities that were in power at the time. After Peter
healed a man born lame, Peter and John were arrested for preaching about Jesus
and put in jail. The religious authorities were determined to stop them from
teaching about Jesus; however, Peter said, “Whether it is right in the sight of
God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop
speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19–20). Later, the rulers
confronted the apostles again and reminded them of their command to not teach
about Jesus, but Peter responded, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts
5:29).
One last example of civil disobedience is found in the book of Revelation where
the Antichrist commands all those who are alive during the end times to worship
an image of himself. But the apostle John, who wrote Revelation, states that
those who become Christians at the time will disobey the Antichrist and his
government and refuse to worship the image (Revelation 13:15) just as Daniel’s
companions violated Nebuchadnezzar’s decree to worship his idol.
Civil Disobedience—Conclusion
What conclusions can be drawn from the above biblical examples? The guidelines
for a Christian’s civil disobedience can be summed as follows:
• Christians should resist a government that commands or compels evil and should
work nonviolently within the laws of the land to change a government that
permits evil.
• Civil disobedience is permitted when the government’s laws or commands are in
direct violation of God’s laws and commands.
• If a Christian disobeys an evil government, unless he can flee from the
government, he should accept that government’s punishment for his actions.
• Christians are certainly permitted to work to install new government leaders
within the laws that have been established.
Lastly, Christians are commanded to pray for their leaders and for God to
intervene in His time to change any ungodly path that they are pursuing: “First
of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings,
be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we
may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity” (1 Timothy
2:1–2).
Morocco takes centre stage
in global peace architecture at Davos
Said Temsamani/The Arab Weekly/January 23/2026
In a world where conflicts dominate headlines and multilateral solutions often
falter, Morocco has sent a powerful signal: peace is a deliberate strategy, not
a mere aspiration. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Morocco’s Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Nasser Bourita, signed the founding charter of the Peace
Council on behalf of His Majesty King Mohammed VI, positioning the kingdom as a
proactive architect of a new international approach to peacebuilding. The
ceremony, presided over by US President Donald Trump, brought together nearly
twenty world leaders, reflecting the global recognition that sustainable
stability is inseparable from economic and social progress. Morocco’s signature,
alongside Bahrain’s, was not just symbolic, it marked the kingdom as a leader
shaping the rules of engagement for conflict prevention and international
cooperation.
Morocco’s diplomatic track record is long and distinguished. From its leadership
in the Al-Quds Committee to its mediating roles across Africa and the Middle
East, the kingdom has consistently acted as a bridge-builder in complex
geopolitical landscapes. Joining the Peace Council as a founding member
amplifies this legacy, moving Morocco from a respected participant to a key
influencer in the formulation of international peace strategies. The Council
aims to redefine how the world approaches conflicts, not merely reacting to
crises, but proactively preventing them through dialogue, development and
strategic foresight. Morocco’s involvement ensures that these initiatives are
grounded in experience, credibility and ethical consistency.
Choosing Davos as the launch platform was deliberate. The World Economic Forum
is now a space where economic, political and security interests converge.
Morocco’s role on this stage signals to the world that the Kingdom is ready to
lead, bridging diverse regions, cultures and perspectives in pursuit of shared
security and prosperity.Central to this achievement is the personal vision of
His Majesty King Mohammed VI. Morocco’s inclusion in the select circle of Peace
Council founding members underscores international recognition of the king’s
foresight and moral authority. It affirms Morocco’s growing weight in shaping
the global peace agenda. The charter’s signature is just the beginning. The true
measure of success will be in how the Peace Council delivers real-world
solutions. Morocco’s credibility, institutional stability and balanced diplomacy
position it to play a pivotal role in transforming the Council from a forum of
ideas into a platform of action. In an era defined by fragmentation and
uncertainty, Morocco has again chosen to be a bridge-builder. The kingdom
demonstrates that peace is not a passive hope but an active investment in
stability, prosperity and the future of generations worldwide.
**Said Temsamani is a Moroccan political analyst focusing on diplomacy,
governance and international affairs.
Why Israel will not
intervene to overthrow the Iranian regime
David Powell/January 23/2026
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has spent his political career warning
that the Islamic Republic of Iran presents the greatest menace not only to his
country, but to the region and the world. He castigated the deal the Obama
administration made with Tehran to limit its nuclear program, warning that only
the total demise of this ideologically anti-Western regime would remove the
threat it poses. He long argued that the US and Israel should use force to
remove the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon. And last June both countries
acted together in a 12-day bombardment that decimated Iran’s nuclear and
ballistic missile programs. This month’s nationwide protests by Iranians of all
backgrounds have posed the biggest challenge to the Iranian regime since the
1979 revolution, one to which it has responded by killing and wounding several
thousand of its own people. But despite the prospect that theocratic rule in
Iran might finally be approaching its demise – Netanyahu’s long pursued goal –
the Israeli prime minister has not pledged any Israeli intervention to help
bring that about. He has limited his comments to expressions of support for the
“heroic and courageous citizens of Iran” and hopes that the “yoke of tyranny”
would finally be lifted from their shoulders. US President Trump, by contrast,
has made repeated threats of military intervention if the regime continues to
kill protesters or execute those arrested. He urged Iranians to remain on the
streets, promising that “help is on the way”, subsequently claiming that these
threats had persuaded the Iranian leadership to halt 800 executions it had
planned to carry out.
This apparent difference between the US and Israel over what strategy to pursue
over the Iran protests contrasts with their close cooperation last June when
their joint military action dealt a humiliating blow to Iran’s nuclear and
ballistic missile program. Only last month Netanyahu and Israeli officials were
expressing concern that Iran was rebuilding its missile program. And on December
29 – the day after the Iranian street protests broke out – Trump told Netanyahu
in Florida that he would support an Israeli attack on Iran if it tried to
rebuild its missiles or reconstitute its nuclear program.
For Israel, however, military action to try to overthrow the regime – as opposed
to curbing its missile and nuclear threat and defeating its regional proxies –
appears to be off the table. Reports that Netanyahu went as far as to urge Trump
not to attack Iran are credible, given Tehran’s threats to attack Israel in the
event of US military action, even if Israel itself was not involved. For all the
devastation caused to Iran’s missile program last June, Israel knows that the
regime retains the ability to fire rockets and drones at Israeli cities. And
while Israelis were prepared to face such strikes last year, when the goal to
was remove an existential nuclear threat, Netanyahu knows they are less likely
to do so if the goal was to change the regime in Iran. Ever the consummate
politician, Netanyahu would be wary of entering into a campaign with such an
uncertain outcome when elections in Israel are predicted to come by the summer
of this year.
He is also aware that an attack on the regime in Tehran would likely prove
counterproductive, lending credence to the regime’s narrative that the mass
protests are not a genuine expression of popular anger at its incompetence and
oppression, but rather a conspiracy hatched by its archenemy. Israeli action
would therefore strengthen rather than undermine the regime, and hand it an
excuse to redouble its violent repression of dissent. Nor is there any guarantee
that military action would be effective, certainly in the short term, in
bringing down the regime. And military failure would both enhance the standing
of the Iranian leadership and betray the courageous efforts the demonstrators to
free themselves from decades of autocratic rule. A further reason why Israel is
loath to involve itself in overt efforts to overthrow the regime in Tehran is
concern over what would replace it. Some experts are predicting that, if the
regime’s efforts to crush the protests do not prove long lasting, it might seek
to calm internal opposition by replacing the ailing 86-year-old Ayatollah
Khamenei with a younger Supreme Leader. Others speculate that elements within
the regime could seize power and swap theocratic rule for a more nationalist
dictatorship. Neither of these possible outcomes means Iran would necessarily
adopt a less aggressive stance towards the West in general or abandon its
anti-Israel ideology.
For now, there is no sign that the Revolutionary Guard, pro-regime Basij
militia, police or army are about to abandon the regime. Neither is there any
visible opposition leader inside Iran ready to take over should the regime
collapse. And while there has been some expression of support on the streets of
Iran for the son of the late Shah, he has neither the groundswell of internal
support nor the organizational background to run a post-revolutionary Iran. For
all these reasons, we are unlikely to see any overt Israeli military action in
the short term to overthrow the Iranian regime, especially as its ruthless
repression combined with shutting down of the internet appears to have crushed
this latest round of mass demonstrations. However, while the regime remains
committed to trying to rebuild its nuclear and ballistic missile program, and
reconstruct its now shattered band of regional proxies, a renewed round of
conflict between it and Israel is really only a matter of time.
Peace for Land, Not Land
for Peace
Hussain Abdul-Hussain/Algemeiner bloggers/January 23/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/01/151455/
“Land for peace,” the mantra since Camp David, has brought the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict to a dead end, with Palestinian militias remaining
active despite the promise of statehood. It’s now time to reverse this broken
policy into “peace for land,” where Palestinian acceptance of Zionism earns them
territory to govern themselves. A version of this model is being tested in Gaza
as part of President Trump’s peace plan. Its success is imperative. Its failure
risks more of the same. “Land for peace” is outdated — it belongs to 1967, when
a fledgling Israel sought Arab recognition. The late Defense Minister Moshe
Dayan delivered his famous statement after Israel took the West Bank from
Jordan, the Golan Heights from Syria, and the Sinai from Egypt. To his offer,
the Arabs responded with the famous “three nos” from the Khartoum Arab League
summit.
Israel has come a long way since 1967, growing from a young nation seeking
acceptance to a confident and strong one whose friendship is now sought after.
When Saudi Arabia was on the cusp of securing a normalization deal with Israel,
in 2023, but then slammed on the brakes by inserting a Palestinian state as a
prerequisite, a senior Israeli official told a small gathering, in confidence,
that “Israel has lived 77 years without normalization with Saudi Arabia, and can
afford another 77 years.”
The problem is that the Saudis are still hung up on the old days, when their
country was the biggest, wealthiest, and most influential. In 1981, when Riyadh
first proposed the “two-state solution” according to the principle of land for
peace, the Saudi population was six million — one-sixth of what it is today.
Global oil prices were skyrocketing, Saudi GDP per capita was among the highest
in the world, and surpluses allowed the kingdom to buy enormous influence.
But today, Saudi Arabia needs to sell every barrel of oil at around $96. The
2025 global market price hovered around $65. Riyadh funded a significant portion
of its expenditures through borrowing. Its deficit ballooned to $65 billion or
5.3 percent of GDP. And if Venezuelan oil comes back online — and maybe Iran’s
too — the Saudis will find it extremely hard to balance their books.
If the Saudis don’t transform their economy to services, the very social
contract of the Saudi kingdom will start shaking. To keep it stable, populism —
in terms of Islamism and antisemitism — will be the most effective tool, thus
pushing Saudi Arabia further away from peace.
And yet, the Saudis still believe that peace with Israel, along the lines of
“land for peace” and without the Palestinians agreeing to Jewish nationhood, is
a reward to the Israelis, who, for their part, are not lured by the Saudi offers
and counter by offering “peace for peace” that serves the mutual interests of
both countries.
But as long as the Saudis hang on to the antiquated “land for peace,” and as
long as Palestinians — alongside Qataris, Turks, and the Muslim Brotherhood
crowd in general — hide their hate toward Zionism behind the “two-state
solution,” peace will not come. The order for peace must be reshuffled.
First comes Palestinian and general Arab endorsement of Zionism — that is, the
acceptance that Israel is the country of the Jews on their land. This means
that, if there is ever a two-state solution that mandates Jews pull out of the
Palestinian state, it also means that all Arabs live under Palestinian rule and
that the Palestinian leadership relinquishes what it calls the “right of
return.”
Once it is established that Palestinians and the Arabs understand they cannot
use demographics as a Trojan Horse to undermine Jewish sovereignty, peace
becomes within reach. And once the 8 million Jews of Israel are reassured that
the 493 million Arabs are not out to get them and take away their state, the
rest becomes administrative detail: Palestinians will be able to govern
themselves within delineated territory that does not even need a barrier with
Israel, just like any two states within the US or the EU.
This is what peace looks like, and it can only be the result of “peace for
land,” not “land for peace.”As for Saudi Arabia, if it signs “peace for peace”
with Israel, not only will its economy have much better chances of transforming
into services, but its newfound friendship with Israel becomes an asset for
Palestinians. If Israel trusts the Saudis, and the Saudis guarantee that
Palestinians have come to terms with Zionism and want to live at peace with a
Jewish state, then we’re almost near the finish line.
It is unfortunate, however, that the Saudis seem to be going in the opposite
direction. They’re taking the Palestinians with them and wasting more time on
top of all the decades wasted because of unrealism, populism, and the hope of
one day seeing Israel go away.
Hussain Abdul-Hussain is a research fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of
Democracies (FDD).
**The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not
represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like
to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch
through our Contact page.
Selected Face Book & X tweets/
January 23/2026
Maha Aoun
The United Arab Emirates will not be anymore in the future a neutral actor in
the Middle East. BUT Rather, IT WILL BE increasingly positioned to play a
regional role similar to the one Iran once played— sur different in tools, but
not in function. Instead of ideology and militias, influence will be expanded
through manufactured elites and “soft” models of governance, marketed under the
banners of stability and moderation, within an undeclared U.S.–Emirati
partnership. The objective is the same: to manage the region from behind the
scenes, not through direct confrontation, but by reshaping the internal
political structures of fragile states—capitalizing on the popular and media
acceptance the UAE still enjoys, and on its image as a “non-confrontational”
state. In this context, the “Abu Omar” model in Lebanon cannot be seen as a
local detail or an isolated case. It is an indicator of a broader approach: a
U.S. strategy implemented through Emirati tools, designed to be replicated,
based on exporting calm, non-confrontational leadership figures that hollow out
politics of their representative and conflictual substance, reducing it to the
mere management of crises rather than their resolution. The danger lies not in a
new ideology or a declared project, but in an influence that passes without
resistance, slipping in under the banners of pragmatism and rationality—where
the central question iwill be no longer who governs, but who manufactures the
ruler, and in whose interest.