English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News
& Editorials
For January 31/2026
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news
The Bulletin's Link on the
lccc Site
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2026/english.january
31.26.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
A bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; not arrogant or quick-tempered or
addicted to wine or violent or greedy for gain; but he must be hospitable, a
lover of goodness, prudent, upright, devout, and self-controlled.
Letter to Titus 01/01-09/:"Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus
Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and the knowledge of the truth
that is in accordance with godliness, in the hope of eternal life that God, who
never lies, promised before the ages began in due time he revealed his word
through the proclamation with which I have been entrusted by the command of God
our Saviour, To Titus, my loyal child in the faith we share: Grace and peace
from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Saviour. I left you behind in Crete for
this reason, that you should put in order what remained to be done, and should
appoint elders in every town, as I directed you: someone who is blameless,
married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and
not rebellious. For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not
be arrogant or quick-tempered or addicted to wine or violent or greedy for gain;
but he must be hospitable, a lover of goodness, prudent, upright, devout, and
self-controlled. He must have a firm grasp of the word that is trustworthy in
accordance with the teaching, so that he may be able both to preach with sound
doctrine and to refute those who contradict it."
Titles For The Latest English LCCC
Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published
on January
30-31/2026
Report: Hezbollah-Aoun dialogue suspended, group won't join Iran war
One killed in Israeli strike on car in Siddiqin
Parliament approves 2026 budget amid debates and protests
Israeli army targets south Lebanon with series of violent strikes
Thousands of Shiite Muslims displaced from Syria find new home in Lebanon
Expat and resident parliamentary elections set for May 1, 3, 7 and 10
US Embassy and CENTCOM say Mechanism 'remains fully in place'
Government's salary calculation for Lebanon's public sector: A raise today or a
crisis tomorrow?
As wage demands return, Lebanon’s finance minister recalls the cost of 2017
Lebanon’s Ministry of Health extends 100% coverage to displaced border village
residents
Association of Banks warns $20 billion needed to repay small depositors—the
details
'Buffer' and 'economic' zones are 'mere talks', Aoun tells south delegation
Lebanese diaspora groups call for full voting rights for non-resident citizens
Bassil calls Geagea 'coward', 'liar' and 'criminal' after he accuses him of
corruption
Lebanon-Israel Ceasefire Panel to Stay, French Role Remains Military
Lebanon Enforces Funds Checks Despite Hezbollah Objections
Lebanon’s government approves a deal to transfer Syrian prisoners back to Syria
One year after the war, southern Lebanon faces fragile reconstruction/Fatima
Abbani/Annahar English/January 30/2026
Without Conditions, Qatari Aid to Lebanon Isn’t Helpful/David Daoud and Natalie
Ecanow/FDD-Policy Brief/January 30/2026
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous
Reports And News published
on January
30-31/2026
Trump
says ‘hopefully’ no need for military action against Iran
Trump says Iran wants to ‘make a deal’
No Iran ‘end state’ goal yet as Trump administration reviews US military options
New US Sanctions Against Iran Target Interior Minister Over Crackdown on
Protesters
‘Kingdom is on a path toward the light,’ says US Senator Graham after meeting
Prince Khalid bin Salman
Joining ranks with the US as it pressures Tehran, EU designates Iran Guards as
‘terrorist organisation’
Iran FM says ready to resume nuclear talks with US ‘on equal footing’
Repression Cannot Go Unanswered’: EU Designates IRGC as Terrorist Organization
Saudi Arabia welcomes Syria govt, SDF ceasefire agreement
Wary of impact on own security, Ankara seeks to mediate US-Iran conflict
Israeli, Saudi officials visit Washington to discuss possible US strikes on
Iran, sources say
Syrian government and Kurdish SDF agree to integration deal hailed by US as
‘historic milestone’
MSF Says it Will Not Share Staff Details Demanded by Israel to Access Gaza
US optimistic about Hamas’ willingness to disarm despite lingering uncertainties
Divided Iraqis struggle to find balance over Maliki nomination, risk of Iran war
Putin meets UAE president, Ukraine talks and regional issues on agenda
Titles For The Latest English LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous
sources published
on January
30-31/2026
Question: Why did God command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?/GotQuestions.org?/January
30/2026
Iran, Venezuela ou les transitions impossibles?/Dr. Charles Elias Chartouni//Citation
tirée du site web de Voici Beyrouth/janvier 30/2026
Iran, Venezuela or the impossible transition?/Dr. Charles Elias Chartouni/This
Is Beirut/January 30/2026
Syrian President Al-Sharaa Deepens Relationship With Putin During Latest Moscow
Visit /Ahmad Sharawi/FDD-Policy Brief/January 30/2026
What Trump’s National Defense Strategy Gets Right — and Wrong/Bradley Bowman and
RADM (Ret.) Mark Montgomery/Real Clear Defense/January 30/2026
Russian troops begin evacuating from northern /Dmitriy Shapiro and Keti Korkiya/FDD's
Long War Journal/January 30/2026
Houthi Actions Force World Food Programme to Close Operations in Northern
Yemen/Edmund Fitton-Brown and Bridget Toomey/FDD-Policy Brief/January 30/2026
Who owns the world’s laughter?/Karam Nama/The Arab Weekly/January 30/2026
How developing countries can make the most of AI/Shamika Sirimanne and Taffere
Tesfachew/Arab News/January 30, 2026
National Sovereignty: A Principle Under Attack/Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Awsat/30
January/2026
Imposing Peace Through War/Radwan al-Sayyed/Asharq Al Awsat/30 January/2026
Selected X tweets for January 30/2026
The Latest English LCCC
Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published
on January
30-31/2026
Report: Hezbollah-Aoun dialogue suspended, group won't join Iran war
Naharnet/January 30/2026
Political forces agree that the dialogue between President Joseph Aoun and MP
Mohammad Raad is currently suspended and fraught with irreconcilable
differences, a media report said. A prominent political source from the Shiite
Duo meanwhile told the Asharq al-Awsat newspaper that Hezbollah chief Sheikh
Naim Qassem’s latest threat that Hezbollah might militarily support Iran in the
event of a new war is unlikely to be translated into actions, calling them
verbal solidarity. The source emphasized that Qassem had no choice but to say
what he said.
One killed in Israeli strike on car in Siddiqin
Naharnet/January 30/2026
An airstrike targeted a car Friday in the southern town of Siddiqin in the Tyre
district, killing one person. The Israeli army said it targeted a Hezbollah
member in the strike. Israel has kept up its strikes mainly on south and east
Lebanon, despite a ceasefire reached in November 2024 and despite the Lebanese
army announcing earlier this month the completion of Hezbollah's disarmament
south of the Litani River.
Parliament approves 2026 budget amid debates and protests
Naharnet/January 30/2026
The Parliament approved the 2026 state budget on Thursday after debates that
lasted for three days. 59 MPs voted in favor, 34 voted against it, and 11
abstained.
Speaker Nabih Berri asked the media to stop the live broadcast of the session as
the debate over the increase of the public sector's salaries turned heated.
During the three days of discussions, retired army personnel protested near the
parliament in Beirut, demanding better pay. On Thursday evening, as their
demands were not included in the ratified budget, the protestors blocked roads
and burned tires in regions across Lebanon. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, who was
attending the session, met with the retirees and promised them to find a fair
solution regarding their salaries before the end of February.
Israeli army targets south Lebanon with series of violent
strikes
Naharnet/January 30/2026
At least 17 Israeli airstrikes targeted Friday several regions in south Lebanon,
including the valley between Msayleh, Tefahta and al-Najjariyeh.The Israeli army
said it is targeted "Hezbollah infrastructure" in the South Lebanon, while local
media outlets reported a series of violent strikes.Earlier on Friday, an
airstrike targeted a car in the southern town of Siddiqin in the Tyre district,
killing one person. The Israeli army said it targeted a Hezbollah member in the
strike.Israel has kept up its strikes mainly on south and east Lebanon, despite
a ceasefire reached in November 2024 and despite the Lebanese army announcing
earlier this month the completion of Hezbollah's disarmament south of the Litani
River.
Thousands of Shiite Muslims displaced from Syria find new home in Lebanon
Associated Press/January 30/2026
Thousands of Shiite Muslims who fled Syria after former President Bashar Assad's
government was toppled in an offensive by Sunni rebels in December 2024 have
found a new home in Lebanon. Many of them stayed in mosques, schools or with
relatives in Lebanon until the Imam Ali Housing Compound — funded by Hezbollah
and Shiite religious institutions in Iraq and Iran — was opened in late 2025.
The camp, in the northeastern Lebanese town of Hermel, has nearly 230 housing
units and is now home to both displaced Syrians and Lebanese.
Expat and resident parliamentary elections set for May 1, 3, 7 and 10
Naharnet/January 30/2026
A decree setting the dates of the upcoming parliamentary elections was issued
Friday in Lebanon’s official gazette, signed by President Joseph Aoun, PM Nawaf
Salam and Interior Minister Ahmad al-Hajjar. The decree says expats would vote
abroad on May 1 and May 3, election workers would vote in Lebanon on May 7 and
resident voters would vote on May 10. In remarks to MTV, Hajjar confirmed that
"the election process has begun with the publication of the decree calling for
elections in the Official Gazette." He added: "I, along with the President and
the Prime Minister, decided to set May 10 instead of May 3 as the election date
to avoid any legal challenges." He further stated: "The funds are available for
holding the elections, and issuing the executive decrees is not within my
authority, nor that of the Foreign Minister; it falls under the purview of the
government." Despite the official announcement, there is ongoing debate that
could affect whether the elections happen exactly as planned. There is a major
disagreement in parliament over how the diaspora should vote. The current law
allocates six specific seats for expats, but many parties -- led by the Lebanese
Forces -- are pushing to allow expats to vote for all 128 seats as they did in
2022. Some MPs have already expressed skepticism about meeting the May deadline,
citing the need for electoral reforms or security concerns.Some officials have
said that a “technical” delay is possible to allow expats to vote in Lebanon
during their summer vacation.
US Embassy and CENTCOM say Mechanism 'remains fully in
place'
Naharnet/January 30/2026
The U.S. Embassy in Beirut and the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) on Friday
reaffirmed that the U.S.-led Mechanism committee “remains fully in place and
operational,” and that it will meet on February 25, following the latest reports
about its fate. “The U.S. Embassy in Beirut and @CENTCOM reaffirm that the
military coordination framework as established in the Cessation of Hostilities
agreement outlined on November 27, 2024, remains fully in place and operational,
with the same goals, participants, and leadership,” the Embassy said in a post
on X.
“The next Mechanism meeting is scheduled to take place in Naqoura on February
25, 2026. Looking ahead, subsequent meetings are scheduled for March 25, April
22, and May 20. These engagements will continue to serve as the primary forum
for military coordination among the participating parties,” the Embassy added.
Government's salary calculation for Lebanon's public
sector: A raise today or a crisis tomorrow?
LBCI/January 30/2026
Public sector employees in Lebanon, including military personnel and civilian
workers, say years of service to the state have left them facing a harsh
reality: salaries that no longer provide a dignified living amid the country's
prolonged economic crisis.The situation reflects the broader hardship endured by
most Lebanese since the 2019 financial collapse, which dealt a severe social
blow to public sector workers in particular. While the state acknowledges the
legitimacy of its demands, it says its fragile financial position prevents it
from meeting them immediately. Lebanon's public sector employs an estimated
330,000 people, including members of the armed forces, public school teachers,
and civil servants. Any across-the-board salary adjustment for such a large
workforce would require substantial funding. According to rough estimates, a
monthly increase of $100 per employee would cost the state nearly $400 million
annually. Doubling that increase to $200 would raise the annual cost to around
$800 million, excluding retirees' pensions. Government officials and economic
experts stress that the size of these figures does not mean salary increases are
unjustified or impossible, but that they require time and careful planning. They
point to past policy mistakes, notably the salary scale adjustment adopted
before the crisis, which placed a heavy strain on the economy.Poorly designed
wage corrections could pose serious risks, including funding increases through
broad-based taxes that would effectively offset employees' gains, eroding
purchasing power rather than protecting it. Other concerns include renewed
pressure on the exchange rate and rising inflation. For this reason, the
government has opted to delay immediate action rather than adopt what it sees as
short-term fixes, arguing that caution is necessary to protect an economy still
struggling to stabilize. Officials insist the delay does not negate the
legitimacy of public sector demands or rule out future increases. Instead, they
say the goal is to introduce sustainable wage adjustments that will not be wiped
out within months by inflation or renewed financial turmoil. Economists argue
that the state's responsibility now lies in identifying funding sources that do
not disproportionately burden low-income earners. Proposed options include
improving tax collection, introducing progressive wealth taxes, and addressing
long-standing sources of waste and mismanagement. The government has requested
additional time until the end of February to present a clear plan for salary
adjustments, hoping to strike a balance between protecting public sector workers
and avoiding another economic shock for the country.
As wage demands return, Lebanon’s finance minister recalls
the cost of 2017
LBCI/January 30/2026
Lebanon’s Finance Minister Yassine Jaber warned against granting public sector
salary increases without a comprehensive financial plan, saying the country is
still paying the price for the 2017 wage hike that worsened its fiscal crisis.
“Salary increases cannot be decided arbitrarily,” Jaber said, referring to the
public sector pay scale approved in 2017. “We are still living with its
repercussions and know where it led the country.”The 2017 salary scale was
adopted under public pressure and with broad parliamentary backing, despite the
absence of a detailed financial assessment or reforms to Lebanon’s bloated
public sector. At the time, the state was already heavily indebted and
struggling with chronic waste, corruption and weak revenues. With parliamentary
elections approaching months later, officials defended the decision as a
necessary step, promising reforms would follow. Then-finance minister Ali Hassan
Khalil said at the time that the government was “on the right track,” adding
that reforms would come after the salary scale was approved. Initial estimates
placed the cost of the measure at $800 million, later revised to $1.2 billion.
The final cost, however, exceeded $2.5 billion, according to official figures.
To finance the increase, the government imposed a package of new taxes,
including a rise in value-added tax, affecting households across the country.
Weak tax collection meant the measures covered only a fraction of the cost.
Within a year, Lebanon’s budget deficit nearly doubled, rising from $3.7 billion
in 2017 to $6.3 billion in 2018. The government turned to additional borrowing
from the central bank, drawing down reserves and increasing pressure on the
financial system.Economists say much of the additional income went toward
consumption, driving higher imports and demand for foreign currency. Inflation
rose from about 4.5% in 2017 to more than 6% in 2018, eroding the purchasing
power of public sector wages. Jaber’s remarks come as renewed debate emerges
over public sector pay, with elections once again on the horizon and no
comprehensive plan in place to reform state spending or address overstaffing.
Lebanon’s Ministry of Health extends 100% coverage to
displaced border village residents
LBCI/January 30/2026
Lebanon’s Health Minister Rakan Nassereddine and Social Affairs Minister Haneen
Sayed held a joint press conference at the Ministry of Health to discuss health
coverage for displaced residents from frontline villages in government
hospitals, fully funded by the Ministry of Health. Nassereddine said the
ministry and government are committed to assisting displaced residents. “Health
coverage for regular Ministry patients in government hospitals is usually 80%,
but for those displaced from border villages, coverage will be 100% for
hospitalization and procedures specified by the ministry, to ease the financial
burden on these residents,” he explained. He added that the Ministry of Social
Affairs will provide lists of eligible displaced residents—those whose homes
were destroyed or livelihoods affected. Hospitals will receive these lists, and
residents will receive forms through municipalities, which they can present at
hospitals to receive full coverage automatically. Nassereddine stressed that
this measure has no set time limit and will continue until residents can return
safely to their villages. The minister noted that coverage falls within the
ministry’s existing budget. It includes hospitalization and over 300 medical
procedures, although certain procedures not covered by the ministry will only
include differences handled by insurance or guarantees.
Association of Banks warns $20 billion needed to repay small depositors—the
details
LBCI/January 30/2026
The Association of Banks in Lebanon warned that liquidity constraints pose a
major challenge to restoring financial stability, saying the funds required to
repay deposits of up to $100,000 would exceed $20 billion. In the opening
editorial of its monthly report, the association said the Central Bank’s
assumption of banks’ financial obligations would prevent them from meeting their
own liabilities, further complicating efforts to stabilize the sector. The
report noted that there is no clear plan for the fate of depositors at banks
that may be unable to continue operating, cautioning against offering depositors
promises that may not be fulfilled. It also warned that the possibility of some
banks halting payments during any repayment period cannot be ruled out.
According to the association, banks’ ability to meet their obligations would
change if the state were to fulfill its commitments toward the central bank.
However, it cautioned that wiping out capital and imposing additional burdens
would eliminate any incentive for banks to pursue recapitalization. The
association said liquidity management remains a key test for achieving financial
regularization amid Lebanon’s prolonged economic crisis.
'Buffer' and 'economic' zones are 'mere talks', Aoun tells
south delegation
Naharnet/January 30/2026
President Joseph Aoun said Friday that the reconstruction of war-hit regions in
south Lebanon is a priority, as he met a delegation from the southern border
villages. Aoun told the delegation that "the reconstruction of the destroyed and
damaged villages is at the forefront of our priorities, in order to facilitate
the return of the (displaced) residents."He added that all the reports about
"buffer zones" or "economic zones" are "mere talks" that no one has officially
discussed with Lebanon. Aoun also met with the family of retired security
officer Ahmad Shukr, whose brother Hassan is suspected of involvement in the
1986 capture of Israeli air force navigator Ron Arad. Hassan was killed in 1988,
while Shukr disappeared last month in the Bekaa region of eastern Lebanon.
Lebanese authorities believe that Israel's Mossad spy agency was behind his
disappearance. Aoun told Shukr's family that he is working on returning the
prisoners and that the issue is being discussed in the Mechanism's meetings.
Lebanese diaspora groups call for full voting rights for
non-resident citizens
LBCI/January 30/2026
Lebanese diaspora groups expressed deep concern over the continued suspension of
voting rights for non-resident Lebanese, citing ongoing legislative inaction as
the election approaches and the Interior Minister issues the official election
call in line with constitutional and legal deadlines. In a statement, the groups
said: “While calling elections is a legal obligation, it takes place without any
practical mechanism for non-residents to exercise their constitutional right to
vote.”They added that the current election law allocates only six seats to
non-resident Lebanese, which violates the constitutional principle of equality
by discriminating based on place of residence and denying a large segment of
voters equal representation compared to residents. The groups noted that this
provision is also unenforceable without implementing decrees, and the government
has repeatedly confirmed that organizing voting for non-residents is impossible
under the current law. They emphasized that non-resident Lebanese voting rights
are constitutional and cannot be delayed or compromised for political reasons.
The statement urged parliament to fulfill its constitutional and legislative
duties by amending the law to ensure fair and equal voting rights for all
Lebanese, residents and non-residents alike, without discrimination or
exclusion. The statement was signed by: TLDN Lebanese Diaspora Network, DLO
Lebanese Overseas Association, Lebanese Cultural University Worldwide, All of Us
Will, Union of Lebanese Communities in Europe, Lebanese Forum in Europe,
Expatriates United, Lebanese Executives Council, Lebanese Citizens Worldwide,
Sawti, Lebanese Diaspora Movement, Change Lebanon, Collectif Libanais de France,
Global Lebanese Alliance, Latin American Center for Lebanese Studies, Lebanese
National Alliance, Our New Lebanon, ROOTED, TeamHope.
Bassil calls Geagea 'coward', 'liar' and 'criminal' after he accuses him of
corruption
Naharnet/January 30/2026
Free Patriotic Movement chief Jebran Bassil lashed out overnight at Lebanese
Forces leader Samir Geagea after the latter accused him of corruption during a
live interview on MTV. “I call on Marcel Ghanem (the host who interviewed Geagea)
to organize a debate between me and Samir Geagea so that we can reveal to the
Lebanese public who is corrupt and criminal and who has committed crimes against
Christians, the Lebanese people, their state and their homeland,” Bassil said in
a post on X. “I know he (Geagea) won't dare because he's a coward, and because I
will expose all his lies and crimes, not only against the people he once
slaughtered, but against the very entity he is slaughtering every day,” Bassil
added. Told about Bassil’s remakrs during the interview, Geagea sarcastically
replied that he "can't compete with the president of the world's most powerful
university.” He had said during the interview that Bassil should be the
president of “a university specializing in deception and lies.”“Among the
biggest acts of fraud that Lebanon and the Lebanese people have witnessed was
the way Bassil and his team managed the electricity sector,” Geagea charged
during the interview.
Lebanon-Israel Ceasefire Panel to Stay, French Role Remains Military
Beirut: Caroline Akoum/Asharq Al
Awsat/30 January/2026
A statement by the US embassy in Beirut has cut through weeks of Lebanese
speculation over the fate of the committee monitoring the cessation of
hostilities between Lebanon and Israel, following delays in its meetings.
The statement also signaled that no French civilian member would be added to the
body, after sustained local media reports of US–French wrangling over its
composition. Notably, the embassy’s surprise statement, issued on Friday,
emphasized the committee’s “military character” and set a date for its
subsequent meetings in late February. The developments come ahead of a visit by
Lebanese Armed Forces Commander General Rodolphe Haykal to Washington, where he
is due to meet several US officials over three days. The three-day visit is
scheduled for February 3-5. Preparations for the visit were the focus of a
meeting Haykal held with President Joseph Aoun, who was briefed on the
arrangements and planned meetings, according to a statement from the presidency.
Military needs
According to ministerial sources, discussions centered on what Haykal will
present in Washington, including the military’s needs at this sensitive stage,
both logistical support and armaments. This comes as the army’s responsibilities
expand, particularly in southern Lebanon, where it has assumed increasing
responsibilities for maintaining stability and protecting civilians.
Weapons exclusivity plan and obstacles
Sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that Haykal will brief US officials on the reality
of the army’s deployment in the south under the weapons exclusivity plan, as
well as the obstacles hindering its completion, especially south of the Litani
River. They said the continued Israeli occupation remains a direct impediment to
the army’s ability to fully assert control and carry out its assigned missions
under agreed mechanisms. The army commander will also outline, the sources said,
the measures the military has taken to implement the state’s weapons exclusivity
plan, as well as the practical challenges it faces on the ground amid the
prevailing security situation and the sensitivity of the current phase. He will
stress the need for comprehensive political and international backing to ensure
the plan’s success.
Beyond south of the Litani
As anticipation grows in Lebanon and abroad over the next phase of weapons
exclusivity north of the Litani, and amid objections voiced by Hezbollah
officials, the sources said Haykal’s Washington visit will also address the
post–south Litani phase. He will explain the military’s vision for completing
deployment, consolidating stability, and reactivating the “mechanism” committee,
including the format of meetings and coordination procedures in the coming
phase, on condition that Israel withdraws from occupied Lebanese territory. In
this context, ministerial sources said President Aoun stressed during the
meeting the importance of Haykal focusing in his talks on the need for severe
international pressure on Israel to withdraw, enabling the army to perform its
role fully and paving the way for the release of Lebanese detainees and the
restoration of lasting calm in the south.
Paris conference
The Paris conference expected on March 5 to support the Lebanese army will also
feature in Haykal’s US meetings. The conference has been postponed several times
and is closely tied to the army’s implementation of the weapons exclusivity
plan. President Aoun had asked security agencies two weeks ago to prepare
detailed reports on their needs so participants would be fully informed, helping
the conference meet its objectives. Haykal is scheduled to meet US Central
Command (CENTCOM) Commander General Brad Cooper at the command’s headquarters in
Tampa, Florida, to discuss military and security cooperation between Lebanon and
the US. Discussions will also cover the mechanism committee. He will then travel
to Washington on Tuesday, February 3, to hold a series of security and
diplomatic meetings with US officials, members of Congress, and White House
officials through February 5.
Mechanism meeting on February 25
The developments come as Israeli attacks continued, including a strike that
killed one person in the southern Lebanese town of Siddiqine after his car was
targeted. At the same time, the US embassy in Beirut announced that the
mechanism committee will convene on February 25, following a one-month
suspension of its meetings and reports suggesting it could be dissolved. Writing
on X, the embassy stated that the US Embassy in Beirut and US Central Command
reaffirm that the military coordination framework, as established in the
cessation of hostilities agreement announced on November 27, 2024, remains in
place and fully operational, with the same objectives, participants, and
leadership.” The embassy added that the next mechanism meeting will be held in
Naqoura on February 25, 2026, with subsequent meetings scheduled for March 25,
April 22, and May 20, stressing that “these meetings serve as a core forum for
military coordination among the participating parties.”
Lebanon Enforces Funds Checks Despite Hezbollah Objections
Beirut: Youssef Diab/Asharq Al Awsat/30
January/2026
A circular issued by Lebanon’s Justice Minister Adel Nassar, now in force, has
placed notaries public on the front line of the country’s fight against money
laundering, requiring them to verify the source of funds and the identities of
parties involved in sales contracts, purchase agreements, and powers of
attorney. The measure, which took effect at the start of this year, is aimed at
curbing the cash economy and boosting transparency in line with international
standards on combating money laundering and terrorism financing. It has also
reignited and intensified a political campaign by Hezbollah, which says the move
tightens pressure on the party and its support base. The law requires notaries
to carry out several key tasks, notably verifying that parties to transactions
are not listed on national or international sanctions lists, refraining from
completing any transaction if that proves otherwise, and notifying the Justice
Ministry and the Special Investigation Commission at Lebanon’s central bank. The
circular also stresses the need to verify the source of funds and to state it
explicitly in the transaction or contract, and to refrain from drafting or
certifying any document if it is not possible to establish the identity of the
beneficial owner. The measure targets all those listed on the US sanctions lists
and mainly affects Hezbollah, its officials, and its institutions. The party
considers the step part of what it describes as a US blockade against it and
says it strips citizens of their civil rights. Hezbollah Secretary General
Sheikh Naim Qassem said the justice minister was “not a judicial police officer
for America and Israel” and should stop preventing citizens from completing
their transactions. Qassem asked: “Has Lebanon turned into a prison for its
citizens under American management? Is the justice minister or the governor of
the central bank an employee of the American administration in Lebanon’s
American prison?”The circular has moved beyond political and legal objections
raised against it. The justice minister said all notaries had complied with its
requirements since implementation began at the start of the year, noting ongoing
coordination to address practical issues that emerged during execution. Nassar
told Asharq Al-Awsat that meetings had been held between representatives of
notaries and the Special Investigation Commission at the central bank, during
which mechanisms and standards were clarified. He said an office within the
commission had also been designated to respond to notaries’ inquiries and
provide necessary information while transactions are being processed. The
minister said the measures put Lebanon on a path of transparency and would
positively affect the Financial Action Task Force's view of the country’s
situation.
He described the circular as part of a package of steps adopted by the state to
exit the FATF gray list or at least avoid being placed on the blocklist, adding
that the measure was a key factor in curbing money laundering without infringing
on the civil rights of sellers or buyers. Hezbollah continued its attack on
those involved in the decision. MP Ali Fayyad said in a speech to parliament
during budget discussions that the justice minister, the foreign minister, and
the central bank governor were “carrying out a systematic strangulation of our
community, sheltering behind the law while overstepping it.”“We are a people
subjected to daily assassination by Israel, and there are those inside who are
pouncing on us,” he said. A number of those affected have filed an appeal before
the Shura State Council seeking to annul the circular, arguing that its
provisions are not practically applicable and that they impose responsibilities
on notaries that exceed their legal authority.The appellants warned that the
circular could turn notaries into quasi-judicial police officers and entangle
them in political and security matters unrelated to their work.
Despite objections that have reached the level of accusing anyone who complies
with international anti-money laundering standards of treason, the justice
minister said there would be no retreat from the circular. He stressed that it
meets international compliance requirements while providing notaries with a
legal protective framework that shields them from future accountability if they
adhere to the specified procedures. Some notaries acknowledged that
implementation has entered a practical phase, even if conditions and standards
sometimes differ from one notary to another. One pointed to inconsistencies
between notaries’ procedures and those of the land registry in property
registration. He told Asharq Al-Awsat that verifying the source of funds has
become an established procedure, carried out in coordination with the Special
Investigation Commission at the central bank.
“There is no doubt that many of the ambiguities that accompanied the issuance of
the circular are gradually becoming clearer with implementation,” he said.
Lebanon’s government approves a deal to transfer Syrian prisoners back to Syria
AP/January 30, 2026
BEIRUT: Lebanon’s Cabinet on Friday approved an agreement to transfer Syrian
prisoners serving their sentences in Lebanon back to their home country. The
issue of prisoners has been a sore point as the neighboring countries seek to
recalibrate their relations following the ouster of former Syrian President
Bashar Assad in a lightning offensive by Islamist-led insurgents in December
2024. Former insurgent leader Ahmad Al-Sharaa is now Syria’s interim president.
Lebanon and Syria have a complicated history with grievances on both sides. Many
Lebanese resent the decades-long occupation of their country by Syrian forces
that ended in 2005. Many Syrians resent the role played by the Lebanese militant
group Hezbollah when it entered Syria’s civil war in defense of Assad’s
government. A key obstacle to warming relations has been the fate of about 2,000
Syrians in Lebanese prisons, including some 800 held over attacks and shootings,
many without trial. Damascus had asked Beirut to hand them over to continue
their prison terms in Syria, but Lebanese judicial officials said Beirut would
not release any attackers and that each must be studied and resolved separately.
The deal approved Friday appeared to resolve that tension. Lebanese Information
Minister Paul Morcos said other issues remain to be resolved between the two
countries, including the fate of Lebanese believed to have been disappeared into
Syrian prisons during Assad’s rule and the demarcation of the border between the
two countries. Lebanon’s Deputy Prime Minister Tarek Mitri told reporters after
the Cabinet meeting that about 300 prisoners would be transferred as a result of
the agreement. Protesters gathered in a square below the government palace in
downtown Beirut ahead of the Cabinet vote to call for amnesty for Lebanese
prisoners, including some who joined militant groups fighting against Assad in
Syria. Some of the protesters called for the release of Sunni cleric Ahmad Al-Assir,
imprisoned for his role in 2013 clashes that killed 18 Lebanese army soldiers.
“The state found solutions for the Syrian youth who are heroes and belong to the
Syrian revolution who have been imprisoned for 12 years,” said protester Khaled
Al- Bobbo. “But in the same files there are also Lebanese detainees. ... We
demand that just as they found solutions for the Syrians, they must also find
solutions for the people of this country.”
One year after the war, southern Lebanon faces fragile reconstruction
Fatima Abbani/Annahar English/January 30/2026
Residents’ testimonies reveal the scale of destruction as a government plan
seeks to rebuild amid financial, security, and administrative hurdles.
One year after the war on Lebanon,
border villages remain leveled, witnessing homes built stone by stone and erased
in days, where the narratives of residents intersect with the promises of the
state.
Personal testimonies capture the extent of the loss, contrasting with a
government plan that claims to aim for recovery and reconstruction amid ongoing
security and financial challenges. From the border village of Kfarkela, Miss
Sukainah Al-Samra tells Annahar about her experience with the destruction that
devastated her family’s homes and lands. She sums up the magnitude of the loss:
"All the houses in the south, not a single house came easily… Even my father and
uncle worked with their hands to build the house. The house was bombed days
before the ceasefire. It was our destination during holidays, and we rented
another place in the mountains as a relief, but not as a replacement… There is
no substitute for our land." She adds that the scene in Kfarkela left no room to
recognize the place:
"Nothing remains in Kfarkela… No familiar landmarks. The alleys and stairs we
used to know are no longer there. Israel sought to erase collective memory, and
even the remaining homes were burned."
Al-Samra poses an open question shared by many from the border villages: "The
world is left to its questions and fate. Will there be real reconstruction,
especially since one of the five occupied points is located in Kfarkela?"
"In a Moment, I Lost All My Capital": Another Testimony from the Border Villages
Al-Samra’s story mirrors those of other residents. Forty-year-old Hussein F.
recounts to Annahar that he owned a house, several shops, and a private business
- a gas station -before everything was destroyed.
"I lost everything… In a moment, I lost all my capital," he says. Being a
resident of the south in both summer and winter, he had to move and rent
elsewhere, incurring additional expenses, concluding harshly: "The state is
completely absent."
He expresses doubts about the reconstruction plan, saying that while rebuilding
affected towns is expected, border areas may be left behind due to limited
funding and uncertainty over whether these regions could become buffer zones.
A Year After the War: A Government Plan Facing Many Challenges
About a year after the Israeli war, the government announced a reconstruction
plan for southern Lebanon. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam confirmed in early January
that the government would accelerate reconstruction following Parliament’s
approval of a $250 million World Bank loan, with an initial $52 million
allocated for immediate funding. The plan, part of a broader 3Rs strategy -
Recovery, Reconstruction, Reintegration - targets populations affected by
extensive destruction since October 8, 2023. Government sources told Annahar
that the plan rests on three principles: preserving the dignity of internally
displaced persons, respecting the rights of returnees, and achieving economic
and social prosperity for all.
The strategy prioritizes interventions based on a chronological sequence, with
cost estimates, funding mechanisms, and implementation frameworks. It emerged
from consultations with Lebanese institutions and international partners, using
assessments by the National Council for Scientific Research, the World Bank, and
the United Nations as of November 1, 2025. Unlike post-2006 reconstruction, the
plan does not rely on immediate large-scale funding but on measured
interventions dictated by security concerns and funding availability.
Main challenges include:
Humanitarian: Managing displaced persons and strengthening vulnerable returnees
through targeted financial aid, temporary shelter, and income-generating
support.Reconstruction: Rebuilding public and private assets, restoring
essential services, and repairing infrastructure in health, education, water,
and electricity sectors.Development: Long-term recovery through integrated
development programs aimed at border and marginalized areas. Security: Ensuring
safe access for reconstruction projects amid ongoing Israeli attacks, requiring
coordination with the Lebanese army.
Reconstruction Priorities
The Council for Development and Reconstruction estimates damages to
infrastructure at roughly $1 billion. With only $250 million from the World
Bank, priorities are set using three indicators: population size, economic
activity, and level of destruction.
The approach is both geographic—targeting areas with the highest priority
first—and economic—focusing on areas where reconstruction can stimulate growth.
Funding and Implementation
Government sources told Annahar that the governance structure aims to unify
decision-making and planning within the government, shifting from a passive
recipient role to one of enabler and field supervisor of projects. A joint
ministerial committee has been formed, chaired by the Prime Minister, and
includes the ministers of finance, economy, public works and transport,
communications, energy and water, environment, and social affairs. A technical
secretariat has been established within the Prime Minister’s Office to
collaborate with relevant ministries and administrations, as well as governors
and municipalities in the affected areas of the South, Nabatieh, Bekaa, and the
southern suburbs. Sources indicate that the Council for Development and
Reconstruction and the relevant ministries will implement projects for public
assets and infrastructure, while the Prime Minister’s Office, through the High
Relief Commission and the Council of the South—and under independent
supervision—will provide financial assistance for the repair and reconstruction
of private residential and commercial assets. The strategy relies on three
sources of funding: external grants, concessional loans, and allocations from
the general budget. Sources said the main objective is to maximize the benefit
of external grants while limiting burdens on public finances, with long-term
loans reserved exclusively for rehabilitating public assets and infrastructure.
The council emphasized that the project will adhere to the highest transparency
standards, with information published on the websites of the Council for
Development and Reconstruction, the Public Procurement Authority, and the World
Bank. A dedicated team will follow up on any potential complaints, and the
public will be kept informed of all project-related data and developments. In
addition, an international firm will be contracted to audit all aspects of the
project.
Reconstruction as a National Test
Pierre Khoury, Dean of the Faculty of Business Administration at the American
University of Technology, tells Annahar that ensuring integrity requires modern
oversight tools like blockchain for financial tracking and satellite monitoring
for field achievements, alongside civil society participation under Lebanon’s
Transparency and Information Availability Law. He stresses that integrating
digital and popular oversight with the Negotiated Selection System (NSS) is
essential to ensure accountability and sustainable development. He added: “The
final step to ensure the success of these plans is to establish a binding
‘Integrity Charter,’ including deterrent penalties ranging from disqualification
from contracts to criminal prosecution for any manipulation of negotiation or
implementation processes, with the government required to publish quarterly
reports detailing project selection criteria and actual completion rates.
This combination of technical expertise in the NSS system, digital transparency,
and community participation is the only way to turn reconstruction efforts from
an economic challenge into a national success story that transcends divisions.”
Regarding the credibility of reconstruction plans, Khoury said: “The credibility
of government reconstruction plans is the cornerstone of building trust between
authorities, citizens, and donors. Integrity requires turning political promises
into a clear, time-bound technical framework. As national projects grow more
complex, the NSS system becomes a strategic necessity that overcomes the
shortcomings of traditional tenders. This system allows the government to
conduct technical and financial negotiations with a shortlisted group of the
most competent companies, ensuring a balance between cost efficiency and
innovative engineering quality suited to local conditions.”Analyzing
international comparative experiences, Khoury observed: “Success in
reconstruction has always been linked to the independence of oversight
mechanisms, as in the Marshall Plan, which tied funding to structural reforms.
Conversely, lack of transparency in cases like Iraq and Afghanistan led to
massive waste through corrupt contracts and a lack of accountability. Here, the
NSS system is crucial in reducing the risks of change orders that drain public
funds, as pre-negotiating technical details closes legal loopholes and holds
companies directly responsible before execution begins.” He added, "These
mechanisms gain even greater importance in political systems based on sectarian
pluralism, where projects can become tools for patronage or factional gain. In
this context, competitive negotiation shifts selection criteria from “political
loyalties” to “technical merit,” ensuring that resources are allocated based on
the actual needs of affected areas rather than the influence of local leaders.
This neutral, technocratic approach helps defuse conflicts over resources and
turns reconstruction into an inclusive national project that reinforces civil
peace."
Amid all these plans and mechanisms, the fundamental challenge remains how to
assess the full extent of the destruction and launch reconstruction, while human
and material losses continue to mount day by day.
Without Conditions, Qatari Aid to
Lebanon Isn’t Helpful
David Daoud and Natalie Ecanow/FDD-Policy
Brief/January 30/2026
Qatar wants to help a struggling Lebanon undo the damage wrought by the recent
war between Israel and Hezbollah.The 13-month-long conflict, which Hezbollah
launched in the immediate aftermath of Hamas’s October 7, 2023, assault on
Israel left large swathes of Lebanon decimated. The Shiite communities within
which the group ensconced its arsenal and fighters were particularly impacted by
the fighting. The World Bank has estimated that post-war reconstruction of these
communities will require at least $11 billion — sums beyond the reach of the
Lebanese state and Hezbollah, both of whom are severely cash-strapped. Enter
Qatar. On January 24, the Gulf emirate pledged $480 million, funds that would
help rebuild three villages in southern Lebanon and other projects. The Qataris
reportedly worked with the Trump administration to obtain Israel’s written
assurances that new construction — to be supervised by an American company —
will not come under IDF fire once completed. Two days later, Doha announced over
$400 million in further aid, primarily to support Lebanon’s electricity sector.
In neither case did Qatar attach any stipulations for the Lebanese government to
fulfill. Yet, instead of producing stability, Doha’s inclination to provide cash
without conditions has a record of worsening Lebanon’s plight.
Qatar Reprises Its Role in Lebanon
Following the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, Doha contributed approximately $300
million toward Lebanon’s reconstruction effort. Hezbollah’s late
secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, lauded Qatar in April 2007, emphasizing
that, “In the end it was the Qataris who paid.”
In 2008, Qatar brokered a resolution to the political deadlock and street
violence that gripped Lebanon after the 2006 war. The price of the so-called
Doha Agreement, however, was the expansion of Hezbollah’s influence, granting
the group and its allies a veto over government decisions.
Qatar intended for the agreement to provide Lebanon with short-term stability
that would eventually allow Beirut to extract itself from its perpetual cycles
of crisis. However, in the intervening years, the opposite occurred. Lebanese
governmental negligence and corruption intensified, culminating in the country’s
2019 economic implosion. Less than a year later, this unchecked
incompetence resulted in a massive explosion at the Beirut Port. Hundreds of
tons of ammonium nitrate improperly stored at the port detonated, producing one
of the largest non-nuclear explosions on record. Then too, Doha unconditionally
committed $50 million to fund reconstruction.
Unconditional Aid Sustains Lebanon’s Self-Destructive Status Quo
Given this record, providing Lebanon with unconditional reconstruction aid yet
again will enable Hezbollah’s resurgence — similar to how Qatari aid to Gaza
enabled Hamas to strengthen its forces prior to October 7. For its part,
Hezbollah understands that swift reconstruction — a central demand it has made
since the war ended in November 2024 — will allow it to retain the overwhelming
support of Shiites, who may otherwise waver over continued backing for an
organization that compounded their economic misery with an unnecessary war.
Unconditioned reconstruction aid will assuage this potential anger, allowing
Hezbollah to retain the Shiite community’s support and thus avoid disarmament as
mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and the November 27, 2024,
Israel-Lebanon ceasefire agreement. The group’s popularity among Lebanese
Shiites has long deterred Beirut from restraining or disarming Hezbollah, out of
fear of civil war.
Aid Should Be Conditioned on Hezbollah Disarmament
Washington has been leaning on Qatar to act as a productive regional partner
since war erupted more than two years ago. Over the last year, the Trump
administration has sought to marshal Qatari influence and funding to bolster its
vision of a peaceful and prosperous Middle East. Yet enabling Hezbollah’s
resurgence, intentionally or otherwise, will prevent the realization of that
vision, as the group’s existence depends upon fueling the old hatreds that have
made the region a perpetual battlefield. Instead, Washington should press Qatar
to direct funds only to those locales where Hezbollah has been verifiably
disarmed. Failure to do so will keep Lebanon mired in its own dysfunctional
patterns, facilitate Hezbollah’s revival, and virtually guarantee future war
with Israel.
**David Daoud is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD),
where Natalie Ecanow is a senior research analyst. For more analysis from the
authors, please subscribe HERE. Follow David on X @DavidADaoud. Follow Natalie
on X @NatalieEcanow. Follow FDD on X @FDD. FDD is a Washington, DC-based,
nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.
The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous
Reports And News published
on January
30-31/2026
Trump says ‘hopefully’ no need for military action against Iran
AFP/January 30, 2026
PARIS: US President Donald Trump said on Thursday he hoped to avoid military
action against Iran, which has threatened to strike American bases and aircraft
carriers in response to any attack. Trump said he is speaking with Iran and left
open the possibility of avoiding a military operation after earlier warning time
was “running out” for Tehran as the United States sends a large naval fleet to
the region. When asked if he would have talks with Iran, Trump told reporters:
“I have had and I am planning on it.”“We have a group headed out to a place
called Iran, and hopefully we won’t have to use it,” the US president added,
while speaking to media at the premiere of a documentary about his wife Melania.
As Brussels and Washington dialed up their rhetoric and Iran issued stark
threats this week, UN chief Antonio Guterres has called for nuclear negotiations
to “avoid a crisis that could have devastating consequences in the region.” An
Iranian military spokesman warned Tehran’s response to any US action would not
be limited — as it was in June last year when American planes and missiles
briefly joined Israel’s short air war against Iran — but would be a decisive
response “delivered instantly.”Brig. Gen. Mohammad Akraminia told state
television US aircraft carriers have “serious vulnerabilities” and that numerous
American bases in the Gulf region are “within the range of our medium-range
missiles.”“If such a miscalculation is made by the Americans, it will certainly
not unfold the way Trump imagines — carrying out a quick operation and then, two
hours later, tweeting that the operation is over,” he said. An official in the
Gulf, where states host US military sites, said that fears of a US strike on
Iran are “very clear.”“It would bring the region into chaos, it would hurt the
economy not just in the region but in the US and cause oil and gas prices to
skyrocket,” the official added.
‘Protests crushed in blood’
Qatar’s leader Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani and Iran’s President Masoud
Pezeshkian held a call to discuss “efforts being made to de-escalate tensions
and establish stability,” the Qatar News Agency (QNA) reported. The European
Union, meanwhile, piled on the pressure by designating the Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps (IRGC) a “terrorist organization” over a deadly crackdown on recent
mass protests. “’Terrorist’ is indeed how you call a regime that crushes its own
people’s protests in blood,” said EU chief Ursula von der Leyen, welcoming the
“overdue” decision. Though largely symbolic, the EU decision has already drawn a
warning from Tehran. Iran’s military slammed “the illogical, irresponsible and
spite-driven action of the European Union,” alleging the bloc was acting out of
“obedience” to Tehran’s arch-foes the United States and Israel. Iranian
officials have blamed the recent protest wave on the two countries, claiming
their agents spurred “riots” and a “terrorist operation” that hijacked peaceful
rallies sparked over economic grievances. Rights groups have said thousands of
people were killed during the protests by security forces, including the IRGC —
the ideological arm of Tehran’s military. In Tehran on Thursday, citizens
expressed grim resignation. “I think the war is inevitable and a change must
happen. It can be for worse, or better. I am not sure,” said a 29-year-old
waitress, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals. “I am not in
favor of war. I just want something to happen that would result in something
better.”Another 29-year-old woman, an unemployed resident of an upscale
neighborhood in northern Tehran, said: “I believe that life has highs and lows
and we are now at the lowest point.”Trump had threatened military action if
protesters were killed in the anti-government demonstrations that erupted in
late December and peaked on January 8 and 9. But his more recent statements have
turned to Iran’s nuclear program, which the West believes is aimed at making an
atomic bomb. On Wednesday, he said “time is running out” for Tehran to make a
deal, warning the US naval strike group that arrived in Middle East waters on
Monday was “ready, willing and able” to hit Iran.
Conflicting tolls
The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) said it has confirmed
6,479 people were killed in the protests, as Internet restrictions imposed on
January 8 continue to slow verification. But rights groups warn the toll is
likely far higher, with estimates in the tens of thousands. Iranian authorities
acknowledge that thousands were killed during the protests, giving a toll of
more than 3,000 deaths, but say the majority were members of the security forces
or bystanders killed by “rioters.” Billboards and banners have gone up in the
capital Tehran to bolster the authorities’ messages. One massive poster appears
to show an American aircraft carrier being destroyed.
Trump says Iran wants to ‘make a
deal’
AFP/30 January ,2026
President Donald Trump said Thursday he believed Tehran wanted to make a deal to
avoid military action, adding that the US “armada” near Iran was bigger than the
one he dispatched to topple Venezuela’s leader.“We have a large armada,
flotilla, call it whatever you want, heading toward Iran right now, even larger
than what we had in Venezuela,” the Republican president told reporters in the
Oval Office. “Hopefully we’ll make a deal. If we do make a deal, that’s good. If
we don’t make a deal, we’ll see what happens.”Asked if he had given Iran a
deadline to make a deal on its nuclear program, ballistic missiles and other
issues, Trump said “yeah I have” but added that “only they know for sure” what
it was. Trump, however, cited what he said was Iran’s decision to halt
executions of protesters -- after a crackdown in which rights groups say more
than 6,000 people were killed -- as evidence to show Tehran was ready to comply.
“I can say this, they do want to make a deal,” Trump said. Trump declined to say
whether, if Iran did not reach a deal, he planned a repeat of the dramatic
operation in Venezuela in which US forces captured president Nicolas Maduro. “I
don’t want to talk about anything having to do with what I’m doing militarily,”
he said.
No Iran ‘end state’ goal yet as Trump administration reviews US military options
Al Arabiya English/January 30/2026
The Trump administration has yet to determine the “end state” of US policy
toward Iran, officials said, even as the American military has significantly
increased its force posture in the Middle East. Internal discussions are
ongoing, but policymakers have not yet settled on clear objectives, the
officials said. As a result, the administration is reviewing a range of options,
though no immediate action appears imminent. Officials added that US President
Donald Trump could still make a decision at short notice. Trump said in an
interview earlier this month that it was time to look for new leadership in
Iran, calling the supreme leader a “sick man.”An aircraft carrier strike group
has once again been deployed to the region, along with several additional
assets, including air defense systems and fighter jet squadrons, according to
officials. While the rapid movement of US military assets to Iran’s doorstep is
part of Trump’s pressure campaign against a regime accused of killing thousands
of protesters, US officials stressed that such deployments would be typical
during any period of heightened regional tensions. Officials pointed to the
roughly 30,000 US troops stationed across the region on any given day and
emphasized the need to protect them from potential attacks, whether reactive or
preemptive. Beyond force protection, the increased military posture is also
intended to reassure regional allies and strengthen efforts to promote security
and stability across the Middle East. Officials noted that in previous
instances, US aircraft carriers have been deployed to the region without any
intention of striking Iran. However, they acknowledged that the current
situation differs from past episodes, particularly after the Trump
administration’s unprecedented decision last summer to directly target Iran’s
nuclear program on Iranian soil. The US Air Force also announced last weekend
that it would begin a multi-day readiness exercise across the Middle East “to
demonstrate the ability to deploy, disperse, and sustain combat airpower.”US Air
Forces Central (AFCENT) said in a statement that the exercise “reinforces peace
through strength by fielding a credible, combat-ready, and responsible presence
designed to deter aggression, reduce the risk of miscalculation and assure
partners.”Another top US priority remains ensuring the enduring defeat of ISIS,
which has reemerged as a heightened concern following clashes in Syria and the
subsequent breakdown of Kurdish control over ISIS detention camps. US forces
began transferring ISIS detainees from Syria to Iraq last week, a process that
is ongoing and being carried out successfully, US officials said. Trump has
repeatedly threatened renewed military action against Iran, especially following
nationwide anti-regime protests this year. At the same time, he has said he
prefers a diplomatic solution, one that would see Iran abandon its nuclear
program, curb its ballistic missile capabilities, and halt support for regional
proxies and militias, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and Yemen’s Houthis. Iran, for
its part, has vowed to retaliate against both the United States and Israel
should Washington carry out any new attack.
New US Sanctions Against
Iran Target Interior Minister Over Crackdown on Protesters
Asharq Al Awsat/30 January/2026
The Trump administration imposed sanctions Friday against Iran 's interior
minister, accusing Eskandar Momeni of repressing nationwide protests that have
challenged Tehran's theocratic government. The penalties are the latest by the
United States and the European Union targeting high-ranking officials over the
crackdown. The administration says Momeni has overseen Iran's law enforcement
forces that are responsible for the deaths of thousands of peaceful protesters.
Economic woes sparked the protests in late December before they broadened into a
challenge to the Islamic Republic. The crackdown soon followed, which activists
say has killed more than 6,000 people. Iranian officials and state media
repeatedly refer to the demonstrators as “terrorists.”The EU on Thursday imposed
its own sanctions against Momeni, along with members of Iran's judicial system
and other high-ranking officers. “They were all involved in the violent
repression of peaceful protests and the arbitrary arrest of political activists
and human rights defenders,” according to the EU. Also Friday, the Treasury
Department's Office of Foreign Assets imposed sanctions on Babak Morteza Zanjani,
an Iranian investor who is accused of embezzling billions of dollars in Iranian
oil revenue for the benefit of the Iranian government. Two digital asset
exchanges linked to Zanjani that have processed large volumes of funds were
penalized, too. The EU has agreed to list Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary
Guard as a terrorist organization, in a largely symbolic move that adds to
pressure on Tehran. Included in the latest set of US sanctions is the secretary
of the Supreme Council for National Security, whom the Treasury Department
accuses of being one of the first officials to call for violence against Iranian
protesters. The sanctions also target a group of 18 people and companies accused
of participating in laundering money from sales of Iranian oil to foreign
markets as part of a shadow banking network of sanctioned Iranian financial
institutions. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the department “will
continue to target Iranian networks and corrupt elites that enrich themselves at
the expense of the Iranian people.”"Like rats on a sinking ship, the regime is
frantically wiring funds stolen from Iranian families to banks and financial
institutions around the world. Rest assured, Treasury will act,” he said in a
statement. Among other things, the sanctions deny the people and firms access to
any property or financial assets held in the US, limit travel to America and
prevent US companies and citizens from doing business with them.
‘Kingdom is on a path
toward the light,’ says US Senator Graham after meeting Prince Khalid bin Salman
Arab News/January 30, 2026
DUBAI: US Senator Lindsey Graham believes Saudi Arabia is on ‘a path toward the
light’, in a statement he issued after meeting with Saudi Defense Minister
Prince Khalid bin Salman, who is on an official visit to Washington. “My
engagement with Saudi Arabia over the past two days has given me a sense of
confidence that the Kingdom – while it has its own interests – is on a path
toward the light, not the darkness,” the senator said in his statement. The
senator also said he was looking forward to visiting Saudi Arabia soon. “Over
the years, I have developed a strong working relationship with Saudi Arabia. I
know President Trump is a strong admirer of the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin
Salman. I have seen the changes the Crown Prince has embraced and I have been
impressed,” Graham said. The US senator added that after meeting with Prince
Khalid, and Saudi foreign minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan earlier, “I am
convinced that Saudi Arabia believes the best thing for the region is economic
growth and prosperity.”“Saudi Arabia wants to be a destination of choice in the
future, so that people around the world to come visit what I think is an
incredible country. Saudi Arabia wants to be one of the dominant forces in Al,
which means the best and brightest minds will come. I am convinced that this is
still the goal of the Crown Prince and the Kingdom.”Graham also expressed
appreciation to what the Kingdom was trying to do in Syria. “They have openly
said they are the friend of both the Syrian government and the Kurdish people.
The attitude of seeking compromise rather than destruction, hopefully, will win
the day,” the senator said in his statement. Prince Khalid is expected to
discuss Saudi-US ties and ways to strengthen during his visit, and earlier met
with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Special
Envoy Steve Witkoff.
Joining ranks with the US as it pressures Tehran, EU
designates Iran Guards as ‘terrorist organisation’
The Arab Weekly/January 30/2026
Joining ranks with the United States as it ratchets up pressure on Tehran, the
European Union members states agreed unanimously on Thursday to designate Iran’s
Revolutionary Guard as a “terrorist organisation”.“This was long overdue,” EU
chief Ursula von der Leyen posted online after foreign ministers from the bloc
took the decision.“‘Terrorist’ is indeed how you call a regime that crushes its
own people’s protests in blood.”Though largely symbolic, the EU decision signals
a policy shift on the part of many European nations that have so far avoided
confrontation with Tehran.
With the looming threat of US military action, the Europeans do not want to be
seen as soft on Iran, say analysts. A US naval strike group arrived in Middle
East waters on Monday, with Trump warning it was “ready, willing and able” to
hit Iran “if necessary”. He said Wednesday that “time is running out” for Iran
to negotiate a deal over its nuclear programme, which the West believes is aimed
at making an atomic bomb. Iran’s military accused the EU of subservience to
Washington and Israel. “The illogical, irresponsible and spite-driven action of
the European Union has undoubtedly been taken in unquestioning obedience to the
hegemonic and anti-human policies of the United States and the Zionist (Israeli)
regime,” a statement from the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces carried
by the official IRNA news agency said. The EU also adopted sanctions on Thursday
targeting 15 individuals and six entities “responsible for serious human rights
violations in Iran”, the Council of the European Union said. Iranian Interior
Minister Eskandar Momeni, Prosecutor General Mohammad Movahedi Azad, a number of
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders and some senior law enforcement
officials were among those sanctioned, it said in a statement. Entities
sanctioned on Thursday included the Iranian Audio-Visual Media Regulatory
Authority and several software companies which the EU said were involved in
censorship activities, trolling campaigns on social media.
The EU also sanctioned four individuals and six entities connected to Iran’s
drone and missile programme and decided to extend the prohibition on the export,
sale, transfer or supply from the EU to Iran to include further components and
technologies used in the development and production of UAVs and missiles.
Iranian authorities acknowledge that thousands were killed during the protests,
giving a toll of over 3,000 people, but say the majority was members of the
security forces or bystanders killed by “rioters”. Rights groups say the toll is
far higher, potentially in the tens of thousands, and note that protesters were
killed by security forces including the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) directly
firing on them. Set up after Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution to protect the Shia
clerical ruling system, the IRGC has great sway in the country, controlling
swathes of the economy and armed forces. The guards were also put in charge of
Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programmes. The EU action against the IRGC
comes after France announced Wednesday it backed the move, following a similar
shift from Italy. “It’s important that we send this signal that the bloodshed
that we’ve seen, the bestiality of the violence that’s been used against
protesters, cannot be tolerated,” Dutch Foreign Minister David van Weel said on
Thursday morning. Hailed by Iran’s arch-foe Israel as an “historic decision”,
the step matches similar classification enacted by the United States, Canada and
Australia. Paris had widely been seen as reluctant to act against the IRGC due
to fears over the impact on Europeans detained in the country and a wish to keep
diplomatic ties open.“There can be no impunity for the crimes committed,” French
Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot told reporters on arrival in Brussels. “This
decision is also an appeal by France to the Iranian authorities to release the
prisoners thrown by thousands into the regime’s prisons, to end the executions
that are perpetuating the most violent repression in Iran’s modern history,” he
said. Barrot urged Tehran to end an internet blackout and “give back to the
Iranian people the capacity to choose their own future”. The EU has already
sanctioned several hundred Iranian officials and entities over crackdowns on
previous protest movements and over Tehran’s support for Russia’s war on
Ukraine. Much like the US, which acknowledges talking to Tehran amid the
military build-up, the EU says there will be still lines of communication with
Iran. “The estimate is that still the diplomatic channels will remain open even
after the listing of the Revolutionary Guards,” the EU’s top diplomat Kaja
Kallas said earlier Thursday.
Iran FM says ready to resume nuclear talks with US ‘on
equal footing’
Reuters/30 January/2026
Iran is prepared for the resumption of talks with the United States, but they
should be fair and not include Iran’s defense capabilities, Iran’s chief
diplomat said on Friday, as regional powers work to prevent military conflict
between the two foes. US President Donald Trump said on Thursday he planned to
speak with Iran, even as the US sent another warship to the Middle East and the
Pentagon chief said the military would be ready to carry out whatever the
president decided. US-Iranian tensions have soared in recent weeks after a
bloody crackdown on protests across Iran by its clerical authorities. One of the
main US demands as a condition for resuming talks with Iran is curbing its
missile program, a senior Iranian official told Reuters last week. Iran rejects
that demand. Speaking at a press conference in Istanbul after talks with his
Turkish counterpart, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran was ready to
participate in “fair and equitable” negotiations, but added there were currently
no meetings with US officials arranged. “Iran has no problem with negotiations,
but negotiations cannot take place under the shadow of threats. They must
certainly set aside their threats and change their approach toward a fair and
equitable negotiation, as Mr. Trump himself said in his post,” he said.
Tehran says it is ready for talks on war
“I should also state unequivocally that Iran’s defensive and missile
capabilities — and Iran’s missiles — will never be the subject of any
negotiations,” he added. “We will preserve and expand our defensive capabilities
to whatever extent is necessary to defend the country,” Araghchi said.In
response to US threats of military action, Araghchi said Tehran was ready for
either negotiations or warfare, and also ready to engage with regional countries
to promote stability and peace.Araghchi and Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan
said they had been speaking to each other almost every day to discuss the
tensions.
Turkey ready to be a ‘facilitator’ US officials say Trump is reviewing his
options but has not decided whether to strike Iran. Trump has repeatedly
threatened to intervene if Iran continued to kill protesters in its crackdown on
the countrywide demonstrations over economic privations and political
repression, but the protests have since abated. Israel’s Ynet news website said
on Friday that a US Navy destroyer had docked at the Israeli port of Eilat. NATO
member Turkey shares a border with Iran and opposes any foreign intervention
there. It has called for US-Iran dialogue to avoid further destabilization and
has been in touch with both sides to seek a solution. Earlier on Friday, Turkish
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan told his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian in
a call that Ankara was ready to play a “facilitator” role between the sides.
Speaking alongside Araghchi, Fidan said he had long discussions on the issue
with US special envoy Steve Witkoff on Thursday and would keep lines open with
Washington to avoid conflict and the isolation of Iran. Fidan said US-Iran
nuclear negotiations must restart and would pave the way to lifting sanctions on
Iran. “We call the parties to the negotiating table” to address the issues “one
by one,” he said.
Repression Cannot Go
Unanswered’: EU Designates IRGC as Terrorist Organization
FDD-Policy Brief/January 30/2026
EU Designates IRGC: The European Union (EU) designated Iran’s Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization on January 29. The
decision was made after the bloc achieved the unanimity required to formally
make the designation, with an official legal adoption of the blacklisting
expected in the next few weeks. “Repression cannot go unanswered,” Kaja Kallas,
the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs and security
policy, declared, “Any regime that kills thousands of its own people is working
toward its own demise.”New Sanctions Against Tehran Regime Targets: In addition
to adding the IRGC to its terrorism list, EU foreign ministers levied new
sanctions against entities and individuals within the Tehran regime who were
involved in the violent repression of the latest wave of protests, in which the
Islamic Republic slaughtered more than 35,000 Iranian civilians. The sanctions
target members of the Iranian government, judiciary, police, as well as the IRGC,
according to French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot, alongside entities that
assisted in imposing a weeks-long internet and communications blackout across
Iran. Saudi and Israeli Officials in Washington: Saudi Defense Minister Prince
Khalid bin Salman arrived in Washington to meet with Trump administration
officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and U.S. special envoy Steve
Witkoff. Saudi Arabia has publicly opposed strikes against Iran and has
reportedly been relaying messages between Washington and Tehran. On January 27,
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian
that the kingdom would not allow its airspace and territory to be used to attack
Iran. Concurrently, an Israeli military delegation led by IDF Intelligence
Directorate chief Maj. Gen. Shlomi Binder is also in Washington to brief
officials on specific intelligence on Iran requested by the Trump
administration.
FDD Expert Response
“The EU designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization, effectively
equating it to the likes of ISIS, is a welcome move. The Islamic Republic is
increasingly being defined as an outlaw state, even by European countries that
have previously favored diplomacy and engagement with it. All eyes are now on
the United Kingdom. In opposition, Keir Starmer promised to make this exact move
against the IRGC if he were elected, but his government has so far ducked it
despite growing pressure in parliament. He will likely now feel obliged to
follow the European Union’s lead.” — Edmund Fitton-Brown, Senior Fellow
“While the systematic naming and shaming of Iranian persons and entities
supporting the regime’s brutal crackdown on protesters, both on the street and
in cyberspace, is important, it pales in comparison to the EU’s listing of the
IRGC as a terror organization. This move was a long time coming, sought not just
by Iranian dissidents and the Iranian diaspora but also by those concerned with
the threat to EU security posed by the Islamic Republic. Now is the time for
Europe to use this designation as a building block for a better Iran policy.” —
Behnam Ben Taleblu, Iran Program Senior Director and Senior Fellow
“The European Union’s designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization is a
step that is, as Commission President Ursula von der Leyen acknowledged, long
overdue. Nonetheless, it is a positive development that will benefit what is
presently a strained transatlantic relationship by aligning EU policy with that
of the United States. It also sends an encouraging message to the brave Iranian
protest movement by recognizing the terrorist nature of a regime that has
slaughtered tens of thousands this month alone.” — Ben Cohen, Senior Analyst and
Rapid Response Director
Saudi Arabia welcomes Syria govt, SDF ceasefire agreement
Al Arabiya English/30 January/2026
Saudi Arabia welcomed the announcement by Syria’s government and the Syrian
Democratic Forces of a ceasefire agreement, which includes a comprehensive deal
to gradually integrate Kurdish military and civilian institutions into the
state. “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's
welcome of the statement issued by the Syrian government regarding the ceasefire
agreement between the Syrian government and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF),
under a comprehensive agreement that includes the integration of the
self-administration institutions into the Syrian state institutions” the
ministry said in a statement. “The Kingdom hopes that this comprehensive
agreement will contribute to supporting Syria’s path towards peace, security,
and stability, fulfilling the aspirations of the brotherly Syrian people and
strengthening their national unity,” the statement said. The Kingdom “reiterated
its full support for all efforts exerted by the Syrian government to preserve
its sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity,” according to the statement.
Saudi Arabia also appreciates “the responsiveness” of the Syrian government and
the SDF to “the Kingdom’s efforts and the efforts exerted by the United States
of America to solidify the ceasefire and reach this agreement.”
Wary of impact on own security, Ankara seeks to mediate US-Iran conflict
The Arab Weekly/January 30/2026
Turkey is offering to mediate between Washington and Tehran in order to prevent
a military showdown that could impact its own security. This Friday’s scheduled
visit by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi comes after US President Donald
Trump threatened a military strike on Iran over its deadly protest crackdown
earlier this month. A US naval strike group arrived in Middle East waters on
Monday with Trump warning it was “ready, willing and able” to hit Iran “if
necessary”.Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan is expected to tell Araghchi on Friday
that his country “is ready to contribute to resolving the current tensions
through dialogue”, a Turkish diplomatic source said. Fidan would reiterate
Turkey’s opposition “to military interventions against Iran… (over) the regional
and global risks such a step would entail”, said the source, requesting
anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks.
The minister had on Wednesday stressed the need for Washington and Tehran to
resume discussions over the Iranian nuclear programme, suggesting that was the
top priority to be resolved. “It’s wrong to attack Iran. It’s wrong to start the
war again. Iran is ready to negotiate on the nuclear file again,” Fidan had told
Al-Jazeera television. “Turkey supports reaching a peaceful solution to Iran’s
nuclear programme in the near term and is ready to provide assistance if needed
in this regard,” the foreign ministry source said. Iran’s foreign ministry
spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said on X that Tehran “is determined to continuously
strengthen relations with its neighbours based on the policy of good
neighbourliness and common interests”.Analysts say Turkey believes a military
intervention against Iran would generate serious security risks, including
instability and mass migration, and therefore prioritises diplomacy. “Turkey’s
focus in US-Iran relations is not necessarily on resolving all disputes, but on
preventing a military intervention,” Ankara-based Iranian academic Arif Keskin
said. He said Turkey’s stance also aligns with the approach of pro-negotiation
circles in Iran. “At this stage, it is widely acknowledged that the actor that
would benefit most from negotiations and a potential agreement would be the
Iranian leadership itself,” Keskin said. “Even the initiation of talks is viewed
as a significant gain for Iran.”Alongside its diplomatic push, Ankara is
assessing additional security precautions along its border with Iran if a US
strike destabilises the country, a senior Turkish official said. Much of the
500-kilometre border is secured by a wall, but “it has proven insufficient”,
said the official, who requested anonymity. The Turkish authorities have so far
avoided the term “buffer zone” but options under review include deploying more
troops and expanding technological surveillance systems, the official added.
Turkey began building a concrete wall in 2021 as concerns grew about a potential
influx of migrants following the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan. So far,
officials say there is no sign of mass movement toward Turkey linked to
developments in Iran. Earlier this month, the defence ministry said it had
detected “no evidence” of large scale migration. Unmanned aerial vehicles
continue to conduct round-the-clock reconnaissance along the frontier. To date,
authorities have installed 203 electro-optical towers, 43 lift towers, 380
kilometres of modular concrete wall and 553 kilometres of trenches, according to
official figures.
Israeli, Saudi officials visit Washington to discuss possible US strikes on
Iran, sources say
Reuters/January 30/2026
The Trump administration is hosting senior defense and intelligence officials
from Israel and Saudi Arabia for separate talks on Iran this week in Washington
as U.S. President Donald Trump considers military strikes, according to two
people familiar with the matter. Tensions have escalated amid a U.S. military
buildup in the Middle East. Trump urged Iran on Wednesday to come to the table
and make a deal on nuclear weapons or face a U.S. attack, drawing a threat from
Tehran to strike back hard. The Reuters Gulf Currents newsletter brings you the
latest on geopolitics, energy and finance in the region. Sign up here. Israel's
military intelligence chief, General Shlomi Binder, held talks on Iran with
senior officials at the Pentagon, the CIA and the White House on Tuesday and
Wednesday, a source familiar with the matter said. Axios reported that he shared
intelligence on possible Iranian targets.Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid
bin Salman was also in Washington for meetings with U.S. officials focused on
Iran, according to a second source familiar with the discussions. The Saudis and
other Gulf states have sought to de-escalate the situation and prevent a wider
war. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told Iranian President Masoud
Pezeshkian that Riyadh would not allow its airspace or territory to be used for
military actions against Tehran, state news agency SPA reported this week.
Syrian government and Kurdish SDF agree to integration deal hailed by US as
‘historic milestone’
The Arab Weekly/January 30/2026
The Syrian government and Kurdish-led forces declared a ceasefire deal on Friday
that sets out a phased integration of Kurdish fighters into the state, averting
a potentially bloody battle and drawing US praise for a “historic milestone.”The
sides announced the agreement after government forces under President Ahmed al-Sharaa
captured swathes of northern and eastern Syria from the Kurdish-led Syrian
Democratic Forces (SDF) group this month, forcing the Kurdish forces to retreat
into a shrinking enclave in the northeast. The fate of the SDF, which once held
a quarter or more of Syria, has been one of the biggest issues looming over the
country since radical Islamist fighters led by Sharaa toppled President Bashar
al-Assad 14 months ago. US Envoy Tom Barrack, who has been closely involved in
mediation efforts, declared the agreement “a profound and historic milestone in
Syria’s journey toward national reconciliation, unity and enduring
stability.”The SDF was once Washington’s main Syrian ally, playing a vital part
in the fight against ISIS. But its position grew weaker as President Donald
Trump built close ties with Sharaa, a former al-Qaeda commander who has now
brought almost all of Syria back under the authority of Damascus. Under the
agreement, forces that had amassed on front lines in the north would pull back
and interior ministry security forces will deploy to the centre of the cities of
Hasakah and Qamishli in the northeast, both held by the SDF. The agreement
includes the formation of a military division that will include three SDF
brigades, in addition to a brigade for forces in the SDF-held town of Kobani,
also known as Ain al-Arab, which will be affiliated to the governorate of
Aleppo. Governing bodies set up by the Kurdish-led groups in the northeast are
to be merged with Syrian state institutions. Damascus and the SDF first struck
an integration deal last March, but made scant progress towards implementation
before a year-end deadline, paving the way for government forces to go on the
march. Barrack, in his statement on X, said: “Both sides have taken courageous
steps: the Syrian government in extending meaningful inclusion and rights, and
the Kurdish communities in embracing a unified framework that honors their
contributions while advancing the common good.”Kurds have been on high alert for
a potential government push into their remaining enclave, mindful of last year’s
violence against minority Alawites and Druze.
Noah Bonsey, senior adviser with the International Crisis Group think-tank, said
the deal was “a potentially historic turning point.” “It looks like both sides
have succeeded in defining a middle ground that works for both of them on some
incredibly difficult questions,” he said. “It spares northeast Syria what could
have been a really ugly military showdown. Implementation will be tricky. There
are a lot of challenges ahead,” he said, adding that he was waiting to see all
the terms. Syrian Kurdish politician Elham Ahmad thanked the United States and
France for their mediation efforts. “We hope they will play the guarantor role
in the integration process,” she wrote on X. An SDF statement said the deal
“aims to unify Syrian territory and achieve full integration in the region by
strengthening cooperation between the concerned parties and unifying efforts to
rebuild the country.”
Syrian state-run broadcaster al-Ikhbariya published an almost identical
statement, citing a government official. A senior Syrian government official
told Reuters the deal was final and had been reached late on Thursday night, and
that implementation was to begin immediately. The statements did not address
control of the last remaining SDF-controlled border crossing to northern Iraq,
known as Semalka. The Syrian official said the Syrian state would take over all
border crossings. A spokesman from the SDF did not immediately respond to a
Reuters question on the crossing. The Syrian official said the military division
in the northeast would include “groups from the SDF within brigades, alongside
other brigades.” The official said that fighters would join such brigades as
“individuals” and that the whole division would be under the authority of
Syria’s defence ministry. There was no immediate response from the SDF to
questions on the method of integration and the command structure of the
brigades.
MSF Says it Will Not Share
Staff Details Demanded by Israel to Access Gaza
Asharq Al Awsat/30 January/2026
Medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres said on Friday it will not submit lists
of staff demanded by Israel to maintain access to Gaza and the West Bank, saying
it had not been able to obtain assurances over the safety of its teams. MSF,
which supports and helps staff hospitals in Gaza, is one of 37 international
organisations that Israel ordered this month to stop work in the Palestinian
territories unless they meet new rules including providing employee details,
Reuters reported. The aid groups say sharing such staff information could pose a
safety risk, pointing to the hundreds of aid workers who were killed or injured
during the two-year Gaza war. Israel's diaspora ministry, which manages the
registration process, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Israel has previously said the registrations were meant to prevent diversions of
aid by Palestinian armed groups. Aid agencies dispute that substantial aid has
been diverted. MSF had said last week it would be prepared to share a partial
list of Palestinian and international staff who had agreed to release that
information, provided the list be used only for administrative purposes and not
put its team at risk. It also said it wanted to retain control over the
management of medical humanitarian supplies."However, despite repeated efforts,
it became evident in recent days that we were unable to build engagement with
Israeli authorities on the concrete assurances required," MSF said in a
statement. It said there could be a devastating impact on humanitarian services
if it is banned from operating in Gaza and the West Bank, amid the ongoing
humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The Ministry of Health in Gaza said in a statement
on Friday that it rejected sharing data of health staff working with partner
health institutions, saying it threatened the personal safety of workers.
US optimistic about Hamas’ willingness to disarm despite
lingering uncertainties
The Arab Weekly/January 30/2026
US President Donald Trump said on Thursday that Hamas would give up weapons, a
step the militants have not confirmed, in what would be a major step forward in
a fragile ceasefire with Israel. “A lot of people said they’ll never disarm. It
looks like they’re going to disarm,” Trump told a cabinet meeting. Trump hailed
cooperation with Hamas, considered a terrorist group by the United States, after
Israeli forces brought back the remains from the last hostage held in Gaza, Ran
Gvili. “They did help us with those bodies, getting them back, and that family
is so grateful,” Trump said. Trump had asked for an update on the Middle East
from his roving special envoy Steve Witkoff, sitting in the side of the room as
cabinet members and media listened. An upbeat Witkoff voiced high confidence at
Hamas following through. “We’ve got the terrorists out of there and they’re
going to demilitarise. They will because they have no choice,” Witkoff said.
“They’re going to give it up. They’re going to give up the AK-47s,” he told
Trump. Hamas has said that the return of Gvili’s body showed its commitment to
the ceasefire but it has so far not surrendered its weapons. The group has
repeatedly said disarmament is a red line, but it has also suggested it would be
open to handing over its weapons to a Palestinian governing authority. The Gaza
health ministry said Israeli air strikes, tank shelling and gunfire have killed
at least 490 people since the truce took effect in October after two years of
war that widely demolished the Palestinian enclave. Handing over all remaining
living and dead hostages was a core commitment written into the first phase of
the ceasefire deal. Subsequent stages remain to be fulfilled, with deep splits
over what comes next, including Hamas disarmament. A Palestinian technocratic
committee has also been set up with a goal of taking over governance in the
battered Gaza Strip.
Divided Iraqis struggle to
find balance over Maliki nomination, risk of Iran war
The Arab Weekly/January 30/2026
Faced with political deadlock, open American meddling and the threat of war
across its borders, is Iraq being dragged back to darker times after achieving
hard-won stability? After decades of conflict and chaos, Iraq has recently
regained a sense of normalcy, yet its politics is haunted by the struggle to
balance relations with its two main allies, Iran and the United States.
Washington makes no secret of its will to interfere in Iraqi domestic
decision-making to curtail Iranian influence. While Iraqis discussed choosing
their next premier, US representatives lobbied.
Then President Donald Trump issued an ultimatum: the US would end its support
for Iraq if Nouri al-Maliki, a powerful politician close to Iran, returned as
prime minister. In the view of Iraqi analyst Ihsan al-Shamari, “Trump’s
administration does not distinguish between Iran and Iraq, instead it treats
them as a single, inseparable issue.”In November last year, Iraq held its
general election. Last week, after intense talks among political leaders, the
Coordination Framework, an alliance of Shia groups with ties to Iran, endorsed
Maliki as Iraq’s next prime minister. Maliki was Iraq’s only two-term prime
minister, serving between 2006 and 2014. He first enjoyed the support of the
then US occupation, but later fell out with Washington over his growing ties
with Iran and allegations that he pushed a sectarian agenda that paved the way
for the emergence of ISIS. Coming from Iraq’s largest Shia parliamentary bloc,
this nomination would normally secure the candidate the post. But Trump’s
meddling has muddied the waters. Talks are still under way within the
Coordination Framework to find a way out, a source close to the Shia alliance
said, adding that it is a “complicated situation.”Iraqi leaders are divided:
some want Maliki to retreat to protect Iraq from Trump’s threats. Others insist
on standing their ground and rejecting American interference. An Iraqi official
close to Maliki said he is not seeking confrontation. Instead, his team is
working to reach an understanding with the US. “The situation is difficult, but
not impossible,” he said. “It will take time.” The US wields leverage over Iraq
as its oil export revenues are largely held at the Federal Reserve Bank in New
York, in an arrangement reached after the 2003 US invasion that toppled Saddam
Hussein. Many US companies invest in Iraq, and the government of incumbent PM
Mohammed Shiaa al-Sudani, who enjoys a good relationship with Washington, has
been hoping for more investment, especially in the oil sector, which provides
about 90 percent of Iraq’s revenue. The source, close to the framework, said
there are serious concerns that Trump could impose sanctions on Iraq if Maliki
returns to office. But Iraq is struggling with weak economic growth and cannot
risk punitive measures by the US, which has already taken action against several
Iraqi entities, accusing them of helping Tehran evade sanctions. Shamari warned
that if Iraq continues its current approach towards Iran, it will risk
“isolation through sanctions or Trump’s maximum pressure campaign, which would
extend to the economy and financial systems.” In Iraq, keeping Iran at bay is
not easy. Since the US-led invasion, Iran has seen its Shia allies installed in
Baghdad’s halls of power. Today, it not only backs influential politicians but
also supports armed groups.US-sanctioned and Iran-aligned armed groups have long
vowed to intervene to defend the Islamic Republic, although they did not fire a
bullet during the last Iran-Israel war. Today, with Trump threatening a possible
strike on Iran, two of these groups say they are ready for war, even opening
recruitment offices for those willing to die for the cause. Shamari warned that
a US war on Iran might turn Iraq into “a battleground, a base for retaliation,
or a tool of military pressure.”Washington’s threats “to topple the regime,
target the Iranian Supreme Leader, or of a military strike … will significantly
affect Iraq at all levels,” he said. If the Iranian regime changes,
“Iran-aligned forces in Iraq will be forced into a political and military
struggle for survival.”It might lead to a chaotic restructuring of Iraq’s
political system eventually along new lines away from Iran’s encroachment.
Putin meets UAE president, Ukraine talks and regional issues on agenda
The Arab Weekly/January 30/2026
President Vladimir Putin met Emirati counterpart Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan in
Moscow on Thursday ahead of a second round of talks on the Ukraine war in Abu
Dhabi. The UAE has emerged as a key mediator in the nearly four-year war,
brokering a number of prisoner exchanges between the two sides and most recently
hosting talks between US, Russian and Ukrainian officials on a US-drafted plan
to end the fighting. A follow-up meeting is planned for Sunday, though it is not
clear whether US officials will attend. “I would like to commend the Emirati
side’s efforts in the context of the Ukrainian crisis, their contribution to
prisoner exchanges, and assistance in organising contacts in the United Arab
Emirates,” Putin said in a televised meeting with Al Nahyan. Several top Russian
officials accompanied Putin to the meeting, including central bank governor
Elvira Nabiullina and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Chechen leader Ramzan
Kadyrov, a powerful Kremlin loyalist who does not typically take part in
bilateral meetings with foreign leaders, also attended. Sitting across from
Putin, Al Nahyan said he supported “constructive dialogue and efforts aimed at
promoting necessary diplomatic solutions.”At the start of talks with the UAE
president, Putin told his Emirati counterpart that Russia was closely monitoring
the situation in Iran and wanted to discuss it with him. Earlier on Thursday,
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the potential for talks between the US
and Iran had not yet been exhausted, and that any use of force against Tehran
could create “chaos” in the region and lead to dangerous consequences. Russia
has offered to build both large and small nuclear power plants in the United
Arab Emirates, Alexei Likhachev, the head of Russia’s state-owned nuclear
corporation Rosatom, was cited as saying on Thursday by the Interfax news
agency.
The Latest English LCCC
analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published
on January
29-30/2026
Question: Why did God command Abraham to
sacrifice Isaac?
GotQuestions.org?/January 30/2026
Answer: Abraham had obeyed God many times in his walk with Him, but no test
could have been more severe than the one in Genesis 22. God commanded, “Take
your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah.
Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you” (Genesis
22:2).This was an astounding command because Isaac was the son of promise. God
had promised several times that from Abraham’s own body would come a nation as
multitudinous as the stars in heaven (Genesis 12:2–3; 15:4–5). Later, Abraham
was specifically told that the promise would be through Isaac (Genesis
21:12).mGiven that God’s testing of Abraham involved a command to do something
He elsewhere forbids (see Jeremiah 7:31), we must ask, “Why did God command
Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?” The Bible does not specifically address the answer
to this question, but in our study of Scripture we can compile a few reasons:
God’s command to sacrifice Isaac was to test Abraham’s faith. God’s tests prove
and purify our faith. They cause us to seek Him and trust Him more. God’s test
of Abraham allowed His child—and all the world—to see the reality of faith in
action. Faith is more than an inner spiritual attitude; faith works (see James
2:18).God’s command to sacrifice Isaac was to validate Abraham as the “father”
of all who have faith in God. “Abraham’s faith was credited to him as
righteousness” (Romans 4:9). And we today “who have the faith of Abraham” also
find that “he is the father of us all” (verse 16). Without Abraham’s response to
the command to sacrifice Isaac, we would have difficulty knowing all that faith
entails. God uses Abraham’s faith as an example of the type of faith required
for salvation.
God’s command to sacrifice Isaac was to provide an example of absolute
obedience. After God gave the command, “early the next morning Abraham got up
and loaded his donkey” and headed out with his son and the wood for a burnt
offering (Genesis 22:3). There was no delay, no questioning, no arguing. Just
simple obedience, which brought a blessing (verses 15–18).
God’s command to sacrifice Isaac was to reveal God as Jehovah-Jireh. On the way
up the mountain to the place of sacrifice, Isaac inquired as to the animal to be
sacrificed, and his father said, “God himself will provide the lamb for the
burnt offering, my son” (Genesis 22:8). After God’s provision of a ram to take
Isaac’s place on the altar, “Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide”
(verse 14). Thus we have another character-revealing name of God: Yahweh-Yireh.
God’s command to sacrifice Isaac was to foreshadow God’s sacrifice of His own
Son. The story of Abraham prefigures the New Testament teaching of the
atonement, the sacrificial offering of the Lord Jesus on the cross for the sin
of mankind. Here are some of the parallels between the sacrifice of Isaac and
the sacrifice of Christ:
“Take your son, your only son, whom you love” (Genesis 22:2); “For God so loved
the world that he gave his one and only Son” (John 3:16).
“Go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there” (Genesis 22:2); it is believed
that this same area is where the city of Jerusalem was built many years later.
Jesus was crucified in the same area that Isaac had been laid on the altar.
“Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering” (Genesis 22:2); “Christ died for our
sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3).
“Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac”
(Genesis 22:6); Jesus, “carrying his own cross,” walked to Calvary (John 19:17).
“But where is the lamb for the burnt offering?” (Genesis 22:7); John said,
“Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29).
“God himself will provide the lamb” (Genesis 22:8); Jesus is likened to a
spotless lamb in 1 Peter 1:18–19 and a slain lamb in Revelation 5:6.
Isaac, who was likely a young man at the time of his sacrifice, acted in
obedience to his father (Genesis 22:9); before His sacrifice, Jesus prayed, “My
Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but
as you will” (Matthew 26:39).
Isaac was resurrected figuratively, and Jesus in reality: “Abraham reasoned that
God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back
from death” (Hebrews 11:19); Jesus “was buried, and . . . was raised on the
third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:4).
Many centuries after God’s command for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Jesus said,
“Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was
glad” (John 8:56). This is a reference to Abraham’s joy in seeing the ram caught
in the thicket in Genesis 22. That ram was the substitute that would save
Isaac’s life. Seeing that ram was, in essence, seeing the day of Christ, the
Substitute for all of us.
Iran, Venezuela ou les transitions impossibles?
Dr. Charles Elias Chartouni//Citation tirée du site web de Voici
Beyrouth/janvier 30/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/01/151663/
La question qui se pose à première vue est celle des étapes ou des attentes qui
devraient succéder aux débâcles sécuritaires et géostratégiques survenues en
Iran et au Venezuela. Les intermèdes prolongés laissent perplexes quant à la
viabilité des dynamiques du changement dans des pays verrouillés par des
dictatures meurtrières. Quels peuvent être, dès lors, les leviers du changement
appelés à relayer des actions militaires aussi cruciales que celles déployées
sur ces deux théâtres opérationnels ?
Il convient d’abord d’interroger la rationalité sous-jacente à ces deux
entreprises militaires et leur finalité. Les considérations géostratégiques
priment, d’autant plus que les béances sécuritaires sont saillantes dans les
deux cas. Les États-Unis ne peuvent en aucun cas se détourner de l’influence
grandissante du nouvel axe néo-totalitaire dans l’hémisphère nord, ni de ses
liens étroits avec la criminalité organisée, l’économie souterraine de la drogue
et ses ramifications intersectorielles. Le choix du Venezuela, loin d’être
arbitraire, relève en réalité du rôle fédérateur qu’il joue dans la mise en
forme des politiques de subversion.
Par ailleurs, la guerre du 7 octobre 2023 a servi de tremplin à la contre-offensive
israélienne, laquelle a détruit la politique des “théâtres opérationnels
intégrés” et infléchi le cours des dynamiques géopolitiques de manière
irréversible, il y a désormais un avant et un après. Les États-Unis sont entrés
dans le jeu par la voie israélienne, tandis que la géopolitique arabe est
emportée par un maelström qui la dépasse et lui impose de manière involontaire
ses séquences et sa cadence. Faisant suite à l’implosion du système politique
panarabe, cet épisode constitue un tournant à partir duquel s’opère la
reconfiguration d’une géopolitique éclatée aux marqueurs disparates. Les lignes
de démarcation conventionnelles sont entièrement bouleversées et l’on se
retrouve face à des schémas de recomposition inédits.
Ces deux cas ne sont pas isolés. Ils mettent en lumière des dynamiques de
restructuration qui questionnent les instances d’arbitrage international. Ils
revoient également la pertinence des modèles d’agrégation et de désagrégation
régissant la vie internationale, ainsi que la nature de l’action politique et
diplomatique appelée à jouer un rôle de régulateur. L’ONU et son conglomérat
institutionnel requièrent des réformes et des consensus stratégiques renouvelés
mandatés par des mutations profondes portant sur la nature des enjeux
internationaux, leurs modes de régulation et les finalités de l’ordre
international. Le système actuel est désormais instrumentalisé par des mouvances
totalitaires qui s’attaquent aux fondements mêmes de l’ordre libéral et
démocratique.
La transition en Iran ne peut plus désormais emprunter la voie d’une diplomatie
dilatoire. Sa seule finalité est de noyer les enjeux dans des négociations sans
fin visant à perpétuer la survie du régime et à légitimer ses politiques sous
peine de compromettre la paix régionale et internationale. Les hypothétiques
rapports de force censés étayer cette approche sont démentis par l’état actuel
des choses. Les asymétries militaires et stratégiques ne prêtent plus à
équivoque : le meurtre d’État a atteint son paroxysme avec 30 000 victimes
assassinées en deux jours, et les crises résultant d’une gouvernance inepte,
incapable de traiter les dossiers écologiques, logistiques et de politiques
publiques, attestent des échecs cumulés d’un régime en fin de parcours.
Il ne lui reste, dès lors, que la politique de l’ensauvagement généralisé, du
terrorisme et de la déstabilisation à géométrie variable. L’objet même de toute
diplomatie est invalidé, dès l’origine, tant les règles de la civilité
internationale ont été subornées et délibérément subverties. Nous sommes
confrontés à une secte nihiliste en passe de perdre ses mécanismes de contrôle
ainsi que ses ressources économiques et financières qui ont assuré sa pérennité,
tandis que sa légitimité est battue en brèche depuis longtemps. La fin de ce
régime est déjà engagée alors que les scénarios de transition restent à définir
si l’on veut éviter les avatars de la guerre civile et du chaos ainsi que leurs
répercussions dans un environnement régional en état de délabrement avancé.
L’état de siège décrété par l’administration américaine et le gouvernement
israélien, conjugué à la prolifération des révoltes internes, est d’une ampleur
suffisante pour enclencher une politique de délégitimation et forcer une
dynamique de transition. Il est illusoire d’envisager un retour à la diplomatie
classique, car elle est inopérante, inadaptée et empêcherait la chute d’un
régime voué à la guerre civile.
Le Venezuela a été décapité le jour où Nicolas Maduro a été enlevé comme un
vulgaire mafieux et transféré aux États-Unis. Toute la pseudo-légitimité dont il
se prévalait a alors volé en éclats. La junte militaro-mafieuse est mise à nu,
bien qu’elle tente de se ressaisir par le biais du terrorisme d’État et
d’accommodements de façade avec les États-Unis, tout en veillant à préserver
l’intégrité de l’appareil répressif qu’elle a bâti. Ce coup d’État demeure de
portée limitée car la junte au pouvoir exclut une transition démocratique.
La question a été délibérément éludée et la junte s’est contentée de réorienter
la politique des hydrocarbures au service d’une relation apaisée avec les
États-Unis. Hormis la libération symbolique de quelques prisonniers politiques,
la libéralisation du régime politique demeure hors de question et la négociation
d’une transition démocratique est totalement exclue du champ politique, lequel
reste la chasse gardée de la mafia au pouvoir. La question lancinante qui se
pose aujourd’hui est celle de la viabilité d’un processus tronqué et dépourvu
d’horizon. En l’absence d’une démarche politique globale, les solutions
intérimaires seront éphémères. La décomposition de la société vénézuélienne se
poursuivra, tandis que la guerre civile achèvera le travail de destruction de la
dystopie meurtrière ayant séquestré l’imaginaire politique latino-américain tout
au long du siècle.
Toutes ces dictatures mafieuses de gauche se retranchent derrière des artifices
idéologiques creux forgés sous le signe d’un altermondialisme factice, celui
d’un modèle chinois de croissance sans réformes démocratiques, alors qu’il n’en
est rien. Il s’agit de régimes qui n’ont rien à offrir sinon des slogans vides
renvoyant au nihilisme idéologique qui imprègne de part en part ces sociétés. La
politique américaine s’inscrit dans une trame semblable à celle mise en œuvre en
Iran, cooptation, alliances tacites et implosion afin de venir à bout des
verrouillages systémiques et des régimes de terreur qui les sanctuarisent.
Iran, Venezuela or the impossible transition?
Dr. Charles Elias Chartouni/This Is Beirut/January 30/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/01/151663/
The question at first glance is the steps or expectations that should succeed in
the security and geostrategic debacle occurred in Iran and Venezuela. Prolonged
intermediaries leave puzzled about the viability of change dynamics in countries
locked by murderous dictatorships. What can, then, be the levers of change
called to relay military actions as crucial as those deployed in these two
operational theatres?
It’s worth questioning the rationality underlying these two military companies
and their purpose. Geostrategic considerations are prime, especially since the
security gaps are prominent in both cases. The U.S. can in no way divert from
the growing influence of the Neo-Totalitarian Axis in the Northern Hemisphere,
nor its close links to organized crime, the underground drug economy, and its
cross-sectoral ramifications. Venezuela’s choice, far from being arbitrary,
actually reflects the federal role it plays in shaping subversion policies.
In other words, the war on October 7, 2023 served as a stepping stone for the
Israeli counter-offensive, which destroyed the policy of “integrated operational
theaters” and irversibly inflicted the course of geopolitical dynamics, there is
now a before and after. The United States has entered the game the Israeli way,
while Arab geopolitics are swept away by an overtaking maelström and unwittingly
imposes its sequences and cadence on it. Following the implosion of the pan-Arab
political system, this episode is a turning point from which the reconfiguration
of a geopolitics exploded with disparate markers. Conventional demarcation lines
are completely upset and you find yourself facing unprecedented composition
patterns.
These two cases are not isolated. They highlight restructuring dynamics that
challenge international arbitration authorities. They also review the relevance
of models of aggregation and disagreement governing international life, as well
as the nature of political and diplomatic action called to play a regulator
role. The UN and its institutional conglomerate require renewed strategic
reforms and consensus mandated by profound changes concerning the nature of
international issues, their modes of regulation and the purposes of the
international order. The current system is now instrumentalized by totalitarian
movements that attack the very foundations of the liberal and democratic order.
The transition in Iran can no longer take the path of dilatory diplomacy. Its
sole purpose is to drown the issues in endless negotiations aimed at
perpetuating the regime’s survival and legitimize its policies in a bid to
compromise regional and international peace. The hypothetical force reports
supposed to support this approach are denied by the current state of affairs.
Military and strategic asymmetries are no longer equal: the state murder has
reached its paroxysm with 30,000 victims murdered in two days, and the crises
resulting from an inept governance unable to handle ecological, logistical and
public policy issues, testify to the cumulative failures of a regime at the end
of the journey.
He only has left, then, the policy of widespread deforestation, terrorism and
variable geometric destabilization. The very object of any diplomacy is invalid,
from the very beginning, both the rules of international civility have been
subverted and deliberately subverted. We are facing a nihilist sect on the verge
of losing its mechanisms of control, as well as its economic and financial
resources that have ensured its sustainability, while its legitimacy has long
been broken in a gap. The end of this regime is already engaged while
transitional scenarios remain to be defined if to avoid avatars of civil war and
chaos and their repercussions in a developing regional environment.
The state of residence decreed by the US administration and the Israeli
government, coupled with the proliferation of internal riots, is sufficient in
magnitude to trigger a policy of delegitimization and force a transitional
dynamic. He is illusional to consider a return to classic diplomacy, because it
is inoperable, inappropriate and would prevent the fall of a regime devoted to
civil war.
Venezuela was decapitated on the day Nicolas Maduro was abducted as a mafia
vulgar and transferred to the United States. All the pseudo-legitimacy he
prevailed over then burst into flames. The military-mafia junta is laid bare, as
it attempts to pull itself together through state terrorism and US-front
accommodations, while maintaining the integrity of the repressive apparatus it
has built. This coup d’état remains in limited reach because the ruling junta
rules out a democratic transition.
The issue was deliberately eluded, and the junta only sought to divert
hydrocarbon policy to serve a peaceful relationship with the United States.
Apart from the symbolic release of some political prisoners, the liberalization
of the political regime remains out of the question and the negotiation of a
democratic transition is completely excluded from the political field, which
remains the guarded hunt for the mafia in power. The starting question that is
being asked today is the viability of a process that is truncated and
unpredictable. In the absence of a comprehensive political approach, interim
solutions will be fleeting. The decomposition of Venezuelan society will
continue, while the civil war will complete the work of destroying the murderous
dystopia that has plagued imaginary Latin American politics throughout the
century.
All these leftist mafia dictatorships are stuck behind hollow ideological
artifacts forged under the sign of fake alterworldism, that of a Chinese model
of growth without democratic reforms, when there is nothing. These are regimes
that have nothing to offer but empty slogans referring to the ideological
nihilism that permeates in some parts of these societies. American policy is
part of a plot similar to Iran’s implementation, cooperation, tacit alliances,
and implosion in order to end systemic lockdowns and terror regimes that
sanctify them.
Syrian President Al-Sharaa Deepens Relationship With
Putin During Latest Moscow Visit
Ahmad Sharawi/FDD-Policy Brief/January 30/2026
Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa was in an upbeat mood following his meeting in
Moscow with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, on January 29 — the second
encounter between the two leaders since October last year.
“Russia, of course, plays a major role in Syria, in stabilizing the situation,
not only in Syria but also in the region,” Sharaa stated appreciatively. Putin
responded in kind, signaling that Russia was willing to cooperate with Sharaa in
much the same way that it did with his predecessor, the former dictator Bashar
al-Assad, who is now exiled in the Russian capital. Sharaa’s overtures to the
Russians are especially notable given that Moscow was a full partner in the mass
atrocities committed by Assad’s regime during the Syrian civil war. The Syrian
leader has concluded that Russia’s primary interest is in maintaining its
foothold in Syria, chiefly the Hmeimim Air Base and the Tartus naval facility.
In return, Sharaa is positioning Syria to extract tangible benefits from Russia
that include military, energy, and grain imports.
Syria and Russia Consolidate Ties in Assad’s Wake
Sharaa’s pragmatic approach to Russia began during his campaign to overthrow the
Assad regime. As he later recalled, “When our forces arrived at Homs, the
Russians stepped back from the battle entirely, withdrawing from the military
scene under an agreement.” By that point, Moscow had shifted its focus from
propping up Assad’s collapsing rule to preserving its military footprint in
Syria. That laid the groundwork for a productive relationship between Damascus
and Moscow based on tangible interests. Since taking power, the Syrian
leadership has allowed Russia to retain access to both the Hmeimim and Tartus
military bases. In return, Moscow has continued supplying Syria with oil
delivered by sanctioned ships, along with grain stolen from occupied territories
in Ukraine. The relationship has also extended into the diplomatic arena, with
Russia providing cover at the UN Security Council to remove designations for
terrorism imposed on Sharaa.
More consequential is Sharaa’s potential pursuit of military capabilities that
only Russia appears willing to provide. Israeli strikes in December 2024
destroyed roughly 85 percent of Syria’s military capabilities. Turkey, Sharaa’s
main backer, has offered some support but has remained cautious about
transferring heavier weaponry, fearing this could provoke an Israeli response.
This has pushed Damascus back toward Moscow.
Syrian Bases Remain Critical to Russian Operations
According to Arab media reports, Hmeimim hosts squadrons of fighter jets that
have enabled Russia to conduct air operations across the Mediterranean. The
Tartus Naval Base includes storage facilities and equipment and has housed S-300
air-defense systems. As Russia’s only naval base in the Mediterranean, Tartus
has provided critical surveillance and monitoring capabilities, allowing Moscow
to track maritime traffic and closely observe NATO and Western military
activity. The base has also functioned as a logistical hub for the supply and
sustainment of Russia’s Africa Corps, a paramilitary force that supports Russian
political influence across parts of Africa.
For Russia, securing the status of these bases is central to its power
projection in the Mediterranean. Doing so also preserves Moscow’s foothold in
Syria as a potential long-term partner and the accompanying strategic and
economic benefits.
Sanctions Remain a Tool of U.S. Policy
The Trump administration has been ambivalent on punishing countries for their
economic ties with Moscow. Yet Congress can move to reimpose sanctions if Syria
acquires weapon systems directly from Russia and its state-owned arms exporter.
Many of the systems under discussion would meet the “significant transaction”
threshold under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.
Washington should also signal to the Syrian government that it can sanction
entities in Syria that provide material support to a Russian economy geared
towards the war in Ukraine.
** Ahmad Sharawi is a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies (FDD). For more analysis from Ahmad and FDD, please subscribe HERE.
Follow Ahmad on X @AhmadA_Sharawi. Follow FDD on X @FDD. FDD is a Washington,
DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and
foreign policy.
What Trump’s National Defense Strategy Gets Right — and
Wrong
Bradley Bowman and RADM (Ret.) Mark Montgomery/Real Clear Defense/January
30/2026
The Trump administration quietly released its 2026 National Defense Strategy on
Friday evening as the largest storm in years barreled down on much of the United
States. Much like the snow that blanketed the country, the new NDS brings a
combination of positive and negative elements.
Regardless, Americans should not let the snow and ice prevent them from
assessing the National Defense Strategy (NDS), as well as the National Security
Strategy (NSS) that preceded it last year, which together herald one of the most
consequential transitions in U.S. national security policy in years. Indeed, the
NDS is replete with both strengths and weaknesses that will directly impact the
security of Americans. While partisans will reflexively condemn or praise the
strategy, Americans should objectively assess what the NDS gets both right and
wrong.
Strengths in the National Defense Strategy
Starting with the positive elements, the NDS (more so than the NSS) has the
earmarks of a serious strategic effort, one that establishes priorities,
identifies the most serious threats, and attempts to allocate resources
accordingly — seeking to “correlate ends, ways, and means in a realistic
fashion.”
The urgent focus in the NDS on revitalizing the defense industrial base is
laudable and long overdue. When combined with Secretary of Defense Pete
Hegseth’s prioritization of defense acquisition and foreign military sales
reform, as reflected in his November 7 speech, there is real potential for
improvements.
Similarly, the prioritization of homeland missile defense and nuclear deterrence
is smart and worthy of support. The NDS also prudently warns that America’s
enemies “might act together in a coordinated or opportunistic fashion across
multiple theaters,” at least implicitly raising serious questions regarding
defense spending, war plans, force structure, force posture, and combat
capacity.
Even if the administration’s approach to alliance management has at times been
deeply counterproductive, there is strategic wisdom in the NDS’s focus on burden
sharing. While the United States is powerful, it lacks sufficient resources or
military power to address all threats and challenges alone and needs allies and
partners to “do their part” (a term the NDS repeats five times), especially when
it comes to “threats in their regions.” That is perhaps part of the reason why
the administration expresses such frustration with allies and partners that fail
to fully “step up” and carry a necessary share of the burden. Trump’s new
“global standard” for allies and partners to spend 3.5% of gross domestic
product on core military spending is well timed, especially for our partners in
Asia, including Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and Australia.
Moreover, in a laudable recognition of reality and to encourage other allies and
partners to emulate the example, the NDS twice identifies Israel as a “model
ally.” After the barbaric attacks of October 7, “Israel showed that it was able
and willing to defend itself,” the NDS observes. With the assistance of the U.S.
military, the NDS notes that Israel achieved “historic operational and strategic
successes,” weakening Iran and “severely” degrading Tehran’s terror proxy
network.
The NDS rightly highlights that the Islamic Republic of Iran is a regime that
“has the blood of Americans on its hands” and that “routinely” starts crises
that “threaten the lives of American servicemembers in the region” and prevents
a more “peaceful and prosperous future” in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, the United States also confronts threats from China, Russia,
North Korea, and others. To help share the burden and lighten the U.S. load,
Americans need an ally that is both motivated and capable of taking the fight to
Tehran and its terror proxies.
That is exactly what Americans have in Israel, as the NDS notes.
No wonder the NDS now seeks to “further empower [Israel] to defend itself and
promote our shared interests.” The administration can start by expediting and
expanding efforts to replenish, modernize, and expand Israel’s arsenal, as well
as strengthening further the U.S.-Israel Operations-Technology Working Group,
building a regional security architecture that includes Israel, and replacing
the current U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding with a Strategic Partnership
Agreement.
Weaknesses in the National Defense Strategy
The NDS’s positive elements are unfortunately accompanied by several
shortcomings. One of them is an approach toward Europe that undervalues its
importance to Americans, underestimates the Russian threat and Putin’s
ambitions, increases the chances of additional aggression (that would undermine
America’s efforts in the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific), and advances an
approach that is out of step with the views of Congress and the American people.
The wording in the NDS makes clear that additional reductions in U.S. force
posture in Europe may be coming in the department’s impending “Global Posture
Review.” Premature U.S. withdrawals would seem to reward Russia for its
aggression in Ukraine and weaken deterrence on NATO’s eastern flank during a
window of particular vulnerability as Europe needs time to translate increased
defense spending into increased defense production capacity, larger inventories,
and force structure, and strengthened defense posture and capability.
The administration must also ensure that its increased focus in the Western
Hemisphere and reduced commitments in some regions abroad are not interpreted as
a “spheres of influence” strategy that is some form of retreat. If the United
States takes unprincipled “might makes right” license in its hemisphere, we
should not be surprised if America’s enemies double down on efforts to do the
same, inviting more aggression and wars that could have been prevented.
Another shortcoming in the NDS is the administration’s caustic “tone” that the
administration and its NSS and NDS celebrate and mistakenly view as a
“necessary” virtue rather than a counterproductive vice. If we need allies and
partners to do more and work with us more closely, habitually insulting them is
not a smart approach. To be sure, many partners need to invest more in defense,
but as the NDS notes, many are already starting to do so, and we can achieve
that result without belittling allies who have fought and died alongside
Americans from Yorktown to D-Day to Afghanistan.
A good rule of thumb is to treat America’s allies and partners with at least as
much respect as we treat our enemies, such as China and Russia. Oddly, the
administration often reserves respect for authoritarian adversaries and disdain
for America’s democratic allies. That makes achieving the administration’s goals
more difficult. Unfortunately, the administration also brings its caustic tone
to domestic discussions, confusing as enemies Americans of good faith who simply
have different policy positions. If the Trump administration wants its approach
to enjoy support in Congress now, and “for many years to come” after Trump
leaves office, it should spend more time respectfully listening, persuading, and
building bipartisan consensus and less time using language that unnecessarily
creates opponents who might otherwise be ready to cooperate in working toward
common goals.
One of the most consequential shortcomings, however, in the NDS is its failure
to clearly articulate an effective strategy for confronting America’s most
formidable adversary: China. To be sure, the NDS lays out the broad outlines of
a sound strategy of denial along the First Island Chain in the Pacific that
seeks to preserve American access and interests in the Pacific, strengthen
deterrence, and prevent China from dominating the United States or its allies in
the region.
That is a necessary but wildly insufficient response to Beijing, particularly
because it does not explicitly describe how we will support our most vulnerable
partner, Taiwan, and ignores the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC’s) ongoing
cyber aggression against America’s national critical infrastructure.
Notably, the NDS does not even mention Taiwan once. That oddity is exacerbated
by Hegseth’s comment in his introduction that “We will deter China in the
Indo-Pacific through strength, not confrontation.” War with China would be a
disaster, but if Beijing believes the United States will avoid confrontation at
almost any cost, our military strength becomes less relevant, and we are more
likely to see PRC aggression.
The administration calls for a “clear-eyed” and objective assessment of threats,
yet there is little indication in the NSS or the NDS that the administration
understands that Beijing’s ambitions extend well beyond the Pacific and that the
PRC is engaged in current aggression against the United States in the cyber
domain. The U.S. Intelligence Community’s 2025 Worldwide Threat Assessment and
the Pentagon’s 2025 report to Congress demonstrate this understanding, but it is
less evident in the NDS. That does not bode well for the strategy.
China says it will respond to the U.S. threat by a process of “systems
destruction warfare,” paralyzing, controlling, or destroying critical components
of America’s operational systems. This includes military power projection
systems (carriers and bases), our logistics hubs, our command-and-control and
information-sharing networks (space and cyber), and America’s ability to
generate future forces. Likely out of concern for not “provoking” or “offending”
China, the NDS fails to acknowledge these ongoing PRC efforts, much less
describe a strategy to respond.
In 2024, the FBI detailed China’s aggressive “Volt Typhoon” campaign to
penetrate and place at risk key U.S. critical infrastructures. Beijing’s goal is
to prevent the Pentagon from conducting military mobilization and movement
through key rail systems, airports, and maritime ports to the fight overseas.
The failure to clearly identify and address this ongoing Chinese activity risks
undermining the Trump administration’s entire strategy for deterring aggression
in the Pacific. As Americans experience the joys and pains associated with the
recent snowstorm, they would be wise to put the new NDS on their reading table.
Understanding its strengths and weaknesses will enable Americans and their
representatives in Congress to support what the administration gets right and
push back where it is misguided.
*Bradley Bowman is senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power
at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where RADM Mark Montgomery (U.S.
Navy, ret.) is senior director of the Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation.
Russian troops begin evacuating from northern Syria
Dmitriy Shapiro and Keti Korkiya/FDD's Long War Journal/January 30/2026
Syrian President Ahmed al Sharaa made his second visit to Moscow in four months
on January 28, even as Russia is withdrawing its forces from the city of
Qamishli in northeastern Syria. Moscow may hope that its withdrawal will help
ensure Damascus grants Russia continued access to key bases in western Syria.
The Russian pullback from Qamishli comes as Syrian government forces seized vast
swaths of territory earlier this month from the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic
Forces (SDF). Forces loyal to Sharaa have been fighting the SDF as part of an
effort to bring all Syrian territory under the control of the government in
Damascus. A January 20 ceasefire between pro-government forces and the SDF gave
Damascus control of Syria’s Deir-ez-Zor and Raqqa Governorates. The status of Al
Hasakah Governorate, which includes Qamishli, was left for later negotiations.
However, a government takeover there seems inevitable. The Russian withdrawal
from Qamishli appears to have begun last week. A video shared by the Kurdish
Rudaw Media Network on January 22 showed a Russian Il-76 military transport
aircraft landing at the airport. Subsequent footage aired on January 26 showed
Russian military equipment being loaded onto an Il-76. The same day, Al-Monitor
posted footage from inside a makeshift Russian barracks that had reportedly been
abandoned two days earlier.
Some of the Russian forces withdrawn from Qamishli are expected to redeploy to
the Russian-controlled Hmeimim air base in western Syria, while others will
return to Russia, a Syrian source told Reuters on January 26. Another source
said that Russia had transported military vehicles and heavy weaponry to Hmeimim
over the previous two days.
The pullback came after the Russian daily Kommersant, citing an unnamed Syrian
source familiar with the situation, reported on January 21 that the Syrian
government may ask Russian troops to vacate Qamishli as part of the negotiations
for Hasakah.
“I think the Russians will be asked to leave Qamishli completely,” the source
told Kommersant. “They have no business there now.” The American military also
appears to be headed for a full withdrawal from northeastern Syria, where US
forces had partnered with the SDF to fight the Islamic State.
Russia, which backed deposed Syrian President Bashar al Assad in the 13-year
Syrian Civil War, had used the Qamishli airport to support joint patrols with
Turkey as part of a 2019 agreement to ensure the removal of Kurdish forces from
the Turkey-Syria border and monitor a ceasefire between Kurdish and Turkish
forces. Still, the Russian military presence in Qamishli had been relatively
small.
Russia’s most important assets are Hmeimim Air Base and the Tartus naval
logistics center in western Syria. These facilities not only helped Moscow
support Assad’s regime but also gave the Russian military a gateway to pursue
its interests in the Middle East, the Mediterranean, and Africa. When rebel
forces led by Sharaa’s Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS) ousted Assad in December 2024,
it threw Russia’s continued presence in Syria into question.
There is no love lost between Moscow and Syria’s new rulers after being on
opposite sides of the Syrian Civil War. Russia helped slaughter many thousands
of civilians, including in airstrikes on hospitals, markets, schools, and
refugee camps, while supporting Assad. Many of these atrocities were committed
in Idlib province, the stronghold of HTS, a former affiliate of Al Qaeda. The
Russians, for their part, remain wary of extremist elements in the new regime.
Nevertheless, both sides have opted for pragmatism. Although the Kremlin granted
asylum to Assad, it quickly recognized Syria’s new government and engaged
diplomatically to ensure continued access to its military facilities.
Sharaa has called on Russia to extradite Assad back to Syria so that he can
stand trial, a move which Moscow has refused. Damascus also terminated a
contract under which a Russian company managed and operated the commercial side
of the Tartus port. At the same time, Sharaa has calculated that Syria is better
off preserving cordial ties with Russia, including with defense cooperation.
On October 15, Sharaa met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow. The
Syrian leader promised to “respect all agreements” made between Russia and
Syria, apparently referring to the military facilities, while “working on
redefining the nature of relations with Russia.”
A Syrian foreign ministry official told Reuters that Damascus, which resented
Russia’s presence in Qamishli and ties to the Kurds, interprets the Russian
withdrawal as a gesture intended to build goodwill and reassure Sharaa that
Moscow will not interfere in his struggle with the SDF. When they met on January
28, Putin congratulated Sharaa on the “growing momentum” in his “efforts to
restore Syria’s territorial integrity.”Sharaa and Putin reportedly discussed the
future of the Hmeimim and Tartus facilities during the meeting, along with
regional and economic issues, according to Syrian and Russian officials. “Sharaa
was also seeking greater Russian engagement in future security arrangements in
southern Syria, including a military police presence in Quneitra, in the Golan
Heights, to serve as a buffer against Israeli incursions,” Reuters reported,
citing the Syrian foreign ministry source.
A number of Russian officials attended the meeting, including Dmitry Shugaev,
director of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation. Shugaev’s
presence suggests a potential discussion of arms sales to Syria, as Sharaa looks
to rebuild his country’s military capabilities.
So far, Syria and Russia appear willing to let bygones be bygones and move
forward in their bilateral economic and security relationships. However, time
will tell how long the Syrian government will be willing to allow Russia to use
its territory as a base for its global ambitions.
**Dmitriy Shapiro is a research analyst and editor at the Foundation for Defense
of Democracies (FDD), where Keti Korkiya is a research analyst. Follow Dmitriy
on X @dmitriyshapiro.
Houthi Actions Force World Food Programme to Close Operations in Northern Yemen
Edmund Fitton-Brown and Bridget Toomey/FDD-Policy Brief/January 30/2026
In a dramatic move, the World Food Programme (WFP) is shuttering its operations
in northern Yemen, which is currently controlled by the Iran-backed Houthis, UN
officials confirmed on January 29.
The Houthis placed restrictions on the agency and harassed its workers,
triggering the WFP’s decision to withdraw and ending its humanitarian mission to
18 million Yemenis facing acute food insecurity and potentially famine.
Throughout the second half of 2025, the Houthis undertook numerous campaigns
ransacking UN offices and arbitrarily detaining personnel — illegal behavior
that has not carried consequences until now.
Yemen’s internationally recognized government (IRG) estimates that the Houthis
have profited to the tune of $10 billion by stealing and manipulating
international aid. The decision to move UN programs and resources out of Houthi
territory removes both a key source of funding for the group and its ability to
control Yemenis and blackmail foreigners through the manipulation of aid
supplies.
Houthi Arrest Campaigns Target WFP Workers
The UN confirmed on December 18 that the Houthis currently hold 69 UN workers
detained on the false charge that UN programs function as “spy cells” for Israel
and the United States. Abdulmalik al-Houthi, leader of the Iran-backed terror
group, has leveled this accusation at the WFP in particular.
The Houthis sentenced over a dozen people to death in late 2025 after sham
trials on espionage charges, though it is uncertain whether any of these
individuals are UN-affiliated. In February 2025, the UN announced that a WFP
worker died a month after he was arbitrarily detained by the Houthis.
The WFP has periodically suspended operations in Houthi-controlled territory for
brief periods due to security concerns, but had not made that a permanent
change.
The UN Turns a Blind Eye to Humanitarian Aid Manipulation
International aid has been an invaluable asset to the Houthis for at least a
decade. The group controls the entire aid pipeline from points of entry, where
it levies taxes and fees, to distribution methods, which favor loyalists. On top
of the routine abuse, the Houthis commit flagrant theft. In March 2025, for
example, the group stole $1.6 million worth of WFP supplies from a warehouse in
Saada in northern Yemen. The WFP temporarily halted new shipments of supplies to
Houthi territory in response.
The UN has in many respects colluded with the Houthis over the aid pipeline. As
Saudi and Emirati-backed Yemeni government forces were on the verge of capturing
Yemen’s main port Hodeidah, the UN played a decisive role in securing an
immediate ceasefire to allow the uninterrupted flow of humanitarian aid. Since
the agreement eight years ago, the Houthis have failed to adhere to their
commitments while simultaneously profiting off all cargo entering the port,
including humanitarian aid.
UN Activity in Yemen Requires Intense Donor Scrutiny
The UN should relocate all program and office headquarters to southern
territory. The Yemeni IRG controls two major open-sea ports in southern Yemen
and has expressed its willingness to provide aid to the population under Houthi
control.
Relocation will limit the Houthis’ ability to access and exploit personnel and
resources. However, the UN’s previous inability to appropriately respond to
Houthi extortion necessitates external involvement. The United States and other
donor countries should insist that the UN relocate its operations to the south.
They should also implement a third-party oversight mechanism for all UN activity
in Yemen to report on Houthi abuses and any UN practices that bolster the
group’s manipulations.
*Edmund Fitton-Brown is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies (FDD). Bridget Toomey is a research analyst at FDD focusing on
Iranian proxies, specifically Iraqi militias and the Houthis. For more analysis
from Edmund, Bridget, and FDD, please subscribe HERE. Follow Edmund on X @EFittonBrown
and Bridget on X @BridgetKToomey. Follow FDD on X @FDD. FDD is a Washington,
DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and
foreign policy.
Who owns the world’s laughter?
Karam Nama/The Arab Weekly/January 30/2026
Ultimately, irony is not just a style. It is a test of intelligence, a
reflection of authority and an indication of vulnerability.
In every era, there comes a moment when irony outgrows its familiar role as a
source of amusement or a means of deflating solemnity. Instead, it becomes
something sharper: a cognitive device, a political weapon and a mirror that
exposes the fragility of those who imagine themselves to be powerful. Today,
what is striking is that sarcasm, long regarded in Arab cultural tradition as
‘the weapon of the weak,’ has been adopted by the powerful and used with cold
confidence as if it were an extension of their authority.
To understand this shift, it is worth recalling one of the Arab world’s most
perceptive interpreters of irony: the Iraqi sociologist Ali al-Wardi.
Wardi understood that sarcasm is not merely a witty remark; it is a strategy for
sidestepping questions designed to trap, embarrass or ensnare the speaker
politically. I still remember an anecdote that has remained etched in my memory
as if it were a scene from absurdist theatre. During a public lecture, a man
posed a provocative question intended to corner Wardi politically. Wardi did not
raise his voice or assert intellectual dominance. Instead, he glanced at the
man, then at his watch, and said with disarming innocence, “Excuse me, I need to
go and wash my hands … then we can think together about an answer.”
With that single line, he turned the entire scene on its head. The questioner,
who had sought to appear powerful, suddenly looked small, while Wardi,
supposedly on the defensive, walked away with the luxury of time and gentle
mockery.
His irony was not reserved just for his adversaries. Even with close friends
such as the encyclopaedic scholar Jalal al-Hanafi, he used sarcasm as a playful
way of testing ideas. Their debates about the existence of jinn often turned
into miniature theatres of intellectual teasing. Wardi believed in haunted
houses, but Hanafi dismissed the idea. When Wardi suggested that Hanafi spend a
night in one, the latter replied, “You’ll sneak in at night, bang pots and pans,
and claim it’s the jinn.”
This was irony at its purest: not to humiliate, but to probe logic and transform
disagreement into a mental game. However, when irony crosses from the personal
realm into the political, its nature changes. In politics, sarcasm is not a
game; it is a mechanism for reshaping power. In recent years, no figure has
embodied this more vividly than the President of the United States Donald Trump.
European leaders spent a whole year trying to win his respect through flattery,
protocol and carefully crafted arguments. They approached him with the logic of
traditional diplomacy: courtesy first, persuasion second and understanding
third. Then one morning they awoke to discover that it had all backfired. Trump
had shifted from threats to unrestrained mockery. At one point, during the
celebrations for the first year of his second term in office, he declared that
‘God is very proud’ of his achievements. The question was not whom he was
mocking, but how far he was willing to take the display of power.
His sarcasm was not impulsive, but strategic. Nathalie Tocci, director of the
Istituto Affari Internazionali in Rome, has argued that Trump deliberately used
mockery as a tool of subordination, forcing others into compliance by belittling
and publicly humiliating them. When he mocked Denmark, dismissing its defence of
a disputed island as nothing more than ‘two sleds pulled by dogs’, he was not
telling a joke. In a single sentence, he was recalibrating the relationship
between a major power and a smaller state, “When he sneered at Emmanuel Macron;
‘I saw him playing the tough guy with his nice sunglasses,’ he was not
commenting on sunglasses. He was asserting dominance.This is the danger of
political sarcasm: it does not aim to amuse, but to dominate. It is not
commentary; it is a declaration of power.
Political philosophy describes this as a form of symbolic violence. It does not
physically harm the opponent, but it damages their status. It does not eliminate
the opponent, but destroys their image in their own eyes and in the eyes of
others. A politician skilled in irony can reshape reality through language
alone.
However, not everyone can wield this weapon. Sarcasm requires linguistic
intelligence, a sense of timing and the ability to read an audience. When
politicians attempt to imitate this style without these skills, they resemble
clowns in a political circus, as has happened repeatedly in Iraq since 2003.
Irony has often exposed shallowness rather than sophistication there. What was
intended to elevate them instead exposed their emptiness. Without intellect,
sarcasm collapses into vulgarity.
At its core, irony is not just a linguistic device; it is an existential stance.
It is a way of viewing the world from a slightly elevated perspective, revealing
contradictions, exposing pretensions and illuminating the absurd. Intelligent
sarcasm does not destroy, it clarifies. It does not insult; it reveals.
When employed by those in power, as with Trump, it becomes a means of reshaping
the world according to their whims. When employed by thinkers such as Wardi,
however, it serves as a means of liberating the mind from fear.
The contrast between Wardi and Trump, between affectionate irony and domineering
sarcasm, reveals an entire map of power, consciousness and language.
Ultimately, irony is not just a style. It is a test of intelligence, a
reflection of authority and an indication of vulnerability.
However, a troubling question now arises: what happens when irony shifts from a
tool of illumination to a tool of suppression? What happens when language itself
becomes a battlefield for domination rather than understanding? In a world where
the powerful advance with a mocking smile and the weak retreat under the weight
of ridicule, the function of discourse may be reversing. Sarcasm, once a refuge
for the powerless, has become a means of humiliating them.
Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this transformation is that the public has
begun to view sarcasm as a sign of strength rather than authoritarianism. Are we
entering an age in which leadership is judged by the sharpness of one’s tongue
rather than the depth of one’s vision? Can a society that laughs at its own
humiliation still command respect?
The reader is left with a suspended question between Wardi’s liberating irony
and the coercive sarcasm of power: Which type of laughter should govern our
world: the kind that opens eyes, or the kind that shuts mouths?
**Karam Nama is journalist and author. He served as managing editor of the
London-based newspaper Al-Arab. He has written six books, including Unlicensed
Weapon: Donald Trump, a Media Power Without Responsibility and The Sick Market:
Journalism in the Digital Age. His latest book, The False Promise: Don’t Ask AI
for What You Don’t Deserve, is currently in print.
How developing countries can make the most of AI
Shamika Sirimanne and Taffere Tesfachew/Arab News/January 30, 2026
Since the 2008 global financial crisis, industrial policy has crept back into
respectable economic discourse after decades of being derided as misguided
interventionism, particularly for developing countries. But its renaissance is
being led by the advanced economies that once rejected it, with the push into
artificial intelligence and renewable energy hastening the shift. For developing
countries, this revival presents new opportunities, provided they can manage
three major constraints: a weak enabling environment (a lack of infrastructure
and other necessary inputs), limited autonomy in policymaking, and fiscal
constraints. Industrial policy is often understood in terms of subsidies and tax
breaks, but for many developing economies far more than these instruments must
be put in place. Without reliable digital connectivity, dependable power
supplies, trusted data protection regimes and a skilled workforce, ambitions for
AI-led growth will amount to little more than rhetoric. Developing countries’
policy options are also constrained because World Trade Organization rules limit
the use of instruments — export-contingent subsidies, local content rules and
technology transfer requirements — that once underpinned industrialization
success stories, namely in East Asia. At the same time, major economies continue
to march to their own drummer, with the US, the EU and China deploying
industrial policy at scale, often bending or breaking the very rules that others
are expected to observe. The asymmetry is obvious: of more than 2,500 industrial
policy measures introduced globally in 2023, these three economies accounted for
almost half.
For developing countries, the sensible approach to AI is to deploy the
sophisticated frontier models that are already available
Finally, fiscal limits are biting hard. In many developing economies, up to 80
percent of public spending goes to wages and debt service, leaving little for
the long-term investments that industrialization requires. Unlike the US or the
EU, poorer countries cannot summon vast subsidy packages or bankroll
multibillion-dollar technology programs. And while technology parks and
incubators have multiplied across Africa and Asia, few have delivered meaningful
results. As UN Trade and Development observes, such zones succeed only when
anchored in established supply chains. Without that grounding, they risk
becoming costly white elephants — impressive on paper but inert in practice.
For developing countries, the sensible approach to AI is to deploy the
sophisticated frontier models that are already available. Unburdened by legacy
infrastructure, developing countries can leapfrog directly into emerging
technologies, as many did when they skipped over landlines and went straight to
mobile telephony. Deploying AI costs a fraction of what it takes to build it.
Anyone can use tools like ChatGPT without erecting data centers or assembling
elite engineering teams.
Such targeted applications can be transformative. In healthcare, AI-assisted
diagnostics can rationalize the use of scarce clinical capacity. In education,
digital platforms can compensate for chronic shortages of teachers. In
agriculture, predictive analytics can support farmers navigating climate
volatility. These uses may not dazzle those on the technological cutting edge,
but they can deliver real-world returns where they matter most.
They also represent industrial policy at its most effective — meaning pragmatic,
experimental and oriented around domestic realities. As Dani Rodrik argues,
“success lies not in following a fixed blueprint but in identifying sectors
where public action can unlock hidden potential.”
To be sure, even a modest innovation agenda requires funding and domestic
venture capital remains scarce in many developing economies, where private
wealth tends to migrate abroad. But governments can build institutions to crowd
in more private capital, such as through blended finance, sovereign innovation
funds, targeted guarantees and regional technology hubs. Donors, too, can (and
should) scale up support. According to the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development, the information and communications technology
sector receives barely 2 percent of total aid-for-trade disbursements, far short
of what is needed to build digital capabilities.Governments in developing
countries must also use digital technologies to increase efficiency, especially
in revenue collection, in order to create sorely needed fiscal space. UNCTAD’s
work on customs digitalization offers a useful illustration. In Angola, one of
Africa’s largest oil-dependent economies, the move to digitalized customs
procedures produced striking fiscal gains, with revenues rising 44 percent in
one year and 13 percent the next as analog bottlenecks were dismantled.
Governments in developing countries must also use digital technologies to
increase efficiency, especially in revenue collection
In Iraq, the returns were even larger. Once its principal border points were
digitized, customs receipts soared more than 120 percent in a year. And in
Bangladesh, one of Asia’s fastest-growing manufacturing economies, incremental
digital reforms helped deliver average annual revenue growth of about 11 percent
over several years, as compliance improved and leakages were stopped. While
international cooperation remains essential, global trade rules also must evolve
to be more accommodating of digital and green industrialization strategies. The
WTO’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights provisions might
have made sense for the era in which they were designed, but they now hinder
access to critical technologies. Patent regimes should enable broader diffusion,
as compulsory licensing once did for lifesaving medicines. Collaboration among
developing countries is also important, because no single country can afford the
scale of investment required for AI or clean tech. Shared platforms such as CERN
(for research in physics) show how pooled expertise can spread costs, share
risks and unlock mutual benefits. A more promising approach lies in collective
innovation. For much of the Global South — which shares similar disease burdens
and climate exposures, benefits from abundant data and draws on comparatively
low-cost technical talent — innovating together is not only cost-effective but
strategically prudent in an increasingly multipolar world. The return of
industrial policy marks a major shift in global economic thinking, but for
developing countries it is a mixed blessing. The path to industrialization is
now steeper, narrower and constrained by more demanding technological and
regulatory standards. Yet the challenge is far from insurmountable. By investing
in foundational capabilities, targeting high-impact applications of AI,
mobilizing innovative financing and using the policy space that already exists,
countries can still accelerate their development. Success will depend not on the
imitation of rich-country models, but on pragmatic adaptation to local
realities.
**Shamika Sirimanne is Senior Adviser to the Secretary-General of UN Trade and
Development (UNCTAD).
Taffere Tesfachew is Senior Adviser at the Tony Blair Institute for Global
Change.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
National Sovereignty: A Principle Under Attack
Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Awsat/30 January/2026
National sovereignty is a phrase that before President Donald Trump brought it
into question with headline-grabbing shenanigans on Venezuela, Iran and
Greenland among other places was seldom heard outside political science
classrooms.Now, however, it is at the center of debates about international law,
the future world order and the need for peace and stability. The concept is
under attack not only from Trump but also from elements within many societies
including some Western democracies. But before we examine those threats, let us
remember what sovereignty means. It means a power or an authority that has the
final word on all human affairs and in the case of some religions the fate of
universe as a whole. In the ancient world, that is to say in the early
Mesopotamian civilizations priest-king figures represented sovereignty. In
ancient Greek city states the elite known as demos, to be distinguished from
slaves, ethnic minorities and lower classes, the plebes, claimed sovereignty. In
the heyday of Persian and Roman empires the sovereign was the emperor. In
medieval times that function was transferred to the Pope in Christendom and the
Caliph in lands controlled by Islam. With Reformation and the declining status
of the Pope Christendom was plunged into sectarian wars that in one form or
another lasted over 100 years. Dar al-Islam, too, was also fragmented into
sultanates, emirates, khanates and ungoverned badlands on the margins where
sovereignty belonged to whomever had enough force and money to impose his will.
In the 17th century some in the Christendom invented the concept of
nation-states and codified it in a series of accords known as the Westphalian
Treaties under which sovereignty belonged to whoever controlled a distinct
territory, known as a nation regardless of religion, ethnic background or
language. People in such structures were subjects rather than citizens of the
established order.
Hobbes depicted sovereignty as a leviathan, a monstrous all-powerful machine or
animal that has the power of life and death over everyone but in exchange offer
security against the law of the jungle based on the survival of the fittest. The
American and French revolutions of the 18th century invented the concept of
citizenship as the building bloc of a nation-state in which sovereignty is
exercised by an elected state on behalf of the nation.Over the past two
centuries that model has been adopted by almost all countries across the globe,
albeit with great variations. Even where there are no elections, for example in
People’s China or North Korea the assumption or pretense is that sovereignty
belongs to a nation however vaguely defined. The United Nations’ Charter has
made that principle or pretense the cornerstone of international law. Thus, a
nation is regarded as sovereign regardless of its location, size, population,
religion, face, history and economic or military power. It is in charge of its
own destiny with its demarcated and indivisible territory. This is why, for
example, the UN cannot accept Somaliland as a separate entity and still regards
it as part of Somali state whose writ for all intents of purposes doesn’t run
beyond Mogadishu.
The same principle is used to deny Kosovo, by all measures a genuine nation,
entry into the UN. To be sure a nation can share part of its sovereignty with
other nations as many do through membership of the UN, NATO, and Organization of
American States, the African Union, the European Union, the GCC, the Arab League
and dozens of other organizations.
In some cases, two states share sovereignty over a territory as is the case with
France and Spain exercising it over Andorra. Now we are witnessing attacks on
national sovereignty in a number of other ways. In France a couple of judges
managed to change the putative results of the 2017 presidential election by
condemning the leading candidate of the right of breaking the law by hiring his
wife as a political assistant paid by the parliament. A similar case has now
been launched against another putative right-wing candidate, Marine Le Pen. She
is charged with having used funds from the European Union to pay salaries of
militants in her National Rally party. Interestingly, this time the case s
brought by the European Union and one of four charges leveled is “hostility to
European Union”. In other words what is clearly a political opinion is redefined
as a crime and the French nation, supposedly sovereign and in charge of its own
destiny shouldn’t be allowed to decide who to vote for. Worse still denying Ms.
Le Pen the right to stand for any elected office for five years comes into
effect immediately even before the final sentence is pronounced.
Earlier this year the dictatorship of the judges claimed another victim, former
President Nicolas Sarkozy who went to jail on four charges which the court
itself admitted couldn’t prove but insisted that the intent to commit them was
there.
In other words, even the mere intention of committing a crime together with
others could send you to jail and make you ineligible even before a final appeal
is heard. Elsewhere in many parts of the world the concept of sovereignty is
under attack by the military cliques as recently witnessed in several African
states and Myanmar. In Iran, that concept is shaken by a coterie of clerics who
can decide whom to allow standing even in tightly engineered elections. A man
barred today from standing for election to a minor liner position today may find
himself propelled into a much more important position tomorrow.
All the above shows that the very concept of national or people’s sovereignty
faces the risk of becoming a hollow shell and that could endanger the very rule
of law that took mankind more than a millennium to acknowledge as antidote for
the law of the jungle and its modern variation of might is right. The World
Order shaped after World War II is clearly shaken both inside many countries and
across the globe with the seemingly endless Ukraine war, a clear case of trying
to efface a nation’s sovereignty by force a glaring example. Redefining national
sovereignty won’t be enough. We also need to be clear about the consequences of
violating it either by segments within a society or by outside powers.
Imposing Peace Through War
Radwan al-Sayyed/Asharq Al Awsat/30 January/2026
Almost every day, journalists and governments await the outbreak of an American
war against Iran. Many have forgotten what the US demands from Tehran actually
are — demands whose failure to be met is said to justify war. For years, the
focus was on Iran’s nuclear program, until the joint twelve-day strike by Israel
and the United States. Afterwards, the debate expanded to ballistic missiles and
Iran’s networks in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen. More recently, after protests
erupted in Iran, the US president insisted on striking the Iranian regime unless
the killing of demonstrators ceased.
Clear distinctions between America’s allies and adversaries no longer exist.
Trump’s America keeps a distance from all countries and makes demands of all of
them, though the scale varies. Naturally, demands on China are heavier than
those on Canada, Venezuela, or Mexico. Yet when Canada and Venezuela failed to
respond as quickly as the president wanted, he threatened Canada with invasion
and annexation, and warned of imposing 100 percent tariffs on Canadian imports.
As for Venezuela, which did not comply swiftly, the United States abducted its
president and his wife and brought them to New York for interrogation and trial
on charges of drug production and trafficking and of serving Iranian, Cuban, and
Bolivian interests hostile to Washington. In the president’s view, the world
falls into three categories. The first comprises weak states — or those he
considers weak — liable to invasion if they do not submit. He praises
Venezuela’s current administration for cooperating in handing over control of
its oil resources. The second includes middle-power states such as European
allies, India, Australia, Japan, and Brazil. The president is willing to
negotiate quickly with them, but if they fail to comply — as in the case of
Greenland with Denmark, distancing from Ukraine, or India’s refusal to stop
importing Russian oil — he is ready to impose high tariffs on their exports to
the United States. The third category is limited, essentially China and Russia —
and Britain, though the British have recently diverged from Trump. While he also
threatens China and Russia, in reality he has little choice but negotiation,
given their vast mutual interests with the United States, which neither side can
ignore, despite their ability to exert pressure or force concessions to reach
eventual settlements.
What explains these new strategic policies, whose contours began to emerge
during Trump’s first term?
Thomas Friedman, the prominent New York Times columnist, argues that the
president is obsessed with himself and driven by self-glorification. But even if
that were true, an American majority would not elect him twice simply because of
narcissism. Deep changes are reshaping Western European and American societies.
Many middle- and lower-income groups feel insecure about their present and
future and blame immigrants from around the world. They also believe that large
state bureaucracies erode their incomes through liberal policies.
Trump echoes these sentiments, portraying them as the result of global
exploitation enabled by corrupt democratic governments. US debt has reached
staggering levels, and Trump seeks to reclaim money from countries that
benefited from American generosity, led by Europeans and NATO. Seeking to bring
American technology back home, he also clashes with major US corporations that
moved production abroad in search of cheaper labor and resources. He is betting
on two strategies: exploiting the resources of countries dependent on the United
States and intimidating powerful states with America’s overwhelming military
strength. The world is deeply interconnected. Rich and poor alike have grown
accustomed to the free movement of goods, capital, and people — what they call
globalization. Today, everyone is more or less surprised and searching for a way
out. There are still no serious efforts to form counter-alliances, and many
believe they can appease Trump through specific concessions. Meanwhile, he grows
more determined in raids and exploitation, as no unified front has emerged
against him so far.
Two factors must be considered: first, major and mid-sized countries whose
economies depend on trade with the United States cannot afford confrontation, as
they have no alternative to the American market. Second, America’s military
power is unprecedented in history; smaller and mid-sized states fear it and
comply, while major powers hesitate to take risks. Ironically, Trump constantly
proclaims two goals: “America First” and America’s readiness to impose peace on
the world, even through war. The problem is that there are no clear limits to
America’s priority, and war does not necessarily produce peace.
Selected X tweets
for January
30/2026
Michel Hajji Georgiou
The ontological decompensation of Hezb
Thus, Naim Kassem wants to sacrifice Lebanon for Iran.
After sending his supporters to die for Assad's Syria and letting the
inhabitants of his revolutionary home be atomic for Hamas, now he wants to end
in style, by mass suicide, while the Iranian mother's house is in danger from
the deployed invincible armada by Donald Trump in the waters of the Middle East
(... )
To discover - if you want - my new article, it's here:
https://levanttime.com/.../4ccd81d8-9955-42f8-8347...
· See original · Rate this translation
U.S. State Dept - Near Eastern Affairs
The United States remains committed to supporting the successful implementation
of the historic agreement between the Government of Syria and the Syrian
Democratic Forces. We will continue to work closely with all parties to
facilitate a smooth and timely integration process. This agreement strengthens
Syria’s unity, sovereignty, and stability, to the benefit of all its people. In
close coordination with our regional partners, we stand ready to ensure this
transition advances peacefully and effectively, to achieve lasting
reconciliation and prosperity across the Middle East.
We look forward to a brighter future for Syria and the whole region.
Hussain Abdul-Hussain
On Marcel Ghanem's
1. Saddam threatened to turn Iraq into a graveyard for Americans. Where is
Saddam today?
Nasrallah threatened to bomb Cyprus, a member of the EU no less. Where is
Nasrallah today.
[Qassem threatens Israel if America wages war on Iran. Where will Qassem be?].
This plastic bravado is a waste of time.
2. When Washington asks Beirut to disarm Hezbollah, the Lebanese state says its
army has no capabilities. Fine. But why has not any of the three top leaders,
Prez Aoun, Speaker Berri, PM Salam responded to Qassem saying his militia will
never disarm and will fight in any war on Iran? Why not take him to court [for
his admission of forming an illegal armed militia]
3. Hezbollah is now rearming at a faster pace than Israel's maintenance strikes.
This will lead to inevitable Israeli escalation, which at this point is on hold
until the situation over Iran is resolved.
Ambassador Mike Waltz
Masih Alinejad told me she did not believe the UN could be effective after
watching years of inaction—but her testimony at the UN Security Council broke
through the Ayatollah’s censorship, reaching Iranians from Tehran to Iran’s
countryside, forcing European leaders to act and the world to confront the
regime’s slaughter of innocent Iranians. This is the power of U.S. leadership
under President Trump at the UN. We will keep pushing for the Iranian people.
@AlinejadMasih
U.S. Central Command
CENTCOM Urges IRGC to Avoid Escalatory Behavior at Sea
TAMPA, Fla. – Yesterday, Iran announced that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps (IRGC) is conducting a two-day live-fire naval exercise in the Strait of
Hormuz scheduled to begin on Sunday. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) urges the
IRGC to conduct the announced naval exercise in a manner that is safe,
professional and avoids unnecessary risk to freedom of navigation for
international maritime traffic. The Strait of Hormuz is an international sea
passage and an essential trade corridor that supports regional economic
prosperity. On any given day, roughly 100 of the world’s merchant vessels
transit the narrow strait. U.S. forces acknowledge Iran’s right to operate
professionally in international airspace and waters. Any unsafe and
unprofessional behavior near U.S. forces, regional partners or commercial
vessels increases risks of collision, escalation, and destabilization. CENTCOM
will ensure the safety of U.S. personnel, ships, and aircraft operating in the
Middle East. We will not tolerate unsafe IRGC actions including overflight of
U.S. military vessels engaged in flight operations, low-altitude or armed
overflight of U.S. military assets when intentions are unclear, highspeed boat
approaches on a collision course with U.S. military vessels, or weapons trained
at U.S. forces. The U.S. military has the most highly trained and lethal force
in the world and will continue to operate with the highest levels of
professionalism and adhere to international norms. Iran’s IRGC must do the same.
Foreign Ministry, Islamic Republic of Iran
Iranian FM meets with Turkish president
Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi, who has traveled to Turkey for
consultations with senior Turkish officials, held talks with Turkish President
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Friday afternoon.
During the meeting, the two sides discussed the very good relations between Iran
and Turkey in various fields.
They also underlined both countries’ determination to strengthen relations in
all areas.
Araghchi thanked the Turkish government and people for their solidarity with
Iran and Ankara’s firm stance, especially President Erdoğan’s statements in
support of Iran’s sovereignty and his rejection of foreign interventions as well
as his emphasis on unity and cohesion among Islamic countries in countering
genocide, war-mongering, and expansionism of the Zionist regime.
The top Iranian diplomat underscored the necessity of strengthening solidarity
among Islamic and regional countries to confront the threats and harmful
interventions in the internal affairs of nations in West Asia.
Araghchi further explained the recent events in Iran that escalated into
violence due to the entry of violent and terrorist elements into peaceful
gatherings of the people—during which hundreds of law enforcement officers and
ordinary citizens were martyred. He underscored the importance of the vigilance
of all regional countries regarding the false and one-sided narratives presented
by Western and Hebrew media concerning domestic issues in Iran.
The Iranian foreign minister then recalled the principled stance of the Islamic
Republic of Iran on the need to use diplomacy to safeguard the interests of the
Iranian people and to prevent the escalation of regional tensions. He further
praised Turkey’s responsible approach to Iran’s nuclear issue and said Tehran
has never turned away from negotiations and dialogue based on mutual respect and
the acceptance of the legitimate interests and concerns of the Iranian people.
The Turkish president for his part conveyed his warm greetings to the Leader of
Iran’s Islamic Revolution and the Iranian president. He expressed confidence
that the government and people of Iran, with national unity and cohesion, will
overcome the existing challenges.
Erdogan referred to his country’s efforts to reduce tensions and return to the
path of diplomacy, stressing that the region cannot bear further escalation of
insecurity. He said the only solution to Iran’s nuclear issue is diplomacy and
declared Turkey’s readiness to make any efforts toward this end.