Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Will Trump recognize a Palestinian State?

Al Mayadeen | May 10, 2025

Gulf analysts wrote in The Media Line on Saturday that Saudi Arabia will host the 2025 Gulf-US Summit in mid-May, aligning with US President Donald Trump’s first visit to the Kingdom in his second term, echoing the huge May 2017 summit in Riyadh during his first term.

All Gulf leaders are expected to attend the summit, except for King Salman bin Abdulaziz, who has remained absent from public engagements due to health concerns.

Ahead of the summit, speculation has grown around what Trump referred to as a “very important announcement” during a recent meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the White House on May 6.

Observers anticipate that the summit could unveil high-level diplomatic shifts, economic agreements, or security deals.

Rumors of US recognition of a Palestinian State

According to The Media Line, the announcement of a Palestinian state is among the most widely discussed possibilities.

Moreover, a Gulf diplomatic source who spoke anonymously to The Media Line said, “President Donald Trump will issue a declaration regarding the State of Palestine and American recognition of it, and that there will be the establishment of a Palestinian state without the presence of Hamas.”

The source added that such an announcement could mark a significant realignment in the region, possibly leading more Arab states to join the normalization agreements.

Additionally, former Gulf diplomat Ahmad al-Ibrahim told The Media Line, “I don’t expect it to be about Palestine. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and King Abdullah II of Jordan have not been invited. They are the two countries closest to Palestine, and it would be important for them to be present at any event like this.”

It is worth noting that the US is no longer demanding that Saudi Arabia normalize ties with “Israel” as a precondition for advancing civil nuclear cooperation talks, two sources with knowledge of the matter told Reuters, ahead of Trump’s visit to the kingdom.

This marks a significant policy shift by Washington. Under former President Joe Biden, nuclear negotiations with Riyadh were tied to a broader US-Saudi agreement that included recognizing “Israel” and a potential defense treaty with the United States.

Potential economic deals worth billions

Major Saudi economic deals in the 2025 visit may mirror those of the 2017 summit, when agreements worth more than $400 billion were signed, according to The Media Line.

Trump is also expected to visit Qatar and the UAE following his stay in Saudi Arabia, reinforcing speculation of further bilateral and regional economic announcements.

Saudi political analyst Ahmed Boushouki echoed this sentiment, stating, “This is about major economic deals that will take place in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

“Perhaps President Donald Trump hinted at this when he told the American people to ‘buy stocks now, before his big announcement in the next two days.’”

According to the report, the summit may reignite discussions on US-Saudi nuclear cooperation. Saudi Arabia has had a peaceful nuclear energy program in place since 2010, and “International companies are now working to implement these projects in Saudi Arabia.”

It is worth mentioning that Saudi Arabia is advancing plans to build its first nuclear reactor, with several global firms competing for the contract, while the UAE’s Barakah plant remains the Arab world’s only operational four-reactor facility, built with South Korea.

May 10, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fed Up with Benjamin Netanyahu?

By Philip Giraldi | Unz Review | May 9, 2025

I have in the past speculated that the day might come when President Donald Trump, he of a massive ego, might just become tired of his being manipulated and controlled by America’s Israel Lobby and by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in particular. I thought, and hoped, that he might become so annoyed that he might move to take control of the so-called tail wags the dog relationship that has for so long put Israel in the driver’s seat. While I am loathe to read too much into several recent developments, the first suggestion [is appearing] that all is not well in Washington’s relationship with what has been euphemistically referred to as “America’s best friend and closest ally.”

Many observers are now openly voicing their view that Israel and its all-powerful Lobby in the United States have corrupted and now control many aspects of government, starting at the top in Washington and working its way down to state and local levels. Witness the near worship of Netanyahu by groveling congress critters during recent visits to Capitol Hill if you want a tangible display of government serving no conceivable national interest. Or check out the “antisemitism” and anti-Boycott legislation currently moving through Congress that will strip all Americans of free speech and free association, leaving them able to demonstrate against or even criticize their own country or other nations with the single exception of the Jewish state. If you don’t believe that will happen, check out the current tale coming out of San Marcos in Texas at the hands of ardently Zionist Governor Greg Abbott.

Given that Jews constitute something like 3% of the US population the establishment of such control through bribery and the support of a compliant media is truly a remarkable achievement but one might plausibly argue that it has done terrible damage to the country as a whole and has contributed nothing to benefit the American people. Israel is currently carrying out a genocide against the Palestinians that is funded, armed and provided with political cover by the Trump Administration, following on to the model established by Genocide Joe Biden, which could be stopped with one phone call to Netanyahu from the White House. But, unfortunately, up until now no one has been picking up the phone.

I must admit to being shocked to have read some of the recent news coverage, mostly coming out of Israeli and other foreign media, of course, that is describing the rift between Trump and Netanyahu. The signs that trouble could be brewing might well be dated back to January 11th, with US Presidential Special Envoy Steve Witkoff demanding a meeting in Tel Aviv with Netanyahu. Netanyahu responded that it was a Saturday, the Sabbath, but Witkoff, acting under orders from Trump, insisted and the meeting was held. It turned out to be a tense exchange which included a demand that a ceasefire for Gaza drawn by the White House be implemented, and so it was, though Netanyahu later proceeded to withdraw from it and recommence hostilities before it entered phase two on March 1st. A demand by Trump that Netanyahu should visit him in Washington in early April followed and there were reported disagreements about the Administration’s tariff plan and about US negotiations with Hamas without Israel’s input. Discussions also concerned US discussions with Iran to restore a program (JCPOA), canceled by Trump during his first term in office, to monitor the Iranian nuclear program to prevent it from being weaponized. Netanyahu was demanding a “Libyan Solution” which would have been a war including US forces that would have basically destroyed Iran’s defensive capabilities, something that even a White House disinclined to deal with reality realized would never be accepted in Tehran. Netanyahu was reportedly also angry at the Trump Administration’s resistance to his own plans to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians while also going to war with the Iranians.

So, the US move to negotiate with Hamas directly, sidelining Israel, started the rebellion on the part of Washington and it was followed up by the negotiations with Iran, again without Israel’s input. And there was also the issue of US negotiations with Saudi Arabia, again without including Israel, over the Kingdom’s intention to develop its own civil nuclear program. And finally, there was last week’s decision to enter into a ceasefire with the Houthis after direct negotiations, described by the White House comically as a “capitulation” by the Yemenis. Some observers accepted the language but have been questioning who had done the surrendering in a war that cost in excess of $1 billion and which accomplished nothing. Israel, for its part, was not involved in either the talks or the agreement, leading an aggrieved Netanyahu to vow to “defend ourselves alone”.

But this week, Trump sent the clearest message of all to Netanyahu. He has been planning to meet with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar in the Middle East next week but will not meet with Netanyahu. US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also canceled a planned trip to Israel at the same time, according to two Israeli officials, reinforcing the message sent by the president. The immediate cause of the rift was that Trump had apparently hoped for a major de-escalation and even a ceasefire in Gaza as a highlight of his trip for which he would have taken credit, but Netanyahu instead called up army reserves and ordered a major escalation. The Times of Israel reported that “Trump is disappointed with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu” citing two “senior sources close to the president.” And even opinion columnist Thomas Friedman in normally careful-about-its-reporting on Israel The New York Times is openly suggesting in a piece “This Israeli Government is Not Our Ally” that the Netanyahu regime is no longer behaving as an American friend because of its extremist agenda.

Several reports, relying on what are claimed to be multiple sources inside the Israeli government, have now claimed that Trump has de facto cut ties with Netanyahu and will have no direct contact with the Israeli Prime Minister. Israeli government Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer and former Ambassador to the US was in Washington on Thursday and was welcomed and met with Trump. He was reportedly told flatly that the US “will move forward on regional plans without coordinating with Netanyahu, accusing him of manipulation.” One report on the development went on to emphasize that what Trump hates most is being looked down upon and being manipulated, “There is nothing Trump hates more than being portrayed as a fool or someone being played. That’s why he decided to cut contact with Netanyahu,” one US official speaking off the record added.

What is not being discussed in the media but is nevertheless being considered in intelligence circles in Washington is the possible connection of the excommunication of Netanyahu with various dismissals and relocations of high officials in Washington, including that of National Security Adviser Mike Waltz who was demoted to the post of UN Ambassador. It seems that there is strong evidence to suggest that Netanyahu did not exactly trust Trump and has been spying on him and his decision making through a number of officials in his cabinet, which explains to a certain extent the odd Signal phone calls where journalist Jeffrey Goldberg just happened to be listening in and other incidents that suggest that Mossad or the Israeli Embassy in Washington has established relationships that sought to go around the president and might be described as espionage. It would also help to explain the mixed signals coming out of the administration, suggesting that some “recruits” are being coached on what to say to advance the Netanyahu agenda.

How all of this will develop and where it will eventually wind up remains somewhat up in the air as the powerful Israel Lobby is almost certainly cranking up efforts to restore the Jewish state’s dominance of US foreign policy in the Middle East, what Trump is now defining as “manipulation.” Zionist uber hawks in Congress are already warning the White House that any agreement on nuclear developments with Iran will be rejected by the legislature if it does not include a “complete dismantling” of all nuclear enrichment by Tehran, something that is not likely to be acceptable and which means that no agreement will be possible. Wholly owned by Israel Senators Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton and Victor Cruz are leading the charge and claim to have enough votes to block any such proposal, which means it will not be a “law” or treaty and could be “withdrawn from” by any new president, just as Trump did with the original JCPOA in 2017.

So, there has been some movement in the relationship between Israel and the United States. As it is headed towards Washington regaining some independence of action in its Middle Eastern foreign policy it can only be a good thing as the lopsided relationship with Israel has brought nothing but grief and suffering. One can hope that it will continue in that more positive direction but there will be strong resistance from Congress and the Media, directed by the powerful Israel Lobby. Trump and whoever supports him will find themselves assailed from all sides but we ordinary citizens who are watching all this from the sidelines will have to hope and pray for a good result.

Philip Giraldi is an American columnist, commentator and security consultant. He is the Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a role he has held since 2010.

May 10, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia supports Egypt’s plan to rebuild Gaza

MEMO | May 9, 2025

Russia fully supports Egypt’s plan to rebuild Gaza, Moscow’s Ambassador to Egypt, Georgiy Borisenko, has said, expressing regret that Western countries have obstructed Russian proposals in the UN Security Council aimed at ending the war in the Strip.

In remarks to Extra News, Borisenko stated that Russia and Egypt are in close coordination within the United Nations. “We are referred to as like-minded countries due to our shared positions on many issues,” he said, pointing to the Middle East situation as a clear example of their alignment.

He emphasised that Russia “fully supports and values” all of Egypt’s efforts to end the conflict in Gaza and believes that hostilities must come to an end as soon as possible.

Borisenko also noted that Moscow supports Egypt’s reconstruction plan for Gaza, which has received backing from all member states of the Arab League.

He further mentioned that Egypt and Russia are jointly working on developing an international agreement on combating cybercrime within the UN framework. He pointed out that both countries are leading contributors to drafting the convention, which is expected to be signed by most countries this year.

The ambassador affirmed that Russia was among the first countries to recognise the independent Palestinian state in 1988 and reiterated Moscow’s long-standing support for the Palestinian cause. “We have always affirmed that the Palestinians must have a sovereign and independent state that lives in peace alongside Israel,” he added.

Borisenko highlighted that Russia was the first member of the Security Council to present draft resolutions demanding an end to the war in Gaza, though many were blocked by Western powers.

He concluded by stressing that Moscow continues to exert maximum effort, in coordination with Arab countries at the UN, to help address the dire humanitarian conditions in Gaza. He described the situation as “millions of women and children trapped, suffering from hunger and daily bombardment,” and insisted that “all of these tragedies must stop immediately.”

May 9, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

US pressures ‘Israel’ for Gaza deal; Witkoff’s Israeli rebuke leaked

Al Mayadeen | May 9, 2025

The administration of US President Donald Trump is reportedly pressuring “Israel” to agree to a ceasefire and a captive deal with Hamas before Trump’s upcoming Middle East visit, according to Haaretz.

An unnamed source familiar with the negotiations stated that the US has warned Israeli officials that if they do not cooperate in advancing such an agreement, “Israel” will be “left alone”, implying a potential withdrawal of US diplomatic support.

The push for a deal comes as the Trump administration seeks to broker a resolution to the ongoing war in Gaza ahead of the president’s regional trip.

A recent report, without citing a specific source, identified Steve Witkoff as the unnamed senior US official referenced in a Channel 12 story earlier this week.

According to that report, the official had criticized “Israel’s” approach to the captive situation during a meeting with the captives’ families, while the nature of the criticism and the full context of the remarks remain unspecified.

The official was quoted as warning: “If until today, the hostages paid the price for not ending the war, then today the price will be much heavier for Israel, and not only the hostages.”

The remarks also criticized “Israel” for failing to leverage the emerging US-Saudi nuclear deal, an agreement that, according to reports, President Trump has reportedly decoupled from the requirement for Saudi Arabia to normalize ties with the Zionist entity.

“If Israel doesn’t come to its senses, the price of missing out will be higher than ever before,” the official, allegedly Witkoff, warned.

Haaretz further reports that Witkoff’s criticism of Netanyahu’s government was deliberately leaked to the media at his request, though his office has since denied that the Trump administration is pressuring “Israel” to reach a deal.

This comes amid an increasingly souring relationship between the United States and “Israel”, which is reportedly leading Trump to pursue US policy in the Middle East while sidelining its “greatest ally in the Middle East”.

The rift between Trump and Netanyahu

Sources close to Trump indicate he is increasingly disappointed with Netanyahu, following reports that Netanyahu has grown frustrated with the US leader, marking a turning point in their relationship as Trump begins to distance his administration from coordination with “Israel” on key Middle East strategies.

Two senior Trump administration officials, in closed conversations relayed to Israel Hayom, revealed that the president has decided to advance regional policy decisions independently rather than waiting for Netanyahu’s input.

Trump aims to strengthen US influence in the region, particularly with Gulf states, and while initial normalization efforts included coordination with “Israel,” the administration now sees Netanyahu’s reluctance, especially his refusal to publicly endorse a “horizon for a Palestinian state”, as a major hindrance.

Trump’s frustration has intensified following reports that Netanyahu and his associates pressured former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz to take military action against Iran, leading to his ousting from the administration on May 3.

Although Netanyahu denies substantial involvement and claims he only spoke to Waltz once, Trump reportedly remains unconvinced and sees this as part of a wider concerning pattern.

May 9, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump Cuts Ties with Netanyahu over “Manipulation Concerns”: Report

Al-Manar | May 9, 2025

US President Donald Trump has reportedly decided to cut off direct contact with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a report said Thursday.

Yanir Cozin, a correspondent for Israeli Army Radio, said in a post on his X account that Trump made the decision after close associates told Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer that “the president believes that Netanyahu is manipulating him.”

An Israeli official added that Dermer’s tone during recent discussions with senior Republican figures about what Trump should do “was seen as arrogant and unhelpful.”

The official said that people around Trump told him that “Netanyahu was manipulating him.”

“There is nothing Trump hates more than being portrayed as a fool or someone being played. That’s why he decided to cut contact with Netanyahu,” the official added.

Cozin pointed to the Israeli government’s “failure to present a concrete plan and timeline” regarding Iran and Yemen as a source of the worsening US-Israel relationship.

The Army Radio correspondent also highlighted that the Netanyahu government has failed to offer a concrete proposal on Gaza.

Meanwhile, Axios reported that Trump met Dermer on Thursday and discussed the nuclear talks with Iran and the war in Gaza, according to two sources briefed on the meeting.

The meeting at the White House, which was not made public by the US or the Zionist entity, took place ahead of the fourth round of nuclear talks between the US and Iran on Sunday in Muscat and Trump’s trip to the Middle East starting on Monday.

Trump will visit Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE on this trip but will skip the Zionist entity.

May 9, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | 1 Comment

A case for a Saudi-US deal, minus the normalisation

By Muhamad Sayuti Mansor | MEMO | May 8, 2025

On the eve of US President Donald Trump’s upcoming trip to the Gulf next week, one of the most hotly debated questions is the fate of the Saudi-Israel normalisation deal under the US-brokered Abraham Accords. Trump himself fuelled speculation on Tuesday, teasing a “very, very big” announcement before his departure. His Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, had already hinted at a breakthrough, reinforcing assumptions that normalisation will take centre stage. The real question, however, is how Saudi Arabia will navigate this pressure.

Saudi Arabia is slated to be Trump’s first stop, underscoring its strategic importance to Washington. Trump had intended to make Saudi Arabia his first foreign destination upon returning to office, but that changed with an earlier detour to Rome for the funeral of Pope Francis. Even so, Riyadh marks his first significant diplomatic stop. The symbolism remains: his first foreign trip in 2017 was also to Riyadh. Now, he returns to ink a potential arms deal exceeding $100 billion—an investment package inherited from the Biden era, which sought to advance the same deal as part of a broader push to expand the Abraham Accords.

The Biden administration had made Saudi-Israel normalisation a “national security interest”, imagining it as a cornerstone to unlock economic corridors across the Middle East, South Asia and Africa. After October 2023, the urgency grew. Washington saw normalisation as a way to both reward and rein in Israel, hoping Saudi leverage might induce Israeli concessions, a ceasefire in Gaza, or even progress on Palestinian statehood.

In this regard, the Trump administration shows continuity. Trump’s inner circle—from Jason Greenblatt to Mike Huckabee and Mike Waltz—have all echoed normalisation as a top priority. A team was already mobilized before inauguration, reflecting Trump’s enduring ambition to expand the Abraham Accords and possibly clinch a Nobel Peace Prize. In a recent Time interview, Trump reiterated his belief that Saudi Arabia will join the fold—a rare note of consistency in his otherwise erratic foreign policy.

But are all hopes lost? The answer lies in the Saudi’s court. Normalisation without statehood is a non-starter. Even under less extreme Israeli leadership, real statehood was never on offer. Today, with Gaza in ruins and the overwhelming majority of Saudis opposed, normalisation risks derailing Saudi Arabia’s de-escalation strategy and undermining Vision 2030. Worse still, it benefits only Netanyahu, who seeks political survival by parading normalisation as a victory.

With Trump’s looming Middle East visit already putting Saudi Arabia under immense pressure, Riyadh must now tread a very delicate line. First and foremost, it must clearly identify where its national interests lie. These are all concentrated in the first half of the proposed deal: a US-Saudi strategic alliance agreement, defence cooperation, deeper trade and investment ties, and crucially, US support for Saudi’s civilian nuclear programme.

This nuclear partnership could allow the Kingdom to build the infrastructure and expertise necessary to become a nuclear-latency state—on par with Germany, Japan, Canada and most importantly, Iran. These are serious, long-term strategic gains. Meanwhile, the second half of the deal—normalisation with Israel—offers Saudi Arabia very little of tangible value.

So why not pursue the former without the latter? Pending the best-case scenario—Israel’s irrevocable commitment to Palestinian statehood—Saudi Arabia should press ahead with securing the US security and economic package, minus normalisation.

Is that even possible? The second thing to recognise is that the Trumpian world offers both challenge and opportunity. Despite Trump’s self-proclaimed status as “the greatest friend Israel ever had in the White House”, there has never been a wider gap between Israel and the US than now. And Trump is clearly the one calling the shots.

There are ample signs of this shift. The very fact that the US is in talks with Iran—against Israel’s wishes—is one. Another was Trump’s decision to proceed with the withdrawal of US troops from northeast Syria, despite Israeli concerns about Turkish influence there. More recently, US is reported to consider lifting sanctions on Damascus—again, over Israeli objections. Observe too how he made a ceasefire deal with the Houthis without even informing the Israelis.

Perhaps the most telling sign came during US Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s April visit to Riyadh, where he confirmed progress on a Saudi-US nuclear agreement. What he did not mention was normalisation with Israel. This omission speaks volumes.

To take advantage of this opening, Saudi Arabia must understand and work with Trump’s transactional mindset. Business comes first. In his first term, Trump openly celebrated arms sales to Saudi Arabia, boasting of $110 billion in promised purchases. He even admitted choosing Riyadh over London as his first foreign visit in 2017 because of the scale of the deal.

Trump 1.0 also saw his administration strive to approve nuclear technology transfers to Saudi Arabia, bypassing Congress in the process. All this suggests that even Trump privately sees the core value of the deal in its economic and strategic dimensions, and not in Israeli normalisation.

Trump’s transactionalism extends beyond simple cash flow. Saudi Arabia can offer to deepen its defence partnership with the US, while keeping competitors like China, Russia, or even the UK and France at arm’s length. Despite America’s shale boom, Washington still relies on Gulf oil to fuel economic growth, while Saudi Arabia depends on stable prices to fund its budget. If the US expects Riyadh to offset Iranian oil cuts, security guarantees must follow.

Saudi Arabia can also leverage its financial clout. It is already pulling back financially, cutting $5 billion in US FDI since 2019 and slashing its US stock holdings by 41 per cent in 2024. Riyadh is now shifting focus to Africa and Latin America. If Washington wants to reverse that trend, it must offer Saudi Arabia robust support, including a green light for its nuclear ambitions. That’s a win-win, without normalisation.

Besides cajoling the US, a dose of reality may be healthy. Saudi Arabia must make one thing clear to Washington: if the US won’t support Riyadh’s post-oil nuclear ambitions, others will. France, South Korea, and especially China have already offered assistance. By tying nuclear cooperation to normalisation, Washington risks forfeiting oversight and influence over a growing Saudi nuclear programme. That would be a strategic blunder.

Despite Trump’s bluster about forcing Saudi Arabia to normalise ties, Riyadh can take comfort in the way Trump often repackages minimal foreign concessions into “historic” US wins. If managed shrewdly, even a scaled-down deal—without normalisation—could still be framed as a diplomatic triumph by the Trump White House.

Ultimately, everything hinges on Saudi leadership and diplomatic finesse. History shows that, on rare but significant occasions, the “Arab lobby” has outmanoeuvred the formidable Israel lobby. If Riyadh can pull this off again, it won’t just secure a strategic alliance with the US, it will also cement its role as a regional leader. Just as importantly, it will send a powerful message to Israel: it is no longer at the centre of the universe, not even America’s.

May 8, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Defiant Trump advances US plans without Israeli approval: Report

The Cradle | May 8, 2025

US President Donald Trump has lost patience with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and will not wait any longer for Israel before advancing initiatives in West Asia, Israel Hayom reported on 8 May.

According to two senior sources in the US President’s entourage, Trump is interested in making decisions that he believes will advance US interests, particularly regarding Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, without waiting for approval from Netanyahu.

Regarding a potential US–Israeli agreement with Saudi Arabia, Trump believes Netanyahu is delaying making the necessary decisions. The president is not willing to wait until Israel does what is expected of it and will move forward without it.

During the presidency of Joe Biden, the US and Israel were involved in talks with Saudi Arabia that would see Washington enter a defense pact with the kingdom, provide it with civilian nuclear technology, and sell it advanced weapons – all in exchange for normalization with Israel.

As part of any agreement to normalize relations with Israel, Saudi Arabia expects an end to the war in Gaza and an Israeli declaration of a “horizon for a Palestinian state.”

However, senior ministers in Israel’s current government have vowed to never allow a Palestinian state in the occupied West Bank, while promising to “destroy” Gaza, ethnically cleanse its population under the pretext of promoting “voluntary migration,” and to build Jewish settlements there.

The sources added that Trump was furious at what he saw as an attempt by Netanyahu to use US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who has since been dismissed from his position, to push for US military action in Iran.

Netanyahu claimed in response to the publication of the affair in the Washington Post that he had only spoken to Waltz once. However, Trump was not convinced.

The president’s anger likely explains why Trump did not involve Israel in the ceasefire he announced with the Ansarallah-led government of Yemen.

Even after Trump announced the agreement with Yemen, Israeli representatives handling relations with the US were reportedly unable to receive information from White House officials about what was happening for a day, Israel Hayom noted.

Additionally, Trump is not currently scheduled to visit Israel as part of his visit to the region next week.

The disconnect between Trump and Netanyahu likely explains why the Israeli prime minister and his Defense Minister, Israel Katz, announced on Wednesday that they are prepared for a situation in which Israel will be left alone in the campaign against Yemen.

Defense Minister Katz said that “Israel must be able to defend itself on its own against any threat and any enemy. This has been true in the face of many challenges in the past and will continue to be so in the future.”

Trump has faced criticism for escalating the war against Yemen since taking office in January, including for withholding information about US military casualties resulting from a military campaign that has never received authorization from Congress.

The operation has involved over 1,000 US airstrikes against the Ansarallah-led Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) and killed hundreds of Yemenis, including many civilians.

Writing for Haaretz, Israeli journalist Aluf Benn notes that each time US presidents have been angered by Tel Aviv’s actions, “Israel stood its ground, deflected the pressure and over time got what it wanted.”

Benn stated that Trump is also pursuing a deal with Iran over its nuclear program that is contrary to Netanyahu’s position on the matter.

Trump pulled the US out of the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 amid encouragement from Netanyahu. However, the president has been trying to come to a diplomatic understanding with Iran to halt the development of its nuclear program during his second term.

Three rounds of talks have taken place, mediated by the government of Oman and involving Trump’s special envoy to the region, Steve Witkoff.

May 8, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

US ceasefire in Yemen: Retreat masquerading as restraint

The US ends its Red Sea campaign not by victory, but by necessity – under relentless pressure from an underestimated Yemeni resistance

By Mawadda Iskandar | The Cradle | May 8, 2025

In a major recalibration of its year-long Red Sea military campaign, the US has agreed to a ceasefire with Yemen’s Ansarallah-aligned armed forces, brokered by Oman. After months of escalating attacks under the guise of “protecting international shipping,” Washington now finds itself calling time on a conflict it launched – but failed to control.

While Yemen’s leaders stress that operations in support of Gaza will persist, the US pivot signals more than de-escalation: It is a tacit admission that its campaign has collapsed under pressure, unable to achieve even its most basic strategic goals.

With over a thousand airstrikes launched since March 2024, Washington’s failure to contain the Yemeni threat in the Red Sea, Bab al-Mandab Strait, and the Gulf of Aden stands as a stark indictment of its military planning. The war devolved into a costly, high-stakes exercise in attrition – one Yemen emerged from stronger, not weaker.

A flawed campaign from the start

From its inception, the US-led campaign ‘Prosperity Guardian’ lacked clarity. The mission to “protect shipping lanes” quickly became an open-ended confrontation with no political roadmap. American officials misread both the battlefield and Yemen’s resilience.

Despite the might of its airpower, Washington failed to dent Sanaa’s capacity or will to fight. Instead, the bombardment accelerated Yemen’s military innovation, forcing Washington into a deterrence game it could not win.

Yemen’s unconventional warfare style, grounded in its topography and culture, posed immense challenges. Leaders operated from mountainous terrain fortified by tunnel systems, well beyond the reach of satellite surveillance.

The US had little intelligence penetration into Yemen’s military hierarchy and no functioning target bank. Sanaa’s leadership, experienced from years of prior war against the Saudi and UAE-led coalition and its proxies, held the advantage.

Speaking to The Cradle, Colonel Rashad al-Wutayri lists five key reasons for the campaign’s failure. First, Yemen’s use of low-cost, high-impact weapons – ballistic missiles and drones – pierced even US carrier strike groups.

Second, the campaign failed to protect Israeli or allied shipping. Third, Ansarallah exposed Israeli-American spy networks and clung to its demands: Namely, an end to the war on Gaza. Fourth, apart from Bahrain, Washington’s Arab allies declined to join the US-led coalition. Fifth, the financial cost spiraled, with the US spending millions on interceptors to counter drones built for mere thousands.

No coalition, no ground game

Washington’s diplomatic push to build a regional anti-Yemen coalition fell flat. Persian Gulf states, still stung from their own failures in Yemen, wisely kept their distance. Saudi Arabia refused to be drawn back into a war it has been trying to exit since 2022. The UAE, meanwhile, limited its support to logistics. Egypt stayed silent, unwilling to be sucked into another regional escalation.

This reticence was not without reason. Ansarallah leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi issued direct warnings to neighboring countries: Any cooperation with the US – via bases or troops – would bring immediate retaliation.

The threat worked. When Washington explored the idea of a ground assault using US special forces and Persian Gulf-backed militias, the plan quickly collapsed. Yemen’s terrain, its entrenched resistance, and the bitter legacy of previous Saudi-Emirati attempts made such a venture untenable.

Political analyst Abdulaziz Abu Talib tells The Cradle that Riyadh and Abu Dhabi have internalized the cost of further escalation. While both continue to bankroll proxy militias, they are steering clear of overt military entanglement. Yemen’s ability to withstand this trilateral aggression – and to land blows on US and Israeli interests – further eroded faith in Washington’s protective umbrella.

Bombs, billions, and blunders

Between March 2024 and April 2025, the US launched over 1,000 airstrikes on Yemen. Yet, rather than break its adversary, the campaign emboldened it. In retaliation, Yemen escalated steadily – from targeting Israeli vessels in November 2023, to US and UK ships by January, the Indian Ocean by March, and the Mediterranean by May.

By July, Ansarallah struck Tel Aviv with hypersonic missiles. A direct hit on Ben Gurion Airport followed, redrawing the region’s military balance.

The costs piled up. In the first three weeks alone, the US burned through $1 billion. Weapons like Tomahawk and JASSM missiles – costing millions apiece – were deployed against drones worth a few thousand dollars. Yemen’s own achievements mounted: 17 MQ-9 Reaper drones shot down, a $60 million F-18 fighter jet destroyed, and a declared aerial blockade of Israel.

Wutayri highlights that Yemen developed its arsenal domestically, without foreign technical assistance. That included the hypersonic missiles that bypassed Israeli and US air defenses, and drones capable of striking both military and commercial ships. Even as Washington intensified its bombardment, Yemen’s operational tempo and range only grew.

Erosion from within

Back in Washington, the cracks were showing. The Pentagon quietly expanded military commanders’ autonomy to strike targets without White House clearance – an effort to shield the administration from political fallout. But the costs, both financial and reputational, were impossible to ignore.

US media outlets began questioning the purpose and direction of the campaign. Public patience waned. There were calls for countries benefiting from Red Sea trade – namely Persian Gulf monarchies – to shoulder the burden of maritime security.

Wutayri says the US suffered further humiliation: a destroyer and three supply ships were sunk, and both the USS Abraham Lincoln and Harry S. Truman aircraft carriers were targeted. Despite spending another $500 million on interceptors, the results were negligible. The image of US warplanes crashing into the sea, and of exhausted troops – some 7,000 deployed – unable to break Yemen’s resolve, dented American prestige.

More than just a response to Red Sea attacks, the campaign was part of Washington’s broader effort to counter China’s regional influence, particularly Yemen’s emerging Belt and Road links. But the military track backfired, hardening local resistance and undermining US credibility.

Abu Talib notes that even stealth aircraft and strategic bombers failed to achieve deterrence. The Trump administration faced two options: retreat under the weight of defeat, or engage in talks under Ansarallah’s terms – chief among them an end to the Gaza war.

A war without an aim

From the outset, Washington struggled to manufacture a narrative of victory. The Pentagon released videos of jets launching from carriers – empty spectacle, absent substance. There were no “shock and awe” moments, no milestones to sell as success.

Yemen, meanwhile, delivered iconic images; among them, a father shielding his child during a bombing raid – a powerful symbol of national defiance. As civilian casualties mounted, so did public fury. Scenes of women and children pulled from rubble circulated widely, drawing uncomfortable parallels with past US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to Abu Talib, Yemen’s social cohesion and rugged geography undermined every attempt to break its lines. Far from fracturing under pressure, the public rallied behind Ansarallah. The more the US escalated, the more entrenched Yemeni resistance became – both militarily and socially.

Now, the Trump administration is shifting gears, seeking peace without admitting defeat. But Sanaa is not standing still. It promises continued operations, and with them, new strategic equations that could further upend the regional balance of power.

May 8, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | 2 Comments

Official Arab alignment with Israel to eliminate the resistance

By Majeb Zebda – Palestinian Information Center – May 4, 2025

The media warning issued by the Lebanese Higher Defence Council to Hamas, accusing it of undermining Lebanese national security, not only contradicts the facts that Israel is the one undermining Lebanese national security and violating Lebanese territory through killing, bombing and occupation without deterrence or accountability, but also paves the way for the disarmament of the Palestinian camps in Lebanon and suggests that they pose a threat to Lebanon’s security and territorial integrity. I will not rule out the possibility of the camp weapons issue being used to distort the image of the Palestinian resistance and to drag Hamas’s name into any future conflicts on the ground. This desire aligns with the vision of Mahmoud Abbas, who is hostile to the Palestinian resistance in general and Hamas in particular and plans to visit Lebanon to discuss the issue of weapons in the camps in the coming days.

On the other hand, the sudden Lebanese warning comes in response to the vision of the US and Israel’s arrangements for the future of the Arab region, which is being re-engineered politically and on the ground to allow for complete and undisputed Israeli domination. It also aligns with other Arab measures, including, for example, Jordan’s criminalisation of support for the Palestinian resistance and the new Syrian regime’s efforts, under American pressure, to tighten the noose on Palestinian resistance factions and prevent their activities inside Syria under the pretext of “arms control.”

This allows us to come to the conclusion that the Lebanese warning is just one scene among several others that together form the American-Israeli vision of the region. It is a bleak future for Arab dignity, in which Israel violates Arab lands and capabilities daily in a provocative and humiliating manner, while Arab regimes undertake the task of clipping the wings of the Palestinian resistance and cutting off its supply lines under the force of American pressure. The US will implement what these regimes fail to, and the American bombing of Yemen in defence of Israel, which has been ongoing for weeks, is a prime example of this.

Unfortunately, official Arab alignment with Israeli-American goals is pushing some to treat the Palestinian resistance with arrogance and condescension, describing it as the weakest link. Therefore, there is no high political price to pay for antagonising it and distorting its positive image, even though it has the legitimate and legal right to resist military occupation and defend its land, people and holy sites. This is a chance to recall the shameless insults and obscenities uttered by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas against the Palestinian resistance, which is the opposite of the official Arab approach to the criminal occupation, which violates the dignity of Arabs, their skies and their land around the clock. Yet, no one dares to threaten it or issue warnings—even as a formality—of resisting its attacks, which have become a daily occurrence on our television screens.

Arab identification with Israel’s desire to eliminate the resistance will strongly clash with the resistance’s popular support and its deep roots in the hearts of the nation’s free people. The resistance, which has persevered for 18 months against the Israeli enemies and sacrificed its best leaders and fighters without being broken, is capable of regrouping and rebuilding what the occupation has destroyed. When it does so, many of those who align with Israel’s goals today may seek to cosy up to the resistance after their strength weakens and they fail to eliminate it and uproot it from the land of Palestine and its surroundings.

Translation by MEMO

May 7, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

U.S. Continues Strikes on Yemen: Objectives, Criticism, and Alternatives

By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – May 1, 2025

U.S. President Donald Trump has confirmed that the United States will continue missile strikes on Yemen until the Houthis cease their attacks on Israel and ships in the Red Sea.

American officials have baselessly insisted that the attacks, which began on March 15, 2025, have achieved significant success. They claim to have allegedly destroyed personnel linked to the Houthis’ missile capabilities, as well as missile sites and weapons depots. However, many observers doubt the effectiveness of this campaign. While the Trump administration’s strikes have been less restrained than the bombings carried out under Biden, they have failed to eliminate Houthi leaders or undermine their missile production capabilities. Meanwhile, the Houthis continue to strike Israel and Israel-affiliated vessels, clearly demonstrating the limited effectiveness of the U.S. operation in achieving its stated goals.

Risks of Escalation and Humanitarian Consequences 

Many analysts argue that the U.S. should intensify its operation by targeting critical infrastructure tied to the Houthis’ military potential. The recent barbaric bombing of the port of Ras Isa, which killed over 80 civilians, including rescue workers, may signal the start of a new phase. But experts doubt the U.S. can sustain such an operation, which has faced bipartisan criticism for lacking strategic results and for its financial cost—estimated at $1 billion in just two weeks. Some Democratic and Republican lawmakers have also stated that the Yemen operation violates the War Powers Act, which prohibits prolonged overseas military deployments without congressional approval.

Pentagon officials have also expressed concerns over U.S. Central Command’s (CENTCOM) heavy use of long-range Tomahawk missiles in Yemen, warning that this could deplete U.S. stockpiles in the event of a future military confrontation with China.

For their part, the Houthis have a decade of experience enduring massive and sustained bombings—whether from the Saudi-led coalition since 2015 or directly from the U.S. under Biden. Neither side has achieved its primary strategic objectives. Moreover, prolonged strikes could create political pressure on the U.S. due to civilian casualties amid Yemen’s worsening humanitarian crisis. Since the beginning of the month, Trump administration strikes on Yemen have killed at least 160 civilians, including many children.

A Failed Military Approach and Pressure for Quick Results 

The military setbacks, combined with pressure on Washington to deliver quick results, point to another possibility—turning to the Yemeni army. In theory, local ground forces could engage the Houthis on multiple fronts, particularly in coastal provinces, with the goal of degrading the Houthis’ military capabilities in the region and securing Red Sea shipping lanes, including vessels carrying critical supplies for aggressive Israel.

Earlier this month, the Yemeni army’s chief of staff met with the commander of U.S. CENTCOM to discuss joint military objectives and efforts to counter the Houthis. CNN, citing regional diplomatic sources, reported that a ground operation against the Houthis is being prepared in southern Yemen. The coordinated attack would be supported by Saudi and U.S. naval forces and aim to push the Houthis out of the critical port of Hodeidah. According to Yemeni sources, up to 80,000 troops have been mobilized for this purpose.

So far, there has been no official confirmation that a U.S.-backed Yemeni army offensive is in the works. In reality, this option comes with several practical challenges, not least of which are structural issues within the military apparatus of Yemen’s internationally recognized government.

While the official Yemeni army has received significant military support in training and equipment since 2015, including the formation of local militias, it remains weak and ineffective due to outdated pre-war weaponry, limited air defense capabilities, ammunition shortages, and insufficient training and maintenance. Other problems include pay disparities among soldiers from different factions and the prevalence of “ghost soldiers”—names added to payrolls for embezzlement purposes.

The Yemeni army is deeply fragmented, composed not of individual conscripts but of political and tribal factions that often hold conflicting regional, ideological, political, and even foreign allegiances. This is the main reason for poor coordination and the lack of a unified command. A joint security and defense committee was established years ago to reorganize and centralize the armed forces, but key factions—particularly the Southern Transitional Council (STC)—have resisted such efforts, preferring to maintain autonomy.

The situation is further complicated by infighting within the Presidential Leadership Council, lingering separatist sentiments in the STC, and Yemen’s economic devastation after years of civil war. These issues would not only hinder a military campaign against the Houthis but could also derail the UN-backed peace process. Even setting aside these concerns, overcoming structural problems would require extensive military and financial support from regional and international forces, long-term training and equipping, and measures to address gaps in the sanctions regime.

Diplomatic Alternatives 

Reports suggest that U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations also touch on Iran’s role in the Middle East. In this context, Washington may pressure Tehran to convince the Houthis to halt attacks on Israel and Israel-linked ships in the Red Sea. This approach depends on Iran’s level of influence over the Houthis on one hand and progress on other issues—such as Iran’s nuclear program, missile capabilities, and sanctions—on the other.

A deal would benefit both sides. Iran wants to avoid a war that could cost it much of its remaining power and influence—especially after losing most of its military allies in the region—and could potentially lead to regime collapse. The U.S. wants to avoid further draining its military resources in the Middle East, preferring to conserve them for a prolonged conflict with China, which remains the current administration’s top priority. Still, the prospects of a negotiated solution to the Houthi problem remain uncertain, given its entanglement with other critical issues.

Each of the three options discussed has major drawbacks—yet none can be ruled out. The failure of one could lead to another, or two approaches could be pursued simultaneously. In the long run, Houthi attacks will likely stop. The question is how, under what terms, and what impact this will have on Yemen’s broader crisis.

If the Houthis are forced to halt due to a ground offensive, it would strengthen Yemen’s legitimate government, either compelling the Houthis to engage in peace talks or ousting them from Sanaa and restoring the official government. Conversely, if the Houthis relent due to a deal with Iran, it would solidify their control over northern Yemen.

The outcome hinges on whether the U.S. can break the Houthis or force them into peace on American-Israeli terms.

Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Middle East Expert

May 1, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Syria’s geopolitical reorientation: Unravelling a revolution, redrawing alliances

By Amro Allan – Al Mayadeen – May 1, 2025

Recent events in Syria mark a significant shift in the country’s geopolitical identity. The arrest of two senior members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) by Syria’s de-facto leaders cannot be dismissed as an isolated incident or a routine security matter. This action coincided with a meeting between Syria’s new ruler, Ahmad al-Sharaa, AKA Abu Mohammad al-Joulani, and US Congressman Cory Mills, during which al-Sharaa reportedly expressed openness to joining the “Abraham Accords”, the US-brokered framework for normalisation with “Israel”, “under the right conditions”.

Moreover, leaked information confirms that Damascus has signalled its approval of the majority of eight conditions set forth by the US in exchange for political and economic incentives. According to Reuters, US Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Levant and Syria, Natasha Franceschi, gave the list of eight demands to the new Syrian foreign minister during an in-person meeting on the sidelines of a Syria donor conference in Brussels on March 18, 2025.

These conditions include the complete dismantling of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles, a commitment to ending support for what the US classifies as terrorism, cessation of threats toward regional ‘neighbours’, chiefly “Israel”, curtailment of what the US call Iranian influence, the banning of Palestinian factions’ activities on Syrian soil, primarily Hamas and the PIJ, security cooperation with Washington, and possibly granting the US permission for ‘counterterrorism’ strikes inside Syria.

In response to the US’s eight conditions, a formal message reportedly sent by the new Syrian government on April 14, 2025, pledged to prevent Syrian territory from being used as a launching ground for threats against any state, including “Israel”. It also announced the formation of a committee to monitor the activity of Palestinian groups within Syria.

These moves underscore a transformation that goes beyond surface-level diplomacy, signalling a strategic reorientation and a potential willingness to normalise relations with “Israel”.

The so-called Syrian revolution, having succeeded in ousting President Bashar al-Assad, is now entering a new phase, one defined by strategic realignment and integration into the so-called “Moderate Arab States,” accompanied by political and economic openness to the West.

This pivot implies a readiness to make concessions that would have been unthinkable under the former government, particularly those undermining Syria’s former ideological pillars and long-standing role as a bastion of pan-Arab and Islamic resistance against occupation.

This article does not seek to re-litigate the Syrian conflict, a war that has already consumed much energy and is now widely seen as a lost cause for the region’s remaining Resistance forces. Instead, it raises a pressing question: Is it accurate, or even justifiable, to continue referring to those who fought to dismantle Syria and Libya as “revolutionaries”?

Many of these uprisings were described as noble struggles for freedom and dignity. But if the result of these so-called “pure and patriotic” revolutions is the dismantling of national sovereignty and the empowerment of Western-aligned regimes, should the term “revolution” still be applied?

Typically, four justifications are presented when confronting this contradiction:

  1. The revolution lost its way.
  2. Those in power today do not represent the revolution.
  3. Revolution is a cumulative process: historical examples like the French Revolution are cited.
  4. The future will correct the mistakes of the present.

Each of these claims warrants brief examination:

  1. The revolution lost its way
    This claim lacks analytical rigour. A popular uprising is either chaotic by nature, or it is a structured movement with clear ideological foundations and defined goals. If it achieved its stated objectives — regime change, in this case — then arguing it “lost its way” is logically inconsistent. One cannot claim both success and deviation simultaneously.
  2. Today’s leaders do not represent the revolution
    This is a form of historical revisionism. The individuals currently in power are the very figures who were celebrated in public squares and entrusted by the movement’s supporters and their affiliated media. To deny their representative status is to erase the revolution’s actual trajectory and leadership.
  3. Revolution is a cumulative process
    While true in principle, this argument is frequently misapplied. Not all revolutions are equal, and context matters. Drawing equivalence between the French Revolution and modern Arab uprisings, for instance, ignores crucial differences in geopolitical circumstances, external interventions, and ideological underpinnings.
  4. The future will correct the present
    This line of thinking defers accountability indefinitely, assuming a future revolution will rectify today’s failures, without offering a plan, timeframe, or even a clear understanding of how or why this corrective revolution will succeed. It is often promoted by the same voices that championed the first revolution, despite its evident failures.

Meanwhile, Palestinian Resistance movements are engaged in an existential struggle against a campaign of collective annihilation, orchestrated by a US-Israeli axis intent on cementing regional dominance and dismantling all forms of resistance.

In such a context, referring to those who imprison resistance fighters in “new Syria” as “revolutionaries” is not only misleading but morally and politically indefensible. Such characterisations serve only to blur the line between genuine revolutionary action and acts of sabotage dressed in revolutionary language.

Clinging to a romanticised version of the Syrian and Libyan uprisings, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, amounts to intellectual suicide. It confuses the public, paralyses future movements, and hinders the emergence of authentic revolutionary efforts rooted in critical reflection and historical awareness.

Now more than ever, a rigorous reassessment is needed. Not as an academic exercise, but as a moral and national duty. And this reassessment must take seriously the alternative readings offered by steadfast Resistance movements, from Gaza to southern Lebanon to Yemen, whose leaders remain committed to a vision of liberation that cannot be co-opted or outsourced.

This article is not an ideological attack or a rhetorical spat. It is a call to clarity. A reminder that true revolution is not a slogan but a commitment grounded in vision, sacrifice, and integrity.

Those unwilling to reassess their missteps or acknowledge the consequences of their choices should step aside from public discourse. They should not undermine the concept of revolution by associating it with ventures rooted in destruction, subservience, and betrayal.

When alignments become clear and illusions are shattered, the enduring hope lies in the memory of the people, and in the resilience of those who continue to prove that genuine revolutions are not borrowed or bought. They are born from struggle and clarity alike.

May 1, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hell freezeth over as Sharaa gets invited to Baghdad

By Rasool Majeed | The Cradle | April 30, 2025

Syrian interim President Ahmad Sharaa’s return to Iraq – once unimaginable following his departure in 2011 – now seems possible with Iraq set to host the Arab summit on 17 May. But the question of whether Sharaa will attend has become a flashpoint, highlighting deep divisions within Iraq.

At the time of his departure, Sharaa, also known as Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS) leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani, was affiliated with the Al-Qaeda-linked group the Nusra Front, an early incarnation of HTS – both UN-designated terrorist organizations – and left Iraq to join the foreign-backed war against Syria.

Having been exiled from Iraq, the very idea that he could return, not as a visiting foreign dignitary but as Syria’s head of state, has stirred opposition across political, sectarian, and tribal lines. The invitation, coming from the Arab League, has stirred serious concerns about Iraq’s sovereignty and its ability to manage West Asia’s evolving challenges.

Imposed by the Arab League 

Amir al-Fayez, a member of Iraq’s Foreign Relations Committee, makes it clear to The Cradle that Iraq’s role in inviting Sharaa is not voluntary. The invitation, he explains, is mandated by the Arab League, and Iraq is expected to fulfill its duties as the host nation by sending invitations to all Arab heads of state. However, Iraq itself has little to no influence on the decision to invite Sharaa.

The Arab League’s decision to reinstate Syria in 2023 after a long suspension in 2011 has only complicated Baghdad’s position. While Sharaa’s return to the Arab fold is seen as a diplomatic victory for post-Assad Syria, Iraq has faced significant backlash domestically, with many questioning the wisdom of hosting a leader who has twice been incarcerated on terror charges in Iraq and is deeply linked to the country’s violent past.

The Arab League’s push to reintegrate Syria has brought these tensions to the surface, and Iraq’s internal factions are grappling with the political fallout.

Interestingly, the Foreign Relations Committee in the Iraqi Parliament supports Sharaa’s invitation to the summit in Baghdad. Fayez notes: “As a Foreign Relations Committee, we appreciate this position on the government’s part as it is tasked with sending invitations to all Arab heads of state without exception.”

Resistance factions’ rejection

But political parties and resistance factions in Iraq, including influential groups such as Asaeb Ahl al-Haq and Kataib Hezbollah, have voiced strong opposition to Sharaa’s visit. Qais al-Khazali, the leader of Asaeb Ahl al-Haq and an early backer of Iraq’s current Prime Minister, Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, made his stance clear on social media, warning of the potential consequences if Sharaa enters Iraq.

Khazali pointed to an arrest warrant against Sharaa, emphasizing that his presence would be illegal under Iraqi law. For these factions, Sharaa is not just a foreign leader, but a figure associated with violence, instability, terror, and murder in Iraq, making his visit untenable.

On 16 April, Sudani officially invited Sharaa to participate in the upcoming Arab summit in Baghdad. Three days later, Khazali posted on X, warning against Sharaa’s entry into Iraq, saying:

“The presence of the current Syrian regime president in Iraq is premature, as it could lead to repercussions if the law is applied and he is arrested by the security forces, due to an existing arrest warrant against him. Accordingly, and in accordance with the principle of the separation of powers, the decisions of the Iraqi judiciary must be adhered to and respected by all.”

A day before Khazali’s post, Abu Ali al-Askari, the security official for Kataib Hezbollah, also posted a statement clearly rejecting Sharaa’s visit to Iraq, pointing out:

“Arab summits were held without the presence of President Assad and without Iraq or Libya. These summits will not stop just because the convicted (Abu Mohammad Al-Julani), leader of the criminal Nusra Front, does not attend.”

Shia lawmaker Yousef al-Kalabi, described Sharaa’s entry into Iraq as “a betrayal of the memory of Iraqis who suffered under terrorism.”

Regarding Sudani’s meeting with Sharaa in Doha through Qatari mediation, Firas al-Yassir, a member of the political bureau of Al-Nujaba Movement, tells The Cradle :

“There is certainly Iraqi consensus rejecting any meeting with Sharaa by any person holding an official position in the Iraqi state. According to Iraqi law, the man is wanted by the Iraqi judiciary and is accused of killing Iraqis during the days of terrorist operations.”

Yassir adds: “No individual or entity has the right to violate Iraqi law or undermine the blood of Iraqis. If it is true that Sudani’s meeting with Sharaa in Doha occurred under American and [Persian] Gulf pressure, it would be considered a setback in Iraq’s foreign policy.”

He continues: “I expect that there is a political and popular consensus rejecting Julani’s attendance at the summit, and he is not welcomed. The issues raised about him should be addressed.”

Conditional rejection

While many have outright rejected Sharaa’s visit, some figures within the Iraqi political system, like Thair Mukhayef, have called for a more nuanced approach. Mukhayef, a tribal leader and member of parliament, has stated that while he opposes Sharaa’s visit, the matter should be decided based on Iraq’s judicial system.

According to Mukhayef, if Sharaa is proven guilty of crimes committed during the Iraq War, his visit should be barred. This position underscores the tension between legal considerations and diplomatic pragmatism. Mukhayef tells The Cradle :

“Sharaa took his position in what is called a coup against his government. There has been much talk and rumors about his involvement in violent acts in Iraq, and arrest warrants have been issued against him. Therefore, we are with the law and what the judiciary issues concerning this person.”

He adds, “If this man (Sharaa) indeed committed crimes and has an arrest warrant, we do not respect anyone who sheds the blood of our sons, and then he comes to have a red carpet rolled out for him to attend conferences and lecture on Arab nation policy within Iraq. I will reject the arrival of this figure if it is proven that he is the one who exploded, killed, and planned those crimes.”

He confirms that “Sharaa’s invitation to the summit is not from Iraq. Yes, I am with the absolute rejection, and I am not justifying it. But the invitation came from the Arab League, and Iraq is hosting this conference. I repeat the confirmation, we are with the judiciary and what it says. If it is proven that Sharaa has committed violent acts, killings, and destruction in our country, we absolutely and completely reject his entry into Iraq.”

The tribal divide

Tribal leaders in Iraq, a powerful political force in the country, have also been divided over Sharaa’s invitation. They have had a significant impact on political and security events in Iraq, from the 1920 Revolution to the post-independence period, through to the US invasion of 2003 and their uprising against ISIS in 2014 and beyond. This makes their stance on Sharaa’s invitation to Iraq significant.

Shia tribes have almost unanimously rejected Sharaa’s visit, with the Unified Tribes Council of Iraq issuing a statement calling for opposition to Sharaa, citing his role in past violence against Iraqis. These tribes view his presence as a betrayal of the bloodshed suffered during the Iraq War.

However, Sunni tribes have been more divided. Some, like former politician Mishaan al-Jubouri, have expressed support for Sharaa, downplaying his past and framing his visit as a diplomatic necessity. Jubouri and others have argued that Iraq should prioritize its regional interests, including relations with Syria, and not allow historical grievances to overshadow current political realities.

On the other hand, leaders like Sheikh Mazahim al-Huwait, a Sunni tribal leader from Ninawa, have firmly rejected Sharaa’s visit. Huwait, while supportive of trade and security cooperation with Syria, has condemned Sharaa as a figure linked to Iraq’s violent past.

Huwait’s opposition is based on both Sharaa’s personal history and the broader implications of hosting a leader implicated in the bloodshed of Iraq’s sectarian conflict. He tells The Cradle :

“We reject Julani’s visit to Iraq because his hands are stained with the blood of Iraqis, and he himself has openly admitted that after his release, he participated in operations in Iraq, having been a prisoner in US jails in 2005, where he was with me in detention … Sharaa has an arrest warrant under Article 4 Terrorism issued by the Iraqi judiciary and the Counter-Terrorism Agency. Therefore, we reject his visit.”

Regarding exchanges such as Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani’s visit to Iraq or Iraqi delegations traveling to Damascus, Huwait supports them, stating: “Such visits are necessary, as cutting off trade visits and those related to security coordination is not correct. Syria is a neighboring country, and its security means Iraq’s security.”

On the Sunnis who welcome Sharaa to Iraq, Huwait opines:

“Those who welcome him, whether leaders or tribal sheikhs, are followers of the arenas of humiliation and disgrace and do not represent the Sunni community but only themselves.”

A tactical move? 

While many factions and figures within Iraq oppose Sharaa’s visit on legal and moral grounds, some analysts view it as a strategic move within the larger context of Iraq’s foreign policy. Prime Minister Sudani’s meeting with Sharaa in Doha, mediated by Qatar, is believed to be part of a broader effort to enhance Iraq’s position in the region, particularly in relation to Iran.

By engaging with Sharaa, Iraq seeks to balance its ties with both Syria and Iran, which are critical to its security and political stability. Huwait, though opposed to Sharaa’s visit, acknowledges Iraq’s diplomatic role in the region and its need to engage with neighboring countries, including Syria:

“Iraq now has a significant role on the political scene, especially in the Middle East (West Asia), and it has succeeded in distancing many risks in the region, including with the Islamic Republic. There were risks concerning it with the US, and Iraq played a major role in this.”

He adds:

“It’s a heavy matter for Sudani to meet with a person who has killed his people, but Sharaa is now the president of Syria, and some countries have recognized him, and the Syrian flag is raised everywhere, including in Iraq. Sharaa asked Sudani to open dialogue with Iran, as he is in a difficult situation. He knows that opening channels with the Islamic Republic and ending conflicts with it will bring several countries, including Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and others, to his side.”

Sudani’s second term under fire

Those opposing Sharaa’s visit to Iraq base their objection on “his criminal record in the country” and his participation with extremist factions from 2005 to 2011, but some observers see this as “just an excuse.” The real aim of the rejection, they claim, is to embarrass Iraqi premier Sudani on the global stage and seize any opportunity to prevent him from securing a second term.

Speaking to The Cradle, Iraqi writer and political observer Jabar al-Mashadani argues:

“The Shia factions fighting within the Coordination Framework will seize any opportunity to prevent Prime Minister Sudani from securing a second term. Different parties within the framework want the position of prime minister after the upcoming elections. These factions exploit any political step in their favor, whether internal and highly local, like investment, reconstruction, and services issues, or external and strategic, especially regarding Iraq’s relationship with its anxious neighbor Syria, which affects Iraq’s internal security and politics.”

As the Arab summit approaches, the question of whether Sharaa will attend remains unresolved. While legal, political, and moral objections to his visit are strong, Iraq’s role as the summit host and its broader diplomatic interests may ultimately shape the outcome.

Regardless of whether Sharaa sets foot in Baghdad, his invitation has already sparked a major political divide within Iraq. The decision on Sharaa’s attendance may not only influence Iraq’s relationship with Syria, but may also shape the country’s future diplomatic course in a region marked by tension and shifting allegiances.

April 30, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »