Arafat Chose to Fight for 6 Months... Moscow’s Position Was his Greatest Disappointment 

Asharq Al-Awsat publishes recollections of influential players during 1982 Israeli invasion of Beirut. 

Smoke billows from strikes during the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982. (Getty Images)
Smoke billows from strikes during the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982. (Getty Images)
TT

Arafat Chose to Fight for 6 Months... Moscow’s Position Was his Greatest Disappointment 

Smoke billows from strikes during the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982. (Getty Images)
Smoke billows from strikes during the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982. (Getty Images)

On this day in 1982, Beirut was besieged by the Israeli army and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat boarded a ship that took him to his new exile in Tunisia. The Palestinian Liberation Organization’s loss of its last front with Israel would leave its mark on the Palestinians and Lebanon.

As Israel tightened its siege of Beirut, Arafat took a secret decision to carry on fighting for six months until regional and international stances emerged. He was forced to leave Lebanon after 88 days, marking an end of what he described as the “longest Arab-Israeli war.”

The greatest disappointment to the Palestinian resistance and its allies in the Lebanese National Movement came from their Soviet ally. Moscow had refused to deliver a serious warning or send a destroyer off the Lebanese coast or a ship to evacuate the wounded.

Arafat’s insistence that he leave Lebanon by sea, not through Damascus, reflected the extent of the differences between him and Syrian President Hafez al-Assad. Secretary General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC) Ahmed Jibril recalled that Arafat had bluntly told him that the Syrian leadership will not be credited for him holding out for three months in Beirut.

Asharq Al-Awsat will publish a series of features highlighting the significant developments and recollections of influential players during that heated summer of 1982.

From a building in east Beirut, Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon observed Arafat as he boarded the ship that would take him to Tunisia. He wrongly believed that had broken the Palestinian resistance and that it would fade away in exile. The invasion failed in luring Lebanon to strike a peace deal with Israel. The current Lebanon has an even more hardline position towards Israel.

Against the backdrop of the war, Syria and Iran will lay the foundation of their alliance. Hezbollah would be born in Lebanon. Syria, which had withdrawn its troops from Beirut in wake of the invasion, would redeploy them years later, before again being forced to pull them out in 2005 after the assassination of Lebanese former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

In the besieged city, I was determined to record the testimonials of influential political and security figures. I tried to obtain Arafat’s testimony, but he turned down the offer, saying he didn’t want the Palestinian people to be punished “because of his memories.”

In Tunisia, Arafat told me: “What do you want me to recount? To tell you about Sabri al-Banna (Abou Nidal), who was hosted by three Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus and Tripoli, and who was obsessed with assassinating Palestinians, not Israelis?”

“Do you want me to tell you about the so-called intifada in Fatah that was backed by Syria and funded by Libya? Or do you want me to complain about the practices of Palestinian groups that tarnished our image of resistance or led to our labeling as terrorists? I’m not saying that Fatah was faultless. We all made mistakes, but we always tried not to lose our way and lose our cause.”

“The Palestinian people have been punished a lot. They were punished for clinging on to their cause and for firing the first shot. (...) The PLO was punished for adopting a hard line and punished when it adopted a moderate approach. Do you want the Palestinian people to be punished because of my memoirs? I don’t want to open old wounds.”

“As I was leaving Beirut, a journalist asked me: ‘Where to?’ I replied: ‘To Jerusalem. We are preparing for our date in Palestine and Jerusalem. We don’t have any other place to be.’”

The KGB general and Iran

In 1980, Palestinian ambassador to Tehran and Fatah central committee member Hani al-Hassan received an urgent call to head to Beirut. Upon his arrival, Arafat told him they were headed to a meeting at the Soviet embassy. Hassan understood that he needed to voice Arafat’s views. He knew how influential the Soviets were in the Palestinian revolution. He knew of the consequences of refusing delicate Soviet proposals.

Other Fatah members at the meeting included Salah Khalaf (Abou Ayad) and Khalil al-Wazir (Abou Jihad). The Soviets were represented by General “Alexander” who was the KGB official overseeing operations in the Middle East. The insistence that Palestinian leaders, not their representatives, be present at the meeting meant that Moscow expected the talks to yield a decision.

General “Alexander” spoke about the situation in the region, especially Iran, in wake of the Soviet military invasion of Afghanistan. He said the time had come for the Palestinians to cooperate with the Soviets to facilitate the Communist Party’s control of Iran. The Soviet Union wanted to expand its power in the region and Iran was a significant prize given its geographic location and resources.

Hassan was surprised with the proposal and asked to be excused from the meeting, but Arafat refused. Hassan said he would not stand against the Iranian revolution that had “offered us several major services,” referring to its severing of Iranian-Israeli relations that were forged under the shah.

Tensions soon erupted and the Soviet general declared that the Palestinians “won’t be able to do anything without us.” Hassan replied: “If the Soviets enter Iran, then Israel’s strategic value will grow a million-fold to the West. So, don’t even think about it. For our part, we will ensure that every effort is made to form good Iranian-Soviet relations.”

Hassan believed that the meeting exposed how the Soviets dealt with the situations in Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan and future conflicts in these countries.

Meeting in a Soviet forest

Another significant meeting was held years earlier. In the early 1970s, head of the PFLP’s External Operations Wadie Haddad met with KGB chief Yuri Andropov in a forest on the outskirts of Moscow. The meeting was held in utmost secrecy because Haddad at the time had been planning plane hijacking operations for years. Haddad asked for weapons from the Soviets, and they were smuggled to him off the coast of Aden, Yemen.

The first high-level contacts between Moscow and the Palestinian revolution took place in 1968 at the suggestion of Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser. Nasser and Arafat traveled to Moscow together on a secret visit. Two years later, a Soviet envoy met with Arafat in Jordan and the relations between the Palestinians and Soviets came out to the open.

Moscow realized the importance of relations with the Palestinians so it forged ties that allowed it in a few years to wield influence in Palestinian political and security decisions. Moscow formed close ties with the Palestinian left, including the PFLP, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and leftists in the Fatah movement.

These relations led the Palestinian resistance and allied parties in Lebanon to rule out the possibility of Israel invading Beirut. It had already launched its invasion on June 6, 1982, and was advancing on the capital. On the day of the invasion, the Fatah and Lebanese National Movement met in Beirut. Present were Abou Ammar, Abou Jihad, Abou Ayad, Abou al-Walid, Secretary General of the Lebanese Communist Party George Hawi and Secretary General of the Communist Action Organization in Lebanon Mohsen Ibrahim.

They discussed the possibility that the invasion could go beyond southern Lebanon, especially with Sharon as defense minister. They never predicted, however, that the Israeli forces would advance on Beirut and reach its outskirts because Syrian troops were in the capital and any clash with the Israelis could lead to a full-scale war between them. They believed that Israel would not provoke Syria, an ally of Moscow.

They were proven wrong when the Israeli army was met with little resistance and eventually besieged Beirut. It was later revealed that the Soviets and their allies did not have information about the Israeli plans. The Syrians were also in the dark.

Meeting with Bashir Gemayel

When the Israeli forces reached the Chouf area in Mount Lebanon and appeared intent on Beirut, a secret meeting was held between Abou Ammar al-Hassan, head of the Lebanese Forces Bashir al-Gemayel and Lebanese military intelligence chief Johnny Abdo. Gemayel wanted to hold the meeting to deliver a message to Arafat that the Palestinians must lay down their arms and leave Lebanon. “I am ready to secure a safe and dignified exit. I want an immediate answer before the Israelis reach Beirut,” he said. Hassan suggested that they take their conversation to the balcony because they feared Abdo’s house would be wiretapped.

Hassan noticed how worried Gemayel appeared. He told him: “Let me speak to you frankly. I follow you and it is my duty to follow you. I know you have presidential ambitions, but you won’t achieve them this way. You were the one who paved the way for the Syrians so that they could strike the Palestinians. Now, you have brought in the Israelis so that they can strike them both.”

“At the end of this game, we will both be struck, and you will be finished. Lebanon is enticing. Neither the Israelis, nor the Syrians will pull out. You are opposed to both of them. Let me repeat, you are mistaken in thinking this is the way that will lead you to the presidency. Your odds will be better if you decide to side with us and the Lebanese National Movement.”

“Who will agree to hosting the Palestinian fighters? Jordan, Syria or others? He vowed that he will ensure that a small number of fighters would remain and they would answer to the Lebanese army. The game slipped from his hands when the Israelis reached Beirut.”

Hassan later informed Mohsen about the meeting. Mohsen then met with Arafat and Hawi. They were primarily concerned with determining whether Moscow could stop the invasion. Hawi, with his close ties to the Soviets, believed that striking the Palestinian revolution was a red line for both sides the Soviets and Communists. After a month or so, he realized that everything was permissible, and nothing was off limits. Arab countries had no way of influencing international powers.

Hawi was hoping Moscow would threaten Israel to withdraw from Lebanon. He hoped they would send a naval vessel off the coast of Beirut or at least evacuate the wounded. Soviet ambassador to Beirut Alexander Soldatov could promise nothing of the sort. Hawi kept relaying these disappointing stances to Arafat. Hawi and others could not believe that the Soviets would stand idly by as Israel invaded Lebanon.

Arafat was dealt a crushing blow during a meeting with Soldatov. The ambassador told Arafat to leave Beirut, even if he had to board an American destroyer. Arafat was incredulous and refused to leave. He would eventually relent when it appeared that the Soviets would not support him or stand against the Israelis.



The West Bank Football Field Slated for Demolition by Israel

Israeli army bulldozers pass buildings during a military operation in Nur Shams refugee camp, near the West Bank city of Tulkarem, 12 January 2026. (EPA)
Israeli army bulldozers pass buildings during a military operation in Nur Shams refugee camp, near the West Bank city of Tulkarem, 12 January 2026. (EPA)
TT

The West Bank Football Field Slated for Demolition by Israel

Israeli army bulldozers pass buildings during a military operation in Nur Shams refugee camp, near the West Bank city of Tulkarem, 12 January 2026. (EPA)
Israeli army bulldozers pass buildings during a military operation in Nur Shams refugee camp, near the West Bank city of Tulkarem, 12 January 2026. (EPA)

Israeli authorities have ordered the demolition of a football field in a crowded refugee camp in the occupied West Bank, eliminating one of the few ​spaces where Palestinian children are able to run and play.

"If the field gets demolished, this will destroy our dreams and our future. We cannot play any other place but this field, the camp does not have spaces," said Rital Sarhan, 13, who plays on a girls' soccer team in the Aida refugee camp near Bethlehem.

The Israeli military ‌issued a demolition ‌order for the field on ‌December ⁠31, ​saying ‌it was built illegally in an area that abuts the concrete barrier wall that Israel built in the West Bank.

"Along the security fence, a seizure order and a construction prohibition order are in effect; therefore, the construction in the area was carried out unlawfully," the Israeli military said in a statement.

Mohammad Abu ⁠Srour, an administrator at Aida Youth Center, which manages the field, said the ‌military gave them seven days to demolish ‍the field.

The Israeli military ‍often orders Palestinians to carry out demolitions themselves. If they ‍do not act, the military steps in to destroy the structure in question and then sends the Palestinians a bill for the costs.

According to Abu Srour, Israel's military told residents when delivering ​the demolition order that the football field represented a threat to the separation wall and to Israelis.

"I ⁠do not know how this is possible," he said.

Israeli demolitions have drawn widespread international criticism and coincide with heightened fears among Palestinians of an organized effort by Israel to formally annex the West Bank, the area seized by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war.

Israel accelerated demolitions in Palestinian refugee camps in early 2025, leading to the displacement of 32,000 residents of camps in the central and northern West Bank.

Human Rights Watch has called the demolitions a war crime. ‌Israel has said they are intended to disrupt militant activity.


In 'Big Trouble'? The Factors Determining Iran's Future

In this frame grab from video taken by an individual not employed by The Associated Press and obtained by the AP outside Iran shows people blocking an intersection during a protest in Tehran, Iran, Thursday Jan. 8, 2026. (UGC via AP)
In this frame grab from video taken by an individual not employed by The Associated Press and obtained by the AP outside Iran shows people blocking an intersection during a protest in Tehran, Iran, Thursday Jan. 8, 2026. (UGC via AP)
TT

In 'Big Trouble'? The Factors Determining Iran's Future

In this frame grab from video taken by an individual not employed by The Associated Press and obtained by the AP outside Iran shows people blocking an intersection during a protest in Tehran, Iran, Thursday Jan. 8, 2026. (UGC via AP)
In this frame grab from video taken by an individual not employed by The Associated Press and obtained by the AP outside Iran shows people blocking an intersection during a protest in Tehran, Iran, Thursday Jan. 8, 2026. (UGC via AP)

Over two weeks of protests mark the most serious challenge in years to Iran's theocratic leadership in their scale and nature but it is too early to predict the immediate demise of the Iranian republic, analysts say.

The demonstrations moved from protesting economic grievances to demanding a wholesale change from the clerical system that has ruled Iran since the 1979 revolution that ousted the shah.

The authorities have unleashed a crackdown that, according to rights groups, has left hundreds dead while the rule of supreme leader Ali Khamenei, now 86, remains intact.

"These protests arguably represent the most serious challenge to Iran in years, both in scale and in their increasingly explicit political demands," Nicole Grajewski, professor at the Sciences Po Centre for International Studies in Paris told AFP.

She said it was unclear if the protests would unseat the leadership, pointing to "the sheer depth and resilience of Iran's repressive apparatus".

The Iranian authorities have called their own counter rallies, with thousands attending on Monday.

Thomas Juneau, professor at the University of Ottawa, said: "At this point, I still don't assess that the fall of the regime is imminent. That said, I am less confident in this assessment than in the past."

These are the key factors seen by analysts as determining whether Iran’s leadership will hold on to power.

- Sustained protests -

A key factor is "simply the size of protests; they are growing, but have not reached the critical mass that would represent a point of no return," said Juneau.

The protest movement began with strikes at the Tehran bazaar on December 28 but erupted into a full-scale challenge with mass rallies in the capital and other cities from Thursday.

The last major protests were the 2022-2023 demonstrations sparked by the death in custody of Mahsa Amini who had been arrested for allegedly violating the dress code for women. In 2009, mass rallies took place after disputed elections.

But a multi-day internet shutdown imposed by Iranian authorities has hampered the ability to determine the magnitude of the current demonstrations, with fewer videos emerging.

Arash Azizi, a lecturer at Yale University, said "the protesters still suffer from not having durable organized networks that can withstand oppression".

He said one option would be to "organize strikes in a strategic sector" but this required leadership that was still lacking.

- Cohesion in the elite -

While the situation on the streets is of paramount importance, analysts say there is little chance of a change without cracks and defections in the security forces and leadership.

So far there has been no sign of this, with all the pillars of Iran from parliament to the president to the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) lining up behind Khamenei's defiant line expressed in a speech on Friday.

"At present, there are no clear signs of military defections or high-level elite splits within the regime. Historically, those are critical indicators of whether a protest movement can translate into regime collapse," said Sciences Po's Grajewski.

Jason Brodsky, policy director at US-based group United Against Nuclear Iran, said the protests were "historic".

But he added: "It's going to take a few different ingredients for the regime to fall," including "defections in the security services and cracks in the Islamic republic's political elite".

Israeli or US military intervention

US President Donald Trump, who has threatened military retaliation over the crackdown, announced 25 percent tariffs on Monday against Iran's trading partners.

The White House said Trump was prioritizing a diplomatic response, and has not ruled out strikes, after having briefly joined Israel's 12-day war against Iran in June.

That war resulted in the killing of several top Iranian security officials, forced Khamenei to go into hiding and revealed Israel's deep intelligence penetration of Iran.

US strikes would upend the situation, analysts say.

The Iranian foreign ministry said on Monday it has channels of communication open with Washington despite the lack of diplomatic relations.

"A direct US military intervention would fundamentally alter the trajectory of the crisis," said Grajewski.

Juneau added: "The regime is more vulnerable than it has been, domestically and geopolitically, since the worst years of the Iran-Iraq war" that lasted from 1980-1988.

- Organized opposition -

The US-based son of the ousted shah, Reza Pahlavi, has taken a major role in calling for protests and pro-monarchy slogans have been common chants.

But with no real political opposition remaining inside Iran, the diaspora remains critically divided between political factions known for fighting each other as much as the Iranian republic.

"There needs to be a leadership coalition that truly represents a broad swathe of Iranians and not just one political faction," said Azizi.

- Khamenei's health -

Khamenei has now been in power since 1989 when he became supreme leader, a post for life, following the death of revolutionary founder Khomeini.

He survived the war with Israel and appeared in public on Friday to denounce the protests in typically defiant style.

But uncertainty has long reigned over who could succeed him, with options including his shadowy but powerful son Mojtaba or power gravitating to a committee rather than an individual.

Such a scenario between the status quo and a complete change could see "a more or less formal takeover by the Revolutionary Guards", said Juneau.


What to Know about the Protests Shaking Iran as Govt Shuts Down Internet and Phone Networks

Mourners carry coffins during a funeral procession for members of security forces and civilians said to be killed in protests on Sunday, amid evolving anti-government unrest, in Tehran, Iran, in this screengrab from a video released on January 11, 2026.  IRIB/Handout via REUTERS
Mourners carry coffins during a funeral procession for members of security forces and civilians said to be killed in protests on Sunday, amid evolving anti-government unrest, in Tehran, Iran, in this screengrab from a video released on January 11, 2026. IRIB/Handout via REUTERS
TT

What to Know about the Protests Shaking Iran as Govt Shuts Down Internet and Phone Networks

Mourners carry coffins during a funeral procession for members of security forces and civilians said to be killed in protests on Sunday, amid evolving anti-government unrest, in Tehran, Iran, in this screengrab from a video released on January 11, 2026.  IRIB/Handout via REUTERS
Mourners carry coffins during a funeral procession for members of security forces and civilians said to be killed in protests on Sunday, amid evolving anti-government unrest, in Tehran, Iran, in this screengrab from a video released on January 11, 2026. IRIB/Handout via REUTERS

Nationwide protests in Iran sparked by the country’s ailing economy are putting new pressure on its theocracy as it has shut down the internet and telephone networks.

Tehran is still reeling from a 12-day war launched by Israel in June that saw the United States bomb nuclear sites in Iran. Economic pressure, which has intensified since September when the United Nations reimposed sanctions on the country over its atomic program, has sent Iran's rial currency into a free fall, now trading at over 1.4 million to $1.

Meanwhile, Iran's self-described “Axis of Resistance” — a coalition of countries and militant groups backed by Tehran — has been decimated since the start of the Israel-Hamas war in 2023.

A threat by US President Donald Trump warning Iran that if Tehran “violently kills peaceful protesters” the US “will come to their rescue," has taken on new meaning after American troops captured Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro, a longtime ally of Tehran.

“We're watching it very closely,” Trump has warned. “If they start killing people like they have in the past, I think they're going to get hit very hard by the United States.”

Here's what to know about the protests and the challenges facing Iran's government.

How widespread the protests are

More than 500 protests have taken place across all of Iran’s 31 provinces, the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency reported early Monday. The death toll had reached at least 544, it said, with more than 10,600 arrests. The group relies on an activist network inside of Iran for its reporting and has been accurate in past unrest.

The Iranian government has not offered overall casualty figures for the demonstrations. The Associated Press has been unable to independently assess the toll, given that internet and international phone calls are now blocked in Iran.

Understanding the scale of the protests has been difficult. Iranian state media has provided little information about the demonstrations. Online videos offer only brief, shaky glimpses of people in the streets or the sound of gunfire. Journalists in general in Iran also face limits on reporting such as requiring permission to travel around the country, as well as the threat of harassment or arrest by authorities. The internet shutdown has further complicated the situation.

But the protests do not appear to be stopping, even after Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said “rioters must be put in their place.”

Why the demonstrations started

The collapse of the rial has led to a widening economic crisis in Iran. Prices are up on meat, rice and other staples of the Iranian dinner table. The nation has been struggling with an annual inflation rate of some 40%.

In December, Iran introduced a new pricing tier for its nationally subsidized gasoline, raising the price of some of the world’s cheapest gas and further pressuring the population. Tehran may seek steeper price increases in the future, as the government now will review prices every three months.

Meanwhile, food prizes are expected to spike after Iran’s Central Bank in recent days ended a preferential, subsidized dollar-rial exchange rate for all products except medicine and wheat.

The protests began in late December with merchants in Tehran before spreading. While initially focused on economic issues, the demonstrations soon saw protesters chanting anti-government statements as well. Anger has been simmering over the years, particularly after the 2022 death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini in police custody that triggered nationwide demonstrations.

Some have chanted in support of Iran's exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who called for protests Thursday and Friday night.

Iran's alliances are weakened

Iran's “Axis of Resistance," which grew in prominence in the years after the 2003 US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, is reeling.

Israel has crushed Hamas in the devastating war in the Gaza Strip. Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group in Lebanon, has seen its top leadership killed by Israel and has been struggling since. A lightning offensive in December 2024 overthrew Iran’s longtime stalwart ally and client in Syria, President Bashar Assad, after years of war there. Yemen's Iranian-backed Houthis also have been pounded by Israeli and US airstrikes.

China meanwhile has remained a major buyer of Iranian crude oil, but hasn't provided overt military support. Neither has Russia, which has relied on Iranian drones in its war on Ukraine.

The West worries about Iran’s nuclear program Iran has insisted for decades that its nuclear program is peaceful. However, its officials have increasingly threatened to pursue a nuclear weapon. Iran had been enriching uranium to near weapons-grade levels before the US attack in June, making it the only country in the world without a nuclear weapons program to do so.

Tehran also increasingly cut back its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, as tensions increased over its nuclear program in recent years. The IAEA's director-general has warned Iran could build as many as 10 nuclear bombs, should it decide to weaponize its program.

US intelligence agencies have assessed that Iran has yet to begin a weapons program, but has “undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so.”

Iran recently said it was no longer enriching uranium at any site in the country, trying to signal to the West that it remains open to potential negotiations over its atomic program to ease sanctions. But there's been no significant talks in the months since the June war.

Why relations between Iran and the US are so tense

Iran decades ago was one of the United States’ top allies in the Mideast under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who purchased American military weapons and allowed CIA technicians to run secret listening posts monitoring the neighboring Soviet Union. The CIA fomented a 1953 coup that cemented the shah’s rule.

But in January 1979, the shah fled Iran as mass demonstrations swelled against his rule. Then came the Iranian Revolution led by Khomeini, which created Iran’s theocratic government.

Later that year, university students overran the US Embassy in Tehran, seeking the shah’s extradition and sparking the 444-day hostage crisis that saw diplomatic relations between Iran and the US severed.

During the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the US backed Saddam Hussein. During that conflict, the US launched a one-day assault that crippled Iran at sea as part of the so-called “Tanker War,” and later shot down an Iranian commercial airliner that the US military said it mistook for a warplane.

Iran and the US have seesawed between enmity and grudging diplomacy in the years since. Relations peaked with the 2015 nuclear deal, which saw Iran greatly limit its program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. But Trump unilaterally withdrew America from the accord in 2018, sparking tensions in the Mideast that intensified after Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel.