Ashraf Marwan... The Man of a Single Story

Ashraf Marwan... The Man of a Single Story
TT
20

Ashraf Marwan... The Man of a Single Story

Ashraf Marwan... The Man of a Single Story

When the Israeli intelligence service (Mossad) published last month, a book that partly deals with the October 1973 War, it included two documents related to the meeting of Ashraf Marwan, the son-in-law of the late Egyptian President, Gamal Abdel Nasser, and the information secretary of his predecessor, President Anwar Sadat, with the head of the Mossad.

“The Angel,” “Babylon” and most frequently “the In-Law,” are code names that were given for “the spy”, who leaked to the Israelis the date of the Egyptian attack.

Marwan’s name gradually emerged over the years through memoirs by Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Golda Meir (1969-1974), Chief of Military Intelligence Eli Zaira (1972-1974), and Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan (1967- 1974).

However, the Mossad book presented for the first time a document that states that the Israeli intelligence body refuses to consider Marwan a “double agent,” and rejects Egypt’s description of him as a “national hero, who succeeded in conveying the most important information about the Israeli enemy.”

For the Mossad, Marwan was loyal to Israel.

In the face of the Israeli narratives, Egypt maintained an official silence. However, a well-informed Egyptian source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told Asharq Al-Awsat that ongoing Israeli discussions about the spy “reflect competition between the security services in Israel,” stressing that everyone in Tel Avivi is “trying to justify themselves by attempting to appear as heroes.”

Dr. Tariq Fahmy, professor of political science and specialist in Israeli affairs, said that the “recycling of the Israeli narrative,” whether regarding the October War or Marwan, represents “an embodiment of the military and intelligence failure in Israel.”

Major General Nasr Salem, former head of the Egyptian Army’s reconnaissance service and professor of strategic sciences at the Military Academy for Postgraduate Studies, said that Marwan is “an Egyptian hero who participated in implementing the strategic deception plan through which Egypt preempted the war.”

He also considered that he “participated in removing the head of the Israeli Mossad from the operations management team in Tel Aviv, hours before the outbreak of the war.”

The British Court of Public Inquiry ruled in July 2010 that Marwan died of an “unknown cause,” and that evidence provided by the police and witness testimonies “do not support any hypothesis regarding his death.”

The investigations did not accuse any party of being behind Marwan’s death on Wednesday, June 27, 2007, when he fell to his death from the balcony of his house in an upscale neighborhood in London, at the age of 63.

His wife, Mona Gamal Abdel Nasser, accused the Israeli Mossad of assassinating him.

The scene of Marwan’s funeral increased the mystery surrounding him, as it was arranged by official agencies, in the presence of senior statesmen, led by Gamal Mubarak, the son of the Egyptian president at the time.



Ceasefire Ends Iran-Israel War, Stakeholders Weigh Costs and Benefits

US President Donald Trump (Reuters)
US President Donald Trump (Reuters)
TT
20

Ceasefire Ends Iran-Israel War, Stakeholders Weigh Costs and Benefits

US President Donald Trump (Reuters)
US President Donald Trump (Reuters)

In a stunning development, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire that effectively ended the conflict between Iran and Israel.

The announcement came shortly after a carefully calibrated Iranian retaliation targeted a US military base in Qatar, an attack that caused no casualties or material damage.

Trump expressed gratitude to Iran for pre-warning Washington about the strike, framing the gesture as a face-saving move.

The question now gripping regional and international capitals is: What have the United States, Iran, and Israel each gained if the ceasefire holds?

United States

The United States has once again asserted itself as the dominant and decisive power in the Middle East. It delivered a crippling blow to Iran’s nuclear facilities without escalating into full-scale war, thereby undermining the very justification for Israel’s initial strike on Tehran.

Recent events have underscored that Israel cannot engage Iran militarily without close coordination with Washington, nor can it exit such a conflict without a pivotal American role.

The confrontation has also highlighted the unparalleled strength of the US military machine, unmatched by any other power, large or small.

Iran, for its part, clearly showed reluctance to escalate the conflict in a way that could trigger direct, open confrontation with the United States.

Trump himself demonstrated tactical skill by combining military pressure with diplomatic overtures, swiftly moving to invite Iran back to the negotiating table.

Meanwhile, the limited role of Europe and the modest involvement of Russia became apparent, unless aligned with US efforts. China appeared “distant but pragmatic,” despite its broad interests in Iran and a vested concern in keeping the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz open.

Iran

Iran demonstrated that the devastating initial strike it suffered from Israel did not undermine its military or political resolve despite the severity of the attack.

The Tehran regime confirmed that, although Israeli fighter jets controlled Iranian airspace briefly, its missile arsenal remained capable of unleashing scenes of destruction across Israeli cities unseen since the founding of the Jewish state. Iran’s missile forces, it showed, could sustain a costly war of attrition against Israel.

Tehran also succeeded in preventing calls for regime overthrow from becoming a shared objective in a US-Israeli war against it.

Yet, Iran appeared to lack a major ally comparable to the United States or even a lesser power, despite its “strategic” ties with Russia and China.

The confrontation revealed Tehran’s inability to fully leverage its proxy forces in Gaza and Lebanon following the fallout of the “Al-Aqsa flood” escalation.

The exchange of strikes further highlighted Israel’s clear technological superiority and the success of Israeli intelligence in penetrating deep inside Iran itself, raising alarming concerns in Tehran.

Israel

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can claim credit for persuading the Trump administration to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, particularly those beyond the reach of the Israeli military.

Israeli forces succeeded in gaining control over distant Iranian airspace within days, a feat Russia has not achieved after three years of war in Ukraine.

Israeli intelligence breakthroughs inside Iran played a crucial role in the conflict, culminating in Israel’s public release of videos it labeled “Mossad-Tehran branch” and drone bases.

Netanyahu can argue that he made a difficult decision to attack Iran and convinced the Israeli public that the fight was existential. He can also remind critics that he expelled Iran from Syria and curtailed Hezbollah’s ability to wage war on Israel.

He may also point to new regional power balances he has imposed - part of his broader ambition to reshape the Middle East - with Israel maintaining the region’s most powerful military force.

However, Netanyahu’s policies risk renewed clashes with many, especially as tensions over Gaza and the “two-state solution” resurface.

Observers say the gains made by the parties at the end of the Iran-Israel conflict remain fragile and could shift depending on how events unfold.

Any calm could enable Israeli opposition forces to reopen debates on Netanyahu’s “wars” and their costs. It might also prompt the Iranian public to question their leadership’s responsibility for the military setbacks and Iran’s regional and global standing.

For now, the spotlight remains firmly on the primary player: Trump.