عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

US Returns to Middle East Because of War on Gaza

Fighter jets fly over the aircraft carrier USS Dwight Eisenhower. (AFP)
Fighter jets fly over the aircraft carrier USS Dwight Eisenhower. (AFP)
TT
TT

US Returns to Middle East Because of War on Gaza

Fighter jets fly over the aircraft carrier USS Dwight Eisenhower. (AFP)
Fighter jets fly over the aircraft carrier USS Dwight Eisenhower. (AFP)

The ongoing discussions about the size of the US military deployed in the Middle East raised questions about the role Washington seeks to play in light of the war on Gaza.

US President Joe Biden stated there was "no going back to the status quo as it stood on Oct. 7," indicating that the administration is devising plans for the upcoming days.

Reports of the US military deployment in the region, including the establishment of a secret military base in Israel, prompted Vice President Kamala Harris to confirm that her country has "absolutely no intention nor do we have any plans to send combat troops into Israel or Gaza, period."

During an interview with CBS News, Harris stressed support for Israel's right to self-defense, while being concerned for the safety of civilians.

"Israel, without any question, has a right to defend itself. That being said, it is very important that there be no conflation between Hamas and the Palestinians."

She indicated that the Palestinians deserve equal measures of "safety and security, self-determination and dignity, and we have been very clear that the rules of war must be adhered to and that there be humanitarian aid that flows."

Farther than Gaza

Biden's frequent phone calls with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and repeated statements from the Pentagon and US Central Command suggest that the discussions focus on the developments in Gaza and the release of hostages.

The talks also address measures to prevent the war from expanding to other regions and ensure the situation does not implode in the West Bank and the occupied Palestinian territories.

They also want to prevent it from spilling into Lebanon, where the intensity of clashes is increasing between Hezbollah and Israel, and towards Syria. The war could also have severe threats to regional security due to Iran's active role in arming and financing groups loyal to it.

Asked by CBS about the message to Iran, Harris echoed Biden's warnings when he said, "Don't."

"Exactly. One word. Pretty straightforward."

Does this mean the US would return to fill the strategic vacuum it created after retreating from the geopolitical map of the Middle East?

Secret base?

The matter goes beyond sending two aircraft carriers and deploying thousands of US soldiers around Israel.

Two months before the Hamas attack, the Pentagon awarded a multimillion-dollar contract to build US troop facilities for a secret base on top of Mt. Har Qeren, deep in the Negev desert, only about 35 kilometers from Gaza.

The old base, code-named "Site 512," is a radar facility that monitors the skies for missile attacks on Israel.

However, according to the Intercept website, the facility did not detect the launch of thousands of rockets from Gaza toward Israel on Oct. 7 because its radars focused on Iran, more than 1,100 kilometers away.

The Pentagon indirectly referred to a $35.8 million contract for the facility in an announcement on Aug. 2.

The Intercept pointed out that although the Defense Department made great efforts to obscure the true nature of the site, described as a "classified worldwide" project, budget documents showed that it was part of Site 512.

Paul Pillar, a former senior analyst at the CIA's counterterrorism center, said that sometimes something is treated as an official secret, not hoping the adversary would never discover it, but because the US government does not want to acknowledge it officially.

"In this case, perhaps the base will be used to support operations elsewhere in the Middle East in which any acknowledgment that they were staged from Israel or involved any cooperation with Israel would be inconvenient and likely to elicit more negative reactions than the operations otherwise would elicit," he told the Intercept.

Rare acknowledgement

Rare acknowledgment of the US military presence in Israel came in 2017 when the two countries inaugurated a military site.

The US government-funded Voice of America described the site as "the first US military base on Israeli soil."

At the time, Israeli Air Force's Brig. Gen. Tzvika Haimovitch said it was "historic."

He said: "We established a US base in the State of Israel, in the Israel Defense Forces, for the first time."

A day later, the US military denied that it was an American base, insisting that it was merely a "living facility" for US service members working at an Israeli base.

Strike forces

The facility can house as many as 1,000 troops. However, it wasn't established to contend with a threat to Israel from Palestinian militants, but the danger posed by Iranian mid-range missiles.

The growing security concerns have prompted the Pentagon to significantly expand its presence in the Middle East, with the US doubling the number of fighter jets in the region and deploying two aircraft carriers off the coast of Israel.

The first is the USS Gerald Ford, which includes about 5,000 Marines and a group of accompanying warships, including at least a missile cruiser, two destroyers, and dozens of aircraft, including jet fighters.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin also directed another aircraft carrier, the USS Dwight Eisenhower, and its escorts to make the transit to the Mediterranean, in addition to the amphibious assault ship USS Bataan, which carries personnel from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit.

The Pentagon announced it was sending 900 troops of rapid intervention units "intended to support regional deterrence efforts and further bolster US force protection capabilities," according to Pentagon Press Secretary Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder.

Which role?

US defense officials stressed that the deployment readiness order states that the forces are not intended to serve in combat roles, but are assigned to tasks such as providing "intelligence and planning" and medical support.

Officials said some may enter Israel to support its forces, noting that Washington dispatched three generals, who led the fight against ISIS to provide advice.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is accelerating the deployment of about a dozen missile defense systems in the region to protect US forces from missiles and other attacks.

In addition, the US military support to Israel includes an increase in ammunition and missiles for the Israeli Iron Dome.

The White House also asked Congress for $14 billion to support Israel, most of it for weapons. The Israeli army already receives significant military aid, amounting to $3.8 billion annually, with $1 billion from direct arms sales.

Most Viewed

 
 
Features

Seif al-Islam al-Gadhafi: Why Shouldn’t I Trust Them?

Seif al-Islam al-Gadhafi speaks during a news conference in Tripoli on Aug. 4, 2010 (EPA)
Seif al-Islam al-Gadhafi speaks during a news conference in Tripoli on Aug. 4, 2010 (EPA)
TT
TT

Seif al-Islam al-Gadhafi: Why Shouldn’t I Trust Them?

Seif al-Islam al-Gadhafi speaks during a news conference in Tripoli on Aug. 4, 2010 (EPA)
Seif al-Islam al-Gadhafi speaks during a news conference in Tripoli on Aug. 4, 2010 (EPA)

“Why shouldn’t I trust them?” That was Seif al-Islam al-Gadhafi’s blunt reply when asked why he had placed his confidence in Islamist prisoners held in his father’s jails in Libya, men he was negotiating to release.

He then set out, at length, the logic behind his gamble. He said the Islamists had admitted that taking up arms against the Libyan state had been a mistake, and that building “Tomorrow’s Libya” required the participation of all Libyans.

He added that those he had negotiated with and freed had proven worthy of trust and would not return to violence.

Seif spoke during a meeting with him during one of his visits to London in the late 1990s or early 2000s. At the time, he was focused on emptying his father’s prisons of members of Islamist groups, including leaders of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

That group had waged a guerrilla war in the mid-1990s to overthrow the regime and had nearly succeeded in assassinating Moammar al-Gadhafi.

Libyan security forces eventually defeated it in the late 1990s. Some of the group’s leaders had been imprisoned in Libya for many years, while others were handed over to al-Gadhafi by the United States during the “war on terror” targeting groups based in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

My question to Seif al-Islam al-Gadhafi about “trust” was rooted in my awareness that there was a current within his father’s regime, which included at least one of his brothers, that was leading a campaign entirely opposed to what Seif was pursuing.

Those holding the opposing view argued that Seif was making a mistake by trusting that those he was releasing would not revolt again when the opportunity arose.

At the time, a senior security official responsible for detaining leaders of the Islamic Fighting Group said, “They will not leave except over my dead body,” in a direct challenge to Seif, believing that the elder al-Gadhafi shared his view rather than that of his son, regarding those the regime referred to as “heretics.”

In any case, Seif’s opponents failed to stop his efforts. Leaders of the Islamic Fighting Group agreed to issue what became known as the “revisions,” in which they declared armed action against ruling regimes in Islamic countries to be forbidden and condemned many practices attributed to al-Qaeda and other groups influenced by its ideology.

Ultimately, it was Moammar al-Gadhafi who settled the matter, siding with what Seif wanted. At the time, Seif was being promoted as a potential successor to his father.

When the February 2011 uprising erupted in Libya, Seif was among those most criticized by people around his father for his “trust in Islamists.” Some of those released were among the first to take up arms and join the rebels.

This, it was said at the time, prompted Seif to adopt a hardline stance against his father’s opponents in his well-known speech at Bab al-Aziziya in Tripoli in the early days of the uprising.

In reality, Seif’s relationship with his brothers had long been the subject of rumors and quiet speculation in the years before the fall of his father’s regime.

Talk circulated of deep disagreements between Seif and his brother Mutassim, who was killed alongside their father in Sirte in 2011. When asked about this, Seif's response suggested a degree of self-assurance.

He spoke with satisfaction about how hard the Americans were trying, but how little they understood about what was really going on between him and his brothers. He did not deny the existence of differences, but his answer suggested that the family ultimately remained united under their father.

Seif was a frequent visitor to London at the time.

He was reaping the results of efforts by Libyan negotiators working to resolve cases in which his father’s regime had been implicated.

These included the Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, the bombing of a French UTA airliner in 1989, and the case of the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor accused of infecting children at a Benghazi hospital with HIV.

Seif’s efforts succeeded in settling most of those cases, which involved compensation totaling millions of dollars. But his work was bound to collide eventually with the reality that he was trying to present a different image of Libya from the one shaped by his father’s rule.

That was the focus of a question he was asked during a public event before an audience of students at a London college. He replied, “I don’t like this question.”

Features

Who Is Behind the Killing of Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, and Why Now?

11 February 2008, Berlin: Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, son of then Libya's leader Moammar Gadhafi, arrives at the charity gala "Cinema for Peace" at the Konzerthaus am Gendarmenmarkt. (dpa)
11 February 2008, Berlin: Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, son of then Libya's leader Moammar Gadhafi, arrives at the charity gala "Cinema for Peace" at the Konzerthaus am Gendarmenmarkt. (dpa)
TT
TT

Who Is Behind the Killing of Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, and Why Now?

11 February 2008, Berlin: Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, son of then Libya's leader Moammar Gadhafi, arrives at the charity gala "Cinema for Peace" at the Konzerthaus am Gendarmenmarkt. (dpa)
11 February 2008, Berlin: Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, son of then Libya's leader Moammar Gadhafi, arrives at the charity gala "Cinema for Peace" at the Konzerthaus am Gendarmenmarkt. (dpa)

Seif al-Islam, the son of Libya's slain longtime ruler Moammar al-Gadhafi and once seen by some as his likely heir, has been killed.

Targeted by a warrant from the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity, and still a player in Libya's turbulent political scene, the 53-year-old was no stranger to violence.

But his sudden assassination has raised many questions:

- Who is behind it? -

Very little has emerged about the identity or motives of the assailants.

Seif al-Islam's lawyer, Marcel Ceccaldi, told AFP he was killed by an unidentified "four-man commando" who stormed his house on Tuesday afternoon in the city of Zintan, western Libya.

His adviser, Abdullah Othman Abdurrahim, told Libyan media the four unidentified men had stormed the home before "disabling surveillance cameras, then executed him".

Libyan prosecutors said Wednesday they were probing the killing after establishing that "the victim died from wounds by gunfire".

- Why now? -

Claudia Gazzini, a senior Libya analyst at International Crisis Group, described the timing of Seif al-Islam's death as "odd".

"He had been living a relatively quiet life away from the public eye for many years now," she told AFP.

Seif al-Islam had announced his bid to run for president in 2021. Those elections were indefinitely postponed, and he had barely made any major public appearances since.

His whereabouts had been largely unknown. Aside from a small inner circle -- and probably the Libyan authorities -- few people knew he lived in Zintan.

Ceccaldi said "he often moved around" but "had been in Zintan for quite some time".

Anas El Gomati, head of the Tripoli-based Sadeq Institute think tank, said the timing was "stark".

Libya is divided between the Tripoli-based Government of National Unity and its rival administration in the east.

- What Seif al-Islam represented -

Experts differ over the extent of Seif al-Islam's political influence. But there is broad agreement on his symbolic weight as the most prominent remaining figure associated with pre-2011 Libya.

" Seif al-Islam had become a cumbersome actor" in Libyan politics after announcing his bid for office in 2021, said Hasni Abidi, director of the Geneva-based Centre for Studies and Research on the Arab and Mediterranean World.

His killing "benefits all political actors" currently competing for power in the North African country, Abidi said.

For Gomati, his death "eliminates Libya's last viable spoiler to the current power structure".

"He wasn't a democrat or reformer, but he represented an alternative that threatened” current powers, Gomati added. "The pro-Gadhafi nostalgia bloc now has no credible leader."

Libya expert Jalel Harchaoui offered a more cautious assessment, saying Seif al-Islam's death was "no major upheaval".

"He was not at the head of a unified, cohesive bloc exerting real weight in the competition for power, rivalries, or the allocation of territory or wealth," Harchaoui explained.

Still, "he could have played a decisive role under specific circumstances," Harchaoui said, arguing that his mere name on a presidential ballot would have had a substantial impact.

- How has the public reacted? -

Among the public, speculation is rife.

Some have suggested the involvement of a local Zintan-based armed group that may no longer have wanted Seif al-Islam on its territory.

Others suspect foreign forces may have been involved.

"The operation's sophistication -- four operatives, inside access, cameras disabled -- suggests foreign intelligence involvement, not militia action," said Gomati.

 

Features

The Last US-Russian Nuclear Pact Is About to Expire, Ending a Half-Century of Arms Control

This photo released by the US Air Force shows a B-52H Stratofortress approaching a KC-10 Extender for refueling over the Middle East, Sept. 4, 2022. (US Air Force/Staff Sgt. Shannon Bowman, via AP, File)
This photo released by the US Air Force shows a B-52H Stratofortress approaching a KC-10 Extender for refueling over the Middle East, Sept. 4, 2022. (US Air Force/Staff Sgt. Shannon Bowman, via AP, File)
TT
TT

The Last US-Russian Nuclear Pact Is About to Expire, Ending a Half-Century of Arms Control

This photo released by the US Air Force shows a B-52H Stratofortress approaching a KC-10 Extender for refueling over the Middle East, Sept. 4, 2022. (US Air Force/Staff Sgt. Shannon Bowman, via AP, File)
This photo released by the US Air Force shows a B-52H Stratofortress approaching a KC-10 Extender for refueling over the Middle East, Sept. 4, 2022. (US Air Force/Staff Sgt. Shannon Bowman, via AP, File)

The last remaining nuclear arms pact between Russia and the United States is set to expire Thursday, removing any caps on the two largest atomic arsenals for the first time in more than a half-century.

The termination of the New START Treaty would set the stage for what many fear could be an unconstrained nuclear arms race.

Russian President Vladimir Putin declared readiness to stick to the treaty’s limits for another year if Washington follows suit, but President Donald Trump has been noncommittal about extending it.

Trump has repeatedly indicated he would like to keep limits on nuclear weapons and involve China in arms control talks, a White House official who was not authorized to talk publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity said Monday. Trump will make a decision on nuclear arms control “on his own timeline,” the official said.

Beijing has balked at any restrictions on its smaller but growing nuclear arsenal.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Tuesday it would be a “more dangerous” world without limits on US and Russian nuclear stockpiles.

Arms control advocates long have voiced concern about the expiration of New START, warning it could lead to a new Russia-US arms race, foment global instability and increase the risk of nuclear conflict.

Failure to agree on keeping the pact’s limits will likely encourage a bigger deployment, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington.

“We’re at the point now where the two sides could, with the expiration of this treaty, for the first time in about 35 years, increase the number of nuclear weapons that are deployed on each side,” Kimball told The Associated Press. “And this would open up the possibility of an unconstrained, dangerous three-way arms race, not just between the US and Russia, but also involving China, which is also increasing its smaller but still deadly nuclear arsenal.”

Kingston Reif of the RAND Corporation, a former US deputy assistant secretary of defense, also warned during an online discussion that “in the absence of the predictability of the treaty, each side could be incentivized to plan for the worst or to increase their deployed arsenals to show toughness and resolve, or to search for negotiating leverage.”

Putin repeatedly has brandished Russia’s nuclear might since sending troops into Ukraine in February 2022, warning Moscow was prepared to use “all means” to protect its security interests. In 2024, he signed a revised nuclear doctrine lowering the threshold for nuclear weapons use.

Signed in 2010 New START, signed in 2010 by US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, restricted each side to no more than 1,550 nuclear warheads on no more than 700 missiles and bombers — deployed and ready for use. It was originally supposed to expire in 2021 but was extended for five more years.

The pact envisioned sweeping on-site inspections to verify compliance, although they stopped in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic and never resumed.

In February 2023, Putin suspended Moscow’s participation, saying Russia couldn’t allow US inspections of its nuclear sites at a time when Washington and its NATO allies have openly declared Moscow’s defeat in Ukraine as their goal. At the same time, the Kremlin emphasized it wasn’t withdrawing from the pact altogether, pledging to respect its caps on nuclear weapons.

In offering in September to abide by New START’s limits for a year to buy time for both sides to negotiate a successor agreement, Putin said the pact's expiration would be destabilizing and could fuel nuclear proliferation.

Rose Gottemoeller, the chief US negotiator for pact and a former NATO deputy secretary-general, said extending it would have served US interests. “A one-year extension of New START limits would not prejudice any of the vital steps that the United States is taking to respond to the Chinese nuclear buildup,” she told an online discussion last month.

Previous pacts

New START followed a long succession of US-Russian nuclear arms reduction pacts, starting with SALT I in 1972 signed by US President Richard Nixon and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev — the first attempt to limit their arsenals.

The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty restricted the countries’ missile defense systems until President George W. Bush took the US out of the pact in 2001 despite Moscow’s warnings.

The Kremlin has described Washington’s efforts to build a missile shield as a major threat, arguing it would erode Russia’s nuclear deterrent by giving the US the capability to shoot down its intercontinental ballistic missiles.

As a response to the US missile shield, Putin ordered the development of the Burevestnik nuclear-tipped and nuclear-powered cruise missile and the Poseidon nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered underwater drone. Russia said last year it successfully tested the Poseidon and the Burevestnik and was preparing their deployment.

Also terminated in 2019 was the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which was signed in 1987 and banned land-based missiles with a range between 500-5,500 kilometers (310-3,400 miles). Those missiles were seen as particularly destabilizing because of their short flight time to their targets, leaving only minutes to decide on a retaliatory strike and increasing the threat of a nuclear war on a false warning.

In November 2024 and again last month, Russia attacked Ukraine with a conventional version of its new Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile. Moscow says it has a range of up to 5,000 kilometers (3,100 miles), capable of reaching any European target, with either nuclear or conventional warheads.

Trump's ‘Golden Dome’

Without agreements limiting nuclear arsenals, Russia “will promptly and firmly fend off any new threats to our security,” said Medvedev, who had signed the New START treaty and is now deputy head of Putin's Security Council.

“If we are not heard, we act proportionately seeking to restore parity,” he said in recent remarks.

Medvedev specifically mentioned Trump's proposed Golden Dome missile defense system among potentially destabilizing moves, emphasizing a close link between offensive and defensive strategic weapons.

Trump’s plan has worried Russia and China, Kimball said.

“They’re likely going to respond to Golden Dome by building up the number of offensive weapons they have to overwhelm the system and make sure that they have the potential to retaliate with nuclear weapons,” he said, adding that offensive capabilities can be built faster and cheaper than defensive ones.

Trump’s October statement about US intentions to resume nuclear tests for the first time since 1992 also troubled the Kremlin, which last conducted a test in 1990 when the USSR still existed. Putin said Russia will respond in kind if the US resumes tests, which are banned by a global treaty that Moscow and Washington signed.

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in November that such tests would not include nuclear explosions.

Kimball said a US resumption of tests “would blow a massive hole in the global system to reduce nuclear risk,” prompting Russia to respond in kind and tempting others, including China and India, to follow suit.

The world was heading toward accelerated strategic competition, he said, with more spending and increasingly unstable relations involving the US, Russia, and China on nuclear matters.

“This marks a potential turning point into a much more dangerous period of global nuclear competition, the likes of which we’ve not seen in our lifetimes,” Kimball added.