Abbas Ibrahim … The Eyes and Ears of the Lebanese State

Lebanese General Security chief Major General Abbas Ibrahim. (NNA)
Lebanese General Security chief Major General Abbas Ibrahim. (NNA)
TT

Abbas Ibrahim … The Eyes and Ears of the Lebanese State

Lebanese General Security chief Major General Abbas Ibrahim. (NNA)
Lebanese General Security chief Major General Abbas Ibrahim. (NNA)

In the few years that followed his appointment as general director of the Lebanese General Security, Major General Abbas Ibrahim managed to prove himself to be a major sponsor of successful internal and foreign mediations, especially in regards to the fierce war his agency is waging against terrorist groups. He has, at the same time, managed to persuade these groups to accept deals, taking advantage of their ambitions and fears.

Ibrahim’s name rose to prominence in successful swap deals with terror groups where he played the role of “achieving the greatest possible gain, while paying the lowest possible price.” These prices were usually paid to the “pockets” of others, not the Lebanese state, which has never paid a dime in these deals that have involved its citizens and its territory.

Ibrahim’s special ties with the contradictory sides have made him an acceptable negotiator and an in-demand mediator in several internal and foreign affairs.

Based on his position as head of the General Security, Ibrahim plays the role of the “eyes and ears of the state.” He is the president’s aide on security files and is also tasked with working on several sensitive affairs, whether through special appointment or through the nature of his work. The reality on the ground however sees him playing a central role in combating terrorist groups through the General Security, which is working at a remarkably effective rate, in cooperation with the other security agencies. He is also in charge of the Palestinian and Syrian files in Lebanon, as well as the administrative role his institution plays in managing foreigners in Lebanon, whether they are artists, expatriates or terror groups.

Some believe that since his appointment to his post in July 2011, Ibrahim succeeded in avoiding being politically affiliated to a certain party. He stayed close to the side that named him – AMAL and “Hezbollah” that appoint all Shi’ite public employees to their posts – while convincing their rivals of his centrist mediator role. This therefor enabled him to maintain his position at a distance from the rival parties in Lebanon, giving himself ample room to maneuver to fulfill his security-political role.

Despite all this, Ibrahim has had his fair share of criticism from both rival parties, whether in his counter-terrorism duty that saw him work closely with the Syrian regime and “Hezbollah” or in his adherence to official institutions and accompanying the interior minister on visits and conferences.

As usual, Ibrahim treated each side with remarkable balance. On the one hand, he repeatedly hailed the role of the “resistance”, which shuts down his critics from the pro-”Hezbollah” camp, and on the other he also praised the official security institutions, which prevents the armed group’s rivals from going too far in criticizing him.

Those close to Ibrahim acknowledge the difficulty of the centrist role he is playing. Editor-in-chief of the “General Security” magazine Mounir Akiki said that Ibrahim has more than once “called on the Lebanese to steer clear of political disputes … stressing that all sides operate under the constitution and Taef Accord.” Lebanon unfortunately, lies in an arena of regional contradictions that affects everyone, but they are all ultimately bound to return to national principles, he noted.

At the General Security, Ibrahim sought to develop the agency and eliminate corruption, which he said usually comes from the head of an institution. If the leader lacks the necessary abilities to manage the institution, then it is doomed to fail.

Upon his appointment to his position, said Akiki, Ibrahim devised a set of programs and goals under the umbrella of the law and jurisdiction. This saw cooperation between the army, Internal Security Forces and State Security agency. Each one of them has its jurisdiction and duties under law. If all three work together properly, then a safe state can be established.

Syrian crisis

Ibrahim has also played a prominent role in mediations linked to the Syrian crisis. In 2012, a pro-Syrian opposition Lebanese group was ambushed by the regime and most of its members were killed. Ibrahim, after being tasked by the political authority, managed to contact the regime and return the corpses to their loved ones. A prisoner who had been captured by the regime was also released.

He played an even more important role after the abduction in Syria of a bus of Lebanese Shi’ites who were traveling from Iran to Lebanon. Here, Ibrahim used his ties with Turkish intelligence chief Hakan Fidan to work on releasing them. The mediation saw Ibrahim contact Turkey, Qatar and the Syrian regime to ensure their release.

Akiki attributed Ibrahim’s success in these deals to his belief in the importance of credibility, his official position and his personal relations. These factors allowed him to enter negotiations and continue with them. Ibrahim has not once made concessions at the expense of the Lebanese state, stressed Akiki.

“His smart negotiation skills, patience and knowledge of how the other side thinks, as well as the trust, credibility and direct ties that he enjoys, have built his success,” added Akiki.

He noted however that direct negotiations were never held with “terrorists”.

“I do not believe that he would accept to negotiate with them directly. There was a mediator tasked with relaying their conditions or demands to us and also relaying our own to them,” he explained.

Future ambition

Some say that Ibrahim is seeking to enter the political field in the future and that he is laying the foundation for it now. In his current role, he appears to be walking in the footsteps of Speaker Nabih Berri, who enjoys excellent ties with several main parties in Lebanon, as opposed to “Hezbollah”, which has a limited number of allies and several rivals.

On this speculation, Akiki said: “We need to wait five years (the end of Ibrahim’s term in office) to see if it will come true.”

Ibrahim says that he will be in the place where he will be able “to serve the most, which is what he is doing in his current post,” explained Akiki.

Profile

Abbas Ibrahim was born on March 2, 1959. He hails from the town of Kawthariyet al-Sayyad in southern Lebanon. He is married to Ghada Zeineddine and they have three children: Mohammed, Ali and Bilal.

He first enrolled in military school when he was 19 and he graduated three years later with the rank of lieutenant. Throughout the 1980s, he took part in several training courses in the military, culminating in an infantry course in the United States in 1989. This was followed by a computer course in 1996 to stay up to date with the electronic age. He also received advanced security training in the United Kingdom in 1998.

In 1989, Ibrahim was the personal bodyguard of Arab League envoy to Lebanon Lakhdar Brahimi. He was then appointed bodyguard to late President Elias al-Hrawi and remained in that post until 1992 when he was tasked with protecting then newly appointed Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. In 1994, he was appointed head of the counter-terrorism and espionage department at the intelligence directorate.

Between 2005 and 2008, Ibrahim was head of the intelligence bureau in the South, putting him on the frontlines of the unrest in the Palestinian refugee camp of Ain el-Hilweh and all of its complications. He has successfully dealt with this thorny issue, building special ties with the Palestinian leadership there, which he has since used to his advantage in his current post as head of General Security.

Commander of the Palestinian national security forces in Lebanon Sobhi Abou Arab told Asharq Al-Awsat that Ibrahim “was the first Lebanese official to enter the refugee camps and meet with all sides, including popular, organized and Islamic factions. He was the first to initiate contact out of his keenness on security and stability.” Abou Arab hailed Ibrahim’s calm approach, as well as his negotiation skills and diplomatic abilities.

Two years after his appointment as General Security chief in 2011, Ibrahim declared that he had remained at an equal distance from all sides and that he had sought to serve all citizens away from sectarian disputes. This was proven true, garnering him the trust of all sides, who have put their faith in him with the county’s most difficult and complicated files.



China Missile Test Deepens Pacific Divide Over Growing Militarization

The headquarters for the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Fiji, August 7, 2026. (Reuters)
The headquarters for the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Fiji, August 7, 2026. (Reuters)
TT

China Missile Test Deepens Pacific Divide Over Growing Militarization

The headquarters for the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Fiji, August 7, 2026. (Reuters)
The headquarters for the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Fiji, August 7, 2026. (Reuters)

China's test of a nuclear-capable missile last month has exposed the limits of Pacific leaders' ambition to make the region an "Ocean of Peace", free from the crossfire of major-power rivalry.

The July launch, China's first known ballistic-missile test into the Pacific since September 2024, was fired into the Pacific just hours after Fiji and Australia signed a major defense treaty, marking Fiji's first ever alliance.

More than a month after the test, Pacific Islands foreign ministers were unable to agree on a collective statement condemning Beijing's missile test, despite individual leaders expressing alarm, publicly and privately, about militarization of the region.

The test was "totally inappropriate", Papua New Guinea Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko told Reuters on the sidelines of the foreign ministers' meeting in Suva last week.

"China is a very close friend and ally to Papua New Guinea, but we feel this doesn't help at all," he said, adding that Beijing had given PNG advance notice of the launch but no details on where ‌the missile would ‌land.

At the time of the launch, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said it was ‌conducted "safely", ⁠adding: "We hope relevant ⁠countries will not over-interpret the matter."

The missile launch capped a year of more visible military activity across the Pacific, which is fiercely contested between the US and China for influence. That has included Chinese naval deployments and live-fire drills in the Tasman Sea, US-allied exercises around Guam and Hawaii, and a steady flow of warship visits linked to expanding security partnerships.

The United States, meanwhile, retains a substantial military presence across the region, including in Hawaii, Guam and the Marshall Islands.

Tuvalu permanent foreign secretary Pasuna Tuaga, who was speaking in a personal capacity, was concerned about growing militarization, not only because of the missile test but also security arrangements such as the AUKUS partnership between Australia, ⁠Britain and the United States.

UNITED, BUT DIVIDED

In September 2025, Pacific Leaders endorsed the Ocean ‌of Peace Declaration, which committed to safeguard the region, recognized the right of the ‌people to peace, and resolved to contribute to and strengthen international peace and security.

David Peebles of the Australian National University's Pacific Security College said ‌Pacific countries had long resisted having peace and security defined by outside powers and their competing Indo-Pacific strategies. The Ocean ‌of Peace initiative was an attempt to reclaim that agenda, he said.

The regional declaration inspired the defense pact signed between Australia and Fiji last month, known as the Ocean of Peace Alliance.

Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade did not immediately respond to a request for comment on concerns that the growing number of regional security pacts could further militarize the Pacific.

For many governments, security partnerships bring benefits: surveillance against illegal fishing, ‌disaster response, policing support and access to equipment and training. But critics fear a proliferation of bilateral arrangements could leave Pacific countries with little say over how their territory, waters and infrastructure ⁠are used.

Solomon Islands Foreign Minister ⁠Rick Houenipwela, who chaired the talks in Suva, said the region's agenda must remain "conceived by the Pacific, shaped by the Pacific and only by the Pacific."

Yet by the end of the one-day meeting, no unified statement in response to the missile test had emerged.

Kiribati and Nauru, which have deepened ties with Beijing since switching diplomatic recognition from Taiwan in 2019 and 2024 respectively, did not support the statement's wording, according to an official familiar with the discussions.

New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters blamed foreign influence for the failure to reach consensus, without naming a country.

The impasse illustrates the central challenge facing these small island nations which have different economic, political and security interests.

In the northern Pacific, where the US has maintained a military presence for decades, some governments want deeper security engagement with the US while others remain wary.

Fiji Foreign Minister Sakiasi Ditoka said Pacific governments faced an unavoidable tension.

Countries wanted "to be free of all these war-making paraphernalia," he said, but also recognized that some security capabilities helped keep them safe. "I believe it's maintaining that balance."

Fiji for the first time participated last month in US-led war games in the Pacific known as RIMPAC.

Pacific leaders will meet in Palau in three weeks for the Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting, where the missile test and regional unity are expected to return to the agenda.


One year after Putin-Trump Summit, 'Spirit of Anchorage' Dissipated

FILE - US President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin, Aug. 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)
FILE - US President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin, Aug. 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)
TT

One year after Putin-Trump Summit, 'Spirit of Anchorage' Dissipated

FILE - US President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin, Aug. 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)
FILE - US President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin, Aug. 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)

In the year since Donald Trump hosted Vladimir Putin on US soil for a summit designed to broker an end to Russia's offensive on Ukraine, the diplomatic initiative has fizzled out and the conflict has escalated.

For months, Russian officials talked up the "spirit of Anchorage" -- a supposed climate of detente, renewed dialogue with Washington and a framework for finding a way out of the deadliest European conflict since World War II, said AFP.

Now there are few traces of that atmosphere. US mediation efforts are at a standstill, both Russia and Ukraine are ramping up attacks and more civilians are being killed than at any point since the first months of the war.

- 'Ending the war'-

On August 15, 2025, Trump broke with the West's policy of isolating Putin, rolling out the red carpet as the Kremlin chief stepped off his plane at the Elmendorf-Richardson air base in Alaska.

It remains unclear what was decided or discussed behind closed doors.

Russia has always maintained some kind of understanding on a peace deal was struck -- "a compromise proposal", as Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called it.

Washington has rebuffed any talk of a deal being reached.

"There was a proposal in Alaska, but there was no agreement. If there had been an agreement, we would have had an end of the war," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in June.

Moscow had hoped the summit would lay the foundations for a "lasting peace" by addressing what it calls the "root causes" of the conflict, said political analyst Sergei Markov -- designated a "foreign agent" but still close to the Russian authorities.

For years -- including right before launching its offensive in February 2022 -- Russia has called for a new overarching security deal with the United States over Europe, NATO and arms control.

The "compromise" Russia tabled in Alaska, Markov told AFP, was to limit its territorial claims on Ukraine to the eastern Donbas region in exchange for recognition of Russia's new borders by Washington and the lifting of sanctions.

- Disenchantment -

Those Russian demands were included in a 28-point document drafted by the United States -- later cut down to 19 -- after separate negotiations with Kyiv and Moscow.

The document was never published officially and never came to fruition.

US-brokered direct talks between Russia and Ukraine in early 2026 broke down, chiefly over the issue of territory.

Ukraine refuses to cede land it still controls and wants an immediate ceasefire along the current front line, with territorial status to be decided during fuller peace talks.

And since late February, Washington's attention has been consumed by the war on Iran.

Trump has since issued fresh sanctions on Russia and the last remaining nuclear arms control agreement -- New Start -- has been allowed to lapse.

Having once sensed a window of opportunity to press its demands and been at pains to praise Trump's efforts, Russia has lately allowed itself to publicly question Washington's commitment to diplomacy.

"I don't even want to imagine that Alaska ... was conceived to gain time in order to strengthen Ukraine militarily," Lavrov said in June.

A meeting between Lavrov and Rubio in Manila in July -- their first since September 2025 -- lasted only around 30 minutes.

"We'll have to find new suggestions and new ideas" that both "Russia and Ukraine can agree to," Rubio said after that meeting.

"That's going to require a lot of work," he added.

- Escalation -

The two sides' conditions for peace are irreconcilable.

Russia demands territory alongside political and military concessions that Ukraine rejects as capitulation.

At the same time, both are convinced force can improve their negotiating position.

"The Russian armed forces will continue their mission to liberate the Donbas and Novorossiya in line with the approved plan," Russia's army chief Valery Gerasimov told Putin in a televised meeting in early July -- referring to land stretching across eastern and southern Ukraine.

Buoyed by European support, Kyiv is banking on its long-range strike campaign to tip Russia's economy and society over the edge.

Its attacks triggered a nationwide fuel crisis over the summer, and have forced Moscow-installed authorities to put the annexed Crimean peninsula under a local "state of emergency".

Russia has upped its missile attacks on Kyiv, killing dozens there in recent weeks.

It has also brought Ukrainian exports through the Black Sea to a standstill through a campaign of port and ship strikes.

"The spirit of Anchorage has dissipated," said Russian political analyst Fyodor Lukyanov -- close to the ruling elite -- in August.

The result? "Brutal escalation."


Pleasing No One: Netanyahu Puts Election First with Gaza Decision

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference in Jerusalem on March 19, 2026. (AFP)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference in Jerusalem on March 19, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Pleasing No One: Netanyahu Puts Election First with Gaza Decision

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference in Jerusalem on March 19, 2026. (AFP)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference in Jerusalem on March 19, 2026. (AFP)

Faced with a divisive US-led Gaza plan just before elections that could end his career, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had to choose between pleasing his ally Donald Trump or his right-wing base.

In rejecting the plan, he may not please anyone.

The decision is a tactical and PR victory for Hamas, analysts say, with the movement publicly backing the deal under which it would disarm, without taking any steps yet to do so.

Netanyahu, who has built his decades-long career on hawkish security positions, had voiced concerns but softly after the US president on July 30 hailed what he called the historic milestone on ending the Gaza war.

He finally rejected the plan Sunday during a cabinet meeting after pushback from the far-right, which strongly opposes the 15-point deal that would see Israel eventually withdraw troops from much of Gaza.

Netanyahu, Israel's longest-serving prime minister, is by nature "a procrastinator" and is struggling to secure the trust of the hard-right ahead of the October 27 vote, said Yossi Mekelberg, an expert on Israeli politics at London-based think tank Chatham House.

Netanyahu's calculation is to dissuade votes for the opposition by creating the impression that he is "still the only bastion of power that will stop Hamas", Mekelberg said.

"Netanyahu knows that falling out with Trump doesn't serve him or Israel. On the other hand, he knows the minute that he agrees to the 15 points, he would be attacked not only by the right wing, but that some opposition parties will attack him, too," he said.

"He's trying to appease everyone. At the end of the day, he will be appeasing no one."

- Cooperating despite rejection -

Israel will be voting for the first time since the trauma of Hamas's October 7, 2023, attack, the deadliest ever against Israel, which retaliated with an overwhelming offensive in Gaza.

Despite Netanyahu's public rejection of Trump's plan, Israel in practice appears to be complying with a key part of it. Israel has stopped air strikes since August 3, although Gaza authorities report periodic Israeli gunfire.

"These strikes could be resumed and even intensified at any time. It is one of the cards Israel can maneuver with," said Ehud Eilam, a former analyst at Israel's defense ministry.

He noted that Israel had not succeeded in its goal of completely destroying Hamas after October 7.

"Therefore, Israel at least seeks to disarm Hamas, which is also a very difficult task," Eilam said.

"Hamas will anyway refuse to completely disarm, and for now can continue to use Netanyahu as an excuse to avoid or at least slow down this process," he said.

Netanyahu had long campaigned on his close rapport with Trump, who has taken unprecedented steps such as moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and joining Israel in attacking Iran.

But Trump's popularity in Israel took a nosedive in April when he called a ceasefire with Iran and sought a settlement, seeing the Middle East war as politically and economically damaging.

Netanyahu could be willing to take some steps forward on Gaza to please Trump in return for new US action against Iran, Eilam said.

"For Netanyahu, the Gaza Strip, and Lebanon too for that matter, are not the most urgent concerns; Iran is," he said.

- Tactical win for Hamas -

Hamas publicly backed the disarmament agreement shortly after it chose a new leader, Khalil al-Hayya.

"I think Hamas, from the get-go, did this for tactical reasons," said Ghaith al-Omari, a former Palestinian Authority official who is now a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

He said that Hamas wanted to be seen as a "reasonable actor" -- and that Netanyahu's rejection worked in its favor.

"What this does is actually give Hamas and mediators reason to say, look, Hamas has committed, Israel has not committed -- the ball is in Israel's court," he said.

"It lets the pressure off Hamas."