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.



Iraq Fish Die-off Leaves Farmers Mourning Lost Livelihoods

An Iraqi fish farmer stands over dead fish floating in a tank at his farm in the town of Zubaydiya, near the city of Kut in southern Iraq on April 14, 2026. (AFP)
An Iraqi fish farmer stands over dead fish floating in a tank at his farm in the town of Zubaydiya, near the city of Kut in southern Iraq on April 14, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Iraq Fish Die-off Leaves Farmers Mourning Lost Livelihoods

An Iraqi fish farmer stands over dead fish floating in a tank at his farm in the town of Zubaydiya, near the city of Kut in southern Iraq on April 14, 2026. (AFP)
An Iraqi fish farmer stands over dead fish floating in a tank at his farm in the town of Zubaydiya, near the city of Kut in southern Iraq on April 14, 2026. (AFP)

On the banks of Iraq's Tigris River, Haidar Kazem mourned 300 tons of the fish he had carefully raised in ponds wiped out by a flood of polluted water.

Water supplies in Iraq, the eastern half of what is known as the region's fertile crescent and which the United Nations ranks among the countries most affected by climate change, are in a dire state.

"In just two hours, my entire project was gone -- fish I had spent a year-and-a-half raising. I am back to zero," the 43-year-old fish farmer told AFP.

Earlier this month, after yet another very dry season, a brief spate of rain led authorities to open the gates of the Hamrin Dam, sending water into the Diyala, a tributary that is choked with untreated sewage.

The flood then swept the contaminated water into the larger Tigris, and the pollution was so severe that it was visible in satellite images.

Images from Copernicus Sentinel analyzed by AFP show that, following the late-March rainfall, a noticeably dark stream flows from Diyala to the Tigris throughout the period from March 28 to April 12.

"No one told us that polluted water was headed our way," Kazem said, adding that the contaminated stream reached his ponds on April 5, killed all his fish and caused losses exceeding a million dollars.

Kazem buried his stock -- carp for Iraq's beloved grilled dish masguf -- and now spends his days cleaning their floating cages on the banks of the Tigris, haunted by the question: how will he save his livelihood?

"I don't know any other trade, and I don't have the money to restart," he said.

- 1,000 tons -

Arkan al-Shimari, the head of the agriculture department in Kazem's province Wasit, said that the sewage stream has killed more than 1,000 tons of fish.

According to authorities, several water treatment plants discharge untreated sewage into the Diyala River, which years of drought in Iraq have left low and notorious for its foul odor.

Environmental open-source investigator Wim Zwijnenburg said that the Diyala consistently appears darker than the Tigris due to wastewater discharge, its low depth and weaker currents.

Normally, it would gradually mix into the Tigris, but this time heavy rain created a stronger current in Diyala, sending less-diluted polluted water into the Tigris, and "thus affecting downstream fisheries and potentially also water treatment plants".

As the situation worsened, authorities restricted water supply -- normally treated water from the Tigris -- in several areas of Wasit, reporting 20 documented cases of poisoning and rash.

Declining rain over recent years, coupled with rising temperatures, has brought water levels in the Tigris and Euphrates rivers to staggering lows, for which Baghdad also accuses upstream dams built by neighboring Türkiye and Iran.

- Black water -

Following the recent fish die-off, authorities vowed they would take the necessary measures to treat wastewater before discharge.

But decades of conflicts have left the country's infrastructure in a pitiful state and its water management systems in disrepair.

Iraq's new agency INA quoted a Baghdad official as saying that authorities will soon open seven more water treatment plants in the city.

In the town of al-Numaniyah, fish farmer Mazen Mansour, 51, gazed over the still water in his empty floating cages, which until recently held 38,000 fish he had been counting on selling next month.

Mansour said he did not realise polluted water had flooded the area until he saw his fish dying in the evening. He tried to save them by pumping air into his basins to provide oxygen, but it was too late.

"The water was black and filled with sewage," he said.

"All our work was gone in one night," added the father of four.

Now, he said, there is nothing he can do but wait and hope for compensation from the government.

"We urge the state to compensate us and hold those responsible accountable."


Why Iran’s ‘Mosquito Fleet’ Remains a Potent Threat in the Strait of Hormuz

Revolutionary Guard speedboats are seen during maneuvers in the Strait of Hormuz. (Tasnim)
Revolutionary Guard speedboats are seen during maneuvers in the Strait of Hormuz. (Tasnim)
TT

Why Iran’s ‘Mosquito Fleet’ Remains a Potent Threat in the Strait of Hormuz

Revolutionary Guard speedboats are seen during maneuvers in the Strait of Hormuz. (Tasnim)
Revolutionary Guard speedboats are seen during maneuvers in the Strait of Hormuz. (Tasnim)

Iranian warships sunk by US and Israeli attacks litter naval harbors along the Gulf coast, but what is sometimes called a “mosquito fleet” lurks in the shadows.

It is a flotilla of small, fast, agile boats designed to harass shipping, and it forms the heart of the naval forces deployed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, a force separate from Iran’s regular navy, reported the New York Times.

These boats, and especially the missiles and drones that the Guards navy can launch from them, or from camouflaged sites onshore, have been the main threat stymying shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran had vowed to keep the strait closed until there was a ceasefire in Lebanon. The ceasefire there took effect on Thursday. On Friday, senior Iranian officials made conflicting statements about whether that truce had prompted Iran to open the strait.

On Saturday, Iran’s military said the waterway had “returned to its previous state” and was “under strict management and control of the armed forces.”

Welcoming the initial Iranian announcement of the opening, US President Donald Trump pronounced the Hormuz situation “over,” while stressing on social media that the US blockade of Iranian ports would remain in place until a peace deal was reached.

The task of keeping the strait closed would fall to the Guards navy.

“The IRGC navy works more like a guerrilla force at sea,” said Saeid Golkar, an expert on the Guards and a political science professor at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.

“It is focused on asymmetrical warfare, especially in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz,” he added. “So instead of relying on big warships and classic naval battles, it depends on hit-and-run attacks.”

During the war, at least 20 vessels were attacked, according to the International Maritime Agency, a United Nations agency.

The Guards navy rarely claimed the attacks, which analysts said were most likely carried out by drones fired from mobile launchers on land, which generate a faint footprint, difficult to trace.

On April 8, after a two-week ceasefire in the war was announced, General Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said more than 90% of the regular navy’s fleet, including its main warships, sat at the bottom of the ocean.

An estimated half of the Guards navy’s fast attack boats were also sunk, Caine said, but did not specify how many. Estimates of the overall number range from hundreds to thousands — it is difficult to count them.

The boats are often too small to appear on satellite images, and they are moored along piers within deep caves excavated along the rocky coastline, ready to be deployed in minutes, analysts said. Their arsenal poses a major threat to commercial ships in the gulf and the strait.

“It remains a disruptive force,” said Admiral Gary Roughead, a retired chief of US Naval Operations. “You never quite knew what they were up to and what their intentions were.”

Stepping in where the regular navy couldn’t

The Guards land forces were formed soon after the 1979 revolution because its leader, Khomeini, did not trust the regular army to protect the new government.

The Guards navy was added around 1986. The regular navy had proved reluctant during the Iran-Iraq war to attack oil tankers from Iraq’s financial backers, said Farzin Nadimi, a specialist on the Guards navy at the Washington Institute, a policy think tank in the US capital.

Eventually those attacks ratcheted up, and the United States then deployed warships to escort tankers. One of them, the USS Samuel B Roberts, almost sank after hitting an Iranian mine. In a subsequent battle, the US Navy scuppered two Iranian frigates and a number of other naval vessels.

Three years later, the Iranians watched as the United States laid waste to the Iraqi military during the first Gulf war.

That combination of events convinced Iran that it could never prevail in a direct confrontation with the US military, so it developed a stealth force to harass ships in the gulf, Nadimi said.

The Guards navy has an estimated 50,000 men, he said, and divides its forces into five sectors along the Gulf, including some presence on many of the 38 Gulf islands that Iran controls.

Overall, it has constructed at least 10 well-hidden, fortified bases for attack boats. One, Farur, is the center of operations for the naval special forces, whose equipment, even their sunglasses, are modeled on their US counterparts.

“The IRGC navy has always believed that it is at the forefront of the confrontation with the ‘Great Satan’, and has been in constant friction with the Americans in the Gulf,” Nadimi said.

An arsenal of small, nimble boats

Iran started by using recreational boats mounted with rocket-propelled grenades or machine guns, naval analysts said.

Over the years, it built a range of specially designed small boats, as well as miniature submarines and marine drones. Iran claims that some of those boats can reach speeds of more than 100 knots, or 115 miles per hour, experts said.

The Guards navy also recently developed larger, more sophisticated warships, many of which were targeted in the war, said Alex Pape, the chief maritime expert at Janes, a defense analysis firm.

Those damaged included its largest drone carrier, the Shahid Bagheri, a converted container ship that could also launch anti-ship missiles.

To counter a potential swarm of smaller boats, US warships have high-caliber cannons and other weaponry, experts said. Commercial vessels, though, have no way to fend off such attacks.

But the Iranians have never tested swarm attacks of small boats in combat, said Nicholas Carl, an Iran expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank in Washington.

Since Trump on Monday imposed a naval blockade on ships traveling from Iranian ports, even the most powerful US warships are avoiding spending any time patrolling in the vicinity of the narrow Strait of Hormuz. There is little room to maneuver and almost no warning time to ward off a drone or a missile fired from nearby, experts said.

The US warships enforcing the blockade are likely to remain outside the strait, in the Gulf of Oman or even farther, in the Arabian Sea, where they can monitor shipping traffic but are far more difficult for the Guards to attack, experts said.

On Wednesday, Iran warned that it could expand operations into the Red Sea, another key shipping route in the region, through its proxy force in Yemen.

*Neil MacFarquhar for the New York Times


When Does Peace Become the Rule Rather than the Exception?

The United Nations needs structural reform (Photo by Reuters)
The United Nations needs structural reform (Photo by Reuters)
TT

When Does Peace Become the Rule Rather than the Exception?

The United Nations needs structural reform (Photo by Reuters)
The United Nations needs structural reform (Photo by Reuters)

It has become common among analysts to say that the world has entered a new global order, where the logic of “might makes right” has replaced the “power of right,” and the old rules-based international system has faded. International relations are increasingly managed through power and influence rather than consensus and multilateralism. This emerging order is shaped by empires of varying scale seeking to expand spheres of influence and sources of wealth through force, rather than relying on international agreements that place large and small states on equal footing.

 

It is widely understood that the primary goal of any cooperative global order is the pursuit of sustainable peace. In that regard, the Dutch philosopher of Portuguese origin Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) described peace as “not merely the absence of war but a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice.” Albert Einstein (1879–1955) stressed that “peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.” Since antiquity, Plato viewed the establishment of peace and friendship as the highest duty of both citizen and lawgiver, while Aristotle held that victory in war is not enough, and that the real objective is to secure peace. Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948) asserted that peace does not arise from armed conflict, but from justice upheld even in the face of challenges.

 

Peace as the exception

 

Against these perspectives, historical experience shows that peace has been the exception rather than the rule. Over roughly 3,500 to 5,000 years of recorded human history, the world has seen only about 230 to 268 years entirely free of major wars, less than 10 percent of its history. This indicates that conflict has been the dominant feature of human relations, both at the individual and collective levels.

 

A distinction must be made between the “international system” and the “global order.” The international system describes how the world functions in terms of actors, power, motives, and constraints. The global order, by contrast, is a political, institutional, and cultural structure formed through negotiation, cooperation, or even coercion, as occurred after the First and Second World Wars, each of which ended with victors and defeated parties. The global order is not fixed; it is the result of deliberate choices by active powers to organize and manage the world.

 

It is fair to say that the global order that emerged after the Second World War achieved notable successes. The likelihood of large-scale global wars declined, traditional empires with vast geographic reach came to an end, and levels of welfare and prosperity rose to unprecedented levels. The foundations of national sovereignty were also reinforced for many states, based on the principles associated with the Peace of Westphalia. However, this order no longer meets the demands of the profound transformations underway today. This helps explain the growing sense of crisis, the widespread global unease, and serious concern about the outbreak of a third world war carrying the risks of nuclear catastrophe.

 

Shifts and alternative models

 

In recent decades, influence across the globe has been redistributed, with the rise of new powers challenging Western dominance built on material wealth and scientific and technological advancement. Countries within the BRICS group, for example, are playing an increasingly influential economic and political role. This shift goes beyond the transfer of power; it also involves deep intellectual and cultural changes, as non-Western states seek to assert their identities and present alternative models of governance and development.

 

This phase, sometimes described as “post-Western,” presents major existential challenges for both the West and its competitors. It requires broader international cooperation, especially in addressing cross-border issues such as climate change, cybersecurity, migration, organized crime, and terrorism. Yet these shifts are not without tension. Rising powers are seeking to advance their interests, leading to friction with established powers, particularly in trade relations and sometimes in direct confrontations, complicating efforts to build a stable global balance.

 

The rise of nationalist and populist trends adds another layer of instability. These movements, by their nature, tend to question and undermine international cooperation while prioritizing narrow interests, weakening international institutions and threatening global stability. Regional conflicts and great-power competition, such as tensions between the United States and China, further intensify this fragmentation.

 

Another major challenge lies in balancing universal values with national particularities. International standards cannot be imposed unilaterally without regard for cultural and political diversity. As a result, constructive dialogue and flexible, network-based diplomacy, rather than rigid hierarchical structures, become essential to establishing common ground for building peace.

 

Strait of Hormuz is a theater for major conflict (Photo by Reuters)

 

A test of adaptation and cooperation

 

In sum, the current international system is undergoing a profound transformation shaped by the rise of new powers, the relative decline of Western influence, escalating conflicts, mounting global challenges, and intense competition for economic gains that strengthen position and safeguard sovereignty. The future of this system depends on the ability of international actors to adapt, cooperate, build new partnerships, and embrace multiple perspectives to understand the world’s complexity.

 

In this context, the emergence of alternative narratives should not be viewed as a threat but as an opportunity for a deeper understanding of a multipolar world. The international system now taking shape reflects a significant historical shift in which the West is no longer the sole center of power, but one among several.

 

The path toward a more complex and interconnected global order, where different models of governance coexist, is already taking form. Navigating this new reality requires innovative thinking and openness to change, while preserving the structures and institutions that have proven their value, foremost among them the United Nations, which requires structural reform to prevent decline. Ultimately, building a more just, peaceful, and sustainable world depends on a collective will capable of reconciling difference with cooperation.