Former Iraqi FM Comments on Amr Moussa’s Memoirs

Former Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa and former Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri Al-Hadithi in Baghdad, 2002 - Getty Images
Former Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa and former Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri Al-Hadithi in Baghdad, 2002 - Getty Images
TT

Former Iraqi FM Comments on Amr Moussa’s Memoirs

Former Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa and former Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri Al-Hadithi in Baghdad, 2002 - Getty Images
Former Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa and former Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri Al-Hadithi in Baghdad, 2002 - Getty Images

Former Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri al-Hadithi commented on the memoirs of former Secretary-General of the Arab League Amr Mouss that were published by Asharq Al-Awsat. Al-Hadithi clarifies in the below text a number of issues:

In the memoirs of the former Secretary-General of the Arab League Mr. Amr Moussa, published in your newspaper on Dec. 7, 2020, there were a number of misleading points regarding his visit to Iraq on January 18, 2002, and other matters related to the crisis in the relationship between Iraq and the United Nations at the time.

As I followed his visit from its beginning in New York and accompanied him until after his arrival in Baghdad, I would like to discuss the following points to clarify the truth:

First: In the memoirs, Mr. Moussa said that on his visit to New York to attend the General Assembly meetings, he met with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan, and stressed the need to make “a clear effort to prevent an imminent war on Iraq.”

“I will visit the Iraqi president in January, he told him. I want a message that I can convey to him on your behalf to resolve the position over the resumption of the work of international inspectors.” Moussa said that secretary-general approved the request.

After that, the memoirs quoted Mr. Moussa as saying: “I arranged with the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Naji Sabri Al-Hadithi, my visit to Iraq.” This means that he decided on the visit, set its subject and date, and then met with me to arrange it...

In fact, I met Mr. Amr Moussa on the sidelines of the General Assembly, and talked with him about the crisis of the relationship between Iraq and the United Nations, and about the urgent need to seek a peaceful political solution that guarantees the sovereignty of Iraq, the security of its people and its national interests. I explained to him our keenness to build a positive relationship with the United Nations Secretariat and its agencies operating in Iraq, and our efforts to resume dialogue, negotiation and interaction with them, as the first essential step on the road to resolving the crisis.

I felt that he understood and supported our direction. So I suggested that the Arab League have a role in this endeavor. He showed willingness to do so. Here, I proposed that he visits Iraq to confirm this willingness. I told him it would provide a symbolic and effective evidence of the Arab League’s solidarity with the Iraqi people in the face of the siege and the continuous aggression against the country. He agreed, and an official invitation was sent to him at once. He contacted me after his return to Cairo to schedule the date of the visit. We set the visit on Jan. 18, 2002.

Therefore, Mr. Moussa’s visit to Iraq was my idea. He had no idea about it before our meeting. Moreover, it’s the first time that I hear that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has sent a message to the President of the Republic of Iraq through Mr. Amr Moussa. I don’t know how the person who wrote the memoirs (and I am not pointing to Mr. Moussa) has missed that the head of any international organization does not send messages to countries through people from outside his organization, let alone the head of the largest international organization in the world.

Second: The memoirs recount how Mr. Moussa went the next day to meet President Saddam Hussein, saying that he moved from his residence to a “military headquarters” and then to “a military unit headquarters”, providing a dramatic description of the president’s secretary...

In fact, Mr. Moussa, his assistants and I met at the National Council building in Karada Mariam before going to the place of the meeting with the president. Then the president’s secretary, Lieutenant General Abdel Hammoud, came and escorted us in his car to one of the presidential palaces in the Radwaniyah area. The National Council building is not a military barracks, as mentioned in the memoirs, but rather a large building with a beautiful classic urban style located on the Tigris River, less than 200 meters from the Republican Palace. It includes civilian offices of the Presidency of the Republic. It is usual for the building to be protected by an external fence, and for its external entrance gate to be guarded by a few security guards, like any building belonging to the Presidency of the State in any country in the world.

Third: The memoirs give a different version of the meeting with President Saddam Hussein. It claimed that Mr. Moussa was furious and talked to President Saddam in a tone as if he were shouting at him, and that the President addressed him with the title of Doctor… etc.! Everything that was mentioned about the meeting is absolutely untrue. The meeting began with Mr. Moussa’s talk about the Arab League’s position on the issue of Iraq and its keenness on the country’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity, as well as its support in the face of violations and threats, and against the continued siege on its people.

Within the framework of the visit, which we have agreed upon in New York, Moussa touched on the importance of working for a peaceful political solution to the crisis with the United Nations by communicating and negotiating with its secretary-general on all pending issues between the two sides. He expressed the readiness of the Arab League General Secretariat to contribute to this endeavor.

President Saddam Hussein responded by explaining Iraq’s stance on the relationship with the United Nations, and reviewing the arbitrary decisions imposed by the United States and Britain on the Security Council, their violations of Iraq’s sovereignty, their attacks on its citizens and locations, as well as their insistence on maintaining the siege on its people.

He also talked about their threats to wage war against Iraq, and the practices of the United Nations inspection teams, which violated the country’s sovereignty and security. He expressed no objection to the resumption of negotiations with the UN General Secretariat.

The meeting ended with Mr. Moussa’s pledge to contact the UN Secretary-General to agree on arrangements for the resumption of comprehensive negotiations between Iraq and the United Nations at the earliest possible. Consequently, we agreed with Mr. Annan to start the negotiations on March 7, 2002 at the United Nations headquarters in New York.

However, what’s strange is the memoirs mentioning Mr. Moussa’s anger, his shouting at President Saddam Hussein, and other allegations. How did Brother Amr accept that the person, who wrote his memoirs, attributes this blatant lie to him and to the Egyptian diplomacy? This contradicts the simplest characteristics of a successful diplomat, which are graciousness, politeness and good speech.

Fourth: The memoirs quoted Mr. Amr Moussa as saying that his visit to Iraq was to persuade President Saddam Hussein to bring back the inspectors, and that the President had agreed and authorized Moussa to speak on behalf of Iraq.

The truth is that the return of the inspectors was not raised during the meeting. It was also not mentioned in the first round of negotiations with the United Nations, which was held at the headquarters of the international organization in New York on March 7, 2002.

Moreover, the issue was neither raised in the second round of talks, which took place on May 2, 2002, nor in the third meeting, which was held at the UN headquarters in Vienna on May 7, 2002, based on my request to avoid the US intelligence’s harassment of the members of the Iraqi delegation.

Before the end of the third round, Mr. Kofi Annan met with me privately, and told me that he needed a promise from us that the Iraqi government would consider the return of the inspectors, so that he could continue negotiations and agree with us on a fourth round. But I apologized as I did not have my government’s permission to do so. Therefore, how do the memoirs say that Mr. President has approved the return of the inspectors and authorized Mr. Amr Moussa to speak on behalf of Iraq?

On Sept. 9, 2002, I met President Saddam Hussein before I went to New York to attend the 57th session of the United Nations General Assembly. I asked him about any new position regarding the return of the inspectors, and he told me to wait, meaning that the refusal was still valid.

Upon my arrival at the United Nations, the Arab League General Secretariat called for a meeting of Arab foreign ministers in a hall in the building of the international organization on Sept. 15, 2002. Before entering the meeting room, I learned that US Secretary of State Colin Powell had begun consultations with his legal advisers to draft a Security Council resolution authorizing any country to launch war on Iraq under the pretext of its refusal to allow the return of the international inspectors. The draft-resolution imposes exorbitant demands on Iraq within short deadlines, which are impossible to meet even if the country desired to comply.

Thus, I was convinced that the inspectors should be returned. The focus of the Arab ministers meeting was the crisis between Iraq and the United Nations. The secretary-general and ministers called on Iraq to work on resolving the crisis and to deal flexibly with Security Council resolutions. One of my best memories is the moving appeal of His Highness the late Prince Saud Al-Faisal, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

After we left the meeting, Mr. Amr asked me what I would do. “We will allow the return of the inspectors,” I replied, and he welcomed that. I asked him to join me in arranging the matter with the Secretary-General so that the decision would guarantee the United Nations’ respect for Iraq’s inalienable rights to protect its sovereignty, the sanctity of its territories and the right of its people to lift the inhuman blockade in accordance with the UN Charter, the relevant Security Council resolutions and international law. He expressed his readiness for that.

I immediately sent an encrypted message to President Saddam Hussein, requesting his consent for the return of the inspectors unconditionally. Three hours later, I received the approval. This happened nine months after Mr. Amr Moussa’s visit to Baghdad, during which the memoirs claim that the President had informed him of his consent over the return of the inspectors!

I called Mr. Amr and we went together to Mr. Annan to inform him of the decision. Then, he joined me in all the necessary contacts until we put the final wording of the Iraqi decision, in coordination with Mr. Annan, and presented it to him in the evening of Sept. 16, 2002.

The good and friendly working relationship that brought me together with Brother Amr Moussa continued until the last Arab ministerial meeting I attended on March 25, 2003 at the Arab League’s headquarters after the start of the US invasion of Iraq. At the end of the meeting, Mr. Amr escorted me to the outside gate of the building on the main street to bid me farewell.

Naji Sabri al-Hadithi – Foreign Minister of Iraq (2001-2003)



Netanyahu Might Be Finished but His Policies Toward the Palestinians Will Largely Endure

A view of the Israeli settlement of Itamar from the village of Awarta, south of Nablus in the West Bank, 20 October 2026. (EPA)
A view of the Israeli settlement of Itamar from the village of Awarta, south of Nablus in the West Bank, 20 October 2026. (EPA)
TT

Netanyahu Might Be Finished but His Policies Toward the Palestinians Will Largely Endure

A view of the Israeli settlement of Itamar from the village of Awarta, south of Nablus in the West Bank, 20 October 2026. (EPA)
A view of the Israeli settlement of Itamar from the village of Awarta, south of Nablus in the West Bank, 20 October 2026. (EPA)

Israel's elections Tuesday could mark the end of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decades-long political career.

But his legacy in the Israeli-occupied West Bank — of massive settlement expansion, the displacement of tens of thousands of Palestinians and the empowerment of armed settler extremists — will likely endure, even if his opponents seek to rein it in.

Israelis are deeply divided over Netanyahu's leadership and moral character, but they largely support settlement expansion and are opposed to a Palestinian state. So, while Netanyahu's opponents have vowed to crack down on settler violence and remove the most contentious outposts, they are mostly against a two-state solution, seen internationally as the only realistic way to resolve the conflict.

“There shouldn’t be any illusions,” said Mairav Zonszein, senior Israel analyst at the International Crisis Group.

“At best, (a new government) would be able to slow down the extremely crazy acceleration that we’ve seen in the last four years of every aspect of Israel’s aggression in the occupied territories and inside Israel itself.”

An Israeli settler takes photographs of Palestinian farmers and foreign activists gathered to pick olives in the village of Turmus Ayya, northeast of Ramallah in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, on October 21, 2026. (AFP)

The military stands down in the face of settler violence

One legacy of Netanyahu’s nearly unbroken 17-year rule — the longest of any Israeli leader — is that large groups of armed settlers now routinely defy the Israeli military as they rampage through Palestinian communities, drive people from their homes and seize ever larger swaths of their land.

Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack out of Gaza turbocharged the process. Netanyahu's opponents could bring in more troops and authorize stricter measures, but the genie may already be out of the bottle.

Netanyahu's government has distributed thousands of firearms to the settlers, who have allies in the military and security forces. Some extremist settlers have become like sheriffs — making arrests, killing Palestinians they say posed a threat, summoning security forces and driving Palestinian families from their homes.

The Palestinian Tubasi family was forced out in July after settlers besieged their hilltop home in the West Bank village of Jalud for 19 days. The settlers cut off their water access and their electricity, and threatened to “barbecue” them if they didn’t leave, said Mahmoud Tubasi, 60, the patriarch.

An Israeli court ordered the military to bring the family back, but that hasn't happened. Troops aborted their latest mission soon after it began, when a mob of over 150 armed settlers quickly assembled, scaled the walls of the home and set a car on fire.

Troops threw Tubasi and his family into an armored jeep and drove them away as settlers torched the place. They now live in relatives' houses in the valley below their gutted and blackened home, around which settlers still roam.

Israel’s military did not respond to a request for comment.

“If they wanted to evacuate them, of course, 100%, they can do that,” Tubasi said. “This is an army that fights in Lebanon, Gaza and in Iran — they can’t control 150 or 200 settlers?”

Palestinian Hanan Hamayei gestures as she stands near the shattered glass of her home following a reported attack by Israeli settlers, in the Israeli-occupied West Bank village of Turmus Ayya on October 19, 2026. (AFP)

The process is repeated across the West Bank

Under Netanyahu, settlers have established over 250 rustic camps across the territory, focusing particularly on areas where Palestinian herding communities have dwelled for decades.

The outposts allow the settlers to effectively run Palestinians off vast rural areas by attacking shepherds, taking over water resources and grazing their own herds, all under the eye of Israeli troops.

Dror Etkes, a researcher with an Israeli anti-settlement group, says the outposts have allowed the settlers to seize effective control of around a fifth of the West Bank. Israel captured the territory, along with Gaza and east Jerusalem, in the 1967 Middle East war. The Palestinians want all three territories for their future state.

Since 2023, the strategy has forced at least 127 Palestinian herding communities off their land, according to data gathered by Etkes' organization, known as Kerem Navot, and B'Tselem, another Israeli anti-settlement group.

The departures have cleared nearly the entire eastern flank of the West Bank, along the border with Jordan, of Palestinians. The settlers' explicit goal is to prevent the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.

Netanyahu’s opponents say they will go after the most violent settlers and dismantle outposts, which are illegal under Israeli law. But they will not evacuate the over 100 new settlements Netanyahu's government legalized, including 44 that were formerly outposts. Nor will they remove settlements dating back decades, many of which now resemble fully developed suburbs.

Most of the international community views all Israeli settlements as illegal and an obstacle to a two-state solution. Israel views the West Bank as the biblical and historical heartland of the Jewish people and says its future status should be decided by negotiations, which have not been held in over a decade.

Even if some outposts are removed, many Palestinians seeking to return would find their homes burned and looted, and would continue to face threats from nearby settlers.

“The story is over. There will be no massive dismantlement of settlement,” said Etkes. “It’s now a full and prouder-than-ever apartheid regime.”

Amnesty International and other major rights groups accused Israel of the international crime of apartheid even before the Oct. 7 attack and its aftermath. Israel denies the allegation.

Palestinians harvest their olive trees in the Israeli-occupied West Bank village of Deir Abu Mashal on October 19, 2026. (AFP)

Netanyahu's opponents promise modest change

The politician most likely to replace Netanyahu as prime minister is retired general Gadi Eisenkot, a political centrist. He hopes to form a majority coalition with three other parties spanning Israel's political spectrum and without Arab-led parties advocating a two-state solution.

Beth Oppenheim, an Israel analyst for the European Council on Foreign Relations, said the opposition has “struggled to formulate a convincing alternative" to the right's new security strategy of “aggressively preempting threats, maintaining complete freedom of operation and imposing buffer zones.”

Palestinian attacks, like a shooting on Friday that killed two Israeli soldiers, and efforts on the right to cast the Israeli left as enemy sympathizers, have taken their toll. “The net effect is that talk of ‘peace’ and compromise has become politically toxic,” Oppenheim said.

Eisenkot does not support a Palestinian state, but is open to limited self-rule in the 40% of the West Bank currently administered by the Palestinian Authority under agreements reached in the 1990s. He would allow settlement growth in the other 60% of the territory, which is under direct Israeli military rule.

He has also vowed to empower Israeli troops and paramilitary Border Police to crack down on settler violence.

Eisenkot “is interested in lowering the friction in the West Bank and interested in definitely lowering the sanctions and the intention for sanctions by European countries,” Zonszein said. “He’ll do kind of the minimum necessary to get the maximum effect.”

Eisenkot's prospective allies include left-wing politicians who oppose settlements and have favored a two-state solution, but they have agreed to set those positions aside to form a coalition to oust Netanyahu.

Israeli leaders have long balanced their ambitions in the occupied territories with demands from Washington aimed at resolving the conflict. But they are unlikely to face any significant pressure from US President Donald Trump, who endorsed Netanyahu and has long backed his policies.


Four Ways US Foreign Policy Could Change if Democrats Win in November

 24 October 2026, US, New York: Lower Manhattan residents cast their ballots at the Borough of Manhattan Community College polling site in Tribeca. (dpa)
24 October 2026, US, New York: Lower Manhattan residents cast their ballots at the Borough of Manhattan Community College polling site in Tribeca. (dpa)
TT

Four Ways US Foreign Policy Could Change if Democrats Win in November

 24 October 2026, US, New York: Lower Manhattan residents cast their ballots at the Borough of Manhattan Community College polling site in Tribeca. (dpa)
24 October 2026, US, New York: Lower Manhattan residents cast their ballots at the Borough of Manhattan Community College polling site in Tribeca. (dpa)

Nonpartisan analysts say Democrats stand a good ‌chance of winning the US House of Representatives and possibly the Senate in the November 3 midterm elections, which would give them a slice of power in Washington after two years of Republican control.

Democrats argue that Republicans have allowed President Donald Trump's administration to declare war and control spending, even though the US Constitution reserves those powers for lawmakers.

Here are some ways a Democratic Congress could hem in Trump's foreign policy.

CURB THE IRAN WAR

Trump did not secure approval from Congress before he launched the war with Iran on February 28, and Democrats have voted repeatedly to end the fighting unless he does so. One of these resolutions passed with support from a handful of Republicans, but Trump's administration ignored it.

With control of the House or ‌the Senate, Democrats ‌could cut defense spending to pressure Trump to obtain permission from Congress ‌to ⁠continue the war. ⁠They could also require administration officials to testify publicly about their plans.

FRESH SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE

Trump has largely halted direct US financial and military aid to Ukraine, despite broad support from Democratic and Republican lawmakers as it fights a Russian invasion.

Most recently, he has angered members of Congress, including many Republicans, by lifting sanctions on Russian diesel and waiving sanctions on Russian energy only weeks after signing them into law.

With a victory in both chambers in November, Democrats would be ⁠able to decide what gets voted on and when.

That could allow ‌them to approve new aid to Ukraine, which likely ‌would pass with the two-thirds majorities needed to overcome a Trump veto.

They could also target other ‌Trump activities. For example, Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, who could head the House ‌Foreign Affairs Committee if Democrats win control, has introduced bipartisan legislation to block Trump's plan to bring Russian diesel back into the global market.

END MILITARY AID TO ISRAEL

Support for Israel has plummeted among Democrats over its conduct in the Gaza war, which has killed tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians. The ‌ongoing violence in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's close alliance with Republicans have also been factors.

Democrats could limit ⁠or end military ⁠aid to Israel, which amounted to $3.8 billion in the most recent fiscal year. That is more than was provided to any other country.

Nearly half of House Democrats voted this summer to cut off aid to Israel. Some of those who voted against that effort, such as Meeks, have backed limits on providing weapons like heavy bombs to Israel.

LIMIT MILITARY SPENDING AND RESTORE FOREIGN AID

Democrats are far more likely than Trump's Republicans to limit military spending. Trump asked for an unprecedented 67% increase in the military budget this year, to $1.5 trillion, but Democrats blocked it in the Senate, citing his refusal to consult Congress about the Iran war and his steep cuts to social programs.

Trump has also withheld or canceled billions of dollars in foreign aid approved by Congress. Many Democrats have been angered by the cuts and say they will try to restore funding.


Beirut’s $13 Chicken Sandwich Becomes Symbol of Lebanon Divide

A chef prepares a chicken taouk sandwich at Glow Paradise restaurant in Beirut, Lebanon, October 16, 2026. (Reuters)
A chef prepares a chicken taouk sandwich at Glow Paradise restaurant in Beirut, Lebanon, October 16, 2026. (Reuters)
TT

Beirut’s $13 Chicken Sandwich Becomes Symbol of Lebanon Divide

A chef prepares a chicken taouk sandwich at Glow Paradise restaurant in Beirut, Lebanon, October 16, 2026. (Reuters)
A chef prepares a chicken taouk sandwich at Glow Paradise restaurant in Beirut, Lebanon, October 16, 2026. (Reuters)

Seven years after Lebanon’s devastating financial meltdown, a debate over a chicken sandwich has exposed an increasingly stark divide between those who can still spend freely and those struggling to get by.

A trendy health restaurant wanted to offer its calorie-conscious customers a healthier take on the beloved Levantine wrap known as the shish taouk. So, The Glow Paradise launched the “Chic Taouk,” pricing it at around $13 -- nearly double what an un-chic chicken sandwich typically goes for in Beirut.

The pricey pun proved hard to swallow, with outraged critics accusing the restaurant of overcharging in a country where many households struggle to afford basic necessities.

Yet while the debate raged on social media, customers kept buying. The Glow Paradise sold more than ‌20,000 Chic ‌Taouk sandwiches in just 11 days, according to managing partner Hrag Jeghalian, who described ‌the ⁠online exchanges as "natural marketing".

The ⁠contrasting reactions touched a nerve in Lebanon, where years of financial turmoil, political dysfunction and conflict have reshaped the country's social landscape, hollowing out much of the middle class while leaving a smaller group of consumers able to sustain an affluent lifestyle.

DEBATE PULLS FOCUS AWAY FROM URGENT CRISES

Sami Nader, an economist at the Saint Joseph University of Beirut, said the throngs at The Glow Paradise belied another reality.

“So you see people in the restaurant, but what you don't see is that 22 restaurants closed last month,” Nader told Reuters.

Lebanon’s ⁠Instagram-active community was split between those accusing the restaurant of theft and others ‌saying the sandwich was intended for those who could afford ‌it.

Some questioned whether the dispute itself reflected misplaced priorities in a country grappling with urgent crises, from Israel’s occupation of ‌large swaths of the country’s south to the endemic electricity and water crises.

Lebanon’s 2019 financial collapse ‌was prompted by decades of corruption and profligate spending by the ruling elite, and several rounds of conflict since then have worsened the country’s economic outlook.

GDP has declined by nearly 40% since 2019 and inflation is expected to rise to 17.5% due to rising global energy and shipping prices eating away at people’s purchasing power, according to the ‌World Bank. The figure is more than quadruple the global headline inflation rate flagged by the International Monetary Fund in July.

Four in five households in ⁠Lebanon struggle to afford ⁠basic necessities, the UN children’s agency said in September.

'PEOPLE CAN'T KEEP UP'

The country’s middle class has “disappeared,” Nader said, dismantled by a series of crises including the collapse of the financial system in 2019, the 2020 Beirut Port explosion and two wars in under two years.

Monthly bills from private generator operators, which provide electricity to many homes and businesses during outages on Lebanon's failing national grid, jumped by nearly 20% in August 2026 alone, bringing rates nearly 60% higher than they were in February of this year, according to the kilowatt-hour prices set by Lebanon’s energy ministry.

For many, that means paying for 24/7 electricity now costs several hundred dollars a month, in a country where the minimum wage is set at $400.

“Everything has become expensive, and people can’t keep up,” said Fouad Fakhreddine, a 53-year-old restaurant worker from nearby Hamra. “We are now getting paid, then getting in debt over that just to get by.”

The years of economic instability, he said, have produced “a class that is living, and a class that is not dead and waiting to die from the unbearable situation it is in.”