Putin’s Envoy, Syria’s Assad Hold ‘Secret Meeting’ on Political, Military Arrangements

Lavrentiev meets with Bashar Assad in Damascus in October. (Syrian presidency)
Lavrentiev meets with Bashar Assad in Damascus in October. (Syrian presidency)
TT

Putin’s Envoy, Syria’s Assad Hold ‘Secret Meeting’ on Political, Military Arrangements

Lavrentiev meets with Bashar Assad in Damascus in October. (Syrian presidency)
Lavrentiev meets with Bashar Assad in Damascus in October. (Syrian presidency)

The Kremlin's special envoy for Syria Alexander Lavrentiev, who frequently travels Damascus, carried out a secret visit to the Syrian capital at the end of last week. Accompanied by “senior generals”, he met with president Bashar Assad, but why didn’t Moscow announce such a trip?

The obvious reason was because the Syrian Constitutional Committee was meeting in Geneva and because Damascus and Moscow are still trying to bridge the divide between them. The deeper reason has to do with the understandings in the Idlib province and ensuring that they hold amid the deteriorating military situation in southern and northeastern Syria. It is imperative that the ceasefire hold with the arrival of Joe Biden to the White House and as Syria prepares to hold presidential elections in July. Russia strongly supports the elections and wants it to serve as a turning point for Damascus’ ties with other countries.

Converging views
After meeting Assad in Damascus, Lavrentiev headed to Geneva to follow up on the Constitutional Committee talks. He also met with the “guarantors” of the Astana process and United Nations envoy to Syria, Geir Pedersen.

The guarantors – Russia, Iran and Turkey – appeared to be on the same page regarding the developments in war-torn country. Their assessment of the Constitutional Committee talks was the same, with the three countries emphasizing the need that they continue despite the slow pace of work and failure to reach a breakthrough. They stressed the need to commit to this “political accomplishment”, refusing to set a timeframe for it to complete its work. The process, they said, is a purely “Syrian affair led by Syrian figures.”

Before their meeting, the guarantors assessed the results of the fifth round of the five-day constitutional talks, which amounted to a “cultural seminar” and not political negotiations, which are their main purpose.

The government delegation continued to stall by demanding “more discussions and preparations” before beginning to “draft the constitution.” It sought more talks on sovereignty, Syria’s borders, national symbols, Arabism, a secular state, decentralized governance and a stance on “Turkish and American occupation.”

Head of the opposition delegation, which lost its Moscow and Cairo platform representatives, had traveled to Geneva with the conviction that talks would get underway over the drafting of the principles of the constitution and reaching an agreement on the work mechanisms of the future committee talks.

Pedersen watched the disputes unfold, relaying his observations to the guarantors. At the end of the committee talks, he frankly spoke to the media about his disappointment with their failure to make any progress. The envoy, who is known for choosing his words well, was on the verge of openly blaming the government for the failure. Both delegations submitted documents with their proposals, with the government representative rejecting the opposition’s suggestions, to the envoy’s dismay.

Significantly, Pedersen did not set a meeting for the next round of committee talks. Rather, he opted to omit the date in an effort to exert some pressure on Moscow and Damascus to reach a “complete deal” that includes a date for the next round, work mechanisms, the drafting of the constitution and coordinating stances between the government and opposition delegations.

Military arrangements
Lavrentiev, meanwhile, was observing the gap widen between Syrian parties and the rapprochement between the three guarantors. He is aware that France is seeking to declare the failure of the Constitutional Committee and that the Biden administration is pushing for achieving political legitimacy to its Kurdish allies. He is also aware of the pressure being exerted on Pedersen to explore new options to implement UN Security Council resolution 2254. Damascus was supposed to play a more cooperative role, at least on the surface, which prompted his visit to the Syrian capital. The trip, however, was also related to developments on the ground and gains sought by the Russian army.

The frontlines remain unchanged in Idlib due to the understandings between Moscow and Ankara, but three fronts are heating up in other parts of Syria: Daraa, Sweida and al-Hasakeh.

In the western Daraa region, generals at Russia’s Hmeimim airbase attempted to mediate between the local negotiations committee and the Fourth Armored Division, of Bashar’s brother Maher, to reach an understanding that would avert a military operation against Tafas. Talks have stalled and deadlines have ended to reach an understanding in a region that is subject to the 2018 American-Russian agreements, with Israeli approval. These agreements were drafted by officials from the Barack Obama administration, and who are now part of Biden’s administration.

The predominantly Druze region of Sweida, meanwhile, is no stranger to tensions. This is the first time however that its grievances are so openly laid bare. Reports have said that head of the military security branch, Louay al-Ali, had insulted Druze spiritual leader Bahjat al-Hajri. Other reports said that Hajri had demanded an “official apology” and Ali’s dismissal. Another significant report said that Hajri and Bashar Assad had also held talks. That report was not officially announced, but pro-Damascus media confirmed that “Assad had inquired about Sheikh Hajri’s health, underscoring national unity.” He was also quoted as saying that the “offender only represents himself.” Ali was later allegedly sacked and replaced by Ayman Mohammed.

None of these developments were officially declared. Local sources in Sweida said that these issues go beyond the province’s borders. They explained that Damascus’ seeming “leniency and exposure of the tensions was prompted by Russia in an effort to win over the residents and factions of Sweida and steer them away from Iran and Hezbollah’s influence.” Tehran and the party are trying to impose their presence in the area, which diplomats believe will harm the greater picture in terms of relations between Washington, Moscow and Tel Aviv in their approach towards Iran.

In the northern Hasakeh region, tensions are high between the forces of the Kurdish autonomous administration and the regime. The Kurdish forces have surrounded Damascus’ troops in the “security zone” in Hasakeh, prompting the regime to retaliate by surrounding Kurds in Aleppo and Qamishli.

The Russian officers in Hmeimim again intervened to contain the tensions. They achieved some breakthroughs by persuading both sides to carry out a prisoner swap. However, tensions continue to persist. Taking in the broader picture, the situation in Hasakeh will weigh on relations between Moscow, Washington and Ankara. The situation does not bode well for Turkey because Biden has appointed officials to his administration who sympathize with the Kurds, have been hurt by Russia and are suspicious of Ankara.

Western officials believe that the abovementioned issues were on the table during the Syrian-Russian talks. Some were addressed during Lavrentiev’s visit. Damascus, meanwhile, continues to escalate its rhetoric against the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces and western sanctions as it prepares to hold the presidential elections in the summer. At the same time, it is mending relations with its “old allies”, demonstrated in Foreign Minister Faisal al-Mekdad’s telephone talks with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, and the condemnation of the “illegal economic sanctions.”



Five Options Under Consideration to Reopen the Strait of Hormuz

Tankers sail in the Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from northern Ras al-Khaimah, near the border with Oman’s Musandam governance, March 11, 2026. REUTERS/Stringer/File Photo
Tankers sail in the Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from northern Ras al-Khaimah, near the border with Oman’s Musandam governance, March 11, 2026. REUTERS/Stringer/File Photo
TT

Five Options Under Consideration to Reopen the Strait of Hormuz

Tankers sail in the Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from northern Ras al-Khaimah, near the border with Oman’s Musandam governance, March 11, 2026. REUTERS/Stringer/File Photo
Tankers sail in the Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from northern Ras al-Khaimah, near the border with Oman’s Musandam governance, March 11, 2026. REUTERS/Stringer/File Photo

Luke Broadwater, Helene Cooper, Eric Schmitt*

Washington: As the United States presses ahead with its military campaign against Iran, the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as the war’s most pivotal battlefield.

In response to US and Israeli airstrikes, Iran has largely blockaded the strait, snarling oil shipments and rapidly causing the price of gasoline to rise.

With the war approaching the three-week mark, President Donald Trump is facing a battery of military and diplomatic choices that are testing his abilities as a leader.

The United States has been flowing military resources into the region to deal with the problem, and carrying out waves of attacks against Iranian forces and installations in the hopes of reopening the strait — a goal vital to ending the war and addressing the economic and political pressures on the White House.

The president has also pushed for allies to send warships to protect oil tankers in the strait. But he has built up little good will with those countries, after repeatedly subjecting them to punishing tariffs, insults and threats.

On Friday, Trump said he would leave reopening the strait to the countries that use it, claiming the United States did not. “If asked, we will help these Countries in their Hormuz efforts, but it shouldn’t be necessary once Iran’s threat is eradicated,” he wrote on social media.

It was one in a string of mixed messages the Trump administration has sent about the war.
Here are the options under consideration to attempt to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, all of which are complex and carry substantial risks. None of them would guarantee a quick end to the conflict.

Eliminate threats to shipping from land-based attacks

Before the Navy escorts commercial vessels through the strait, US commanders want to destroy as many of Iran’s missiles and drones as possible.

What it would take: In recent days, American warplanes have ramped up strikes against missiles and their launchers along Iran’s southern flank that could target slow-moving oil tankers and giant cargo ships.

Earlier this week, the military’s Central Command said that Air Force F-15E fighter-bombers had dropped several 5,000-pound bombs to penetrate layers of rock and concrete to destroy underground bunkers storing cruise missiles and support equipment.

Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that Iran’s ability to launch missiles had declined by 90% since the start of the war. But he acknowledged that Iranian forces still had some firepower left.

General Caine added that some regional allies, which he did not identify, were using Apache helicopter gunships to “handle one-way attack drones,” one of the most potent weapons Iran has used to threaten shipping, as well as neighboring Arab countries and their energy sites across the Arabian Gulf.

Sweep the strait for mines

US officials appear to disagree about whether Iran has already started mining the strait. Intelligence officials say yes, while Pentagon officials say they have not seen clear evidence.
What it would take: Clearing the narrow waterway of Iranian mines would be a weekslong operation, according to one former naval officer who was stationed on a minesweeper in the Arabian Gulf. And it could put US sailors directly in harm’s way.

Iran is believed to maintain a variety of naval mines. They include small limpet mines containing just a few pounds of explosives that divers place directly on a ship’s hull and typically detonate after a set amount of time. Iran also has larger moored mines that float just under the water’s surface, releasing 100 pounds or more of explosive force when they come in contact with an unsuspecting ship.

More advanced “bottom” mines sit on the seafloor. They use a combination of sensors — magnetic, acoustic, pressure and seismic — to determine when a ship is nearby, and explode with hundreds of pounds of force.

“All it takes is for one of those things to get through to shut down traffic,” said Rear Adm. John F. Kirby, a retired naval officer. “The fear alone can be paralyzing to the shipping industry, as we have already seen.”

The Navy had four minesweepers in the Gulf, each with 100 sailors aboard, based in Bahrain. But those ships are gone now, one official said, replaced with three littoral combat ships that can sweep for mines but are also used for other purposes. And two of the ships, the USS Tulsa and the USS Santa Barbara, were spotted far from the Middle East this week, between Malaysia and Singapore, according to the military website The War Zone.

Go after Iran’s navy and fast boat fleet

The Pentagon has targeted the Iranian navy since the opening hours of the war, destroying or damaging more than 120 vessels, including several submarines. The goal was to blunt Iran’s ability to shut down the strait and threaten neighboring countries.

But Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps also has hundreds of speed boats. A fighter armed with a rocket-propelled grenade aboard one of these boats could slip through US defenses and land a deadly blow to a tanker or warship.

What it would take: Low-flying Air Force A-10 Warthog planes are “hunting and killing fast-attack watercraft” in the contested sea lanes, General Caine said. The A-10 was developed to provide close air support for US ground troops, but has been repurposed to strike ships at sea, he said.

US warplanes are also striking speedboats hiding in coastal redoubts, but Iran has positioned some of them in civilian ports, increasing the risks to civilians from any American attacks.

The US military is also attacking storage areas for naval drones before the drones can be launched.

Invade Kharg Island

Adm. Brad Cooper, the head of the military’s Central Command, said the US attack against Iranian military sites on Kharg Island, the country’s oil export hub, had destroyed more than 90 targets, including bunkers for naval mines and missiles.

That has softened the island’s defenses if Trump follows through on his threat to seize the island and put a stranglehold on Iran’s oil economy, a possibility the Pentagon has gamed out in war-planning scenarios for years.

But Iranian troops are still on the island, and US commanders say that such a mission would be risky.

What it would take: Some 2,200 Marines on three warships — armed with drones, attack helicopters and warplanes — have cut short a patrol in the Indo-Pacific region, and are expected to arrive in the Arabian Gulf region later next week. The Marines are trained to conduct amphibious landings.

The US military is dispatching 2,500 additional Marines to the Middle East next month, officials said Friday. They are expected to replace or augment those en route to the region now.

Another option involves Special Operations forces and paratroopers from elite units, like the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, taking the island. Once in control, the Americans would likely be subject to attack from any remaining land- or sea-based Iranian forces.

On Thursday, the president said he had no plans to commit ground forces to the war, before qualifying: “If I were, I certainly wouldn’t tell you.” He added that he would “do whatever’s necessary to keep the price” of oil down.

Use naval escorts to escort oil tankers

Trump said on Friday that escorting oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz was “a simple military maneuver.” Naval experts say it is anything but.

In fact, of all of Trump’s options for opening up the strait, naval escorts are perhaps the trickiest.

What it would take: Naval escorts are cumbersome operations that require not just Navy destroyers and littoral combat ships, but also attack aircraft.

The Navy has deployed around 12 destroyers and littoral combat ships to the region and could certainly send more, although that could take weeks, Navy officials said. A Navy destroyer, which is equipped with the Aegis Combat System that uses computers and radar to track and target, can protect oil tankers by firing cruise and ballistic missiles at land targets in Iran, while Standard antimissile systems can intercept incoming threats.

But one Navy official said that would require a high ratio of Navy destroyers to commercial ships, and would likely be a huge strain on naval assets. The Pentagon has already requested an additional $200 billion in funding for the war.

Mark Montgomery, a retired rear admiral, estimated that about a dozen Navy destroyers, with armed helicopters and other aircraft overhead, would be needed to escort five or six tankers or cargo ships at a time through the strait — a transit he said could take roughly 10 to 12 hours.

During the so-called tanker war between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s, the United States escorted reflagged Kuwaiti tankers through the Arabian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, part of Operation Earnest Will.

The USS Samuel B Roberts was nearly destroyed by a mine, and the USS Stark was heavily damaged by Iraqi missiles. In the end, 37 American sailors were killed.

*The New York Times


What to Know About Diego Garcia After Iran Targets the Remote Island’s Key US Military Base

An aerial view of Diego Garcia Island where the joint military base between Britain and the United States is located. (AP)
An aerial view of Diego Garcia Island where the joint military base between Britain and the United States is located. (AP)
TT

What to Know About Diego Garcia After Iran Targets the Remote Island’s Key US Military Base

An aerial view of Diego Garcia Island where the joint military base between Britain and the United States is located. (AP)
An aerial view of Diego Garcia Island where the joint military base between Britain and the United States is located. (AP)

Iran has launched missiles at Diego Garcia, an Indian Ocean island that is home to a strategic UK-US military base.

Britain condemned “Iran’s reckless attacks” after the unsuccessful attempt to hit the base. It’s unclear how close the missiles came to the island, which is about 2,500 miles (4,000 kilometers) from Iran.

Here is what to know about the remote but strategic base.

Hub for US operations

The US has described the Diego Garcia base as “an all but indispensable platform” for security operations in the Middle East, South Asia and East Africa.

Home to about 2,500 mostly American personnel, it has supported US military operations from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2008, the US acknowledged that it also had been used for clandestine rendition flights of terror suspects.

The US deployed several nuclear-capable B-2 Spirit bombers to Diego Garcia last year amid an intense airstrike campaign targeting Yemen’s Houthi militants.

Britain initially refused to let the base be used for US Israeli attacks on Iran, but after Iran lashed out at its neighbors, the UK said that American bombers could use Diego Garcia and another British base to attack Iran’s missile sites. On Friday, the UK government said that includes sites being used to attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

The United Kingdom says that British bases can only be used for “specific and limited defensive operations.”

But Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on X that UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer “is putting British lives in danger by allowing UK bases to be used for aggression against Iran.”

Iran previously has put a self-imposed limit on its ballistic missile program, limiting their range to 1,240 miles (2,000 kilometers). Diego Garcia is well outside that range. However, US officials long have alleged Iran’s space program could allow it to build intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Justin Bronk, a senior research fellow at defense think tank the Royal United Services Institute, said that the attempt to his Diego Garcia may have involved improvised use of Iran's Simorgh space launch rocket, "which could offer greater range as a ballistic missile," though at the cost of reduced accuracy.

A contested island chain

Diego Garcia is part of the Chagos Archipelago, a chain of more than 60 islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean off the tip of India. The islands have been under British control since 1814, when they were ceded by France.

In the 1960s and 1970s, Britain evicted as many as 2,000 people from Diego Garcia, so the US military could build the base there.

In recent years, criticism has mounted over Britain’s control of the archipelago and the way it forcibly displaced the local population. The United Nations and the International Court of Justice have urged the United Kingdom to end its “colonial administration” of the islands and transfer sovereignty to Mauritius.

Trump criticism

After long negotiations, the UK government struck a deal last year with Mauritius to hand over sovereignty of the islands. Britain would then lease back the Diego Garcia base for at least 99 years.

The UK government says that will safeguard the future of the base, which is vulnerable to legal challenges. But the agreement has been criticized by many British opposition politicians, who say giving up the islands puts them at risk of interference by China and Russia.

Some of the displaced Chagos islanders and their descendants also have challenged the deal, saying they weren't consulted and it leaves them unclear on whether they will ever be allowed to return to their homeland.

The US administration initially welcomed the deal, but US President Donald Trump changed his mind in January, calling it “an act of GREAT STUPIDITY" on his social media platform Truth Social.

Starmer’s initial refusal to let the US attack Iran from Diego Garcia further angered Trump, who said earlier this month that “the UK has been very, very uncooperative with that stupid island that they have.”

Passage of the UK-Mauritius deal through Parliament has been put on hold until US support can be regained.


How Iran’s IRGC Rebooted Lebanon’s Hezbollah to Be Ready for War

A picture shows damaged buildings and destroyed vehicles following an Israeli airstrike that targeted the Haret Hreik neighborhood in the southern suburbs of the Lebanese capital Beirut on March 21, 2026. (AFP)
A picture shows damaged buildings and destroyed vehicles following an Israeli airstrike that targeted the Haret Hreik neighborhood in the southern suburbs of the Lebanese capital Beirut on March 21, 2026. (AFP)
TT

How Iran’s IRGC Rebooted Lebanon’s Hezbollah to Be Ready for War

A picture shows damaged buildings and destroyed vehicles following an Israeli airstrike that targeted the Haret Hreik neighborhood in the southern suburbs of the Lebanese capital Beirut on March 21, 2026. (AFP)
A picture shows damaged buildings and destroyed vehicles following an Israeli airstrike that targeted the Haret Hreik neighborhood in the southern suburbs of the Lebanese capital Beirut on March 21, 2026. (AFP)

Iran's Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) rebuilt Hezbollah's military command after it was mauled by Israel in 2024, plugging gaps with Iranian officers before restructuring the Lebanese group and laying plans for the war it is now waging in support of Tehran, two people familiar with these IRGC activities told Reuters.

The overhaul was the first of its kind for Hezbollah, a Shiite group founded by the IRGC in 1982, pointing to a hands-on approach after the blows of the 2024 war, including the killing of its leader Hassan Nasrallah and other top commanders.

Iran's investment paid off, getting Hezbollah back on its feet in time to enter the war in the Middle East on Tehran's side after it was attacked by the United States and Israel.

Reuters reported earlier in March that Hezbollah had seen another war as inevitable and spent months readying itself. This article sheds light on the IRGC's role in these preparations, based on accounts from six sources who spoke on condition of anonymity, as well as an expert on Hezbollah.

The IRGC, deeply involved in Hezbollah since it was established, sent officers to retrain its fighters and oversee rearmament, the two sources familiar with ‌IRGC activities said.

They ‌said IRGC officers also reshaped Hezbollah command structures that had been breached by Israeli intelligence - a factor that had ‌helped Israel ⁠kill many Hezbollah ⁠leaders.

An Israeli military spokesperson said on March 12 that Hezbollah remains a relevant and dangerous force despite the damage Israel has inflicted on it over the last three years.

Hezbollah has fired hundreds of missiles at Israel since it entered the regional war on March 2, prompting an Israeli offensive that has killed more than 1,000 people in Lebanon. Hezbollah fighters are battling Israeli soldiers who have seized ground in the south.

It has yet to be seen how Hezbollah, its power still below the peak levels seen a few years ago, would fare in the event of a full-scale Israeli invasion.

Hezbollah's media office, Iran's Foreign Ministry and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Netanyahu said in January that Hezbollah was making efforts to rearm and rebuild its infrastructure with Iranian support.

SCRAPPING HIERARCHY

The two sources said IRGC officers tasked ⁠with helping Hezbollah recover arrived shortly after a ceasefire in November 2024, and set to work even as Israel ‌continued to strike.

One of them said the deployment involved about 100 officers.

Changes implemented at their behest ‌included replacing a hierarchical command structure with a decentralized one, comprising small units with limited knowledge of each other's operations, helping to preserve operational secrecy.

They said IRGC officers also drew ‌up plans for missile attacks against Israel that would be launched simultaneously from Iran and Lebanon - a scenario executed for the first time on March 11.

A ‌senior Lebanese security source said Iranian commanders had helped Hezbollah rehabilitate and reorganize their military cadres. The source said he believed the Iranians were helping Hezbollah pace the current conflict rather than being involved in the detail of picking targets.

Another source briefed on the matter said the IRGC sent officers to Lebanon in 2024 to conduct a post-war audit of Hezbollah, and took direct supervision of its military wing.

An additional two sources said the IRGC had embedded special advisers with Hezbollah last year to help it direct military affairs.

Andreas Krieg, a lecturer ‌at the security studies department of King's College London, said the IRGC "has basically reorganized Hezbollah as a far more flat system", contrasting this with the political hierarchy that had emerged around Nasrallah before his death.

"That decentralized model that ⁠they've now implemented is also a bit ⁠more like what Hezbollah looked like in the 1980s - very small cells," said Krieg, who has researched the group for 15 years. He described this as a "mosaic defense" that is also being used by the IRGC in Iran.

LEBANON ASKED IRGC TO LEAVE COUNTRY

The IRGC's efforts were going on at the same time as Lebanon's government and its US-backed military were seeking to advance a process to disarm the group, underscoring a huge complication facing that objective.

Lebanon estimates that around 100 to 150 Iranian nationals in the country have ties to the Iranian government that go beyond normal diplomatic functions, including links to the IRGC, a Lebanese official told Reuters.

The official said the government asked those people to leave Lebanon in early March.

The two sources familiar with IRGC activities said Guards officers were among more than 150 Iranians who left Beirut on a flight to Russia on March 7.

IRGC members were among the roughly 500 people killed by Israeli attacks in Lebanon in the 15 months between the 2024 ceasefire and the eruption of the new war.

Around a dozen more have been killed in Israeli attacks since the war erupted, including in a strike on a Beirut hotel on March 8, they said.

The IRGC has been closely involved in Hezbollah since its men established the group in the eastern Bekaa Valley to export Iran's 1979 revolution and fight Israeli forces that had invaded Lebanon in 1982.

Qassem Soleimani, the top IRGC general who was killed in 2020 by a US drone strike, had worked alongside Nasrallah during Hezbollah's 2006 war with Israel. When Israeli airstrikes killed Nasrallah in a bunker in Beirut's southern suburbs, an Iranian general was among those who died alongside him.