Rifaat Assad: Challenged his Brother for Syria’s Presidency, Aged in Exile, Pardoned by his Nephew

Rifaat and Hafez al-Assad pictured in January 1984. (AFP)
Rifaat and Hafez al-Assad pictured in January 1984. (AFP)
TT

Rifaat Assad: Challenged his Brother for Syria’s Presidency, Aged in Exile, Pardoned by his Nephew

Rifaat and Hafez al-Assad pictured in January 1984. (AFP)
Rifaat and Hafez al-Assad pictured in January 1984. (AFP)

The Syria that Rifaat al-Assad left when he was vice president to Hafez al-Assad decades ago is not the same one that he returned to after his nephew, President Bashar al-Assad, allowed him to return to as a “citizen.” The country has changed with its foreign alliances and role in the region. Its composition has changed and it is now “home” to five armies.

Accompanied by his wives, children and grandchildren, his first glimpses of Damascus, with its streets, checkpoints, officials and his former residence, may have rekindled memories of when he was at the height of his power. He may have recalled a time back in the 1980s when he orchestrated a “coup” against his brother and surrounded the capital.

Damascus, which 21 years ago ordered his arrest should he return from exile, rose above the wounds and received him so he can avoid imprisonment in France where he was sentenced to serve for five years. Days alone will decipher the “code” that was headlined by al-Watan newspaper last week and that said that Rifaat, 84, had returned “with no political or social role”. Days will tell the extent to which this “decree” will be implemented in Damascus and Latakia.

The brothers and the Brotherhood
When he was young, Rifaat had always been overshadowed by his stronger older brother, Hafez, who was seven years his senior. In 1952, he followed in his brother’s ideological footsteps and joined the Baath party. He also followed him in joining the military and later the interior ministry.

In March 1963, the Baath military committee, which his brother was a member of, seized power. Rifaat soon joined the military academy in Homs. After graduating, he served alongside his brother, who at the time was an air force commander.

His first military “tours” took place with Salim Hatoum and the raid of President Amin al-Hafez’s residence in February 1966. The raid was aimed at toppling the first Baath government. Under President Nureddin al-Atassi, Rifaat was tasked with commanding a special unit that was formed by the military committee to “defend the regime”.

Historians say that during the late 1960s, Syria witnessed two major conflicts. The first pitted Hafez and Rifaat against Salah Jadid and his chief of intelligence Abdulkarim al-Jundi. Between February 25 and 28, 1969, the Assad brothers launched a military operation in Damascus. Tanks moved in the capital against Jundi and Jadid loyalists. The former committed suicide on March 2, 1969, to avoid arrest. On November 17, 1970, Assad carried out the “comprehensive movement”, arresting Atassi and Jadid. Rifaat was then tasked with securing Damascus.

Rifaat became commander of the Defense Companies, which boasted some 40,000 soldiers and acted almost like an independent army that was not affiliated with the official military. Rifaat rose up the ranks in the party and he expanded his activities among students, the youth and the media.

The second conflict erupted in 1979. It pitted the regime against the Muslim Brotherhood. In December 1979, Rifaat declared it was time to “respond with force” against the movement, calling on everyone to pledge their absolute loyalty. He was quoted as saying: “Stalin sacrificed 10 million people to protect the Bolshevik revolution. Syria must do the same to protect the Baath revolution.” He threatened to wage a “hundred wars, destroy a million forts and sacrifice a million lives” to preserve the state-regime. He let loose in suppressing the uprising between 1979 and 1982. The situation reached its peak when he struck Hama in February 1982.

In 1983, he sent his paratroopers to Damascus with the command to remove the hijab off women on the streets. The move was met with widespread criticism, even his brother openly condemned him.

Edge of danger
When Hafez fell ill in November 1983, it appeared that the moment Rifaat had long awaited had arrived. He began to act as though he were the “legitimate heir”, seeing himself as the only heir. He began to rally the support of his generals, drawing the extreme ire of the president.

Vice President Abdul Halim Khaddam recalled the tense situation in his memoirs, which were seen by Asharq Al-Awsat. He said he met with Hafez in March 1978 to address the extreme campaign against Rifaat among the Syrians. “This campaign weakens the regime,” Khaddam told Hafez. “You must address the situation with Rifaat.”

Indeed, Rifaat was meddling in the affairs of state and ordering around Prime Minster Mohammed Ali Halabi, who did not dare speak out.

Khaddam added: “The president wanted his brother to succeed him, but Rifaat committed a major sin when he tried to revolt against him when he had fallen ill in November 1983.”

He recalled that Hafez had at one point in 1980 told him that he wanted to appoint a vice president for the sake of “continuity, because no one knows when their time will come.” Khaddam, who was foreign minister at the time, understood that he was referring to Rifaat. His attempted coup, however, made his brother change his mind.

Remembering the failed coup, Khaddam said that when Hafez fell ill in November 1983, commander of the republican guard, Adnan Makhlouf, informed him that the president wanted to see him at hospital. “I believed that he was a victim of an assassination attempt,” said Khaddam. “I asked: ‘Was he shot or targeted by a bomb?’ to which Makhlouf replied: ‘He was struck by a heart attack.’ I headed to the hospital immediately.”

The next day, Lebanese President Amin Gemayel was scheduled to visit Syria. Hafez asked Khaddam to postpone the visit and to cite “his preoccupation with internal matters”. When Hafez left the ICU, Khaddam contacted army commander Hikmat al-Shihabi and asked him to come to the hospital. “We agreed to take measures that would avert attempts to blow up the situation in Syria, because I was fearful of Rifaat.”

Khaddam recalled how at one point he was on the phone with the Syrian ambassador to London to request that a doctor be flown over immediately. He demanded that the best doctor be sent to Syria. He had made a similar request to the envoy in Washington. Rifaat walked in at that moment and asked why should doctors be brought from abroad? Syria has doctors, he declared. Should doctors be brought in from abroad whenever anyone falls ill? Khaddam replied: “Your brother is called Hafez al-Assad, not Hafez Khaddam. It is my responsibility to provide all conditions for his recovery because I know what sort of chaos will happen if he is gone.”

Later, Khaddam said the American ambassador revealed to him that an American envoy was coming to Damascus to meet with Rifaat. He responded: “We won’t allow him to come. Syria has a state. If the United States wanted to contact us, then it should do so through the state that I represent as foreign minister.”

The next day, the Defense Companies paraded through the streets of Damascus and Rifaat declared to the people: “I am coming.” Soon after, Khaddam met with the military, Shihabi and Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass. “We agreed to bring in two units from outside Damascus. They surrounded the city and the situation became tense. When senior officers who had pledged allegiance to Rifaat found out that Hafez was out of danger, they abandoned his brother. Rifaat became isolated.”

Tense meeting
At the time, the Central Command held a meeting. Everyone was shocked at the large numbers of Defense Companies members. Addressing the meeting, Rifaat said: “The Central Command must expel from the party Ali Duba (chief of military intelligence), Ibrahim Safi (commander of Syrian forces in Lebanon), Ali Haidar (commander of the special forces) and Mohammed Khawli (director of air force intelligence) because they are insulting me. I am the brother of the president. I should be treated like the president. If you don’t take a decision, then my forces will immediately occupy Damascus.”

Some of the members of the Central Command appeared hesitant. General Mustafa then addressed the gatherers: “These are your brothers. The problem can be solved if you meet together.” Khaddam then interjected, addressing Rifaat, he said: “You want to launch a coup? Go ahead. If every officer with a tank and soldiers wants to ride on our shoulders, then that is a dangerous thing. You have the tanks. Go ahead, make your move.” Rifaat was gradually becoming angrier. “I never said such a thing,” he retorted. Khaddam replied knowingly: “The discussion was recorded.”

After the meeting, Khaddam contacted Hafez to inform him of what happened. The president said he will check with Zuhair Masharqa, who was a member of the Central Command. Minutes later, Hafez told Khaddam that Masharqa had informed him that Rifaat did not make any threatening remarks. Khaddam told Hafez to check with the minister of defense and commander of the army because Masharqa was loyal to Rifaat. After around a quarter of an hour, Hafez contacted Khaddam again. “What you said was right. Zuhair is a coward and he lied to me,” said Hafez.

‘I am the regime’
In February 1984, Hafez carried out his retaliation. He ordered the arrest of Salim Barakat, Rifaat’s security aide. He also sent a message through their other brother, Jamil, to Rifaat, saying: “I am your older brother, whom you must obey. Do not forget that I am the one who made you.”

In March 1984, Hafez appointed Rifaat as vice president but with no official duties. In fact, this was not a form of promotion, but an attempt to curb Rifaat’s power through appointing him to a purely political role, one that would be under the constant watchful eye of the president. His security duties, as commander of the Defense Companies, were referred to Mohammed Ghanem.

Khaddam recalled how Rifaat’s appointment was announced. He said Hafez called the Central Command to meet in early March 1984. He informed the leadership that he had decided to appoint three vice presidents. He said he alone has the right to make such an order and name the officials, who were Rifaat Assad, Zuhair Masharqa and Abdul Halim Khaddam.

“I immediately told him that I didn’t want to be vice president or serve in any government or party position,” said Khaddam. “Hafez ended the meeting and then called me to his office. He asked me: ‘Why did you object?’ I replied: ‘How can you put Rifaat and Zuhair above me? Rifaat should be in jail, not act as first deputy to the president. I have worked tirelessly to serve my country. I will not practice any state or partisan work.’ He told: ‘Then take over the position of secretary of the Central Command.’ I rejected his offer and went home.”

“After about an hour, he called me back to his office. He welcomed me back with a laugh: ‘You are stubborn.’ He informed me that he issued a decree naming me as first vice president, followed by Rifaat and then Zuhair. I asked him what a vice president does. He replied that he is in charge of foreign policy. Soon after the decree was announced and I accepted.”

On March 30, 1984, Rifaat responded to the move. His soldiers entered Damascus with clear orders to seize power. They took over strategic positions throughout the capital and its surroundings. Rifaat’s forces clashes with Hafezloyalists, such as Ali Haidar of the special forces and Adnan Makhlouf of the republican guard.

Patrick Seale, author of Assad’s biography, “Assad: The Struggle for the Middle East,” wrote that had the two sides struck each other in the capital, the destruction would have been massive and the image of the regime would have been irreparably damaged. Hafez left the noose dangling enough for Rifaat to hang himself.

Hafez was in full military uniform, accompanied by his oldest son Bassel, who was to become his father’s right-hand man until his death in a car accident in 1994.

Hafez drove his car alone without any guards to confront Rifaat at the headquarters of his military command. Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass recalled the developments in a book, “Three months that shook Syria”. “Adnan Makhlouf, commander of the republican guard, informed me that Mr. president has headed alone to his brother’s headquarters in Mazzeh. He said the president had told him that if he was not back in an hour, then Tlass must carry out the plan (of confronting Rifaat’s forces),” wrote Tlass.

“Do you want to overthrow the regime?” Hafez asked Rifaat. “Here I am. I am the regime!” They argued and then Hafez offered Rifaat a way out, vowing to respect his dignity and interests and provide him with a safe exit to exile of his choosing. He promised that he would not arrest him.

In late April 1984, Rifaat sensed that the balance of power had started to lean in his brother’s favor to an extent that he could no longer move. He contacted his brother Jamil so that he could mediate a reconciliation and to say that he was ready to do anything the president wanted. Hafez was impatiently waiting for Rifaat to collapse and resign himself to the authority. He won the waiting game. Then the difficult negotiations began.

They agreed that the Defense Companies would come under the authority of the operations command in the armed forces. Rifaat would remain as vice president tasked with security affairs. They agreed that senior officers would travel with him to Moscow. On May 28, 1984, a plane carrying Rifaat and his senior officers flew to Moscow to cool down. They were summoned one by one back to Syria and Rifaat alone remained in exile.

‘My brother doesn’t love me’
It was said that prior to leaving Syria, Rifaat had thrown a huge banquet for his friends. “It appears as though my brother no longer loves me. When he sees me, he frowns. I am not an American agent. I did not conspire against my country,” he told them. “If I were a fool, I would have destroyed the entire city, but I love this place. My men have been here for 18 years, the people are used to us and they love us. Now the commandos want to kick us out.”

Rifaat returned to Syria in 1992 at the wishes of his mother, who died later that year. In 1994, he extended his condolences to Hafez when his son Bassel died. Later that year, he was discharged from his position in the army and kept his post as vice president before later being relieved of his duties.

In 1999, his supporters clashed in a gunfight with government forces in Latakia. He set up a satellite channel in London in September 1997. He established his own party in Europe that is headed by his son, Sumer. The party had called for political change and was met with criticism by loyalists and the opposition.

When Hafez died on June 10, 2000, he issued a statement to elegize him. He claimed to be his heir, but his calls fell on deaf ears. Khaddam ordered Rifaat’s arrest should he attempt to attend his brother’s funeral.

After the eruption of the 2011 protests in Syria, Rifaat stood against the regime. His son, Ribal, is openly involved in politics. Rifaat’s presence in the media gradually faded. He appeared during the presidential elections this year when he voted for his nephew at the Syrian consulate in Paris. He then sent a cable of congratulation to Bashar on his reelection. On Thursday, he returned to Syria.



Sudan Sexual Violence: Systematic Abuse, Weapon of War

A Sudanese woman in a refugee camp. (Getty Images)
A Sudanese woman in a refugee camp. (Getty Images)
TT

Sudan Sexual Violence: Systematic Abuse, Weapon of War

A Sudanese woman in a refugee camp. (Getty Images)
A Sudanese woman in a refugee camp. (Getty Images)

As Sudan’s war enters its fourth year, the stories of women and girls who survived sexual violence remain hidden behind the walls of shattered homes and overcrowded displacement camps. But survival has not meant recovery.

Between trauma, stigma, and silence, survivors’ suffering has stretched far beyond the moment of assault, becoming a long ordeal of pain, isolation, and instability.

This investigation is based on interviews conducted by Asharq Al-Awsat with survivors of conflict-related sexual violence, alongside a review of UN reports and documents issued by international organizations, legal experts, and psychologists. The names of survivors and some identifying details have been withheld to protect their safety and privacy.

In a country where war has hollowed out health care and mental health support, the chances of recovery are limited and often nonexistent. Survivors are left to face layered wounds that reach from body to mind, from the individual to the family, and into the wider social fabric.

Sexual violence has therefore become more than an act committed in wartime. It has become a prolonged crisis in which crime meets silence, and violation meets the failure of justice, leaving survivors trapped between what happened to them and a society that has yet to fully acknowledge or contain it.

“My mother barely recognized me”

One testimony begins in El-Azhari, south of Khartoum, where the survivor had lived with her family since the war began. Like thousands of families, they were forced to move between several areas before settling temporarily in Dar al-Salam in Omdurman.

During that period, the woman helped support the family by selling goods brought from Sabrin Market. Her father also sold goods, giving the family a reasonable income.

Her life changed when she was stopped on her way back from the market with her brother during Ramadan 2024. On the way back, they boarded a vehicle heading toward their residential area. Some passengers began questioning them about where they lived and what their father did for work.

The young woman said the group later took them to Dar al-Salam for questioning. She tried to deny some information, but her brother had already given details about the family. She was then taken to the prosecution office in the Libya Market area, where she was questioned by a commander from the Rapid Support Forces, who ordered her detention.

She was held for two days. On the third day, she was transferred to the commander’s house, where she was raped for the first time. A few days later, she was moved to another site and forced to work, cleaning, ironing clothes and doing other tasks, while sexual assaults continued repeatedly.

“They used to come to us at night, and when we refused, we were beaten,” she said. “The marks of torture are still visible on my body today. They put out cigarette butts on our bodies, and my legs now carry permanent scars and disfigurement.”

She said the assaults were not isolated incidents. They were repeated almost daily for months. “Some victims were raped several times a day, sometimes by more than one person,” she said, adding that there was no point in complaining or seeking help when there was no authority to turn to.

According to the young woman, she was held for about four months, during which she did not know what had happened to her brother. She eventually came across a man known to her family.

At first, he did not recognize her because her appearance and physical condition had changed so dramatically. She managed to get his attention and asked him to contact her family. He helped her reach the last RSF security point, from where she was able to return to the Souq al-Hur area and then to her family.

Her family had believed they had lost her forever.

“Even my mother barely recognized me at first because of how thin I had become and the huge changes in my appearance and mental state,” she said.

After a few days of rest, her mother took her to the hospital for medical tests. She also found a way to tell the father what had happened, fearing the shock would overwhelm him.

The young woman ended her testimony by saying her story was not an exception. It resembled the stories of other girls who had been detained, she said. The experience had not only stripped her of freedom and security but also damaged her future. She had been engaged before she was abducted and has still not been able to meet her fiancé or speak to him about what she endured.

What stands out in this testimony is not only the scale of the violations, but the structure behind them: arbitrary arrest, movement between informal detention sites, lack of oversight, and then transfer to semi-official locations where systematic abuses took place inside a sealed space. That structure recurs in other accounts, reinforcing the impression of a pattern rather than an exception.

Nor does this account appear isolated. It overlaps with several testimonies gathered by Asharq Al-Awsat from different areas, revealing similar patterns of detention and abuse against women during Sudan’s war.

“A woman handed me over, and my pregnancy did not protect me”

A woman from Bant East in Omdurman recounted a harsh ordeal during the first months of the war, when she was living with her husband while their child was receiving treatment at the Military Medical Corps hospital.

She said living conditions were extremely difficult. The family suffered shortages of food and basic necessities, while the journey to the Libya Market in far western Omdurman was dangerous because of checkpoints and incidents of arrest, beating and humiliation targeting civilians on the move.

Her pregnancy did not protect her. She was accompanying her sick child to the hospital while two months pregnant. There, she met a woman who appeared to share the family’s circumstances. That woman informed on her and handed her over to the RSF, exploiting her knowledge that the victim’s husband was an officer in the Sudanese army.

“That woman handed me over to RSF members at the Al-Rashideen section and told them I was the wife of an officer,” the survivor said. “I was held there for about a full month.”

She said she told them from the beginning that she was married and pregnant, pleading with them not to torture or beat her. They told her they would take action after she gave birth.

After a period of detention, she was moved to another section known as “Section 18,” where she was held with about 15 wives of military personnel and 12 other civilian women, most of them from Bant.

She said pregnant women were sometimes spared direct beatings, while others were repeatedly abused. The mistreatment included sexual assaults and violations against young girls. Fear, she said, prevented the detainees from objecting or even asking what was happening.

She said the wives of military personnel were pressured and forced to marry RSF members without witnesses or legal procedures. Those in charge of their detention told them openly that since they had not been able to kill their husbands with weapons, they would hurt them this way.

The woman said she repeatedly tried to convince them that she was already married. Each attempt was rejected. In the end, she was forced to marry an RSF commander, who moved her to Dar al-Salam in western Omdurman.

During her time in Dar al-Salam, she was held in a room and denied food and water. She was also regularly drugged, leaving her unable to move or focus and making that period blurred in her memory. Even after she escaped her captors and returned to her family, she still lives with doubt and anxiety over whether she was sexually assaulted during her long detention. She said the drugs and injections she was forced to take left her unaware of much of what happened around her.

The justice gap and the struggle for support

Sexual violence is difficult to document for many reasons. Still, official statistics recorded since the start of the war in Sudan have reached about 2,200 cases, according to State Minister for Human Resources and Social Development Salima Ishaq. She said the figure does not reflect the true scale of the problem, especially in Darfur, where victims are difficult to reach.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, Ishaq said such cases are handled through partnerships with national and international organizations and UN agencies.

She said only three cases had reached the courts. All members of the Sudanese army were involved, after their immunity was lifted. Verdicts were issued in Al-Obeid and White Nile.

As for violations attributed to the RSF, Ishaq said legal prosecution is not currently possible. She called for violations to be documented to ensure that perpetrators do not escape punishment in the future.

A UN report said the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights documented more than 500 cases of sexual violence in 2025, including rape, gang rape, sexual torture and sexual slavery. Some of the violations led to death.

The latest report by Médecins Sans Frontières said the organization provided care to more than 3,396 survivors of sexual violence in North and South Darfur between January 2024 and November 2025.

The report cited officials working to combat gender-based violence as saying incidents had increased in several forms, including domestic violence, harassment, and sexual exploitation.

MSF has described these crimes as a “hallmark” of Sudan’s conflict. The World Health Organization has warned that available figures probably represent only the “tip of the iceberg.”

Ishaq said the Health Ministry provides medical and psychological support protocols as much as possible, while legal support is provided in coordination with the public prosecution. She said services and responses vary from state to state, especially as weak funding remains one of the main challenges, “although issues of violence against women are a matter of saving lives, not a secondary issue,” as she put it.

Ishaq also disclosed a plan to establish new protection and shelter centers by integrating services without exposing survivors to stigma or loss of privacy, in an attempt to avoid the failures of earlier efforts.

She said going to court remains a personal choice for survivors, amid social and security fears that obstruct reporting. She stressed the need to provide a safe environment that guarantees confidentiality and protection, especially in a conservative society such as Sudan.

“I will not give up my child”

At the heart of these fears is the story of a survivor from Bahri. She was arrested during the first months of the war and endured a brutal experience of detention, torture and mistreatment that ended in pregnancy and intense social pressure.

In her testimony, the survivor said her suffering did not end when she left detention. A new phase of psychological and social pressure began after she returned to her family. Her mother repeatedly demanded that she give up the child and hand the baby over to care homes. She refused, insisting on her right to keep her child and saying the child bore no blame for what had happened.

“How can I give up a piece of myself?” she said. “I will face my problem and defend my child with all the strength I have.”

The young woman said her decision to keep her child placed her in constant confrontation with her family, society and hurtful attitudes from some people close to her, at a time when she was trying to recover from the ordeal she had survived.

She said what weighs on her most is not only the memory of detention and violations, which keeps returning to her, but also the constant, desperate need to defend her child’s right to life and to stay beside her, while she herself continues trying to recover from a catastrophic war that has destroyed her life.

Sexual violence as a weapon of war

Asharq Al-Awsat asked Ahmed Togod Lisan, spokesman for the Sudan Founding Alliance, known as Tasis, about the rape of women in areas under RSF control and the alliance’s position on accusations that sexual violence has been used as a weapon of war.

The spokesman said he had “reviewed the question, but found no material evidence supporting these accusations and sees no reason to comment on them.”

According to an official definition on the website of the political alliance known as Tasis, the Sudan Founding Alliance is a coalition of Sudanese political factions, armed movements, professionals, trade unions and civil society organizations united by a firm common will to achieve lasting peace, establish democratic rule and build genuine and comprehensive unity across Sudan.

Legal expert Moez Hadra, however, said the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 clearly provide for the protection of civilians during armed conflicts and criminalize the use of sexual violence as a grave violation of international humanitarian law. He said these principles were also included in Sudan’s 1991 Criminal Act, which criminalizes sexual assaults and violations committed against civilians as war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, he said Sudan faces a real crisis in the path to justice, with no effective justice system capable of holding perpetrators accountable, alongside the collapse of judicial institutions and weak national justice tools. He also said the Human Rights Council had formed a fact-finding committee on violations, but the Sudanese government did not approve its entry, complicating prospects for investigation and accountability.

Hadra said current national and international mechanisms appear unable to fully perform their accountability role, while the domestic justice system is undergoing a broad collapse.

He said the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is currently limited to crimes committed in Darfur, calling for it to be expanded to cover all of Sudan so perpetrators of grave violations can be pursued wherever the crimes occurred.

The limited number of cases that have reached the courts, compared with the scale of reported violations, reflects the gap between documenting crimes and prosecuting perpetrators, amid the security, legal and institutional challenges imposed by the continuing war.

Shocking statistics

UN Women has estimated that 12.7 million people, most of them women and girls, will need support related to sexual and gender-based violence in 2026 alone. That is up from 3.1 million in 2023, an increase of more than 500,000 people since 2025. It is also nearly twice the number recorded in 2024 and four times the level before the conflict erupted in Sudan.

According to a study by the UN Population Fund in Sudan, 76% of women aged 25 to 49 feel unsafe, whether inside displacement sites or outside them.

In April, UN Women said sexual violence, which had risen steadily in 2025, had escalated sharply this year, amid rising incidents of harassment, exploitation and domestic violence.

The agency published an alert highlighting the disproportionate impact of three years of war on women and girls. It was based on survey data from 85 women-led and women’s rights organizations, along with two focus groups and reports from UN and other international agencies.

The agency said in its report that “two-thirds of women working on the front lines reported a noticeable increase in sexual violence during 2025, while half of participants said it had escalated during 2026.”

No sense of safety

“Women and girls across Sudan recount stories of constant danger. Gender-based violence has become part of their daily lives, whether along roads as they try to flee the ongoing conflict or when they arrive in displacement camps.”

That was the assessment of Fabrizia Falcioni, UNFPA’s representative in Sudan, during a briefing to reporters in New York on April 17, 2026, by video link from Khartoum. She highlighted the deteriorating conditions facing women and girls in the country, saying women “feel unsafe wherever they are.”

The assessment is based on a UNFPA study involving about 1,000 women and girls in 16 of Sudan’s 18 states. The findings showed that 76% of women aged 25 to 49 feel unsafe, whether inside or outside displacement sites, including in markets, at water points, in firewood collection areas and on roads, especially at night.

The UN official said insecurity also reaches into daily life, noting that the “sense of insecurity” is compounded by power cuts and cities going dark at night. She said reporting of gender-based violence remains limited because of stigma, fear of retaliation, financial constraints and the distance to service centers.

Deep psychological wounds

Psychologist Khadija Mohammed al-Obeid said survivors of sexual violence in armed conflicts and wars face strong and complex psychological effects. Trauma does not end with the assault itself. It is worsened by displacement, war, and the loss of safety.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, she said one of the most serious psychological effects survivors may suffer is post-traumatic stress disorder, marked by repeated flashbacks of the painful event, nightmares and disturbing dreams, as well as avoidance of people, places or situations that recall the incident.

Survivors may also suffer constant hypervigilance, fear and anxiety, directly affecting their daily lives and social relationships.

Al-Obeid stressed the importance of providing psychosocial support to survivors of sexual violence through safe spaces that preserve privacy and human dignity.

She said survivors must be connected to support networks and specialized services to ensure they receive appropriate care and treatment, helping them recover and resume normal life.

The void in mental health support

Conflict-related sexual violations are not passing incidents. They are lasting wounds that reshape survivors’ lives amid continuing struggles for support, protection and justice.

The testimonies reveal not only the scale of the violations, but the depth of the void they leave behind: a void in mental health support, legal protection and social response, which in many cases still leans toward silence rather than confrontation. While the actors in the war multiply, women remain at its most vulnerable center, and among those least able to reach justice.

Continued impunity does not threaten survivors alone. It entrenches the cycle of violence and turns the crime into a pattern that can be repeated. Confronting these violations is therefore not only about the past. It is also about the future: the future of justice, the credibility of institutions, and society’s ability to recover from the effects of war.

As the war continues to reshape the lives of millions of Sudanese, the suffering of survivors of sexual violence remains one of its harshest consequences, and one of the least visible to the public.


Netanyahu, Israel’s Arch-Survivor, Set to Face Voter Fury Over Iran Deal

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds a news conference in Jerusalem, 15 June 2026, following the announcement of a US-Iran mediated preliminary framework to end regional military hostilities. (EPA)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds a news conference in Jerusalem, 15 June 2026, following the announcement of a US-Iran mediated preliminary framework to end regional military hostilities. (EPA)
TT

Netanyahu, Israel’s Arch-Survivor, Set to Face Voter Fury Over Iran Deal

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds a news conference in Jerusalem, 15 June 2026, following the announcement of a US-Iran mediated preliminary framework to end regional military hostilities. (EPA)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds a news conference in Jerusalem, 15 June 2026, following the announcement of a US-Iran mediated preliminary framework to end regional military hostilities. (EPA)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's hopes of clinging to power in an election this autumn have long been shaky, but the interim US deal with Iran has added yet another complication.

US President Donald Trump has opted to end the wars in Iran and Lebanon long before Israel's goals were accomplished, and Netanyahu's boast in March that "we are changing the face of the Middle East" looks increasingly empty.

Already facing corruption allegations, domestic political controversies and criticism over security failings in the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, he will now face voters' judgement of his handling of the wars and Israel's relationship with the United States, its most important ally.

Netanyahu, 76, confirmed this week he intends to stand again in an election that must be called by October.

Opinion polls put his right-wing coalition on course to lose but, in a parliamentary system he has dominated for long stretches since the 1990s, few Israelis would entirely discount him weaving together a new government.

NO LASTING VICTORIES

However the election unfolds, Israel's longest-serving prime minister, whom supporters once called "King Bibi", is already the most consequential leader of recent Israeli history and the object ‌of boundless fury to ‌critics.

Netanyahu's Likud party portrays him as the security hawk who staved off demands for a Palestinian state ‌while ⁠urging attacks on Israel's ⁠enemy, Iran, and its regional proxies.

"There will be no Palestinian state to the west of the Jordan River," Netanyahu said in 2025, adding "for years I have prevented the creation of that terror state, against tremendous pressure".

His hawkish image was dented by security failings before the Hamas attack, for which he has not taken responsibility, and by wars that brought military successes but no lasting victories.

Tens of thousands of people have been killed in Israeli strikes in Gaza and Lebanon, and Israel's military death toll is at its highest in decades.

Domestic critics say Netanyahu focused security away from the Gaza border and disregarded Hamas as a real threat.

Although Israelis mostly backed the war in Gaza, many turned against Netanyahu's handling of it. Some prominent generals and families of hostages were among critics who said he lacked ⁠a clear strategic plan.

The killings of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, were ‌celebrated in Israel. But Hamas still controls much of Gaza, revolutionary theocrats still rule Iran and Hezbollah ‌has survived in Lebanon.

"Netanyahu lost the war. Netanyahu did not deliver - at the moment of truth he collapsed," opposition leader Yair Lapid said after Trump imposed a new ‌Israel-Hezbollah truce as part of his deal with Iran.

Netanyahu decries such criticism as part of a campaign to diminish Israel's accomplishments.

Warning of a ‌potential nuclear threat from Iran, he said: "If we had not acted in time and with overwhelming force – we would not be here today."

DENYING ACCUSATIONS OF WAR CRIMES

The devastation in Gaza drew accusations abroad of genocide that Israel rejects and an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for Netanyahu on war crimes charges, which he called absurd.

While he has assiduously courted Western support for Israel, he has also antagonized US presidents and other world leaders. A biographer quoted former US President Joe Biden as in private calling him ‌a "son of a bitch" and "a bad [expletive] guy."

The expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and attacks on Palestinians there have meanwhile fueled international calls to revive the peace process.

Anger has gone both ⁠ways - many Israelis think Western criticism of ⁠their Gaza campaign after the Hamas attack was unfair.

Rival politicians accuse Netanyahu of caving to US pressure. But in the US, his close ties to the Republican party and attacks on Democrats have helped upset decades of bipartisan support among politicians. Backing for Israel is falling among voters of both parties.

Trump, the US president he has been closest to, called him "[expletive] crazy" during a June phone call.

LONGEST-SERVING PRIME MINISTER

Born to a prominent historian, Netanyahu went to school in the US before joining the same elite commando unit as his elder brother, Yoni, who was killed leading the rescue of hijacked air passengers at Entebbe, Uganda, in 1976. Netanyahu said that event "changed my life".

He proved at ease in the tough world of Israeli politics, appealing to the gut instincts of his core voter base in gritty towns and settlements.

He became Israel's youngest prime minister in 1996, forging a coalition of settlers, security hawks, the ultra-Orthodox and pro-business voters, and has seen off many opponents, building a string of coalitions and ruthlessly abandoning former allies.

Dogged by a corruption trial, Netanyahu won an unprecedented sixth term in 2022, bringing into government nationalist parties with an openly expansionist agenda.

Their efforts to curb the Supreme Court prompted the biggest protests in Israel's history in 2023.

Netanyahu had sought a legacy through the Abraham Accords - 2020 agreements meant to normalize or expand ties with four Arab countries. He hoped to achieve peace with the Arab world without having to accept Palestinian self-determination.

But the 2023 Hamas attack and Gaza war made that impossible and with Israel's standing in the West badly dented, his legacy will now be much more bitterly contested.


Interim US-Iran Deal Leaves the Thorniest Issue Still to Be Negotiated: Tehran’s Nuclear Program

A view of Milad Tower, in Tehran, Iran, June 15, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters
A view of Milad Tower, in Tehran, Iran, June 15, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters
TT

Interim US-Iran Deal Leaves the Thorniest Issue Still to Be Negotiated: Tehran’s Nuclear Program

A view of Milad Tower, in Tehran, Iran, June 15, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters
A view of Milad Tower, in Tehran, Iran, June 15, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters

The interim deal between the US and Iran is supposed to usher in a two-month period that would address the most divisive issue between the longtime adversaries — Tehran's nuclear program.

Preventing Iran from attaining a nuclear bomb is a key reason that President Donald Trump said he launched the war alongside Israel in February, but the tentative agreement he has trumpeted leaves little runway to negotiate the long-running sticking point. The previous nuclear pact between Iran and world powers, which Trump pulled the US from in his first term, took many months to negotiate.

Few details have been publicly released about the initial deal, set to be officially signed Friday in Switzerland, but it generally calls for reopening the Strait of Hormuz to global oil shipments, financial incentives for Iran if it meets certain benchmarks, and a 60-day period for talks on ending the country's nuclear program.

There is deep skepticism among both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, pro-Israel advocates and Israel itself that the deal is realistic, workable or would have any effect on nuclear talks.

“My skepticism is Iran itself. What would a good deal look like? No enrichment. And we’ll see if we can get there,” Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a close Trump ally and longtime Iran hawk, said Tuesday. “But whether or not we can get phase two, I don’t know.”

A nuclear deal takes commitment to the details

David Schenker, director of the Arab Politics Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that “this administration has proven that it has a hard time keeping its attention on these issues.”

Schenker, who served as assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs in the first Trump administration, questioned whether the current administration would have the wherewithal to reach a nuclear deal even if the agreement is signed Friday.

“This is the kind of thing that requires dogged attention, attention to detail and numerous technical experts involved,” he said. “Trump loses his attention, moves on, and so does the administration. It’s like they don’t understand Iran’s strategy. They didn’t get it the first time, or the second.”

The Trump administration has maintained its confidence. Vice President JD Vance said much of the technical detail must be negotiated but that the US must see action for Iran to receive incentives like sanctions relief.

“Our plan under this deal is, again, the Iranians are getting a lot of benefits so long as they dismantle that nuclear weapons program,” Vance told Megyn Kelly on her podcast Tuesday.

“People always ask me, ‘Why do you believe it this time?’ I don’t believe them,” he added. “I don’t trust anything that anybody says. I trust what people do. And the way this deal is structured is that as they do more, they receive more. As they do less, they receive less.”

Iran has long maintained its nuclear program is peaceful.

It took over a year and a half to get the previous nuclear deal

The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, took more than 18 months to negotiate, starting with secret talks between US and Iranian officials in Oman at the end of then-President Barack Obama’s first term.

They required dozens of direct high-level interventions from Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, not to mention a team of dozens of technical experts traveling to Europe and elsewhere before the conclusion of the negotiations in Vienna, Austria.

Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 before most of its more contentious concessions had come into effect, and there is no indication now that Iran is willing to offer much more.

The JCPOA relied on very technical language and understandings, including limits on uranium enrichment, advanced centrifuges and heavy water production. In exchange, Iran was granted significant sanctions relief, amounting to billions of dollars.

As unhappy as critics were about the JCPOA — Trump called it the “worst deal ever negotiated,” while all Republicans and a number of prominent Democrats voted against it — all sides acknowledge it took more than 18 months to get to an even imperfect agreement.

Republicans say Congress must approve any deal

Republicans say any nuclear deal with Iran should be brought to Congress, as required by law. GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said he “would certainly anticipate that” the Senate will get the final say.

GOP Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said he had little confidence Iran would abide by any agreement.

But Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., one of a handful of senators who has spoken to Vance about the agreement, said the shortened timeline could be an advantage.

“Iran’s modus operandi is to negotiate for the purpose of delaying, so they can rearm themselves,” Marshall said. “I think the president has to give them some type of a finite amount of time, or there’s going to be consequences. So I think it can be done.”

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., noted that what could help Trump’s negotiators to hammer out a nuclear agreement in such a truncated timeline is that there is “a base" to work from following the Obama-era talks.

Still, the JCPOA "took years to put together. You had allies and even adversaries — China and Russia — around the table, you had the IAEA at the table, the Obama chief negotiator had a Nobel Prize in physics, Ernie Moniz,” Kaine said. “I don’t know that either Jared Kushner or Steve Witkoff have a Nobel Prize. So it’s going to be hard.”

Trump envoys Witkoff and Kushner, neither of whom had any prior experience in nuclear negotiations, made numerous but ultimately unsuccessful attempts to reach an agreement under Omani mediation during the first months of Trump’s second term.

Those tapered off after the US-Israel attacks on Iranian nuclear sites in June 2025 after which Pakistan emerged as the main facilitator.

There also is uncertainty about other issues besides nuclear that have been of concern to Arab countries, Israel, Europe and the United States.

It is not clear that any of those issues, including Iran’s ballistic missile program, its support for armed proxies in the region or repression of its own people, will be addressed by either the interim or potential longer-term agreements.

Without significant capitulations by Trump up-front, it is hard to imagine that nuclear negotiations with Iran will take only several months.

“A deal is better than more fighting, but the war America and Israel prosecuted against Iran has fallen short of achieving its stated objectives,” said Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. “This agreement is mostly about cleaning up an unnecessary mess and putting the best face on it.”