Turkey Resumes Transfer of Syrian Mercenaries in Libya https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/3757366/turkey-resumes-transfer-syrian-mercenaries-libya
Turkey Resumes Transfer of Syrian Mercenaries in Libya
Two local militiamen during battles that took place in 2019 near the Yarmouk camp in Tripoli. (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Turkey has resumed the back-and-forth transfer of Syrian mercenaries operating in Libya following the decision in late June to halt the transfer process until the end of 2022.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) revealed on Wednesday that nearly 250 Syrian mercenaries were sent back to Syria from Libya via Turkey.
Most of the repatriated individuals are wounded and sick fighters operating under the banner of “Al-Sultan Murad, Soqur al-Shamal, Suleiman Shah, Al-Hamza Division, Al-Majd Corps” and other pro-Turkish factions.
In parallel, two batches of 250 mercenaries also left Syria for Libya, the majority of who registered their names with Al-Majd Corps, Al-Sultan Murad faction and Al-Hamza division, the war monitor reported.
This step came in light of escalation of disagreements between members of the Al-Sultan Murad and Soqour al-Shamal factions since early July and the ongoing demands to resume back-and-forth transfer operations.
The mercenaries threatened to stage demonstrations if the operations were to be suspended until the end of 2022.
On July 2, reliable sources told SOHR that disagreements escalated between members of the National Army in Yarmouk camp in Tripoli.
Many of these mercenaries have been in Libyan camps for more than two years and have been prevented from visiting Syria.
Sources said members of these factions complain that leaders are stealing their salaries and not providing them with the agreed upon food allowances.
Thousands of Turkish forces have been sent to Libya to fight along dozens of mercenaries from armed factions loyal to Turkey.
This comes in line with the memorandum of understanding on security and military cooperation signed in November 2019 between Turkey and the Government of National Accord (GNA) then headed by Fayez al-Sarraj.
Turkey considers its military presence in Libya “legal."
Ankara says its presence in Libya is aimed at helping the country establish a unified army that brings together all the forces from the east and west under one umbrella.
Turkey’s parliament approved in June to extend the Turkish armed forces' mandate in Libya for another 18 months from July 2, at the request of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
It argues that its efforts to build democratic institutions following the February 2011 incidents were in vain due to the armed conflicts that led to the emergence of a fragmented administrative structure in the country.
The text of the decision states that Turkey will continue to uphold its strong support to protect Libya’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and political unity.
It further underlined the importance of ensuring the establishment of a permanent ceasefire, supporting political dialogue to achieve national reconciliation and creating a legal framework for national elections.
Israel Moves to Gradually Seize Ali al-Taher After Hezbollah Rejects Evacuationhttps://english.aawsat.com/arab-world/5309311-israel-moves-gradually-seize-ali-al-taher-after-hezbollah-rejects-evacuation
Israel Moves to Gradually Seize Ali al-Taher After Hezbollah Rejects Evacuation
A Lebanese army checkpoint at the entrance to the town of Zawtar al-Gharbiya, one of the first model areas in southern Lebanon (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Israel is seeking to gradually seize the strategic Ali al-Taher Heights east of Nabatieh in southern Lebanon, while piling diplomatic pressure on the Lebanese state and Hezbollah, which categorically rejects any discussion of evacuating the site, according to sources familiar with the group’s position.
The standoff raises the risk that Israel could turn to a “third option”: resuming fighting in southern Lebanon.
Hezbollah’s refusal to discuss evacuating Ali al-Taher rests on one point: the site lies “north of the Litani River,” sources familiar with the group’s position told Asharq Al-Awsat.
The group “insists on implementing the Nov. 27, 2024 agreement, based on UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which provides for an end to the aggression, an Israeli withdrawal and exclusive state control over weapons south of the Litani,” the sources said.
Hezbollah’s reading of the resolution and the agreement, they added, is that “exclusive control over weapons applies only south of the Litani, while the resistance’s weapons north of the river are a Lebanese matter governed by the national security strategy.”
Freedom of movement
Hezbollah says the “Islamabad agreement” was what brought about the de-escalation and ended the war in Lebanon.
At the same time, Tel Aviv entered direct negotiations with Lebanon in Washington, seeking to move away from the US-Iranian negotiating track and separate the two files.
Sources familiar with Hezbollah’s position say that reality “gave Israel freedom of movement and freedom to carry out attacks,” leaving unoccupied areas near the yellow line virtually deserted, including Ali al-Taher.
Even so, they said, “the arrangement failed to satisfy part of the Israeli public that supports the war and did not restore confidence among residents of northern Israel.”
That, the sources said, led Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to inflate the political and security significance of Ali al-Taher, turning it into a symbol so that any seizure of the hill could be presented as a major achievement.
Yet “the presumed facility on the hill is smaller than other facilities Hezbollah handed over to the Lebanese army south of the Litani,” they said.
US proposal to evacuate the site
Israel has been seeking for about 10 weeks to take control of the strategic high ground, with war kept as the last option.
A source said Washington is calling for the Lebanese army to take over the site, after which Israel would verify the handover.
Hezbollah received the proposal but views it as “a maneuver,” the source said, because all sides already know the group will reject it.
The group also sees the request as an attempt by the Lebanese authorities to show Washington that “Lebanon did what was required of it, but Hezbollah refused.”
The source said the proposal offers “no guarantees” that the site would not ultimately be handed to Israel if the Lebanese army were told to withdraw, or if it pulled back under Israeli fire.
Hezbollah also sees the proposal as an attempt to draw it into arrangements outside the agreement it says it continues to uphold: the November 2024 cessation-of-hostilities deal.
The source said the United States had informed Lebanon that it would allow Israel to take control of the high ground without triggering an escalation.
Military option
With Hezbollah rejecting any proposal to evacuate the site, Israel is left with the military option.
That could begin with “gradual encroachment,” Lebanese sources familiar with Israeli movements around the heights said.
The strategy involves “making the area unlivable, cutting off supplies and preventing fighters from being rotated in and out,” they said, weakening the position until it falls and allowing Israel to enter after only a limited battle.
Israel has been pursuing that approach for about 10 weeks, according to the sources.
They said failure of the strategy before Israel’s elections “could lead to an open battle similar to what prevailed before the ceasefire agreement took effect on June 14.”
Hezbollah is betting on Iranian intervention if Israel broadens the fighting and breaks with the rules of engagement in place since the ceasefire.
That calculation rests on Tehran’s stated position that it would not allow any new territory in southern Lebanon to be carved off by force.
Hezbollah also points to remarks by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, made hours after an Israeli strike targeted Hezbollah commanders deep in southern Lebanon last Saturday.
Ghalibaf said he was in contact with Hezbollah fighters on the front and checked on them daily to assess conditions and readiness for any new support operation.
Risk of renewed war
Such developments carry the risk of renewed fighting between Israel and Iran and a fresh deterioration in regional security.
But the prospect of war resuming in Lebanon “remains on the table,” the source said.
“Ali al-Taher Heights is a flashpoint that could reignite the war,” the source added.
“Israel is seeking a security achievement before the elections. Hezbollah, for its part, will not retreat from its firm position that exclusive state control over weapons applies south of the Litani, not north of it.”
The source also rejected reports of proposals under which Hezbollah would evacuate its Ali al-Taher facility in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied city of Bint Jbeil or the town of Khiam.
Both lie inside the “yellow line” created by Israel, extending about 10 km (6 miles) into Lebanese territory in what it calls a “security zone.”
Hezbollah says no such proposals exist and describes the reports as “baseless.”
It views them as “part of a disinformation effort” aimed at blaming Hezbollah for any failure by Israel to withdraw if fighting resumes.
The group also accuses the Lebanese state of “deceiving itself,” arguing that Israel “does not accept discussion of a new area, and every time it is given something, it demands more without offering any concession in return.”
Sources: Ghalibaf’s Baghdad Visit Fell Short of All Objectiveshttps://english.aawsat.com/arab-world/5309299-sources-ghalibaf%E2%80%99s-baghdad-visit-fell-short-all-objectives
Iraqi Parliament Speaker Haibat al-Halbousi with Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf at the entrance to parliament (parliament website)
Sources: Ghalibaf’s Baghdad Visit Fell Short of All Objectives
Iraqi Parliament Speaker Haibat al-Halbousi with Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf at the entrance to parliament (parliament website)
Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf on Thursday backed Iraq’s push to bring weapons under state control amid a Sept. 30 deadline.
Ghalibaf also reaffirmed Tehran’s commitment to security agreements between the two countries.
He arrived in Baghdad on Wednesday with a high-level Iranian delegation for an official visit due to end on Thursday with a trip to Najaf after meetings with Iraqi political and religious leaders, particularly the main factions in the Coordination Framework.
His visit comes as the issue of armed factions moves to the center of Iraq’s political agenda ahead of the deadline set by the country’s main political forces for bringing weapons under state control.
The State Administration Coalition, which includes leading Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish political forces, said after an Aug. 5 meeting that weapons must be confined to state institutions.
It described groups operating outside official structures in ways that threaten national security as “illegitimate.”
Visit falls short of its aims
Informed Iraqi sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that Ghalibaf’s visit “did not achieve all its objectives,” particularly an effort to “soften Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi’s position” on enforcing the state monopoly on weapons once the deadline expires at the end of September.
While in Baghdad, Ghalibaf met several Shiite leaders and attended a Coordination Framework meeting on Wednesday evening, which was also attended by al-Zaidi.
The talks come as political forces search for a way out of one of the government’s most sensitive disputes, while armed factions, according to the same sources, have begun putting forward new conditions over how their weapons should be handled.
Al-Zaidi, according to prevailing political assessments, remains committed to the deadline for handing weapons over to the state, despite pressure from political forces and armed factions seeking to revise either the deadline or the terms of implementation.
An informed Iraqi politician said Coordination Framework leaders were no longer as well placed to mediate between al-Zaidi and factions rejecting the weapons plan, citing divisions within the alliance and the growing overlap with other political and judicial disputes.
The source also linked that weakness to the role of Supreme Judicial Council President Faiq Zidan, amid the possibility that anti-corruption measures could widen to include other leaders and figures within the Coordination Framework.
Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi meets with Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf in Baghdad, Iraq, August 19, 2026. Iraqi Prime Minister's Media Office/Handout via REUTERS
Al-Zaidi digs in
Political assessments suggest al-Zaidi has told lawmakers and officials in private meetings that he does not intend to retreat from the Sept. 30 deadline.
One scenario under discussion is al-Zaidi’s resignation, an option the sources say some forces implicated in corruption cases may favor in hopes of reshuffling the political landscape.
But al-Zaidi could instead take his case directly to the public, a move that could weaken his political opponents, particularly if he wins the backing of Moqtada al-Sadr, leader of the Sadrist movement, one of the most prominent Shiite blocs.
Other sources familiar with discussions inside the Coordination Framework said some parties were seeking to tie the countdown to the Sept. 30 weapons deadline to the anti-corruption campaign, which has no fixed timetable.
Such a move, they said, could open the door to political bargaining between the two issues.
The Iraqi politician who spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat said one scenario would see al-Zaidi score gains in the anti-corruption campaign against political, administrative, and government figures, regardless of their level of responsibility, potentially strengthening his standing with the public.
In return, political forces could push to extend the weapons deadline, either by freezing the process, concealing weapons, or moving them outside Iraq.
The proposal has so far failed to persuade al-Zaidi, the source said, citing what he described as international commitments the prime minister made during his visit to the United States.
Dispute over control of key issues
Behind the scenes, some Coordination Framework parties believe al-Zaidi may have gone too far in his handling of the weapons and corruption files.
From their perspective, allowing one side to control both issues would be difficult because of their political overlap and because rival forces do not want a single actor, even the prime minister, to manage them alone.
Those holding that view argue that al-Zaidi reached the premiership with the backing of the main Shiite forces and therefore cannot, in their view, override or challenge them on issues directly tied to their political and security interests.
In that context, comments by Faleh al-Fayyad, head of the Popular Mobilization Forces, carried particular significance.
“The choice of Ali al-Zaidi as prime minister was born in this room,” al-Fayyad said in a television interview, referring to the room where the interview was being conducted.
The PMF is an institution linked to the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, a position held by al-Zaidi.
Legal route emerges
Legislation specifically aimed at bringing weapons under state control has emerged as one possible route for the government to navigate the political and security complications surrounding the Sept. 30 deadline.
Saif al-Saadi, an expert on political and legislative affairs, told Asharq Al-Awsat that Sept. 30 was “not merely a deadline set by the government.”
Rather, he said, it represented “a referendum on the legitimacy of reclaiming the Iraqi state and its institutions from the encroachment of the parallel state.”
He said the deadline would also test al-Zaidi’s decisions: whether they prove strong and enforceable, or strong in wording but weak in implementation.
Saadi said al-Zaidi’s government maintains, in principle, that the decision to bring weapons under state control “is not discussed in the capitals of other countries.”
But he said armed factions have what he described as ideological ties that cross borders and are ideologically linked to Iran’s supreme leader.
Saadi said al-Zaidi’s government was moving toward sending legislation to parliament specifically aimed at restricting weapons to the state, describing the move as highly pragmatic.
Such legislation, he said, would allow the prime minister to move beyond the Sept. 30 deadline, ease external pressure represented by Iranian influence and reduce domestic pressure from political actors with armed wings before “throwing the ball into parliament’s court.”
Asked whether an armed confrontation could erupt after Sept. 30, Saadi ruled out that scenario, saying he did not believe fighting would break out after the deadline because al-Zaidi had warned of the risk of internal collapse.
Saadi also ruled out applying Anti-Terrorism Law No. 13 of 2005 to anyone who manufactures, uses, or possesses drones without official authorization on the grounds that such acts constitute terrorist crimes subject to the law’s severe penalties.
He said al-Zaidi’s government had, in his view, failed its first test in the case of Abbas al-Yaqubi, a leader in Harakat al-Nujaba who was arrested and released without investigation on Wednesday.
Instead, Saadi said Iraq was more likely to face the risk of financial collapse as a result of US sanctions, while adding that he could not rule out “strikes on selected targets inside Iraq.”
France, Germany, UK and Italy Condemn Israel's 'E1' West Bank Planhttps://english.aawsat.com/arab-world/5309288-france-germany-uk-and-italy-condemn-israels-e1-west-bank-plan
France, Germany, UK and Italy Condemn Israel's 'E1' West Bank Plan
A bulldozer prepares roads at the site of the former Israeli settlement of Kadim near the West Bank city of Jenin, 19 August 2026. EPA/ALAA BADARNEH
France, Germany, Britain and Italy condemned on Thursday plans by Israel to open up construction tenders for a residential property project called 'E1' in the occupied West Bank.
"The decision by the Israeli government to publish bid offers for construction projects within the framework of the E1 settlers' project is unacceptable," said a joint statement by the leaders of those four countries.
"At a time of grave instability in the West Bank with unprecedented levels of violence by settlers against civilians, and serious restrictions on the Palestinian economy, this decision is even more concerning," said the statement, urging Israel "to retract these plans immediately and end its expansion of settlements in the West Bank."
Hundreds of thousands of Israelis have settled among millions of Palestinians in land captured by Israel in a 1967 war.
Nearly all countries and a range of UN bodies consider that such settlements violate international law.
لم تشترك بعد
انشئ حساباً خاصاً بك لتحصل على أخبار مخصصة لك ولتتمتع بخاصية حفظ المقالات وتتلقى نشراتنا البريدية المتنوعة
