Lebanon: Fires at Beirut Silos Spark Memory of Deadly Port Blast

A view shows fire in Beirut grain silos damaged in the August 2020 port blast in Beirut, Lebanon, July 13, 2022. (REUTERS/Emilie Madi)
A view shows fire in Beirut grain silos damaged in the August 2020 port blast in Beirut, Lebanon, July 13, 2022. (REUTERS/Emilie Madi)
TT
20

Lebanon: Fires at Beirut Silos Spark Memory of Deadly Port Blast

A view shows fire in Beirut grain silos damaged in the August 2020 port blast in Beirut, Lebanon, July 13, 2022. (REUTERS/Emilie Madi)
A view shows fire in Beirut grain silos damaged in the August 2020 port blast in Beirut, Lebanon, July 13, 2022. (REUTERS/Emilie Madi)

Fires burning for days at Beirut's port, severely damaged in 2020 by an enormous explosion, have reignited trauma among Lebanese gearing up to mark the deadly blast's anniversary.

On August 4, Lebanon will mark two years since the explosion that killed more than 200 people. It was caused by a stockpile of haphazardly stored ammonium nitrate fertilizer catching fire, AFP said.

The current fires at the port's grain silos -- at risk of collapse due to the earlier damage -- ignited at the start of the month due to fermentation of remaining grain stocks along with rising Summer temperatures.

The fires have effectively turned parts of the silos into furnaces, with flames and fumes visible from miles away.

"When we see it, we are reminded of the tragedy that took place on August 4" 2020, said Kayan Tlais, who lost his brother in the explosion.

"It's a very disturbing sight and there is a sense of pain," he told AFP, the fires flaring behind him.

The fires do not aggravate the existing risk of the silos collapsing over the short-term, authorities and experts said.

Attempts to douse them -- by sea, land or air -- are more likely to cause the silos to collapse than the fires themselves, according to outgoing economy minister Amin Salam who toured the port on Thursday.

The government is "studying the best way to treat the situation without resorting to haphazard decisions or demolition," he told reporters.

The government in April ordered the demolition of the silos due to safety risks, but that move has since been suspended amid objections, including from relatives of blast victims who want the silos preserved as a memorial site.

Salam said that authorities were moving "slowly" to avoid mistakes, but also warned of potential long-term dangers.

"If the fires continue, sooner or later, they will consume the grains and empty the silos of their contents, which could cause partial collapse," especially of the most damaged block, he said.

- 'Extinguish themselves' -
Assaad Haddad, the general manager of the port's grain silos, said the fires were not generating high enough temperatures to cause structural damage nor were they emitting toxic fumes.

"This is why we are taking our time to respond," Haddad said.

The fires at the silos are not the first of their kind and will likely not be the last as long as grain remains.

"The fires will extinguish themselves when the feedstock runs out," said Mohamad Abiad, senior advisor for the minister of environment.

"The best thing is to let it burn," he said, noting that dousing in water would only make the grains more humid and accelerate fermentation.

Lara Khatchikian, whose house near the port was destroyed by the 2020 blast, said that the current fires have taken a toll on her and her family.

"Seeing the fire and smelling the smoke is horrible and reignites my family and my neighbors trauma," she said.



Netanyahu’s Messages: Beyond Türkiye, Closer to Tel Aviv

Men inspect the site of an Israeli airstrike on Thursday morning, following the bombing in southern Hama Province (AFP). 
Men inspect the site of an Israeli airstrike on Thursday morning, following the bombing in southern Hama Province (AFP). 
TT
20

Netanyahu’s Messages: Beyond Türkiye, Closer to Tel Aviv

Men inspect the site of an Israeli airstrike on Thursday morning, following the bombing in southern Hama Province (AFP). 
Men inspect the site of an Israeli airstrike on Thursday morning, following the bombing in southern Hama Province (AFP). 

Following a series of intensified Israeli airstrikes on Damascus and the airports in Homs and Hama, as well as a ground incursion into the city of Nawa near Daraa, Israeli officials on Thursday escalated their rhetoric, issuing fresh threats to the Syrian leadership and warning of further military action—this time citing concerns over Turkish military activity in the region.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar voiced particular alarm over Türkiye’s growing role in Syria, Lebanon, and beyond. Speaking at a press conference in Paris, he said: “They are doing everything they can to turn Syria into a Turkish protectorate. That is clearly their intention.”

Defense Minister Israel Katz echoed this sentiment, stating that Israel “will not allow Damascus to become a security threat” to Israel.

Rising Concern Over Türkiye’s Military Footprint in Syria

Military officials in Tel Aviv confirm that Israel sees Türkiye’s growing military presence in Syria as a serious concern. Their fear stems from two key issues: first, Ankara’s reported efforts to rebuild the Syrian army along the lines of its own modernized military model; and second, its apparent goal of establishing a long-term military foothold inside Syrian territory.

Israeli defense sources point out that Türkiye’s armed forces operate based on a traditional ground warfare doctrine, featuring large-scale armored divisions and well-equipped infantry units—similar in style to the Russian military. This stands in contrast to the Israeli military, which relies heavily on air superiority and has long underinvested in ground forces.

Given this disparity, any significant Turkish deployment in Syria could pose a direct challenge to Israeli operations and raise the risk of confrontation.

While the recent Israeli airstrikes targeted mostly long-defunct Syrian military sites—many of which have been hit repeatedly over the years—the attacks signal a broader strategic shift.

In the wake of the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led assault on southern Israel, the Israeli military has moved away from a defensive posture of deterrence and containment. In its place, the army has embraced a more aggressive doctrine built around preemptive action.

This shift was further underscored by the appointment of a new chief of staff from the Armored Corps—the first in three decades—signaling a renewed emphasis on ground operations and offensive initiatives.

Not Just a Message to Türkiye

Despite the messaging around Türkiye’s presence, analysts say the recent wave of Israeli military action also serves broader geopolitical aims.

After failing to persuade Washington to pressure Ankara to scale back its involvement in Syria, Israel now appears determined to assert its own red lines militarily. The airstrike on the Scientific Studies and Research Center in Damascus—a facility already destroyed multiple times since 2018—was widely viewed as symbolic.

Israeli officials say the intended audience for that particular strike was Syrian interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa, whom Israeli intelligence continues to refer to by his former nom de guerre, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani. By launching the attack during the Eid al-Fitr holiday, Israel aimed to send a clear message: there will be no return to normalcy in Syria without accounting for Israeli interests.

Among those interests is normalization. Last month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated his desire to see Syria and Lebanon join the Abraham Accords and establish formal diplomatic ties with Israel.

Hardline figures within Netanyahu’s coalition believe Israel currently holds a strategic upper hand. As right-wing think tank head Meir Ben-Shabbat recently wrote: “Israel is in its strongest position ever. It is transforming the Middle East, expanding its military capabilities, and pushing back the Iranian axis—while Syria is at its weakest.”

For many in Israel’s ruling right, this is an ideal moment to push for a peace agreement with Syria, possibly even one involving Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights.

The Real Audience: Domestic Israel

Still, perhaps the most significant message behind the military campaign is directed not at Ankara, Damascus, or even Tehran—but at Tel Aviv.

As protests against Netanyahu’s leadership have grown louder in recent months, military escalation has served as a convenient political shield. The wars in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, and Lebanon dominate public attention and have largely sidelined anti-government demonstrations.

“Netanyahu’s government must go, but we won’t take to the streets while our sons are fighting,” has become a common refrain among many Israelis who oppose his leadership but remain reluctant to protest during wartime.

By maintaining a state of conflict, Netanyahu is not only securing his coalition’s survival but also enabling his allies to advance a hardline agenda—particularly on the Palestinian issue—that would have faced greater resistance in peacetime.

Critics warn that this strategy, while politically expedient, comes at a steep cost to Israel’s democratic institutions, its judiciary, and the long-term stability of the region.