عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Arab World

White House Says US Air Strikes in Syria Aim to Send Message

A rocket attack on a military complex inside Erbil airport that hosts foreign troops deployed as part of a US-led coalition caused serious damage - AFP
A rocket attack on a military complex inside Erbil airport that hosts foreign troops deployed as part of a US-led coalition caused serious damage - AFP
TT
TT

White House Says US Air Strikes in Syria Aim to Send Message

A rocket attack on a military complex inside Erbil airport that hosts foreign troops deployed as part of a US-led coalition caused serious damage - AFP
A rocket attack on a military complex inside Erbil airport that hosts foreign troops deployed as part of a US-led coalition caused serious damage - AFP

US air strikes against Iranian-backed militias in Syria are meant to send the message that President Joe Biden will act to protect Americans, a White House spokeswoman said on Friday.

Future US actions in the region will be deliberative and will aim to deescalate tensions in Syria, spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.

Syria said the strikes in the east of the country were a cowardly act and urged Biden not to follow “the law of the jungle”.

An Iraqi militia official close to Iran said the strikes killed one fighter and wounded four, but US officials said they were limited in scope to show Biden’s administration will act firmly while trying to avoid a big regional escalation.

Washington and Tehran are seeking maximum leverage in attempts to save Iran’s nuclear deal reached with world powers in 2015 but abandoned in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, after which regional tensions soared and fears of full-scale conflict grew.

“Syria condemns in the strongest terms the cowardly US attack on areas in Deir Ezzor near the Syrian-Iraqi border,” the Syrian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

“It (the Biden administration) is supposed to stick to international legitimacy, not to the law of the jungle as (did) the previous administration.”

The air strikes, early on Friday Middle Eastern time, targeted militia sites on the Syrian side of the Iraqi-Syrian frontier, where groups backed by Iran control an important crossing for weapons, personnel and goods.

Western officials and some Iraqi officials accuse Iranian-backed groups of involvement in deadly rocket attacks on US sites and personnel in Iraq over the last month.

Russia, an ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, also criticized the US strikes and called for “unconditional respect of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria.”

“What has happened is very dangerous and could lead to an escalation in the whole region,” a Russian parliamentarian, Vladimir Dzhabarov, was quoted as saying by RIA news agency.

Attacks on US forces in Iraq
The Iraqi militia official close to Iran said the air strikes had targeted positions of the Kataib Hezbollah paramilitary group along the border.

Later on Friday, Kataib Hezbollah confirmed the death of one of its fighters on the Syrian-Iraqi border and identified him as Sayyid Rahi Salam Zayid al-Sharifi.

Local sources and a medical source in eastern Syria told Reuters that at least 17 people had been killed, but gave no further details. That toll could not be confirmed.

In recent attacks, a non-American contractor was killed at a US military based at Erbil International Airport in Kurdish-run northern Iraq on Feb. 15 and, in the days that followed, rockets were fired at a base hosting US forces, and near the US Embassy in Baghdad.

Biden’s decision to strike only in Syria and not in Iraq gives Iraq’s government breathing room as it investigates the Erbil attack, which also wounded Americans.

Kataib Hezbollah has denied involvement in recent attacks against US interests. Iran denies involvement in attacks on US sites.

Several attacks, including the one on Erbil airport, have been claimed by little-known groups which some Iraqi and Western officials say are a front for established Iranian-backed groups such as Kataib Hezbollah.

Limited response
Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said in a statement on Thursday that US forces had conducted air strikes against infrastructure used by Iranian-backed militant groups.

“President Biden will act to protect American and Coalition personnel. At the same time, we have acted in a deliberate manner that aims to de-escalate the overall situation in both eastern Syria and Iraq,” Kirby said.

He said the strikes destroyed multiple facilities at a border control point used by a number of Iranian-backed militant groups, including Kataib Hezbollah and Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada.

A US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the decision to carry out the strikes was meant to signal that, while the United States wanted to punish the militias, it did not want the situation to spiral into a bigger conflict.

The Iraqi military issued a statement saying it had not exchanged information with the United States over the targeting of locations in Syria, and that cooperation with the US-led coalition in Iraq was limited to fighting ISIS.

Iraq’s foreign minister will visit Iran on Saturday to discuss the situation in the region including ways to balance relations and avoid tension and escalation, his ministry said in a statement late on Friday.

It was not clear how, or whether, the US strikes might affect efforts to coax Iran back into negotiations about both sides resuming compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal.

Most Viewed

 
 
Arab World

Hezbollah and Lebanon's National Dialogue: 20 Years of Talks Over Its Weapons, No Deal on Implementation

Lebanon's national dialogue table (File photo)
Lebanon's national dialogue table (File photo)
TT
TT

Hezbollah and Lebanon's National Dialogue: 20 Years of Talks Over Its Weapons, No Deal on Implementation

Lebanon's national dialogue table (File photo)
Lebanon's national dialogue table (File photo)

Former Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt's call for dialogue with Hezbollah on bringing all weapons under state control has reignited a long-running debate in Lebanon over whether another round of talks can resolve an issue that has defied successive national dialogue initiatives.

The divide is familiar: Supporters see dialogue as a way to avert confrontation, while critics argue it merely buys Hezbollah time. But the stakes have shifted, with the debate moving beyond the decades-old question of a "defense strategy" to government decisions asserting the state's exclusive authority over weapons.

The dispute dates back to the March 2006 national dialogue convened by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, when Hezbollah's arsenal became part of discussions over a national defense strategy. The July war interrupted those talks.

The issue resurfaced after the May 2008 clashes, when Hezbollah turned its weapons against domestic opponents. The subsequent Doha Agreement paved the way for the election of a president and a national unity government in which the opposition secured 11 of 30 cabinet seats, giving it the power to block decisions requiring a two-thirds majority.

The agreement included a pledge not to use weapons for political gains but stopped short of securing Hezbollah's disarmament.

Talks resumed under then-President Michel Suleiman, culminating in the June 2012 Baabda Declaration, which called for keeping Lebanon out of regional conflicts but left the weapons dispute unresolved.

In 2014, Hezbollah and the Future Movement launched bilateral talks in Ain al-Tineh to defuse sectarian tensions. Disagreements over the Baabda Declaration persisted through a meeting in Baabda in 2020.

The issue took a new turn in August 2025, when the government tasked the army with drafting a plan to bring weapons under exclusive state control. In March 2026, it banned Hezbollah's military and security activities and demanded that the group surrender its weapons.

Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem said on Oct. 6 that the group was ready to cooperate on bringing weapons under state control, provided the process followed the constitution and laws and was free of foreign dictates. He stressed that an Israeli withdrawal remained the priority.

Dialogue Entrenched the Imbalance of Power

Former lawmaker Fares Souaid argued that Lebanon's national dialogue initiatives had consistently worked in Hezbollah's favor, helping the group consolidate its arsenal and tighten its grip on political decision-making.

He said another round of domestic talks would be futile because the real decision-making power lay in Iran.

Any serious dialogue, he argued, should be with Tehran rather than Hezbollah as a Lebanese political actor.

Souaid told Asharq Al-Awsat that the Lebanese national dialogue that followed roughly 15 years of civil war and 150,000 deaths had produced constitutional changes and a new political and social compact embodied in the Taif Agreement.

Any subsequent dialogue, he said, should have focused on implementing Taif rather than undermining the foundations of Lebanon's postwar political system.

Souaid accused Hezbollah of exploiting regional and international power dynamics after May 7, 2008, when he said the group forcibly seized control of Lebanese political decision-making, to replace the Taif Agreement with the Doha Agreement.

While Taif rested on Muslim-Christian coexistence, he said, Doha entrenched the opposition's blocking third and veto power in the cabinet, allowing one political camp to obstruct government decisions.

He also criticized the national dialogue sessions held under then-President Michel Suleiman, saying they had become a vehicle for legitimizing an arrangement that contradicted both the constitution and Taif: allowing one Lebanese faction to retain its weapons under the banner of defending Lebanon against Israel.

Arab parties that had been expected to participate in those talks ultimately did not attend, he added.

Souaid dismissed subsequent initiatives, including the Baabda Declaration, as largely symbolic exercises that neither altered the balance of power nor restored sovereign decision-making to state institutions.

He offered a more specific explanation for the bilateral talks between Hezbollah and the Future Movement in Ain al-Tineh.

Their purpose, he said, was to shield Lebanon from escalating Sunni-Shi'ite tensions as sectarian divisions threatened to engulf the region.

The aim was to prevent that turmoil from spilling into Lebanon.

But Souaid argued that dialogue between Hezbollah and other Lebanese factions, including the Lebanese Forces, the Progressive Socialist Party, the Amal Movement and the Future Movement, had ultimately favored the armed group.

He maintained that any talks between the Lebanese state and Hezbollah today should, in reality, be conducted between Lebanon and Iran.

Repeating the domestic dialogue formula, he said, would be pointless because Hezbollah lacked the freedom to make its own decision on whether to negotiate.

That decision, he argued, rested with Tehran.

From 'Defense Strategy' to Executive Action

Political researcher and academic Hayat Hariri said the long-running debate over a national defense strategy had become an exercise in indecision, buying time and postponing decisive state action.

The fundamental mistake, she argued, was placing a question of national security in the hands of political party leaders and sectarian figures rather than the institutions responsible for defending the state.

"The Lebanese state and its institutions, not political parties, are responsible for formulating the defense strategy," Hariri told Asharq Al-Awsat.

She said that responsibility belonged to the constitutional authorities, the Defense Ministry and the army command.

Turning national security into a debate among political factions, she argued, had allowed those responsible to evade decisions and buy time.

Hariri said Hezbollah had never been troubled by discussions over its weapons. Far from resisting dialogue, the group had encouraged it, advancing proposals that made its arsenal a central pillar of any defense strategy and envisaged the state's military and security apparatus coordinating with Hezbollah on terms aligned with its interests.

The resulting documents, she argued, helped Hezbollah portray itself as open to cooperation with the state.

As long as opposition to its weapons remained verbal, dialogue posed little threat to the group.

Hariri said successive government policy statements had also provided Hezbollah with political cover for its arsenal under the banner of "resistance".

But she drew a distinction between those earlier debates and the decisions taken by Prime Minister Nawaf Salam's government.

The government, she said, had crossed a red line in its relationship with Hezbollah by moving from political discussion to executive decisions.

The decisions had yet to be implemented, she acknowledged, but their significance should not be confused with the state's ability to enforce them.

Hariri linked that shift to Hezbollah's increasingly fierce attacks on the government and accusations that its opponents were collaborating with Israel.

She said the group was seeking the reversal of the Aug. 5 and Aug. 7 decisions on exclusive state control over weapons, along with the ban on its military activities, as a precondition for renewed dialogue.

Accepting those demands, she warned, would send Lebanon back into lengthy discussions over a defense strategy without producing tangible results.

She also criticized proposals framed around "restricting", "freezing" or "containing" weapons unless they were backed by concrete steps.

For Hariri, the central dispute is not simply whether Hezbollah's arsenal can be incorporated into the state's defense structure, but who would control it.

She argued that Hezbollah wanted its weapons integrated into the state's system while retaining the authority to control them and decide when to use them, rather than surrendering exclusive military decision-making power to Lebanese state institutions.

Arab World

Armed Faction Warns US Against Using Iraqi Airspace to Attack Iran

Fighters lift flags of Iraq and armed factions during a funeral in Baghdad for five militants killed a day earlier in a US strike in northern Iraq, on December 4, 2023. (AFP)
Fighters lift flags of Iraq and armed factions during a funeral in Baghdad for five militants killed a day earlier in a US strike in northern Iraq, on December 4, 2023. (AFP)
TT
TT

Armed Faction Warns US Against Using Iraqi Airspace to Attack Iran

Fighters lift flags of Iraq and armed factions during a funeral in Baghdad for five militants killed a day earlier in a US strike in northern Iraq, on December 4, 2023. (AFP)
Fighters lift flags of Iraq and armed factions during a funeral in Baghdad for five militants killed a day earlier in a US strike in northern Iraq, on December 4, 2023. (AFP)

An armed Iraqi faction warned on Friday the US against using Iraqi airspace to attack Iran.

Harakat Ansar Allah al-Awfiya is led by Haidar al-Gharawi, a leading member of the Coordination Framework.

It warned that using Iraq to attack Iran “would be viewed as a violation that demands that the faction retaliate against the US.”

Faction spokesman Ali al-Fatlawi said it would remain neutral so long as Iraq is not used as a launchpad to attack any neighboring country.

Washington is demanded to refrain from violating Iraq’s airspace, he said, according to Shafaq News.

“Any violation of Iraqi sovereignty will be met with a response by the faction,” he warned.

The so-called “Islamic Resistance in Iraq” said it had registered dozens of US air force violations of Iraqi airspace in recent days.

Al-Fatlawi added that the faction has not handed over its weapons to the state, saying the government decision set the deadline for “organizing the arms” and not “surrendering” them to June 2027.

Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi had in early October warned the Framework against failing to commit to the deadline.

Arab World

Houthi Attack Targets Aden Airport, Presidential Palace

This frame grab taken from AFPTV video footage on October 28, 2026 shows smoke rising after a missile targeted Yemen's Aden airport for the second time. (AFPTV / AFP)
This frame grab taken from AFPTV video footage on October 28, 2026 shows smoke rising after a missile targeted Yemen's Aden airport for the second time. (AFPTV / AFP)
TT
TT

Houthi Attack Targets Aden Airport, Presidential Palace

This frame grab taken from AFPTV video footage on October 28, 2026 shows smoke rising after a missile targeted Yemen's Aden airport for the second time. (AFPTV / AFP)
This frame grab taken from AFPTV video footage on October 28, 2026 shows smoke rising after a missile targeted Yemen's Aden airport for the second time. (AFPTV / AFP)

The terrorist Houthi militia attacked Aden’s international airport and presidential palace with ballistic missiles, announced Yemen’s armed forces on Friday.

Official spokesman of the armed forces Majed al-Nuzaili condemned the Houthis’ continued attacked on civilian infrastructure.

The legitimate government slammed the repeated Houthi attacks on the palace and airport, saying it was the second and seventh time respectively that they have been targeted.

It noted that Houthis’ attempt to attack the holy city of Makkah in Saudi Arabia, adding that it reflects an escalation that goes beyond targeting state institutions and civilian infrastructure, but that threatens regional stability and security and the sanctity of Islamic holy sites.

In a statement on Friday, the government said the attack on the airport, which is a vital civilian facility, is a direct attack on the interests of the people and an attempt to obstruct the work of public institutions and undermine the state’s ability to meet its commitments.

The attack on the Al-Maashiq Presidential Palace, the seat of government and state institutions in the interim capital, will not deter the state from fulfilling its duties towards the people, it vowed.

It said that it deals with these attacks as a direct assault on the authority of the state and safety of citizens.

The government also expressed its full solidarity with Saudi Arabia amid the continued Houthi attacks, most notably the attack on Makkah, which places a clear responsibility on the international community regarding behavior that threatens regional security, air navigation freedom, and civilian facilities, and extends to violating the holiest of Islamic sanctuaries.

The statement added that confronting these threats requires a practical international stance commensurate with their gravity, one that prevents their continuation and stops those responsible from escaping accountability.

It further renewed the Yemeni government's commitment to its constitutional and national responsibilities, and to working toward restoring state institutions and ending the Houthi coup, while protecting citizens and safeguarding their resources.