Arafat Chose to Fight for 6 Months... Moscow’s Position Was his Greatest Disappointment 

Asharq Al-Awsat publishes recollections of influential players during 1982 Israeli invasion of Beirut. 

Smoke billows from strikes during the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982. (Getty Images)
Smoke billows from strikes during the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982. (Getty Images)
TT

Arafat Chose to Fight for 6 Months... Moscow’s Position Was his Greatest Disappointment 

Smoke billows from strikes during the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982. (Getty Images)
Smoke billows from strikes during the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982. (Getty Images)

On this day in 1982, Beirut was besieged by the Israeli army and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat boarded a ship that took him to his new exile in Tunisia. The Palestinian Liberation Organization’s loss of its last front with Israel would leave its mark on the Palestinians and Lebanon.

As Israel tightened its siege of Beirut, Arafat took a secret decision to carry on fighting for six months until regional and international stances emerged. He was forced to leave Lebanon after 88 days, marking an end of what he described as the “longest Arab-Israeli war.”

The greatest disappointment to the Palestinian resistance and its allies in the Lebanese National Movement came from their Soviet ally. Moscow had refused to deliver a serious warning or send a destroyer off the Lebanese coast or a ship to evacuate the wounded.

Arafat’s insistence that he leave Lebanon by sea, not through Damascus, reflected the extent of the differences between him and Syrian President Hafez al-Assad. Secretary General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC) Ahmed Jibril recalled that Arafat had bluntly told him that the Syrian leadership will not be credited for him holding out for three months in Beirut.

Asharq Al-Awsat will publish a series of features highlighting the significant developments and recollections of influential players during that heated summer of 1982.

From a building in east Beirut, Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon observed Arafat as he boarded the ship that would take him to Tunisia. He wrongly believed that had broken the Palestinian resistance and that it would fade away in exile. The invasion failed in luring Lebanon to strike a peace deal with Israel. The current Lebanon has an even more hardline position towards Israel.

Against the backdrop of the war, Syria and Iran will lay the foundation of their alliance. Hezbollah would be born in Lebanon. Syria, which had withdrawn its troops from Beirut in wake of the invasion, would redeploy them years later, before again being forced to pull them out in 2005 after the assassination of Lebanese former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

In the besieged city, I was determined to record the testimonials of influential political and security figures. I tried to obtain Arafat’s testimony, but he turned down the offer, saying he didn’t want the Palestinian people to be punished “because of his memories.”

In Tunisia, Arafat told me: “What do you want me to recount? To tell you about Sabri al-Banna (Abou Nidal), who was hosted by three Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus and Tripoli, and who was obsessed with assassinating Palestinians, not Israelis?”

“Do you want me to tell you about the so-called intifada in Fatah that was backed by Syria and funded by Libya? Or do you want me to complain about the practices of Palestinian groups that tarnished our image of resistance or led to our labeling as terrorists? I’m not saying that Fatah was faultless. We all made mistakes, but we always tried not to lose our way and lose our cause.”

“The Palestinian people have been punished a lot. They were punished for clinging on to their cause and for firing the first shot. (...) The PLO was punished for adopting a hard line and punished when it adopted a moderate approach. Do you want the Palestinian people to be punished because of my memoirs? I don’t want to open old wounds.”

“As I was leaving Beirut, a journalist asked me: ‘Where to?’ I replied: ‘To Jerusalem. We are preparing for our date in Palestine and Jerusalem. We don’t have any other place to be.’”

The KGB general and Iran

In 1980, Palestinian ambassador to Tehran and Fatah central committee member Hani al-Hassan received an urgent call to head to Beirut. Upon his arrival, Arafat told him they were headed to a meeting at the Soviet embassy. Hassan understood that he needed to voice Arafat’s views. He knew how influential the Soviets were in the Palestinian revolution. He knew of the consequences of refusing delicate Soviet proposals.

Other Fatah members at the meeting included Salah Khalaf (Abou Ayad) and Khalil al-Wazir (Abou Jihad). The Soviets were represented by General “Alexander” who was the KGB official overseeing operations in the Middle East. The insistence that Palestinian leaders, not their representatives, be present at the meeting meant that Moscow expected the talks to yield a decision.

General “Alexander” spoke about the situation in the region, especially Iran, in wake of the Soviet military invasion of Afghanistan. He said the time had come for the Palestinians to cooperate with the Soviets to facilitate the Communist Party’s control of Iran. The Soviet Union wanted to expand its power in the region and Iran was a significant prize given its geographic location and resources.

Hassan was surprised with the proposal and asked to be excused from the meeting, but Arafat refused. Hassan said he would not stand against the Iranian revolution that had “offered us several major services,” referring to its severing of Iranian-Israeli relations that were forged under the shah.

Tensions soon erupted and the Soviet general declared that the Palestinians “won’t be able to do anything without us.” Hassan replied: “If the Soviets enter Iran, then Israel’s strategic value will grow a million-fold to the West. So, don’t even think about it. For our part, we will ensure that every effort is made to form good Iranian-Soviet relations.”

Hassan believed that the meeting exposed how the Soviets dealt with the situations in Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan and future conflicts in these countries.

Meeting in a Soviet forest

Another significant meeting was held years earlier. In the early 1970s, head of the PFLP’s External Operations Wadie Haddad met with KGB chief Yuri Andropov in a forest on the outskirts of Moscow. The meeting was held in utmost secrecy because Haddad at the time had been planning plane hijacking operations for years. Haddad asked for weapons from the Soviets, and they were smuggled to him off the coast of Aden, Yemen.

The first high-level contacts between Moscow and the Palestinian revolution took place in 1968 at the suggestion of Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser. Nasser and Arafat traveled to Moscow together on a secret visit. Two years later, a Soviet envoy met with Arafat in Jordan and the relations between the Palestinians and Soviets came out to the open.

Moscow realized the importance of relations with the Palestinians so it forged ties that allowed it in a few years to wield influence in Palestinian political and security decisions. Moscow formed close ties with the Palestinian left, including the PFLP, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and leftists in the Fatah movement.

These relations led the Palestinian resistance and allied parties in Lebanon to rule out the possibility of Israel invading Beirut. It had already launched its invasion on June 6, 1982, and was advancing on the capital. On the day of the invasion, the Fatah and Lebanese National Movement met in Beirut. Present were Abou Ammar, Abou Jihad, Abou Ayad, Abou al-Walid, Secretary General of the Lebanese Communist Party George Hawi and Secretary General of the Communist Action Organization in Lebanon Mohsen Ibrahim.

They discussed the possibility that the invasion could go beyond southern Lebanon, especially with Sharon as defense minister. They never predicted, however, that the Israeli forces would advance on Beirut and reach its outskirts because Syrian troops were in the capital and any clash with the Israelis could lead to a full-scale war between them. They believed that Israel would not provoke Syria, an ally of Moscow.

They were proven wrong when the Israeli army was met with little resistance and eventually besieged Beirut. It was later revealed that the Soviets and their allies did not have information about the Israeli plans. The Syrians were also in the dark.

Meeting with Bashir Gemayel

When the Israeli forces reached the Chouf area in Mount Lebanon and appeared intent on Beirut, a secret meeting was held between Abou Ammar al-Hassan, head of the Lebanese Forces Bashir al-Gemayel and Lebanese military intelligence chief Johnny Abdo. Gemayel wanted to hold the meeting to deliver a message to Arafat that the Palestinians must lay down their arms and leave Lebanon. “I am ready to secure a safe and dignified exit. I want an immediate answer before the Israelis reach Beirut,” he said. Hassan suggested that they take their conversation to the balcony because they feared Abdo’s house would be wiretapped.

Hassan noticed how worried Gemayel appeared. He told him: “Let me speak to you frankly. I follow you and it is my duty to follow you. I know you have presidential ambitions, but you won’t achieve them this way. You were the one who paved the way for the Syrians so that they could strike the Palestinians. Now, you have brought in the Israelis so that they can strike them both.”

“At the end of this game, we will both be struck, and you will be finished. Lebanon is enticing. Neither the Israelis, nor the Syrians will pull out. You are opposed to both of them. Let me repeat, you are mistaken in thinking this is the way that will lead you to the presidency. Your odds will be better if you decide to side with us and the Lebanese National Movement.”

“Who will agree to hosting the Palestinian fighters? Jordan, Syria or others? He vowed that he will ensure that a small number of fighters would remain and they would answer to the Lebanese army. The game slipped from his hands when the Israelis reached Beirut.”

Hassan later informed Mohsen about the meeting. Mohsen then met with Arafat and Hawi. They were primarily concerned with determining whether Moscow could stop the invasion. Hawi, with his close ties to the Soviets, believed that striking the Palestinian revolution was a red line for both sides the Soviets and Communists. After a month or so, he realized that everything was permissible, and nothing was off limits. Arab countries had no way of influencing international powers.

Hawi was hoping Moscow would threaten Israel to withdraw from Lebanon. He hoped they would send a naval vessel off the coast of Beirut or at least evacuate the wounded. Soviet ambassador to Beirut Alexander Soldatov could promise nothing of the sort. Hawi kept relaying these disappointing stances to Arafat. Hawi and others could not believe that the Soviets would stand idly by as Israel invaded Lebanon.

Arafat was dealt a crushing blow during a meeting with Soldatov. The ambassador told Arafat to leave Beirut, even if he had to board an American destroyer. Arafat was incredulous and refused to leave. He would eventually relent when it appeared that the Soviets would not support him or stand against the Israelis.



Trump Keeps Talking About Iran’s ‘Nuclear Dust.’ What Is It?

A satellite imagery taken on February 1, 2026, shows a new roof over a previously destroyed building at Isfahan nuclear site, Iran. 2026 (PLANET LABS PBC/Handout via Reuters/ File photo)
A satellite imagery taken on February 1, 2026, shows a new roof over a previously destroyed building at Isfahan nuclear site, Iran. 2026 (PLANET LABS PBC/Handout via Reuters/ File photo)
TT

Trump Keeps Talking About Iran’s ‘Nuclear Dust.’ What Is It?

A satellite imagery taken on February 1, 2026, shows a new roof over a previously destroyed building at Isfahan nuclear site, Iran. 2026 (PLANET LABS PBC/Handout via Reuters/ File photo)
A satellite imagery taken on February 1, 2026, shows a new roof over a previously destroyed building at Isfahan nuclear site, Iran. 2026 (PLANET LABS PBC/Handout via Reuters/ File photo)

Luke Broadwater, David E. Sanger*

In recent weeks, US President Donald Trump has been talking about a substance he says is key to ending the United States’ war against Iran: “nuclear dust.”

In the president’s telling, Iran’s nuclear program was so badly damaged by US bombs last year that all that remains under the rubble is a sort of powdery aftermath.

The phrase “nuclear dust” seemed designed to diminish the importance of what Trump is actually talking about — Iran’s stockpile of near-bomb-grade uranium, which is stored in canisters about the size of large scuba tanks.

The material is not, in fact, “dust.” It is typically a gas when stored inside the canisters, though it becomes a solid at room temperature. It is a volatile and highly toxic substance if it comes into contact with moisture and, if mishandled, can trigger a nuclear reaction.

Trump’s phrase oversimplifies the complex tasks of enriching uranium, to say nothing of negotiating an end to the war. It’s also a phrase nuclear experts say they’ve never heard before.

“I just interpreted it as Trump’s kind of colorful way of talking,” said Matthew Kroenig, the senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, according to the New York Times.

Here’s a closer look at what Trump means when he talks about “nuclear dust,” and why it’s important for an end to the conflict.

What is ‘nuclear dust’?

Trump is referring chiefly to the uranium Iran has enriched to 60%, near the 90% purity normally used to make a bomb. There is no use for fuel enriched to that level for, say, producing nuclear power.

So it is a warning sign to the international community that Iran could quickly convert the fuel to bomb-grade, even though there would still be many steps to then build a nuclear bomb.

The United States struck three key nuclear sites in June 2025, including a complex outside Isfahan, where much of the near-bomb grade material was believed to be stored.

“It’s not yet bomb-grade, but it’s on the way there, and it was being stored on the nuclear facility at Isfahan,” Kroenig said.

“And so when Isfahan was bombed, that material was presumably entombed there,” he added.

American intelligence officials believe that the Iranians dug down to gain access to the material, though there is no evidence any of it has been moved.

Uranium contains a rare radioactive isotope, called U-235, that can be used to power nuclear reactors at low enrichment levels and to fuel nuclear bombs at much higher levels.

The goal of uranium enrichment is to raise the percentage levels of U-235, which is often done by running it through gas centrifuges, machines that spin at supersonic speeds to increase the purity of the fuel.

Why is it important to ending the war?

Trump has said that Iran had agreed to turn over its nuclear materials to the United States, though Tehran has denied that claim.

“The US will get all nuclear dust,” Trump told a crowd in Arizona last week. “You know what the nuclear dust is? That was that white powdery substance created by our B-2 bombers.”

Iranian enrichment levels have been rising since Trump withdrew the United States from the Obama-era nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, saying the agreement wasn’t tough enough.

Trump then imposed several rounds of American sanctions on Iran. In response, Tehran repeatedly moved beyond the strict limits that the agreement had placed on its uranium enrichment, and began to resume production of nuclear material.

“They were enriching at very low levels before Trump administration withdrew the United States from the JCPOA,” said Justin Logan, the director of defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian-leaning think tank. “So what he is calling ‘nuclear dust’ did not exist inside Iran after the signing or the first several months of the JCPOA”

Can the material be removed during wartime?

Trump acknowledges removing Iran’s enriched uranium would be difficult. On Truth Social, he said this week that “digging it out will be a long and difficult process.”

It could be almost impossible without Iranian agreement.

“This would be a mission that would take a lot of time, and there would be a lot of nerds that aren’t good at killing people that would need to be involved here,” Logan said. “So the idea of doing this while we have our swords drawn strikes me as crazy.”

He said it would be similarly difficult for the Iranians to extract the material during the war.

“Trump is correct to say that we have eyes over the target pretty much all the time, and the Iranians couldn’t just swoop in the middle of the night and spirit it out; it’s an extremely volatile substance,” he said.

“We don’t know the conditions of the underground storage. Those tanks in which it has been stored might not be in great condition. It’s going to require a lot of nerds on the ground. And that’s true for the Iranians as much as it is true for us,” Logan added.

*The New York Times


Khartoum Mines Pose Hidden Threat to Returning Residents

A member of the Danish Refugee Council and Jasmar Human Security Organization uses a metal probe as he searches for land mines in Al-Mogran Park in Khartoum on April 19, 2026. (AFP)
A member of the Danish Refugee Council and Jasmar Human Security Organization uses a metal probe as he searches for land mines in Al-Mogran Park in Khartoum on April 19, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Khartoum Mines Pose Hidden Threat to Returning Residents

A member of the Danish Refugee Council and Jasmar Human Security Organization uses a metal probe as he searches for land mines in Al-Mogran Park in Khartoum on April 19, 2026. (AFP)
A member of the Danish Refugee Council and Jasmar Human Security Organization uses a metal probe as he searches for land mines in Al-Mogran Park in Khartoum on April 19, 2026. (AFP)

Specialized Sudanese army teams are clearing landmines and unexploded ordnance across Khartoum, amid suspicions the Rapid Support Forces had planted explosives in residential neighborhoods when they held large parts of the capital.

The work comes as authorities seek to stabilize security and as more residents return home.

An Asharq Al-Awsat correspondent accompanied a National Mine Action Center team in Al-Mogran, in central Khartoum to observe operations to detect and remove buried explosives.

The center considers Al-Mogran among the most dangerous areas in the capital. Teams began work after the army retook Khartoum in May 2025, uncovering thousands of mines and unexploded remnants.

Field supervisor Jumaa Ibrahim Abu Anja said the team is clearing about 45,000 square meters in Al-Mogran, an area that saw some of the fiercest fighting between the army and RSF.

He said indicators suggest the group planted thousands of mines across central Khartoum, particularly in streets and residential areas.

“We have found more than 300 hazardous items, including mines fitted with smaller charges and highly explosive materials, designed to inflict the highest possible number of casualties upon detonation,” Abu Anja said.

He added that the aim was to slow the army’s advance and inflict losses. Teams have removed multiple types of mines, including anti-vehicle and anti-personnel devices.

A member of the Danish Refugee Council and Jasmar Human Security Organization sweeps a metal detector as he searches for land mines in Al-Mogran Park in Khartoum on April 19, 2026. (AFP)

The team advances along a line marked with white indicators, moving in measured steps before stopping at a point. A member sweeps the ground with a detector to scan for buried objects.

The team halts again at a triangular area known as the “hot line,” signaling a potential minefield. Work pauses to ensure strict safety checks. Before entering the site, all members must wear armored vests, with journalists kept at a safe distance.

A sharp signal breaks the silence. It may indicate a mine or unexploded ordnance, though it may also be only scrap metal. Every alert is treated as a threat. Once confirmed, the team extracts the device with slow, precise steps to avoid detonation. Photos are taken only from a designated safe zone, with no approach allowed during removal.

Teams mark hazards clearly, placing red signs reading “Danger Mines” to warn residents. When a device is located, a green wooden marker is placed to identify the spot before disposal.

Anti-personnel mines are destroyed the same day under controlled procedures.

Alongside fieldwork, the National Mine Action Center runs awareness campaigns, sending text messages urging residents to report suspicious objects and to avoid them. Authorities also warn against burning waste in neighborhoods due to the risk of hidden explosives.

Abu Anja said about 80 percent of Al-Mogran and other parts of Khartoum have been cleared, but risks remain, especially as residents return.

Progress is slowed by limited funding, affecting the pace of clearance and disposal. Abu Anja warned that delays raise the danger, noting that dozens of civilians have been killed or injured by mines and war remnants.


Macron Leaves Future Open as Political Curtain Nears

 24 April 2026, Cyprus, Nikosia: French President Emmanuel Macron arrives at the informal meeting of the EU heads of state and government. (dpa)
24 April 2026, Cyprus, Nikosia: French President Emmanuel Macron arrives at the informal meeting of the EU heads of state and government. (dpa)
TT

Macron Leaves Future Open as Political Curtain Nears

 24 April 2026, Cyprus, Nikosia: French President Emmanuel Macron arrives at the informal meeting of the EU heads of state and government. (dpa)
24 April 2026, Cyprus, Nikosia: French President Emmanuel Macron arrives at the informal meeting of the EU heads of state and government. (dpa)

With just one year left in his second five-year term, French President Emmanuel Macron has said he will quit politics in 2027 -- leaving observers and supporters guessing about his next moves.

"I wasn't in politics before and I'm not going to be after," Macron said Thursday during a visit to a high school in Cyprus.

He added that at this late stage in office, the "hardest thing" was to strike a balance between defending his record and acknowledging what "didn't work out".

France's political and media world is already abuzz as the race for 2027 has "already begun", said Philippe Moreau-Chevrolet, a communications expert at Sciences Po university.

For now, would-be candidates are playing up their softer sides, with far-right National Rally (RN) party chief Jordan Bardella showing off a romance with Princess Maria Carolina of Bourbon-Two Sicilies in glossy magazine Paris Match.

And Gabriel Attal, one of Macron's string of former prime ministers, has offered personal revelations in a book as he shores up his bid to lead the centrist camp into the 2027 vote.

"Now is a good time for the president-- who in any case won't be in charge of much anymore -- to announce and lay the groundwork for his departure," Moreau-Chevrolet said.

"He needs to tell an alternative story while leaving what's next up to speculation."

- Rear-view mirror -

Macron has sought in recent weeks to spruce up public perceptions of his legacy -- even as would-be successors in his own ranks try to distance themselves from a historically unpopular leader.

The 48-year-old may be hoping to mimic the trajectory of Jacques Chirac, president in the late 1990s and 2000s.

Once out of the cut and thrust of daily politics and with his various scandals fading, conservative Chirac's public image recovered and many now look back on his era with nostalgia.

"At some point there'll be a change in perspective, because he won't be a political personality any longer," a person close to Macron said.

"There'll be a re-emergence of some of the key elements and consistency" in his policy, the person added, such as his push for "industrial and European independence in the face of crises."

Macron remains highly visible outside France, standing up to US President Donald Trump over his threats to annex Greenland and criticizing the war against Iran.

His long-vaunted White House relationship has cooled in recent months as Trump becomes a liability even for his supposed political allies in Europe's far right.

"I didn't speak to him in the last few hours because I didn't see a need for it," Macron said dismissively of Trump Monday during a visit to Poland.

The president's "true role has been on the international stage," said Moreau-Chevrolet.

In January, Macron energized the World Economic Forum in Davos with a "defense of European democracies and Gaullist position" of technological and military emancipation from the United States.

Images raced around the internet of the French leader wearing aviator-style sunglasses to protect a broken blood vessel in his eye, as he called for Europe to stiffen its spine.

- #Macron2032? -

Macron's stated intent to leave active politics "doesn't mean that he'll be out of the picture altogether," Moreau-Chevrolet said.

The person close to Macron said that "he was talking about politics in the party-political sense".

Some observers suggest he could seek a post heading an intergovernmental body such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or European Commission.

One centrist leader predicted that "he'll start up an outfit of his own after 2027. And there will be people calling for #Macron2032," the next presidential election when he could stand again.

In the meantime, "he's not taking leave of the questions he's passionate about, reindustrialization of France, AI, the defense industry, international affairs. He leaves the rest to the prime minister and doesn't bother about it," one sitting minister said.

As the 2027 campaign progresses, Macron will likely leave the battle up to the centrist candidate to succeed him -- with the subtext that "I have a legacy and you must stand up for it," the minister added.