US Officials Hold ‘Very Productive’ Talks with ‘Pragmatic’ Al-Sharaa in Syria

A delegation of US diplomats, including US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf (C, in green), leaves a hotel in Damascus, Syria 20 December 2024, after opposition forces toppled president Bashar al-Assad. (EPA)
A delegation of US diplomats, including US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf (C, in green), leaves a hotel in Damascus, Syria 20 December 2024, after opposition forces toppled president Bashar al-Assad. (EPA)
TT

US Officials Hold ‘Very Productive’ Talks with ‘Pragmatic’ Al-Sharaa in Syria

A delegation of US diplomats, including US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf (C, in green), leaves a hotel in Damascus, Syria 20 December 2024, after opposition forces toppled president Bashar al-Assad. (EPA)
A delegation of US diplomats, including US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf (C, in green), leaves a hotel in Damascus, Syria 20 December 2024, after opposition forces toppled president Bashar al-Assad. (EPA)

The first US diplomats to visit Syria since President Bashar Assad’s ouster earlier this month held “very productive” talks with transitional officials in Damascus on Friday to press for an inclusive government and seek information on the whereabouts of missing American journalist Austin Tice.  

The top American diplomat for the Middle East, Barbara Leaf, former special envoy for Syria Daniel Rubinstein and the Biden administration’s chief envoy for hostage negotiations, Roger Carstens, met with interim leaders and members of civil society, officials said.  

Leaf said she had a “good, very productive” discussion with “pragmatic” de facto leader Ahmad al-Sharaa, head of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group.

She said she heard from al-Sharaa his priorities for Syria, which are rooted in getting it on the road to economic recovery.

The new Syrian government would have to be “responsive and demonstrate progress” to ensure sanctions relief, she went on to say.

On foreign influence on Syria, Leaf said “Türkiye has sizeable influence”, while Iran “will have no role in Syria whatsoever, and it shouldn’t.”

“We would like to see a Syria that can stand on its own feet, regain a full measure of sovereignty,” she stressed.

Moreover, she revealed that the US is “offering technical expertise and other support to Syria to deal with documentation of crimes by Assad regime. Mass graves will be a priority for US Government.”

On Tice, Carstens said: “We’ve had a lot of information coming in about Austin Tice, but it doesn’t confirm one way or another whether he is alive.”

"We will be working in coming days, weeks, months with Syria's interim authorities to find Tice and others,” he revealed.

The State Department said the delegation's agenda would be topped by seeking information about Tice as well as pushing the principles of minority rights and a rejection of terrorism. The administration says those will be critical for US support for a new government.  

Shortly before the delegation arrived in Damascus, the US military said it had conducted airstrikes in northeastern Syria on Thursday, killing a leader of the ISIS group and one other militant.  

In a statement, the US Central Command said the strike was in an area formerly controlled by the ousted Syrian government and was part of an ongoing effort to prevent ISIS extremists from taking advantage of the upheaval in Syria, including any plan to release the more than 8,000 ISIS prisoners held in detention by Kurds who have partnered with the US.  

Leaf's team is also the first group of American diplomats to formally visit Syria in more than a decade, since the US shuttered its embassy in Damascus in 2012, although a small number of US diplomats had been assigned to political advisory roles with military units inside Syria since then.  

“They will be engaging directly with the Syrian people, including members of civil society, activists, members of different communities, and other Syrian voices about their vision for the future of their country and how the United States can help support them,” the State Department said.  

The US has redoubled efforts to find Tice and return him home, saying officials have communicated with the opposition who ousted Assad's government about the American journalist. Carstens traveled previously to Lebanon to seek information.  

Tice, who has had his work published by The Washington Post, McClatchy newspapers and others, disappeared at a checkpoint in a contested area west of Damascus as the Syrian civil war intensified.  

A video released weeks after Tice went missing showed him blindfolded and held by armed men. He has not been heard from since. Assad's government publicly denied that it was holding him.  

The opposition group that spearheaded the assault on Damascus that forced Assad to flee — Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS — is designated a foreign terrorist organization by the United States and others. While that designation comes with a raft of sanctions, it does not prohibit US officials from speaking to its members or leaders. 

Although the US has not had a formal diplomatic presence in Syria since 2012, there are US troops in small parts of Syria engaged in the fight against the ISIS group.  

The Pentagon revealed Thursday that the US had doubled the number of its forces in Syria to fight ISIS before Assad’s fall. The US also has significantly stepped up airstrikes against ISIS targets over concern that a power vacuum would allow the group to reconstitute itself.  

The diplomats' visit to Damascus will not result in the immediate reopening of the US embassy, which is under the protection of the Czech government, according to US officials, who said decisions on diplomatic recognition will be made when the new Syrian authorities make their intentions clear.



Tunisia Jails Former Head of Anti-graft Body for 10 Years

Former head of National Anti-Corruption Authority Chawki Tabib (Getty)
Former head of National Anti-Corruption Authority Chawki Tabib (Getty)
TT

Tunisia Jails Former Head of Anti-graft Body for 10 Years

Former head of National Anti-Corruption Authority Chawki Tabib (Getty)
Former head of National Anti-Corruption Authority Chawki Tabib (Getty)

A Tunisian court sentenced the former head of the national anti-graft body to 10 years in prison over charges including forging documents, his lawyer said on Friday.

Chawki Tabib, who is also a prominent lawyer and the former head of the Tunisian bar association, was arrested last April.

Defense lawyer Samir Dilou said Tabib, 62, was convicted on Thursday of "forging documents" and "possessing and using forged documents.”

The charges came after a complaint lodged against him following a report by the National Anti-Corruption Authority, which Tabib headed from 2016 to 2020, accusing former prime minister Elyes Fakhfakh of a conflict of interest during his tenure.

According to AFP, Fakhfakh then sacked Tabib, who called the measure "unconstitutional" and an "abuse of power.”

The anti-graft body was dissolved in 2021 after a sweeping power grab by President Kais Saied, which rights groups have said precipitated a major rollback in freedoms in Tunisia.

Tabib has defended several political opponents of Saied in court.

He is currently facing other judicial cases, including over alleged money laundering and other violations during his tenure as head of the anti-graft body.


Sudan War: Is A Settlement Drawing Closer?

 A child sits on a hill overlooking a refugee camp near Sudan’s border with Chad in November 2023 (Reuters)
A child sits on a hill overlooking a refugee camp near Sudan’s border with Chad in November 2023 (Reuters)
TT

Sudan War: Is A Settlement Drawing Closer?

 A child sits on a hill overlooking a refugee camp near Sudan’s border with Chad in November 2023 (Reuters)
A child sits on a hill overlooking a refugee camp near Sudan’s border with Chad in November 2023 (Reuters)

After more than three years of war, Sudan is facing a different political and humanitarian moment. The fighting has not stopped, and neither side has won. But the cost of prolonging the war now appears to have outgrown what Sudan, its neighbors, and the wider international community can bear.

As international pressure builds, regional diplomacy gathers pace and the humanitarian collapse deepens, one question is echoing through political and media circles: Is Sudan’s war nearing a settlement, or is the country slipping into another long conflict like those that scarred its past?

Sudan’s history offers little comfort. Its major wars have often lasted decades. The first civil war in the South ran for 17 years, from 1955 to 1972. The second lasted 22 years, from 1983 to 2005. The Darfur war continued for about 17 years, from 2003 to 2020. All ended only after a return to dialogue, understanding, and peace. That history leaves many Sudanese fearing that the current conflict could become a new chapter in the country’s long, open-ended wars.

But others argue this war is different.

Since fighting erupted between the army and the Rapid Support Forces in April 2023, both sides have bet on a swift military victory. As the war enters its fourth year, the limits of that bet are clear. Battles have spread from Khartoum to Port Sudan, Darfur, Kordofan, and Blue Nile.

They have not delivered a decisive victory for either side. Instead, they have plunged Sudan into one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.

As the battlefield grows more complex, the international community increasingly sees Sudan’s war as a threat beyond Sudan itself. Rising tensions in the Red Sea, fears that chaos could spread through the Horn of Africa, and growing displacement and illegal migration have pushed Western and regional capitals to intensify pressure for a political settlement.

In that context, the recent Berlin conference marked an important milestone. Dozens of countries and international organizations agreed that Sudan’s crisis “cannot be resolved militarily” and voiced clear support for a comprehensive negotiating track.

The United States and the European Union have also stepped up diplomatic efforts to push for a ceasefire, amid growing fears that instability could spread across the region.

One of the clearest signs of this shift came from Massad Boulos, senior adviser to the US president for Arab and African affairs. He said there was “no military solution” to the conflict in Sudan and pointed to an “international consensus” on pushing the parties toward negotiations and a ceasefire.

He also cited US efforts to support humanitarian truces that could pave the way for a permanent halt to the fighting.

The shift does not mean a settlement is imminent. But it does show a growing conviction among influential powers that continued war could lead to the full collapse of the Sudanese state, a scenario feared by many regional and international actors, especially Sudan’s neighbors.

Recent months have also brought more active regional diplomacy than in the war’s early years, when the conflict was often described as the “forgotten war.”

Coordination has grown among the African Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and the Arab League, alongside Gulf, Egyptian and African moves aimed at preventing Sudan’s disintegration or its slide into an open arena for regional conflict.

Those actors know the war will not threaten Sudan alone. It could directly affect Red Sea security, international trade and the stability of neighboring states. That makes a political settlement a regional necessity, not only a Sudanese demand.

Inside Sudan, the army still speaks the language of continued military operations. Yet it has left the door ajar to political solutions. In remarks carrying clear political weight, Burhan recently said that “anyone who reaches conviction and lays down arms, the homeland’s embrace is open to him.”

Observers saw the message as an attempt to open the way for possible settlements, or to encourage defections from the Rapid Support Forces by offering implicit guarantees to those ready to return and join new arrangements.

Still, Burhan continues to say the army is “moving ahead with restoring the state and its institutions.”

That reflects the military establishment’s firm political and military ceiling in any future negotiations, and shows that the path to a comprehensive settlement remains highly complicated, despite mounting pressure to end the war.

Humanitarian pressure

The strongest pressure on all sides may no longer be military or political. It is humanitarian.

The United Nations and international food agencies have warned that Sudan is facing one of the world’s largest hunger crises. According to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, or IPC, report issued in May 2026, about 20 million Sudanese are suffering acute food insecurity, while tens of thousands face the risk of famine.

Several areas could face a humanitarian catastrophe if the war continues.

World Food Program Executive Director Cindy McCain said hunger and malnutrition threaten the lives of millions, urging swift action to stop the crisis from becoming a “major tragedy.”

UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell said the humanitarian situation had reached a tragic stage, with children arriving at health facilities “too weak to cry.”

Inside Sudanese circles, calls to end the war are widening, even as divisions persist over what a settlement should look like. Some analysts close to the army say falling public support for continued war does not mean accepting the Rapid Support Forces as a force parallel to the state. Any future settlement, they argue, must be tied to rebuilding a unified military institution.

Observers say rising international pressure, military exhaustion and humanitarian deterioration could push the warring parties toward a political settlement in the coming phase.

Sharif Mohamed Osman, political secretary of the Sudanese Congress Party, said there was “no military solution and no peace without genuine civilian leadership,” arguing that ending the war requires a comprehensive settlement that rebuilds the state and its institutions.

Other observers say Sudan now stands at a delicate balance point between peace and continued war. Political analyst Mohamed Latif says international conditions, external pressure, and civilian suffering make peace “closer than ever.”

But he also says new fighting fronts and regional complexities continue to prolong the conflict, leaving all options open.

From a security and strategic perspective, military expert Brig. Gen. Dr. Jamal al-Shaheed says Sudan is at an extremely dangerous crossroads. One path leads to a political settlement forced by military exhaustion and international pressure.

The other leads to an “extended war,” where neither side can achieve total victory while state institutions slowly erode under military, economic and humanitarian attrition.

Al-Shaheed warns that time is no longer on Sudan’s side, and that every additional day of war doubles the future cost of peace.

Despite all these signals, the biggest questions remain unanswered: Has the war reached the point of exhaustion that usually precedes settlements? Or is Sudan still at the start of a long conflict whose end has yet to take shape?


US Sanctions Target Lebanon’s 'Deep State' Before Washington Security Meeting

The Lebanese government meets under President Joseph Aoun (Lebanese Presidency)
The Lebanese government meets under President Joseph Aoun (Lebanese Presidency)
TT

US Sanctions Target Lebanon’s 'Deep State' Before Washington Security Meeting

The Lebanese government meets under President Joseph Aoun (Lebanese Presidency)
The Lebanese government meets under President Joseph Aoun (Lebanese Presidency)

The latest US Treasury sanctions on Lebanese and Iranian figures linked to Hezbollah looked less like another routine political measure and more like a direct warning to the Lebanese state and its security and military institutions.

The sanctions came days before a Lebanese US security meeting in Washington on May 29, expected to address the future of security in southern Lebanon and the state’s role in controlling illegal weapons.

The Treasury measures marked a notable shift. For the first time, they targeted serving officers in official security institutions, signaling that Washington has moved beyond pressuring Hezbollah and its political allies to warning Lebanese state bodies themselves against leniency or obstruction in implementing government and security decisions.

Lebanon has not issued an official response. Ministerial sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that the timing of the sanctions “raises questions, especially since there was no atmosphere suggesting such a step, but the US Treasury has its own considerations.” They said the measures “could have a negative impact on the course of negotiations.”

The US message, decisions are not enough; implementation is required

The sanctions were issued shortly before the Lebanese-US security meeting in Washington, as international pressure mounts on Lebanon to meet its commitments to restrict weapons to the state.

By targeting officers in the army and General Security, Washington appeared to be saying that the problem is no longer limited to whether the Lebanese government has made a political decision. The issue is whether executive and security institutions can carry it out.

Dr. Sami Nader, head of the Levant Institute for Strategic Affairs, said the sanctions target what he called the “deep state” inside Lebanese institutions. For Washington, he said, the problem is no longer only the existence of a political decision, but the lack of actual implementation inside administrations and security and military institutions.

Nader told Asharq Al-Awsat that the United States is signaling that the Lebanese government has, at certain stages, taken decisions related to its security commitments and Hezbollah’s weapons. The Lebanese army, he said, has also drawn up plans and implementation mechanisms.

But according to the US reading, those decisions face obstruction in parts of the state, where some actors work to delay or block implementation, allowing Hezbollah’s influence in official institutions to continue.

Nader said the importance of the sanctions lies in the fact that they do not only target Hezbollah’s political environment. They move toward a direct accusation that the party has influence inside security and military chains of command.

Washington, he said, is effectively saying the problem is no longer inside the Cabinet, where decisions are made, but in what happens after those decisions are issued and passed to the executive and security agencies tasked with enforcing them.

Targeting official officers for the first time carries major political and security significance, Nader said, because it reflects a US conviction that certain figures within certain institutions are obstructing missions aimed at controlling the security situation or implementing government decisions.

The sanctions, therefore, form part of an escalating US track aimed at increasing pressure on official Lebanon before the Washington meeting, “to free the implementation mechanism,” Nader said, and to push the Lebanese state to make clearer commitments on applying decisions and dealing with Hezbollah’s weapons.

Details of the sanctions, officers, lawmakers and the Iranian ambassador

The sanctions covered Iran’s ambassador to Beirut, Mohammad Reza Sheibani, Hezbollah lawmakers Hassan Fadlallah, Ibrahim al-Moussawi and Hussein al-Hajj Hassan, and former minister Mohammad Fneish.

They also targeted two prominent Amal Movement figures, Ahmad Baalbaki and Ali Safawi, as well as Brigadier General Khattar Nassereddine, head of the National Security Department at the General Directorate of General Security, and Colonel Samer Hamadeh, head of the southern suburbs branch at the Lebanese army’s Intelligence Directorate.

The US Treasury Department said those targeted are “embedded in the Lebanese parliament, military, and security agencies,” accusing them of working to preserve Hezbollah’s influence inside state institutions and obstructing the path to peace.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and must be fully disarmed. He said Washington would continue targeting officials who enable Hezbollah to continue its violent campaign and obstruct lasting peace.

Alongside the sanctions, the US State Department announced a reward of up to $10 million for information leading to the disruption of Hezbollah’s financial mechanisms, another sign that Washington is tightening political, financial and security pressure in the next phase.

The army and General Security respond, loyalty is to the state

The Lebanese army and General Security moved quickly to reject the US accusations, issuing statements that stressed: “Loyalty is to the institution and the homeland.”

The army command said all officers and soldiers “perform their national duties with full professionalism and responsibility.” It said their loyalty is “only to the military institution and the homeland,” and that they carry out their duties away from any pressure or other considerations.

The General Directorate of General Security also voiced full confidence in its officers and personnel, stressing their commitment to laws and regulations and to working “away from any external dictates or pressure.” It said any proven violation would be subject to legal and judicial accountability.

Hezbollah and Amal, sanctions are “intimidation” and pressure on the state

Hezbollah described the sanctions as “an American attempt to intimidate the Lebanese people and an attack on the sovereignty of the state and its security institutions.”

The party said the sanctions “will not affect its choices,” and called the targeting of official officers “a blatant attempt to subject security institutions to the conditions of American guardianship.”

The Amal Movement said the sanctions against figures affiliated with it were “unacceptable and unjustified,” describing them as an attack on the movement’s political role and its position inside the state.

Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc also condemned the sanctions on lawmakers and officers, calling them direct interference in Lebanese affairs and an attempt to pressure official state institutions into complying with US demands.