Elias Atallah: Syrian Officer Jameh Jameh Pressed the Button and Killed President René Moawad

Elias Atallah (not seen) holds a photo of George Hawi and Samir Kassir during Kassir’s funeral in 2005 (AFP)
Elias Atallah (not seen) holds a photo of George Hawi and Samir Kassir during Kassir’s funeral in 2005 (AFP)
TT

Elias Atallah: Syrian Officer Jameh Jameh Pressed the Button and Killed President René Moawad

Elias Atallah (not seen) holds a photo of George Hawi and Samir Kassir during Kassir’s funeral in 2005 (AFP)
Elias Atallah (not seen) holds a photo of George Hawi and Samir Kassir during Kassir’s funeral in 2005 (AFP)

In this final part of an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, Elias Atallah, former political bureau member of the Lebanese Communist Party and coordinator of operations for the Lebanese National Resistance Front (JNFR), recounted a turbulent chapter of Lebanon’s modern history.

Atallah revisited the blood-soaked years of the 1980s, when Lebanon was torn apart by wars with Israel, battles in Beirut, and the volatile triangle of Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese entanglements. He said his experience had been “harsh and painful.”

Confrontation with Israel had reached its zenith; the price of war in Beirut had been high; and relations within the Lebanese-Palestinian-Syrian triangle had been dangerously booby-trapped.

He said that a long-running exchange of strikes had taken place, between the Communist Party and Elie Hobeika, who served as the security chief and later head of the Lebanese Forces.

“I met him about twenty times,” Atallah explained. “He was a man without a heart and absolutely without feeling. It would be wrong to call him pragmatic. He was Machiavellian, willing to do anything to get what he wanted. He was physically brave and would openly state his opinion. He tried to present himself as a deep intelligence man. He had no cultural formation but he was physically strong and courageous.”

Atallah recounted a hunting trip that illustrated Hobeika’s ruthlessness. “I intended to go to Syria to shoot birds,” he said. “George Hawi (the Communist Party’s secretary-general) said we would go together with Elie Hobeika. I disliked the idea but I went. In the wheat plain I noticed Hobeika sliding the rifle under his arm and firing - a method that did not hit birds but could be used against people. I told him, ‘It seems you only go hunting people.’ He replied, ‘Yes, I killed people, but they deserved to die.’ We argued. George invited us to lunch; he had bought a lamb. I pretended I would join them but I climbed into a car and returned to Beirut.”

Atallah added that Hobeika boasted of operations he had carried out, including the explosive device that struck the Communist Party office on Baalbek Street near the Arab University. “We were supposed to hold a Central Council meeting,” he said. “It seems Hobeika received information, so he put his men to plant the explosives. Chance played its role. Our comrade George Batal asked me to drive him to the meeting and I was delayed a few minutes. I was about 150 meters away when the blast shook out. There were dead and injured.”

Atallah also described kidnappings. “One day Hobeika’s group kidnapped three of our youths in the Jiyyeh area; they were transporting explosives for the resistance. I had no option but to kidnap an important person in return,” he recalled. “That was what happened. Two were released because he had killed the third. They two told us Hobeika’s fighters were testing new rifles and pistols by firing at captives they had.”

When asked whether the two men had spoken about the Iranian diplomats whose fate later became the subject of rumors - that one of them had died while his captors were testing a firearm on the bulletproof vest he had been compelled to wear - Atallah replied: “I did not know the fate of the Iranian diplomats, but Hobeika told me in a meeting that he had kidnapped them.”

The former Lebanese Communist Party official contended that Hafez al-Assad had not stopped at Hobeika’s past because he sought to push through a “tripartite agreement,” a formula Atallah described as “a plan to consume Lebanon.” He suggested that Hobeika’s relationship with General Michel Aoun (who later became president) had not begun in the mid-1980s as commonly reported; rather, Atallah believed they had “a prior relationship somewhere in Syria, a matter that required research to untangle.”

He claimed Walid Jumblatt had suffered humiliations under Hafez al-Assad, including being forced to eat lunch with military officers among them Major General Ibrahim Huweija, who had overseen the assassination of Jumblatt’s father, Kamal. While Atallah did not deny that Assad supplied Jumblatt with weapons and tanks during the Mountain War, he stressed that Assad had not given Jumblatt “the right to decide.”

The Soviet abduction

Atallah described the 1985 abduction of four Soviet embassy staff in Beirut in detail. “They called us at the Soviet embassy,” he said. “They told me that yesterday four people from the embassy apparatus were kidnapped; I did not think they were high-ranking, then they disappeared.”

Despite intense searching, day after day, they had found no trace. Walid Jumblatt mobilized everything he had; Atallah and his group did all they could, both publicly and covertly. Days passed without a hint.

Then a senior KGB general, “Yuri,” arrived as an envoy. He thanked them and, it seemed, realized they had failed to locate the missing men. “He told me, in broken Arabic: ‘Look, sheikh; today the detainees ate a breakfast that included labneh, olives and cucumbers, and they were wearing striped pajamas of a particular color. Your fate is at stake. We, the Soviet Union, do not let these matters pass without consequence, be it from the small or the big. I expect them tomorrow at 4 pm, and after that everyone will know his role.’”

General Yuri went alone to see Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, the cleric often portrayed in the media as the spiritual godfather of Hezbollah, a depiction Atallah said he did not necessarily accept as accurate. Fadlallah received him and, by four in the afternoon, three of the four Soviets had been released. Fadlallah’s guards explained that the fourth Soviet had resisted during the transfer, tried to seize a rifle, and was shot dead. The account appeared credible, as he had been killed only recently.

Finger-pointing fell on the Islamic Dawa Party and on an element hidden under the mantle of the Amal movement.

On assassinations and Tripoli battles

Atallah denied that the Communist Party had planned the assassination of Bashir Gemayel. “Absolutely not,” he insisted. “From the time I led these apparatuses, we decided in principle to refuse involvement in assassinations. There was one assassination attempt on General Michel Aoun in the Baabda palace courtyard, and when the Syrian army moved to remove Aoun, the perpetrator fired and we took custody of him. That attempt did not go through us.”

On the battles in Tripoli in the north, Atallah pointed to a bitter rift between Hafez al-Assad and Yasser Arafat. “One day Assad told him: ‘I will pursue an independent decision. Independent of whom?’ Arafat replied: ‘Independent of you. You do not recognize Palestine; Palestine, in turn, does not recognize Syria.’”

Arafat returned to Tripoli in 1983 and entered what Atallah described as Assad’s personal battle with the Palestinian leader. “One hundred percent, it was a mistake for us to participate,” Atallah admitted. “We should have declared ourselves unable to intervene.”

The Communist Party paid dearly: 34 dead in the first round in 1983, and 21 more in the second round during the period of Sheikh Saeed Shaaban. “We paid 55 martyrs for no justification,” he said.

A meeting with Hafez al-Assad

Atallah recalled a 1984 visit with George Hawi to Hafez al-Assad in which Hawi had pushed for immediate unity between Lebanon and Syria. The idea, Atallah said, had been alien to Lebanese sentiment and even dangerous.

In their palace meeting Assad spoke for two hours, repeating themes that were familiar from other encounters, according to Atallah. Oddly, Assad probed into where exactly Atallah lived in Ramlet, down to the house’s location on the side of the road near Saida. As they departed, Assad turned to Hawi with a warning: “Never repeat the story of immediate Lebanon-Syria unity. This talk is dangerous and forbidden. There are things to be carried out silently, without words.”

On Hariri, Hawi and Syrian-Iranian partnerships

When asked who killed Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Atallah answered bluntly: “Three, and one leader: Bashar al-Assad.” He argued that after the departure of investigator Detlev Mehlis, the tribunal had lost its way. He named Assef Shawkat and other Syrian officers, as well as Hezbollah, as participants. He noted wryly that all Syrian intelligence officers who had overseen Lebanon were themselves later killed, including Rustom Ghazaleh, who was “torn to pieces.”

As for George Hawi’s assassination, Atallah maintained that until 2005 most assassinations in Lebanon were Syrian operations, but from that year onward there had been Syrian-Iranian partnerships in carrying out killings.

The killing of René Moawad

The climax of Atallah’s testimony came with his version of the assassination of President René Moawad, elected on November 5, 1989. Moawad had no presidential palace or guard, as Baabda Palace was still held by General Michel Aoun. He lived instead in a Hariri-owned building in West Beirut, considered secure because it lay inside the Syrian intelligence perimeter.

Atallah said Syrian intelligence had placed Major Jameh Jameh in charge of Moawad’s security, with Ghazi Kanaan and Hafez al-Assad’s blessing. Moawad, suspicious, had asked that Jameh be lodged in the adjacent Beaurivage Hotel and kept away from his entourage.

Atallah then recounted a chilling episode: A Communist soldier, recruited into Moawad’s guard at Syrian request, was later given a tiny explosive to attach to the president’s clothing during a church crowd in Ehden. Atallah said he learned of the plan and warned Moawad personally, along with George Hawi and Karim Mroueh. He remembered Moawad’s hands trembling as he heard the soldier’s name and the Syrian officer behind the plot.

The attempt failed when the soldier vanished. Ten days later, Moawad was killed. Witnesses later told Atallah they saw Jameh Jameh on the rooftop of the building, holding a device. “He pressed the button and the explosion went off,” they said. Jameh descended calmly and walked away.

Reflections on failure and lessons

Atallah ended the final part of his Asharq Al-Awsat interview with reflections on the futility of the cycle of violence. “I review this past not because I want to live in it, but because I hope no one will repeat it,” he said. His aim was twofold: “To state my criticisms of what happened, and to show the truth about the national resistance and the failure of resistances that were political projects, not national ones.”

He continued: “Hezbollah’s so-called resistance was not resistance. It was the occupation of the liberated land and turned into a profession. Resistance ceased to be a mission and became a career.”

Response from the Ibrahim Qais Family to Elias Atallah’s Testimony 

To the esteemed Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board of Asharq Al-Awsat:  

We, the family of the late Ibrahim Qais, address you with this letter in exercise of our right of reply to what was stated in the interview titled: “Elias Atallah: Syrian Officer Jameh Jameh Pressed the Button and Killed President René Moawad”, published in your newspaper on September 20, 2025.  

We kindly request that you publish this response in full, in order to preserve the credibility of your newspaper and to clarify the facts:  

What was attributed to the late Ibrahim Qais by Mr. Elias Atallah in the interview is completely false.  

Our father was not a witness to what Atallah claims, and he never said that he saw Jameh Jameh press the detonation button in the assassination of President René Moawad.  

The truth is that on October 22, 1989, Independence Day, we - the Qais family - were gathered with the family of our friend Majed Muqalled for lunch at our home, located near the Daaboul Travel Agency building, opposite a plot of land that separated us from Beirut prison. Muqalled, like our father, was seated with us. When the presidential convoy passed by the house, Majed went out onto the balcony to watch, and the explosion occurred at that very moment.  

The violent blast came from the Flippers playroom, which was adjacent to Raml al-Zarif School, where an explosive device had been detonated remotely. We experienced that horrifying moment in which the windows shattered and the house was damaged, and several family members and neighbors were injured.  

Our father, who rushed to help our wounded mother, was not observing the buildings or following any specific individuals; he was in the midst of the destroyed house, searching for his children and aiding the injured.  

Mr. Atallah’s claim that Jameh Jameh was seen on the roof of a building across the street pressing the detonation button contradicts both logic and the facts:  

First: Jameh Jameh was part of the convoy itself, as confirmed by MP Michel Moawad in a documented testimony, and the Syrian officer’s cars were about 150 meters ahead of the vehicle carrying the martyred president. 

Second: The buildings that Atallah claims our father and Majed Muqalled witnessed the explosion from were at the very heart of the blast and were directly damaged. 

Third: There was no way anyone could have witnessed the “pressing of the button”; we were all victims of this criminal explosion, right at the scene of the crime.  

If Atallah’s statements were truly accurate, why did he not report them during his years in a position of decision-making within the Communist Party, or in the years that followed? Why did he not disclose them while serving as a member of parliament for the city of Tripoli? It would have been more appropriate for him to show the courage to confront the truth directly instead of hiding behind colleagues who have passed away and can no longer refute his fabrications.  

Mr. Atallah’s attempt to implicate our late father Ibrahim Qais as a sole witness - alive, according to his account - in one of the most serious political and security cases in Lebanese history is nothing but a baseless slander lacking any credibility.  

Our father, the well-known communist activist, never exploited bloodshed and never accepted being part of a game of defamation or falsification. 



Al-Khanbashi to Asharq Al-Awsat: We Warn Against Incitement, Hadramout Has Room for All

Governor of Hadramout, Salim Al-Khanbashi delivers a press conference in the city of Mukalla in Yemen's coastal southern Hadramout province on January 19, 2026. (Photo by FADEL SENNA / AFP)
Governor of Hadramout, Salim Al-Khanbashi delivers a press conference in the city of Mukalla in Yemen's coastal southern Hadramout province on January 19, 2026. (Photo by FADEL SENNA / AFP)
TT

Al-Khanbashi to Asharq Al-Awsat: We Warn Against Incitement, Hadramout Has Room for All

Governor of Hadramout, Salim Al-Khanbashi delivers a press conference in the city of Mukalla in Yemen's coastal southern Hadramout province on January 19, 2026. (Photo by FADEL SENNA / AFP)
Governor of Hadramout, Salim Al-Khanbashi delivers a press conference in the city of Mukalla in Yemen's coastal southern Hadramout province on January 19, 2026. (Photo by FADEL SENNA / AFP)

Presidential Leadership Council (PLC) member and Governor of Yemen's eastern Hadramout province Salem al-Khanbashi says he believes that “Hadramout triumphed for itself,” and that what took place there in December 2025 and early January 2026 marked a decisive moment in which Hadhramis reclaimed their right to protect their identity and blocked any political project seeking to dissolve the “Hadhrami self” under the slogans of outsiders.

In an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat Podcast, recorded in Riyadh on February 9, 2026, al-Khanbashi advised the new Yemeni government led by Dr. Shayea al-Zindani to steer clear of partisanship, raise performance levels, and combat corruption. During the discussion, he presented his account of events, framing the operation as a “takeover of military camps,” not the “ignition of a war.” He broadened the discussion to what he views as the priority of the current phase: consolidating stability, activating development, and opening the door to long-awaited Hadhrami investments returning home.

“Liberate us" from ourselves?

In describing the outcome of the confrontation, the deputy rejects reducing the picture to who won and who lost. He says the real victory was achieved when the people of Hadramout rejected the notion that someone could arrive and say, “We came to liberate you,” asking: “Liberate you from whom? From ourselves?” He stresses that the governorate, with its history stretching back “thousands of years,” cannot have another identity imposed upon it. He records his appreciation for those who stood in defense of this distinctiveness, while at the same time extending explicit thanks to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, its leadership and role, which he said was a key player in containing last month’s events.

On the moment he was tasked with the governorship at an extremely sensitive time, al-Khanbashi recounts that he was residing in Hadramout and did not leave except when necessary, before receiving a call from President Rashad al-Alimi and from parties including Saudi officials and colleagues on the Leadership Council, asking him to assume responsibility for the governorate “because we need you.”He says he tried to decline, but accepted under the pressure of “necessity,” emphasizing that he is a son of Hadramout who spent most of his life there, and that he accepted the post fully aware of the weight and complexity of the phase.

The picture becomes heavier as al-Khanbashi moves to his successive roles: governor, then commander of the National Shield Forces in Hadramout , then a member of the Leadership Council with the rank of vice president. He deliberately labels the January operation a “battle to take over the camps,” so that it would not be understood as targeting civilian society or as a search for settling scores.

Al-Khanbashi says his overriding concern was to spare Hadramout street fighting, protect civilian infrastructure, and minimize human losses. He describes the operation as “swift and decisive,” with a limited number of casualties.

Securing withdrawals... and a political outlet

Asked whether the military operation in Hadramout ended with reprisals against opponents, al-Khanbashi is keen to deny this. He says the withdrawal of departing forces was secured and that they were not subjected to any military or popular harassment. “We instructed that no one who was in the Southern Transitional Council, whether military or civilian, be harmed,” he says. At the same time, he explains that he took decisions to dismiss certain security and military leaders accused of involvement in looting weapons and ammunition or of poor performance, and that they will be referred for accountability in accordance with what they committed against the governorate.

Amid this, al-Khanbashi reiterates a message he wants widely understood: “Hadramout has room for all.” He calls for civic conduct that avoids incitement, and warns against marches he believes target civil peace and provoke the local scene.

He again urges adherence to civil behavior without incitement, citing gatherings that took place in early February 2026 in Seiyun. He suggests they were not spontaneous, saying: “We have evidence that these people were paid, and we want them not to force us to take measures involving a degree of coercive force against those who want to practice such acts. We are still under a state of emergency, and all measures can be taken.”

In the broader political context, al-Khanbashi speaks of moves to convene a broad Hadhrami meeting in Saudi Arabia bringing together political and social components, including Hadhramis from the Southern Transitional Council, with the aim of preparing a unified vision in the name of Hadramout to be presented to the Southern Dialogue Conference. He notes that a preparatory committee was formed in Mukalla to draft a position reflecting “all societal and political forces” in the governorate, alongside a parallel desire to represent the voice of Hadhrami expatriates within a single vision.

Electricity and investment

Electricity tops the services file, according to the governor. He places it at the head of priorities, explaining that the needs of the coast and the valley differ, but the headline is the same: energy that does not meet demand, especially in summer, with humidity and heat on the coast and harsh desert conditions in the valley.

He speaks of support projects to generate 300 megawatts for the coast, and other projects for the valley, alongside proposals for gas-powered plants and private-sector solar energy options with capacities that could reach 150 megawatts. He believes that a medium-term solution is not a substitute for a long-term strategic project for a large gas plant capable of covering Hadramout's future needs.

From energy he turns to investment as the other face of stability. Al-Khanbashi lists opportunities he sees as promising: tourism, real estate, the export of high-purity gypsum, potential minerals, coal in specific areas, black sands and heavy elements, fisheries, and the idea of aquaculture. He recalls his participation in a Hadhrami investment conference, calling on businessmen to balance their external investments with investing in Hadramout, while pledging to provide facilitation and an attractive environment.

On government affairs, al-Khanbashi describes the discussions that preceded the formation of the new government as having focused on criteria of competence, experience, and geographic balance, while rejecting the principle of quota-sharing. He then offers three pieces of advice he places at the core of the government’s test: moving away from ego and partisan drift, combating entrenched corruption in several ministries, and raising the level of revenue collection and transferring it to the central bank, especially in revenue-generating ministries. He highlights the need to regulate the financial relationship between the center and the governorates in accordance with the Local Authority Law, arguing that strict application would ease many chronic problems.

He recalls Hadramout's experience with oil revenues before exports were halted, noting that the governorate received 20 percent of the value of exported oil and used it for development projects such as electricity, roads, health, and education, before this resource stopped after the Houthis targeted export facilities.

"No barriers" with Saudi Arabia

In assessing Saudi development support, al-Khanbashi links relief and reconstruction as a single window for enabling Yemen to overcome its crisis, pointing to packages of projects in electricity, roads, health services, and others within Hadramout.

He places this within a relationship he describes as intertwined, difficult to separate socially, economically, and politically, invoking the extended borders, shared tribes, and cultural ties, to conclude that it is not possible to erect a “barrier” between Hadramout and the Kingdom.

Asked about the moment that remained most vivid in his memory during the 48 hours of the operation, al-Khanbashi says he feared the forces might not withdraw easily and what that could entail in terms of destruction and casualties, before the operation ended in record time with limited losses. He says this is what he will continue to take pride in: that Hadramout succeeded in avoiding internal fighting. In his message to the people of Hadramout, he calls for unity, abandoning the causes of division, and prioritizing security and development, pledging that the expansion of stability will lead to a “bright development era” reflected in the lives of the governorate’s residents.


Iraqi Justice Minister to Asharq Al-Awsat: ISIS Prisoners Held at a Fortified Site, Escape Impossible

Iraqi Justice Minister Khaled Shwani
Iraqi Justice Minister Khaled Shwani
TT

Iraqi Justice Minister to Asharq Al-Awsat: ISIS Prisoners Held at a Fortified Site, Escape Impossible

Iraqi Justice Minister Khaled Shwani
Iraqi Justice Minister Khaled Shwani

Iraqi Justice Minister Khaled Shwani told Asharq Al-Awsat that Iraq will not repatriate foreign prisoners affiliated with ISIS to their home countries if their involvement in crimes against Iraqi citizens is proven. He said a heavily fortified Iraqi prison currently holds thousands of ISIS members transferred from Syria, stressing that security breaches, escapes, smuggling, or internal unrest are not possible, despite what he described as enormous pressure on judicial institutions and the presence among the detainees of some of the world’s most dangerous terrorists.

Iraq agreed to receive thousands of prisoners suspected of affiliation with ISIS starting January 21. Although the international coalition transferred them in batches from prisons previously overseen by the Syrian Democratic Forces following military operations by the Syrian army in northeastern Syria, Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani confirmed that “the decision to receive the prisoners was purely an Iraqi one.”

Since then, Shwani says he has been “working intensively with judicial, government, and security officials” to manage a highly sensitive and dangerous operation aimed at accommodating a large number of prisoners in a way that prevents them from becoming a “ticking time bomb,” and at returning most of them to their countries so that their detention does not turn into a new school for producing extremism.

The Minister was born in the city of Kirkuk, north of Baghdad, in 1975. He has served as Iraq’s justice minister since 2022. He is a lawyer and constitutional expert, and a member of the political bureau of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, led by Pavel Talabani.

Iraqi Justice Minister Khaled Shwani

In an exclusive interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, the Iraqi Minister said that taking custody of ISIS prisoners in such large numbers came after major efforts to ease prison overcrowding, but that Iraqi authorities bore the burden in order to safeguard regional security.

According to Shwani, the Justice Ministry has long experience in managing terrorist inmates and confronting extremism. It relies on a program known as the “Moderation Program,” which aims to strip inmates of extremist ideology through multiple means, including vocational training. For this reason, he said, the international community trusts Iraq to house the most dangerous terrorists in its prisons. The following is the full text of the interview:

When the decision was announced to transfer prisoners from Syria to Iraq, was the Justice Ministry ready to receive this number of inmates?

After the Iraqi government agreed to receive the prisoners, the National Security Council of Ministers convened, and preparations began to take custody of them. Certainly, receiving such a large number is neither easy nor simple. It requires large prison facilities, equipment, and security protection, in addition to everything inmates need in correctional institutions, whether for the prisoners themselves or the security requirements to protect the prisons.

Our prisons were already overcrowded. But because we believe in the importance of this issue, and because it is related to protecting regional security from prisoners of an extremely dangerous level, urgent measures had to be taken to prepare prison sections to receive and house them. With the support provided by Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani, and the relevant bodies in government and the judiciary, we were able to succeed. All prisoners received were placed in jail, and we have now provided all prison-related requirements, as well as the security requirements to protect it.

What do you mean by those requirements?

The detainees are now housed in standard prisons with air conditioning, bathrooms, and cleaning supplies. They receive three meals a day and are guarded by a professional staff of guards and investigators. I can say that the judicial institution is dealing with them professionally, likely different from the situation in Syria. Their conditions are now better than they were before their transfer to Iraq.

An ISIS member at Al-Karkh Prison in Baghdad (AP)

Has overcrowding increased after the addition of these prisoners? How are they distributed?

Because of the exceptional circumstances Iraq went through, including the occupation of areas by ISIS, earlier bombings by Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, as well as organized crime, the prison overcrowding rate when I took office three years ago stood at 300 percent. We put in place a systematic plan and managed to reduce overcrowding to 25 percent above normal capacity.

However, receiving 5,704 prisoners at once caused overcrowding again, because accommodating nearly 6,000 inmates required placing additional strain on other prisons, undermining efforts to ease overcrowding.

Where were they housed?

They were placed in a single prison. The operation is complex because their classification requires housing them in a prison that is tightly secured, fortified, and protected- security-wise, militarily, and intelligence-wise.

How were they housed while in pretrial detention, given that the Justice Ministry deals only with convicted prisoners?

Under Iraqi law, when a detainee is dangerous, a judge has the authority to place him in a secure location from which escape is impossible or feared, and where his protection can be guaranteed. This is not an exceptional case; it is purely legal. They are detainees under judicial decisions, and because of the danger they pose, they were placed in this prison, where they are held away from other prisoners.

How do you bear the burden? How is such a large number of prisoners managed?

There is a heavy burden on us at all levels. We need human resources to run this prison, infrastructure, additional manpower, military and security forces for protection, as well as the costs of housing, maintenance, and providing services to 5,704 prisoners. This is not easy. We face challenges, especially financial ones. But there is communication with the international coalition to bear the costs, and they have expressed readiness in this regard.

How is this matter funded?

There is understanding and communication with the international coalition, which has expressed readiness to bear financial burdens related to housing those prisoners, providing infrastructure and prison supplies, and some security requirements. We prepared a comprehensive project and sent it to the coalition, and we are awaiting their response and procedures.

How many investigators handle the prisoners’ cases?

About 150 investigators are working through the files of thousands of prisoners. They are carrying out enormous work, assisted by a large number of employees and specialized experts.

How are they classified?

We have among them the most dangerous terrorists. They are classified according to security criteria and internationally approved standards for dealing with prisoners. Highly dangerous inmates and those with terrorist ideology do not mix with ordinary prisoners. Our prisons are classified by type of crime, the severity of the offense, and age groups.

How likely is a breach or internal mutiny?

This prison is fortified and cannot be breached. I will not disclose further details, but the site is protected and cannot be penetrated. Nor can we speak of internal mutiny, because the security agencies supporting the Justice Ministry have taken their precautions with full professionalism. This cannot happen.

How are prisoners’ affairs managed inside the prison, and what measures are taken to prevent some from becoming potential hubs for terrorist activity?

First, we are in contact with their countries to repatriate them according to their nationalities once investigations are completed, provided they are not among those who fought Iraq, killed Iraqis, or participated in terrorist activities inside Iraq. Those exceptions will not be returned even if requested. We are working to repatriate the remaining detainees, and the international coalition is working with us to expedite the process.

As for their management, the Justice Ministry has long experience in this field. Other prisons of the same security classification hold dangerous terrorists, including ISIS leaders captured during operations to liberate Iraqi territory from the group. They have been placed in rehabilitation and reform programs.

This includes the “Moderation Program,” which aims to remove extremist ideology through intellectual, cultural, social, sports, and artistic approaches, in addition to vocational training. The program has achieved significant results. We seek to ensure their stay is temporary pending deportation, and during their time in custody we apply established programs and expertise in dealing with high-risk terrorist inmates.

What if efforts to return them fail? What would the situation be if they remain in Iraqi prisons for a long period?

What has been agreed with countries and with the international coalition is to return them as quickly as possible. There is clear coordination on this matter, with the exception of those who fought Iraqi security forces or committed crimes against Iraqis, as I said earlier. Those will be tried and will remain in Iraq.

ISIS members as they are placed in custody at Al-Karkh Central Prison in Baghdad (AP)

Are there countries that refuse to take back their nationals?

The matter is still in its early stages, as are the attempts. The international coalition and the United States are working with us to urge countries that have prisoners to receive them, and we will continue these efforts.

Why did the international coalition transfer ISIS prisoners to Iraq?

There may be a political aspect unrelated to the Justice Ministry, but I will highlight clear points: there is trust in the Iraqi defense and security system, trust that Iraq is a partner and an influential state within the international coalition to combat ISIS, and a reliable system to house these prisoners.


Ukrainian Official to Asharq Al-Awsat: Russia’s Demands to Annex Territory are a Red Line

Ukrainian soldiers at an undisclosed location in Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia region on January 30, 2026 (AFP)
Ukrainian soldiers at an undisclosed location in Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia region on January 30, 2026 (AFP)
TT

Ukrainian Official to Asharq Al-Awsat: Russia’s Demands to Annex Territory are a Red Line

Ukrainian soldiers at an undisclosed location in Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia region on January 30, 2026 (AFP)
Ukrainian soldiers at an undisclosed location in Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia region on January 30, 2026 (AFP)

A senior Ukrainian official said Kyiv is concentrating its negotiating efforts with Russia on achieving an unconditional ceasefire, while stressing the need for full international security guarantees to ensure that any future attack on Ukraine does not recur. He underscored that Russia’s demands to annex Ukrainian territory represent a red line.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, Ukraine’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia Anatolii Petrenko reaffirmed his country’s commitment to peace, saying: “We take every opportunity to engage in diplomatic negotiations with Russia to deescalate the ongoing military standoff as a key prerequisite for inclusive political solution in order to achieve just and lasting peace.”

He added that “real breakthrough in current negotiations would be to achieve the unconditional ceasefire.” He also stressed the urgency of making progress on the return of abducted Ukrainian children and prisoners of war, noting that “If promptly agreed these would pave the way for much broader and deeper dialogue between Ukraine and Russia potentially leading to a comprehensive political decision.”

Anatolii Petrenko, Ukraine’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia (Embassy of Ukraine in Riyadh)

Petrenko said that, in this complex process, Ukraine is supported by its international partners who stand firmly on the principles of international law, Ukraine’s sovereignty, and its territorial integrity. He said: “We are convinced that unconditional ceasefire would be top testament of Russia’s genuine readiness for lasting peace.”

At the same time, he expressed regret that “daily realities of Russian strikes against Ukraine’s critical energy infrastructure against the backdrop of ongoing diplomatic efforts reflect fundamental gap we are to bridge using every compelling leverage in possession of international community.”

Petrenko went on to stress that “the issue of Russia’s demands for territorial annexation are illegitimate and represent our red line in accordance with Ukraine’s Constitution.” He added that “It cannot be considered as a matter of a technical compromise for the sake of ongoing negotiations with Russia,” noting that “Ukraine’s delegation has a clear mandate to pursue further diplomatic negotiations strictly based on our national interests.”

The American Role

Petrenko described the US role in any political settlement as central, saying: “The United States’ role remains central. This is our strategic partner, and we rely on our partnership to achieve a strategic solution for Ukraine’s sovereignty.”

He said this partnership includes “steadfast support to ongoing diplomatic negotiations with Russia, vital commitment to sustained combat readiness of our defense forces with tangible security guarantees and clear common vision for economic recovery of Ukraine once the war is terminated.”

Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy during at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 22 (Reuters)

Petrenko stressed that “United States’ leadership in maintaining world security should deliver an effective political solution to stop war against Ukraine thus undoubtedly generating global stability much needed across all continents and regions.”

On another front, he said Ukraine aspires to join the European Union in the foreseeable future, saying: “Ukraine has always been a part of Europe.” He added: “Our national ambition is to become a new member of the European Union in foreseeable future.”

He said “the European Union is our strongest partner to maintain macro-economic stability, develop Ukraine’s defense industry and contribute to future security guarantees,” noting that “our joint approach to ending the war has always been unified – politically, economically and militarily.”

Petrenko added that “European Union has to be part of diplomatic negotiations for peace as we all understand the European security remains undivided and Ukraine is the cornerstone of that security.”

Russia’s Exhaustion

Petrenko spoke about Russian losses since the war began on 24 February 2022, saying: “Since 24 February 2022, Russia has lost around 1.3 mln personnel, with 11,654 tanks, 24,013 armored vehicles, 435 aircraft and 28 warships destroyed.” He said “These figures illustrate not only a tragic human toll but also a profound degradation of Russia’s warfighting capacity.”

On the economic front, he noted: “Russia’s wartime economy shows clear signs of running aground,” stressing that “GDP growth has slowed to near stagnation at around 1% in 2025 and projected to remain minimal in 2026 due to sanctions, declining oil and gas revenues and rising structural imbalances.” He added: “Annual inflation reached around 7% with key interest rate at 16%, the budget is expected to run a noticeable deficit.”

Petrenko said: “War brings no prosperity to any nation in the world.” He added that “Russia should take this very seriously and reverse the aggression into civilized neighborly relationship with Ukraine as a responsible member of the United Nations and its Security Council.”

Saudi–Ukrainian Partnership

On relations with Saudi Arabia, Petrenko said: “Ukraine and Saudi Arabia experience a dynamic phase of consistent political and economic engagement.”

He said: “Last year President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy paid an official visit to Saudi Arabia which resulted in the adoption of a Joint Statement showcasing the strong political will of the leaders to deepen and expand cooperation in the prospective fields.”

Volodymyr Zelenskyy holding talks with Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman in Jeddah on March 10, 2025 (EPA)

Petrenko reaffirmed the two countries’ determination to strengthen investment relations through partnerships in priority sectors, including energy, food industries, and infrastructure, with a shared desire to continue exploring opportunities for cooperation in oil, gas, their derivatives, and petrochemicals.

He added: “Particular value is attached to the Kingdom’s practical efforts to provide a conducive environment for diplomatic engagement within the Ukraine–US–Russia triangle last year, underscoring the Saudi Monarchy’s sincere commitment to contribute to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine in a meaningful and practical way.”

Petrenko expressed his country’s deep gratitude for the humanitarian and energy assistance provided by Saudi Arabia.