Barrack’s Appointment May Intensify US Pressure on Iraq to Disarm Factions

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi meets with US Embassy Chargé d'Affaires Joshua Harris on Sunday. (Prime Minister's press office)
Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi meets with US Embassy Chargé d'Affaires Joshua Harris on Sunday. (Prime Minister's press office)
TT

Barrack’s Appointment May Intensify US Pressure on Iraq to Disarm Factions

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi meets with US Embassy Chargé d'Affaires Joshua Harris on Sunday. (Prime Minister's press office)
Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi meets with US Embassy Chargé d'Affaires Joshua Harris on Sunday. (Prime Minister's press office)

The appointment of Tom Barrack as US presidential envoy to Iraq may lead to greater American pressure on Baghdad to meet its demand for the disarmament of factions allied to Iran in an effort to stem its influence in Iraq.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi has repeatedly spoken about the disarmament. So far, influential cleric Moqtada al-Sadr was the only figure to comply, announcing that the Saraya al-Salam armed wing will become part of state institutions and come under the direct command of the armed forces.

The move was described as “encouraging”. Sadr, however, had distanced himself from Iran years ago, so it remains to be seen if any of the Tehran-aligned parties will also make a similar move.

Zaidi had declared on Saturday that he was “determined to end all armed presence outside the authority of the state” despite the pressure he is facing from powerful political forces.

He explained that the disarmament of factions will take place in phases and it began with Sadr’s announcement.

The Asaib Ahl al-Haq headed Qais al-Khazali, Badr Organization headed by Hadi al-Ameri, Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada, Kataib al-Imam Ali, Thar-Allah movement all spoke about the possibility of their disarmament, but they remained vague over how.

In contrast, the Kataib Hezbollah and Nujaba movement refuse to lay down their weapons.

Hussein al-Sheihani, member of the Sadiqoon movement’s politburo, the Asaib Ahl al-Haq's political wing, said the ruling pro-Iran Coordination Framework “is preparing a draft decision that organizes the process to limit possession of weapons.”

It also tackles “how to handle foreign forces in Iraq and discusses how to empower the security forces and air defense system.”

Meanwhile, a prominent Framework member said Barrack’s appointment will increase pressure on Zaidi and his backers in the coalition to address the issue of the possession of weapons outside state control.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat on condition of anonymity, he said: “The Framework is really interested in reaching a solution to this problem. It wants the process to be simple and away from sharp clashes with the government and factions.”

The official spoke of “possible scenarios” about resolving the issue, including “assuring the factions that they will not be persecuted legally and that they may be merged” with government bodies.

Reports have said that the US will not agree to their integration into government agencies until they lay down their weapons.

The official said that the “complete elimination of the factions from the scene is not possible given their military role and the political weight enjoyed by the factions inside the Framework,” which brought Zaidi to power.

Analyst and former diplomat Ghazi Faisal said that Barrack may have a role to play in pressuring the government to disarm the factions.

The process will be based on the constitution and laws that bar the formation of armed groups outside state control, he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

He noted the strategic agreement signed between Iraq and the US in 2008, adding that Barrack may offer support requested by the government, especially the interior and defense ministries, in line with the agreement.

Faisal said that with some factions saying they were ready to lay down their arms, the US wanting to confront Iran’s influence and the Iraqi government’s determination to impose state monopoly over weapons, all parties involved may resolve this file in the coming months.



Lebanon Prioritizes Genuine Ceasefire, Ready to Consider a Security Agreement

Families leave Beirut’s southern suburbs after Netanyahu ordered strikes on the area in Lebanon (Asharq Al-Awsat) 
Families leave Beirut’s southern suburbs after Netanyahu ordered strikes on the area in Lebanon (Asharq Al-Awsat) 
TT

Lebanon Prioritizes Genuine Ceasefire, Ready to Consider a Security Agreement

Families leave Beirut’s southern suburbs after Netanyahu ordered strikes on the area in Lebanon (Asharq Al-Awsat) 
Families leave Beirut’s southern suburbs after Netanyahu ordered strikes on the area in Lebanon (Asharq Al-Awsat) 

For the second time, Lebanon’s negotiators are heading to Washington with one primary demand at the top of the agenda: a ceasefire with Israel.

The second round of talks, scheduled for June 2–3, comes with little expectation of a breakthrough amid escalating tensions between Israel and Hezbollah.

The deadlock had already undermined an American attempt to secure a ceasefire initiative led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, before US President Donald Trump announced Monday that he had held separate phone calls with both sides and that they had agreed to stop the fighting, raising cautious hopes that negotiations could gain new momentum.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun nonetheless defended the decision to pursue negotiations, calling it “the right choice” imposed by the realities of war. He stressed that negotiations remain the least costly path toward ending the military confrontation and alleviating the suffering of the Lebanese people.

Lebanese Assessment: Tehran and Netanyahu Converge

A senior Lebanese source familiar with the negotiations told Asharq Al-Awsat that Aoun is working intensively with the United States to secure a “real ceasefire.” But the source said Lebanese officials increasingly believe that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu share a common interest in obstructing such efforts.

According to the source, Netanyahu’s calculations are driven by personal and electoral considerations, while Tehran seeks to keep Lebanon as a bargaining card to be used by Hezbollah in Iran’s negotiations with Washington.

The source added that Aoun remains convinced ceasefire efforts will eventually succeed despite current obstacles, describing them as “the inevitable outcome of the current trajectory.” The American proposal, the source said, also included an Israeli withdrawal within the framework of reciprocal understandings.

Lebanon’s delegation is expected to enter the talks with a single demand — a ceasefire — after technical discussions reinforced the belief that ending the fighting is ultimately a political decision rather than a security matter.

At the same time, Lebanese officials say the country is open to all options that could follow such a ceasefire, including a security agreement similar to arrangements currently being discussed with Syria, a formal agreement ending the state of war, or a permanent cessation of hostilities. Anything beyond that — namely peace with Israel — would remain tied to the broader Arab position led by Saudi Arabia.

Revolutionary Guard Escalation, Israeli Threats

The American initiative called for Hezbollah to halt fire first for 48 hours, after which Israel would stop targeting Beirut and its southern suburbs before gradually reducing military operations.

Asharq Al-Awsat reported that American officials informed Lebanese leaders on Sunday that Israel had threatened to strike targets in Beirut and the southern suburbs after providing Washington with intelligence alleging that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard had instructed Hezbollah to intensify and expand rocket attacks deeper into northern Israel.

Sources said Rubio spoke with Netanyahu in an effort to push for a ceasefire. At nearly the same time, Hezbollah launched its largest rocket barrage so far, including precision-guided missiles targeting Kiryat Shmona and Nahariya.

Washington also conveyed an Israeli message stating that if Hezbollah agreed to stop firing toward Israel, Beirut could avoid further strikes. Such a move, the message said, could then become part of a broader arrangement leading to a gradual reduction in hostilities and eventually a complete halt. If Hezbollah refused, Israel would intensify strikes on Beirut, particularly in the southern suburbs.

Berri: Obstruction or Legitimate Demand?

An American official told Axios that Aoun backed the initiative and asked Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri to pressure Hezbollah into halting attacks on Israel.

The official described Berri’s response as evasive and disappointing, saying he insisted that Israel should cease fire first.

But sources close to Berri defended his position, saying it was fully aligned with Lebanon’s broader national stance. They told Asharq Al-Awsat that Berri responded to the American proposal by demanding a comprehensive ceasefire by land, sea, and air, along with an end to Israeli destruction, in order to resume negotiations under calmer conditions both in Lebanon and Israeli settlements near the border.

The sources added that Berri later sent a second message to US Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa, stating that Hezbollah was prepared to comply and that he personally guaranteed such a commitment. “If this is considered obstruction,” the sources asked, “then what constitutes facilitation?”

Who Stops Firing First?

AFP quoted a US official as saying Rubio had held contacts with both Aoun and Netanyahu to advance the negotiations. The official added that Hezbollah must stop firing first, while Lebanon continues to insist on a complete halt to Israeli attacks and full implementation of the ceasefire.

Meanwhile, former minister Wadih El-Khazen quoted Berri as saying that what southern Lebanon is experiencing constitutes “a direct challenge to Lebanese sovereignty,” stressing that continued Israeli attacks and repeated violations require serious international action.

Berri also insisted that any negotiations must produce “tangible results that preserve Lebanon’s rights” rather than remain merely a formal framework incapable of ending ongoing attacks.

Aoun: Negotiations Are Safer Than War

Aoun reiterated that Lebanon adopted negotiations because of the war itself.

“Negotiation is safer than war,” he stated. “It is neither surrender nor concession. It will not solve the problem overnight, but it is a process that takes time and remains the only way to stop the war with the least possible damage.”

He continued: “We will not retreat from this choice. All of us in Lebanon, as officials, are doing the impossible. Negotiations may stumble or take longer to achieve the goal we seek, but they are moving forward. Every issue is ultimately resolved through negotiations, however long it takes. War will not produce results for any side.”

Regarding Hezbollah’s weapons, Aoun clarified that the Lebanese Army has not declared southern Lebanon free of arms but has established operational control over the area. He said completing the mission requires time because of the region’s geography, while accusing Israel of violating the ceasefire agreement by continuing to occupy five positions and carrying out military operations.

Hezbollah Renews Rejection of Direct Talks

For its part, Hezbollah continues to reject direct negotiations with Israel.

Hezbollah MP Hussein Hajj Hassan said Lebanon “cannot be governed by the principle of majority and minority,” arguing that no national consensus exists in support of direct negotiations, even if some Lebanese factions favor the idea.

“From the beginning, we announced our categorical rejection of direct negotiations with the Zionist enemy under American sponsorship,” he said.

Hajj Hassan accused Lebanese authorities of “pleading with the Americans” for a ceasefire while arguing that Washington refuses to pressure Israel because it supports the continuation of Israeli military operations and violations.

He said the proper alternative lies in restoring national unity and understanding among Lebanese factions, including Berri, Hezbollah, and their allies. He also maintained that Lebanon and any ceasefire arrangement there would form “an essential part” of any future US-Iran agreement.

 

 

 

 

 


Hamas to Hold New Talks with Gaza Mediators in Egypt

Two Palestinian children walk through the site of an Israeli military strike on structures and tents housing displaced families, killing ten Palestinians, in Gaza City on May 28, 2026. (AFP)
Two Palestinian children walk through the site of an Israeli military strike on structures and tents housing displaced families, killing ten Palestinians, in Gaza City on May 28, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Hamas to Hold New Talks with Gaza Mediators in Egypt

Two Palestinian children walk through the site of an Israeli military strike on structures and tents housing displaced families, killing ten Palestinians, in Gaza City on May 28, 2026. (AFP)
Two Palestinian children walk through the site of an Israeli military strike on structures and tents housing displaced families, killing ten Palestinians, in Gaza City on May 28, 2026. (AFP)

A Hamas delegation is due to meet with mediators in Egypt on Wednesday to discuss ways of advancing the fragile Gaza ceasefire, Hamas officials told AFP.

“Egypt has invited Hamas and other factions to participate in talks with mediators on Wednesday... which will also include Qatari and Turkish officials,” a Hamas official said, declining to be identified as he was not authorised to speak publicly on the matter.

From the Palestinian side, participants include representatives from Hamas, the Islamic Jihad Movement, the Popular Front, the Popular Resistance Committees, the National Initiative, and the Democratic Reformist Stream in Fatah led by Mohammed Dahlan.

“The mediators have presented ideas for formulating a new, revised proposal acceptable to both Hamas and Israel,” the official added.

He said the Hamas delegation, headed by chief negotiator Khalil Al-Hayya, as well as representatives from other Palestinian factions, was expected to arrive in Cairo starting Tuesday for the talks to be held in the Mediterranean town of Al Alamein.

The official said mediators were planning a meeting between the group and Board of Peace’s high representative for Gaza, Nickolay Mladenov, in Egypt, where discussions would focus on reconstruction efforts and handing over administration of the Palestinian territory to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza.

“Hamas believes a breakthrough and progress are possible if Israel does not create new obstacles and if there is a genuine Israeli will to reach a solution,” the official added.

A ceasefire was announced in the Gaza Strip on October 10 after a devastating war between Israel and Hamas that lasted more than two years. But the Palestinian territory remains gripped by daily violence meted out by Israeli troops.

A transition to the second phase of the ceasefire, which was supposed to involve a gradual withdrawal of the Israeli army, has been stalled for months.

One of the key sticking points to advancing the ceasefire negotiations has been the issue of Hamas' disarmament.

“The resistance factions will not accept disarmament under conditions imposed by the occupation,” a second Hamas official told AFP.

“Hamas is ready to positively engage with any proposal as long as it guarantees a comprehensive solution,” he said, adding that the movement has informed mediators of its openness to discuss the arms file within a comprehensive agreement that does not infringe upon the rights of the Palestinian people.

A Hamas official stated that “Israel must honor all obligations under the first phase of the ceasefire agreement before discussions for the second phase begin.”

He insisted on binding international guarantees from the US and mediators to compel Israel to fully implement proposed ceasefire terms.

Hamas political bureau member Osama Hamdan said in statement issued on Monday that “Mladenov's attempts to link the entry of the Palestinian administrative committee into Gaza with the disarmament of the resistance amount to political extortion and violate the terms of the initial agreement.”


‘A Temporary Tactical Gain’… Israelis Underestimate the Occupation of Beaufort Castle

Israeli soldiers near Beaufort Castle inside Lebanese territory (Reuters).
Israeli soldiers near Beaufort Castle inside Lebanese territory (Reuters).
TT

‘A Temporary Tactical Gain’… Israelis Underestimate the Occupation of Beaufort Castle

Israeli soldiers near Beaufort Castle inside Lebanese territory (Reuters).
Israeli soldiers near Beaufort Castle inside Lebanese territory (Reuters).

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday saw the occupation of the Beaufort castle (Qalaat al-Shaqif), near the city of Nabatiyeh in South Lebanon, as a symbol of a heroic battle and a “dramatic shift” in Israel’s policy against Hezbollah.

However, analysts in Israel argued that the occupation of the castle is not enough to eliminate Hezbollah's threat or achieve a strategic shift in the war despite Israel's expanding offensive.

The severe criticisms, unprecedented since the October 7, 2023 attacks, came as the Israeli government and military officials have reportedly asked the US to approve an expansion of strikes in Beirut in line with the resumption of talks with the Lebanese cabinet.

They also came as the Israeli street accuse the government and the military of severe security failures, particularly with Hezbollah's daily use of explosive drones—reaching cities like Tiberias and Acre and towns in the lower Galilee region.

Maariv’s military correspondent Avi Ashkenazi described the occupation of the Beaufort castle as “nothing more than a tactical event” and warned that Israel was being dragged into a war of attrition in Lebanon without a clear political strategy.

Objectives of Bombing Beirut’s Southern Suburbs

On Monday, Netanyahu issued a joint statement with Defense Minister Israel Katz threatening to strike Hezbollah targets in Beirut’s southern suburbs “following repeated violations of the ceasefire.”

Right-wing paper Maariv said the military leadership intends to designate a variety of objectives for the attack, which fall into three main categories.

The first category includes the assassination of senior Hezbollah officials, most notably the party's Secretary-General, Naim Qassem. The second category aims to target command and control centers, where the Israeli army intends to destroy headquarters in the southern suburbs of Beirut from where Hezbollah relay instructions to forward headquarters in Tyre and Sidon.

The third category aims to attack weapons depots and apartments where Hezbollah stores various types of missiles, as well as drone depots, and even laboratories and technological systems used by the party to operate against Israeli forces.

On Sunday, Channel 12 said Netanyahu held a high-level security consultation, the second in 24 hours, amid Israeli efforts to get Washington to back strikes against Hezbollah in Beirut.

Netanyahu held a similar discussion on Saturday, as Jerusalem aims to shift from a strategy focused on holding territory in southern Lebanon to broader aerial operations, including in Beirut, according to the report.

But the channel said some top Israeli security officials strongly oppose a major, destructive attack on Beirut, arguing that such an operation would be another failed counterproductive move.

Killings and Destructions Don’t Bother Naim Qassem

Professor Eyal Zisser wrote at the Israel Hayom newspaper that Israel has been foolishly dragged into a war of attrition in southern Lebanon. “We are operating just slightly beyond the confrontation line and the border, and are losing soldiers.”

He also noted that Israel is paying a heavy price in losses. While warning against endless military quagmires that lack decisive endgame strategies, he said decisive military action remains necessary to protect Israel’s security interests.

“Needless to say, the killing of a few dozen of its operatives or the destruction of Shiite villages in southern Lebanon does not disturb Naim Qassem,” he wrote.

Nightmare of Beaufort Castle

Meanwhile, Ron Ben-Yishai wrote in the Yedioth Ahronoth that the capture of the Beaufort castle improves security and makes it more difficult for Hezbollah to operate. But it also places Israel and the military in a dilemma.

“If Israeli forces remain there, the history of a war of attrition may repeat itself. Unlike the years when Israel maintained a security zone in southern Lebanon, however, there is no South Lebanon Army today to shoulder the burden with Israeli troops,” he noted, adding that the military is already operating on at least three active fronts and faces a shortage of more than 10,000 combat soldiers.

This came as Israeli broadcast networks, including Channel 12, Channel 13, and Kan 11, interviewed soldiers returning from the southern Lebanon front, who described their experiences around Beaufort Castle as a “nightmare.”

A former general told Channel 12 that the capture of the castle is an important blow to Hezbollah, as it was carried out quickly compared to the time of Fatah and the PLO.

Israel previously occupied the site during its 1982 invasion of Lebanon and maintained a military presence there until withdrawing from southern Lebanon in 2000.

“But this will not constitute the devastating blow portrayed by Netanyahu. Hezbollah's main power centers in Beirut and the Bekaa had not been decisively hit while the Israeli army is not yet moving towards controlling Nabatieh,” he said.