JERUSALEM/BEIRUT: Two Israeli air strikes against Hezbollah targets in Syria in recent weeks seem to mark a more openly assertive stance toward the group after years of shadow boxing, requiring careful calibration to avoid escalation into a war that neither wants.
For most of the six-year-long conflict in Syria, Israel has stuck determinedly to the sidelines, not wanting to get sucked into the chaos unfolding to its northeast. While it is suspected of carrying out occasional attacks against minor targets, it has tended not to confirm or deny involvement.
But it is determined to stop Lebanon’s Hezbollah, with which it fought a 2006 war, and which it sees as the top strategic threat on its borders, from using its role in the Syrian war to gain weapons and experience that could ultimately endanger Israel.
Since early in the conflict, the Shiite movement’s energies have been focused on propping up President Bashar Assad in alliance with Iran and Russia, throwing thousands of its fighters into battle against Syrian rebels.
But although this strategy makes the prospect of a new war with Israel unwelcome to Hezbollah, it has not altered its view of the country as its foremost enemy, or stopped it strengthening its position for any new conflict.
In the past six weeks, two Israeli attacks appear to have marked a shift, underscoring Israel’s intent to squeeze Hezbollah and coming as the Trump administration carried out its own missile strikes in Syria.
In both cases, Israeli officials have also been less guarded about acknowledging who was behind the attacks.
On March 17, Israel struck a site near Palmyra, prompting Syria’s army to retaliate with Russian-supplied anti-aircraft missiles and on April 27, it hit an arms depot in Damascus where Hezbollah was suspected of storing weapons supplied by Iran.
“The incident in Syria corresponds completely with Israel’s policy to act to prevent Iran’s smuggling of advanced weapons via Syria to Hezbollah,” Intelligence Minister Israel Katz said of the strike last week, but without explicitly confirming Israel carried it out.
Hezbollah has also bared its teeth, conducting a media tour along the Lebanon-Israel border that was widely interpreted as a message that it was unafraid of a new war, and hinting that any coming conflict might involve attacks on Israeli settlements.
A larger strike by Israel, or one that misses its target with unintended consequences, might provoke an escalation, further destabilising Syria and sucking Israel into an already complex conflict.
It’s an outcome that neither Israel nor Hezbollah wants, but in a war that has already produced many unpredictable outcomes, it is not out of the question either.
Rules of the game
Hezbollah is an Iranian-backed movement that was formed to combat Israel’s 1982-2000 occupation of Lebanon. Its battlefield prowess, extensive social works among Lebanese Shiites and its alliance with powerful regional states have helped it secure a dominant role in the country’s politics.
Since the 2006 war with Israel, which killed more than 1,300 people, displaced a million in Lebanon and up to 500,000 in Israel, both sides have engaged in brinkmanship but avoided renewed conflict.
Both say they do not want another war, but don’t shy away from saying they are ready for one if it does end up happening.
Last month, Hezbollah took Lebanese journalists on a tour of the southern frontier with Israel, allowing pictures to be taken of soldiers posing with weapons and staring across the border.
Israel runs patrols along the same frontier, sends up drones and is constantly bolstering its defenses. In March, Israeli minister Naftali Bennett, a hard-liner, threatened to send Lebanon back to the Middle Ages if Hezbollah provoked another war.
An official in the military alliance that backs Assad said Israel’s recent air strikes had hit Hezbollah targets but played down the damage done. As for retaliation, they drew a distinction between Israel striking Hezbollah units deployed to fight on behalf of Assad in Syria and those at home in Lebanon.
“If Israel hits a Hezbollah convoy in Syria, Hezbollah will decide if it will respond or not according to the circumstances in Syria because, despite everything, Syria is a sovereign state and Hezbollah cannot respond in a way that embarrasses the regime,” the official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
“If Israel strikes Hezbollah in Lebanon, definitely it will respond. If Hezbollah responds, what is the size of its response that Israel can accept? This could mean an escalation to war. So Israel avoids hitting Hezbollah convoys or rockets inside Lebanon and prefers to strike it inside Syria.”
That analysis fits with how Israel broadly sees the situation, too. Keeping any fallout from the war in Syria away from its territorial interests is one thing. But going after Hezbollah in Lebanon would be the trigger for renewed conflict.
“A clash with Hezbollah is always an active possibility,” said one Israeli diplomat.
While the enmity is fierce on either side, past experience seems to have made both Hezbollah and Israel sharp analysts of one another’s positions and pressure points.
“Sometimes there is a measured response which maintains the balance of deterrence and the rules of the game and sometimes there is a response which opens the door to escalation,” said the official from the alliance backing Assad.
“Right now, the desire of both sides is to not get dragged into a war or to open a new front, either in Golan or the south. But at any moment events can develop and things can escalate into war without either side wanting it.”
Russia-Israel axis
Russia — an ally of Hezbollah in the Syrian conflict but which has also coordinated closely with Israel — has also taken note of Israel’s actions.
For the past two years, Israel and Russia have coordinated closely on Syria, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meeting face-to-face with Russian President Vladimir Putin and often speaking by phone to ensure there are no misunderstandings and that the risk of aerial confrontations is minimized.
For the most part, the system has worked, even if it requires Israel to be delicate in balancing ties with the United States and Russia at the same time. But the most recent incidents appear to have angered Moscow.
After the March strike, Russia summoned Israel’s ambassador for consultations, and after the Damascus airport attack the foreign ministry issued a statement calling it unacceptable and urging Israel to exercise restraint.
“We consider that all countries should avoid any actions that lead to higher tensions in such a troubled region and call for Syrian sovereignty to be respected,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.
A new war between Israel and Hezbollah could distract the Shiite movement from its central role in the Syrian conflict, thereby undermining a military campaign in which Russia has staked great resources and prestige.
Israeli analysts think Netanyahu’s government must exercise caution. “Israel still has to walk on eggshells and attack only if the destruction of the target is vital and pertains directly to Israeli security,” military specialist Alex Fishman wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper last week.
Israeli ministers, several of whom have a Russian background, also appear determined to avoid provoking Moscow. “We’ll do nothing fast and loose when it comes to the Russians,” said the Israeli diplomat. “We’ll be super-careful in Syria.”
Israeli strikes raise stakes in face-off with Hezbollah
Israeli strikes raise stakes in face-off with Hezbollah
Egypt's foreign minister urges end to Israeli war in Gaza during call with Witkoff
- Badr Abdelatty emphasized that a just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires a comprehensive political settlement
- He said alleviating the humanitarian suffering in Gaza must be a priority for the international community
LONDON: Egypt's Foreign Minister, Badr Abdelatty, stressed the urgent need for an immediate cessation of Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip during a phone call with Steve Witkoff, the US President's Special Envoy to the Middle East.
Abdelatty emphasized that alleviating the humanitarian suffering in the Palestinian coastal enclave must be a priority for the international community and called for unconditional access to humanitarian aid.
He emphasized that a just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires a comprehensive political settlement that aligns with President Trump's vision for sustainable peace in the Middle East, the Emirates News Agency reported.
Abdelatty was a member of the Ministerial Committee designated by the Joint Extraordinary Arab-Islamic Summit on Gaza, which Israel prevented from visiting the occupied West Bank on Sunday to meet with Palestinian officials in Ramallah.
Arab ministers from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, and Egypt, along with the Secretary-General of the Arab League, condemned what they described as the "arrogant" decision by Israel to block their visit and its rejection of any peace efforts.
Is Iraq ready to stand alone against extremist threats if US withdrawal goes ahead?
- Decades of training and investment have improved security forces, but critical capability gaps remain
- Analysts warn premature pullout could erase progress against extremism and empower armed groups
LONDON: When Daesh extremists seized control of swathes of Iraqi territory in 2014, many wondered whether the onslaught could have been prevented had US troops not withdrawn from the country three years earlier.
As the militants surged into Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul, there were reports of members of the Iraqi Security Forces stripping off their uniforms as they fled.
“We can’t beat them,” an unnamed army officer told Reuters amid the chaos. “They are well-trained in street fighting, and we’re not. We need a whole army to drive them out of Mosul.”
After three years of fierce fighting that took Daesh within 25 kilometers of the capital, Baghdad, the extremists were finally driven back and Mosul was liberated.
The gargantuan military effort was spearheaded by Iraq’s elite Counter Terrorism Service, bolstered by the return of American troops and the US Air Force.
Images of the destruction in Mosul, along with the catastrophic impact of Daesh’s occupation, might be playing on the minds of Washington officials as they once again weigh whether or not to remove American troops still stationed in Iraq.
As it stands, the US and Iraq have agreed to end Operation Inherent Resolve — the US-led coalition’s mission to combat Daesh — by September. Most of the 2,500 US personnel in Iraq are scheduled to leave in the initial phase, with a small number remaining until 2026.
Many believe US President Donald Trump, acting under his isolationist tendencies, will want to hasten the withdrawal of those forces, or is unlikely to extend their stay if the Iraqi government requests it.
With reports of an increase in attacks by Daesh sleeper cells, fears of instability across the border in Syria, and with Iran looking to shore up its proxy militias in Iraq, there are concerns that another complete US withdrawal will once again leave the country vulnerable.
“The risk of premature withdrawal from Iraq is that the Iraqi Security Forces will lose critical operational and tactical support, and Daesh will seize the opportunity to reconstitute and once again terrorize the Iraqi people and state,” Dana Stroul, research director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former Pentagon official, told Arab News.
The mooted withdrawal of US troops comes more than 20 years after the US-led invasion of Iraq toppled Saddam Hussain, freeing the country from dictatorship, but ushering in a period of sectarian civil war.
US forces were drawn into cycles of violence and routinely became the target of two mutually antagonistic sectarian forces: Iran-backed militias and an insurgency in which Al-Qaeda played a prominent role.
When President Barack Obama took office in 2009, he vowed to end US involvement in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not without first ordering a massive troop surge in an attempt to salvage the mission.
In Iraq, where more than 100,000 people were estimated to have died in the violence, there was widespread public anger at the American presence. In the US, the war was also deeply unpopular with thousands of American soldiers having been killed.
Some American and Iraqi officials wanted to maintain a US military presence in the country, fearful of an Al-Qaeda resurgence. But attempts to negotiate an agreement for a reduced force failed and in October 2011 Obama announced that all of the remaining 39,000 US troops would be withdrawn by the end of that year, bringing a close to the mission.
The US spent $25 billion on training and equipping Iraq’s security forces up to September 2012, alongside Iraq’s own spending on fighter jets and other advanced materiel. So it was something of a surprise that Iraqi forces were so quickly overrun when Daesh launched its offensive in 2014, having emerged from the remnants of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Images of Daesh fighters driving around in US armored vehicles captured from the Iraqi military symbolized how quickly Iraq’s armed forces had deteriorated since the 2011 withdrawal.
As the extent of Daesh’s brutality began to emerge, including the slaughter of the Yazidi minority and the beheading of Western hostages on YouTube, the US ordered its forces back to the region, as part of an international coalition, to fight the extremists in both Iraq and Syria.
After some of the most brutal urban warfare seen since the Second World War, Iraq’s then-prime minister, Haider Al-Abadi, declared the territorial defeat of Daesh in December 2017. US forces continued to help their allies in Syria to defeat the extremists there in March 2019.
By December 2021, US forces in Iraq no longer held combat roles, instead working on training, advisory, and intelligence support for the country’s military. The remaining 2,500 US troops are spread between Baghdad, Irbil in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region, and Ain Al-Asad air base.
However, soon after Al-Abadi’s declaration of victory over the extremists, a new threat emerged in Iraq in the shape of Iran-backed militias, originally mobilized to help defeat Daesh. Having extended their reach over Sunni and Kurdish areas, these groups began attacking US bases with rockets and drones in a bid to force their immediate withdrawal.
These attacks, sponsored by Iran’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, prompted President Trump, during his first term, to order the killing of militia chief Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis and Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike on their motorcade as they left Baghdad Airport on Jan. 3, 2020.
Soleimani’s death was a major setback for Iran’s proxies throughout the region, but the attacks on US positions did not subside. In fact, with the onset of the war in Gaza in October 2023, Iraq’s Shiite militias mounted a fresh wave of strikes, ostensibly in support of Hamas.
The deadliest of these occurred on Jan. 28, 2024, when three US personnel were killed and 47 wounded in a drone attack on Tower 22 just over the border in Jordan, prompting then-US president, Joe Biden, to order a wave of airstrikes on militia positions in Iraq.
Mindful of the need to protect its proxies in Iraq, at a time where Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Yemen’s Houthis have been weakened and the sympathetic Assad regime in Syria has fallen, Iran appears to have forsworn further militia strikes on US forces.
The latest agreement to end the US presence was reached in September last year with the aim of moving to a fully bilateral security partnership in 2026.
Meanwhile, the US Defense Department announced in April it would be halving the number of troops in northeast Syria “in the coming months.”
An indication of Trump’s aversion to the continued US military presence came during a speech in Saudi Arabia while on his tour of the Gulf in May when he decried “Western interventionists.”
A clear concern surrounding a US withdrawal is whether Iraq’s security forces are now strong enough to withstand threats like the 2014 Daesh assault. The disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 is also no doubt fresh in the minds of defense officials.
A recent report by the New Lines Institute think tank in New York said that a US withdrawal from Iraq would “heavily impede the intelligence and reconnaissance collection, artillery, and command-and-control capabilities of Iraqi military forces.”
The report studied quarterly independent audits for the US Congress between 2019 and 2024 to assess the capabilities of Iraqi forces. It looked at the three main forces in Iraq: the Iraqi Security Forces, Counter Terrorism Service, and the Kurdish Peshmerga.
The report said: “While segments of Iraq’s military, such as the CTS and Kurdish security forces, have proven efficient in counterterrorism operations, several gaps exist in Iraq’s conventional capabilities, including artillery, command and control, inter- and intra-branch planning, and trust.”
The think tank said there were serious questions about whether Iraq’s security forces would be able to “hedge against internal and external challenges” in the absence of the US security umbrella.
The report’s co-author Caroline Rose, a director at New Lines, says the gaps in Iraqi capabilities “could reverse over a decade of progress that Operation Inherent Resolve has made in Iraq.”
“If the objective is still to advance Iraqi forces’ operational capacity, sustain gains against Daesh, and serve as a ‘hedge’ against Iranian influence, there is work still to be done,” she told Arab News.
While Iraq has enjoyed a period of relative stability, the threats to its national security continue to lurk within and beyond its borders.
The biggest fear is of a Daesh resurgence. Although the group has been severely depleted, it continues to operate cells in rural areas of Iraq and Syria, and has since made headway in Afghanistan, the Sahel, and beyond.
“Since January, the US military is still actively supporting the Iraqis,” said the Washington Institute’s Stroul. “There have been monthly operations against Daesh, including the killing of a senior leader in western Iraq. This tells us that Daesh is still a threat, and the US support mission is still necessary.”
Another concern is that instability in Syria, where the embryonic, post-Assad government is facing significant security challenges, could again provide a breeding ground for Daesh that could spill across the border.
“There are still 9,000 Daesh detainees held in prison camps in northeast Syria,” said Stroul, adding that these present “a real risk of prison breaks that will replenish Daesh ranks and destabilize Syria, Iraq, and the rest of the region. If the security situation deteriorates in Syria, this will have seriously negative impacts in Iraq.”
And then there is the ongoing threat posed by Iran-backed militias. While these militias have been officially recognized as part of Iraq’s security apparatus, some believe the US presence in Iraq helps keep them — and, by extension, Iran — in check.
“The staging of US forces and equipment, combined with a deep Iraqi dependence on American technical and advisory support, creates an obstacle and point of distraction for Tehran and its proxies,” Rose said.
If the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq is inevitable, then how can Washington best prepare Iraq to go it alone?
For Rose, the US should play a “long game” to sustain security ties with Iraq and preserve the progress made under Operation Inherent Resolve.
She recommended the US continue investing in Iraq’s defense and security, conducting regular joint military exercises, and using its current presence in Irbil and Baghdad to build strong relations with security officials.
She also advised other international bodies, like the NATO Mission-Iraq and the EU Advisory Mission Iraq, to coordinate closely with the US as the drawdown gets underway.
Although the US appears set on pivoting away from the region to focus strategic attention on the Asia-Pacific, some still hope there could be a way for America to maintain some form of military presence, given the rapidly evolving situation in the wider Middle East.
Reports earlier this year suggested some senior Iraqi politicians aligned with Iran privately want a US presence to continue, at least until ongoing US-Iran nuclear talks reach a conclusion.
“The US military mission is one of support, advice, and assistance by mutual consent of Baghdad and Washington,” Stroul, of the Washington Institute, said. “If the Iraqi government invites the US military to remain for some period of time, there should be agreement on the supporting role that the US can play.”
If Iraq hopes to maintain lasting stability, it needs to ensure its security forces can act alone to protect the country and population from internal and external threats.
Continuing to work with the world’s foremost military power, even in a limited capacity, would go some way to ensuring the horrors of 2014 are not repeated.
Egypt unveils plan for new desert city in latest megaproject
- The new city, named Jirian, meaning “Flow” in Arabic, is part of Egypt’s Nile Delta scheme, a massive agricultural initiative to reclaim about 2.5 million acres west of the original Nile Delta
CAIRO: Egypt has unveiled plans for a vast new urban development west of Cairo where a man-made channel of the River Nile will eventually wind through what was once arid desert.
The new city, named Jirian, meaning “Flow” in Arabic, is part of Egypt’s Nile Delta scheme, a massive agricultural initiative to reclaim about 2.5 million acres west of the original Nile Delta.
The ambitious agricultural project, which started in 2021, seeks to boost production of strategic crops such as wheat and corn while reducing the North African country’s food import bill.
The project is the latest in a string of megaprojects launched by President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi in recent years, including a new administrative capital east of Cairo.
While officials say these projects are key to Egypt’s long-term growth, they have also contributed to the country’s soaring foreign debt, which quadrupled since 2015 to reach $155.2 billion by late 2024.
The country has also received billions of dollars from the International Monetary Fund and the EU to ensure its financial stability, with the EU pledging billions more last month.
At a launch event on Sunday, Egyptian Prime Minister Moustafa Madbouli called the Jirian project “an urban and development revolution.”
He added that it would create 250,000 jobs and serve as the cornerstone of a wider development zone equivalent in size to four to five governorates.
“We are talking about full-spectrum development,” he told reporters, describing a sprawling urban zone that will include industry, logistics hubs, and homes for “between 2.5 and 3 million families.”
The government did not disclose the project’s total cost, which is being developed in partnership with three major Egyptian real estate firms.
The new Nile Delta project comes at a time when Egypt is already under pressure to secure its water future.
With 97 percent of its fresh water sourced from the Nile, the country has been locked in a years-long dispute with Addis Ababa over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, which Cairo fears could reduce downstream water flows.
Israel army says intercepts Yemen missile after air raid sirens sound
- Yemen’s Houthi insurgents later claimed to have fired a 'ballistic missile' at Israel’s Ben Gurion airport
JERUSALEM: The Israeli army said it had intercepted a missile fired from Yemen on Sunday after air raid sirens sounded in Jerusalem and other cities.
“Following the sirens that sounded a short while ago in several areas in Israel, a missile launched from Yemen was intercepted,” the army said in a statement.
Yemen’s Houthi insurgents later claimed to have fired a “ballistic missile” at Israel’s Ben Gurion airport.
The group’s military spokesman Yehya Saree said three drones were also launched at Israel.
The Iran-backed group has repeatedly launched missiles and drones at Israel since the Gaza war broke out in October 2023 with Palestinian militant group Hamas’s attack on Israel.
Almost all of the projectiles have been intercepted.
Sunday’s interception followed another reported attack on Thursday claimed by the Yemeni militants.
The Houthis, who say they are acting in solidarity with Palestinians, paused their attacks during a two-month Gaza ceasefire that ended in March, but began again after Israel resumed its military campaign in the territory.
While most of the projectiles have been intercepted, one missile fired in early May hit inside the perimeter of Ben Gurion airport for the first time.
Israel has carried out several strikes in Yemen in retaliation for the attacks, including on ports and the airport in the capital Sanaa.
Lebanese President Aoun reviews ties, cooperation with Iraqi official
- Joseph Aoun said that Lebanon and Iraq face the challenge of terrorism, which is being addressed through security agencies
- Lebanese and Iraqi presidents emphasized the urgency to end the Israeli war in the Gaza Strip and to support Palestinians
LONDON: Lebanese President Joseph Aoun discussed ties and cooperation with Iraqi President Abdul Latif Rashid and Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani during his visit to Iraq on Sunday.
Aoun stressed the importance of establishing an Arab mutual interest system to enhance shared interests among Arab countries during his meeting with Al-Sudani.
In a separate meeting with Rashid at the Presidential Palace in Baghdad, Aoun commended Iraq’s support and donations, including fuel shipments to generate electricity, for the Lebanese people during the recent round of the Israeli-Hezbollah war, which flared up in September 2024.
Aoun said that Lebanon and Iraq face the challenge of terrorism, which is being addressed through security agencies in both countries.
The two presidents emphasized the urgency to end the Israeli war in the Gaza Strip and to support the Palestinian cause without allowing it to be compromised, according to the NNA agency.
Aoun said that Israel must withdraw from the five areas inside the Lebanese territory it has controlled since 2024 and stop its repeated attacks on the country that undermine peace efforts in the region.
Rashid affirmed Iraq’s support for Lebanon and said that Baghdad views positively the recent developments in the country following the formation of the new government in early 2025.
