Bremer Acknowledges 'Mistakes’ in Disbanding Baath Party, Iraqi Army

Paul Bremer is seen next to US President Bush, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld during the announcement at the White House of the killing of Saddam’s sons in Mosul. (Getty Images)
Paul Bremer is seen next to US President Bush, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld during the announcement at the White House of the killing of Saddam’s sons in Mosul. (Getty Images)
TT

Bremer Acknowledges 'Mistakes’ in Disbanding Baath Party, Iraqi Army

Paul Bremer is seen next to US President Bush, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld during the announcement at the White House of the killing of Saddam’s sons in Mosul. (Getty Images)
Paul Bremer is seen next to US President Bush, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld during the announcement at the White House of the killing of Saddam’s sons in Mosul. (Getty Images)

When I was about to have this conversation with Ambassador Paul Bremer, an Iraqi-American friend whispered in my ear: “This is not just an ambassador. He is a president, who ruled Iraq for more than a year!”

In his capacity as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority after the war declared by the US President George W. Bush on the night of March 19, 2003 with the aim of overthrowing President Saddam Hussein’s rule in Iraq, the “Kissingerian diplomat” sat face to face at the White House with the president who assigned him two important tasks: get the ball the ball running for the economy, and paving a new path for good governance in Iraq.

He went there armed with this authorization, and fit with what he learned from former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and in the private sector after graduating from Yale and Harvard Universities in the United States and the Institute of Political Studies in France.

Paul Bremer holds tight many secrets. He did not make much reference to the documents of the Iraqi state and the Baath Party after the complete collapse of Saddam's rule on April 9, 2003. He jokingly told me that after he "accomplished" his mission, which began on May 9, 2003 and ended on June 28, 2004, that he paid for American lawyers “more than I earned from my work in Iraq.”

It was an opportunity to share my funny story with the former German Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Christoph Heusegen, who was previously the National Security Adviser under Chancellor Angela Merkel and is currently serving as Chair of the Munich Security Conference.

I jokingly suggested that he reveal his secrets so that I could publish them. I said: “With this, our fame will fly … but in two different ways.” The American diplomat laughed before we actually started this conversation with Asharq Al-Awsat.

Bremer sometimes revealed very important details in the long interview with him, insisting on the “correctness” of the war decision, despite the American failure to obtain a mandate from the UN Security Council. He considered that the interests of the United States take precedence over its duties in international law.

He compared the Baath Party led by Saddam to that of the German Nazi Party under Hitler. He stressed that this is the reason that prompted him to issue his two famous orders, the first was devoted to “De-Baathification” and the other focused on “dismantling” the Iraqi army, admitting that he had committed “two mistakes” in implementing them.

He stated that Bush “ended a thousand-year rule of the Sunnis” in Iraq. Bremer coordinated with the Iraqi opposition: Jalal Talabani, Masoud Barzani, Ahmed Chalabi, Ayad Allawi, Abdulaziz al-Hakim, Mohammad Bahr al-Ulumm Ghazi al-Yawer, Adnan al-Pachachi, and other influential Iraqis who are still present in “American Iraq.”

Only one person, the most important and influential person in Iraq from then until today, refused to receive Bremer or meet with him, and that is Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

It is the 20th anniversary of the war in Iraq. How would you reflect now on that moment?

You know, a lot of people are talking about looking back 20 years. And so I've looked back. My bottom line is that I think it was the correct decision that Bush made to go in and remove Saddam from power. And I think secondly that despite the difficult situation that Iraqis find themselves in now, 20 years later on balance, Iraq is a better place now that Saddam is gone.

The price was so costly on the Iraqis, and on the Americans as well…

Yes, that's true. But the benefits are also very big for the Iraqis. They now can choose their own government. We in the United States are not faced with Saddam returning to get his weapons of mass destruction, which he planned to do. We know from the documents we captured after he was deposed, that he planned to resume the development of his weapons of mass destruction.

- ‘Nuclear’ Iraq and Iran -

And the region is better off? Do you believe this?

Actually, the region is better off because if Saddam had stayed in power, the region would now face, otherwise, a nuclear armed Iraq facing a nuclear armed Iran. There would be no Iranian agreement to stop nuclear program, which was done in the Obama administration. The Iranians would have to continue their nuclear (program) so the region would be much less stable, we would have two nuclear powers at least: Iran and Iraq.

And that would’ve maybe encouraged, in your opinion, Iran more to produce nuclear weapons?

When I was in Iraq, the American government intelligence agencies concluded that Iran had slowed down, if not stopped its program because they were worried. And we now know that the agreement that was reached by the Obama administration with Iran is being undermined every day by the Iranians. Now, we have a real threat of a problem there.

- UN approval -

The US failed to get a UN Security Council approval for the war. Therefore, the war was illegal. Do you see it this way, or do you have a different take?

I’ve been involved in foreign policy for 50 years. And as a general rule, it's always preferable to have broad international support. But I do not believe that the United States needs to get UN approval when American interests are at risk.

The Russians are using now what Secretary Powell showed to the Security Council to say there are weapons of mass destructions and other things in Ukraine. Nothing was there. You were in Iraq, you found nothing. Were you aware of all these circumstances?

No, I was not aware. It's important to be precise about matters here. The intelligence that suggested Saddam was actively pursuing weapons of mass destruction, apparently was not correct. But it's important to remember that it wasn't just the United States intelligence agencies that said that we were confident that he was developing these weapons, it was the French, the Germans, the British, and the Russian, all of their intelligence services agreed with the United States.

So, I think if you now say: “Well, wasn't it a mistake?” I think any American president after 9/11 - a major event and trauma to the American people, 3,000 Americans killed - including Al Gore, if he had won the election in 2000, would have looked at US intelligence, and would have said: “We have to do something about Saddam.”

Now, one final point, it is not true to say we found nothing. Charles Duelfer, who was a very able investigator, said: “Saddam has kept the plans, the people and the projects for weapons of mass destruction, and he intended to resume them.”

You’ve just said something remarkable, that the US interest is above the international law…

No, what I said was that the there is no international law that says we have to get a UN approval for defending American interests.

Then, what was the legal basis for the war?

Legal basis in the US was a presidential decision.

So President Bush was the architect of the war? You mentioned in previous interviews that this was done to overthrow not only Saddam, but to overthrow a Sunni rule that lasted a 1,000 years in Iraq. This will have deep ramifications, not only in Iraq, but also in the region.

First, the President makes the decisions. My review of the matter afterwards, long after I left Iraq, is that after the terrorist attacks of the 90s, and 9/11 attacks, any American president, Democrat or Republican, would have agreed with the intelligence that Bush was presented with. And it's interesting that if you look back the in the American Congress in both the Senate and the House by far the majority of the politicians approved of the attack on Iraq.

So, it was not a one man's decision.

No. No.

The US concluded that this is something you must do

Right, I think it's fair to say that there was political consensus across the country when Bush made the decision.

Tell me if I'm wrong, let me use this term, how you as a Kissinger diplomat, I mean, you believe in realpolitik, executed a plan for the neocons in the US. How come?

I didn't execute a plan for the neocons, or oldcons, or whatever. I executed a plan under a direction from the President of the United States, who said to me: “You have two jobs: job 1 is trying to get the economy going again for the Iraqi people, and job 2 is to help the Iraqis onto a path for representative government.” Those are my two commands from the president. And those are the two things that I did.

- The President and I -

Was that just an announcement?

No, that was not an announcement. The president invited me to lunch alone with him, in his little private dining room off the Oval Office for talking. Him and me, that's all, and there we're no note-takers, there was nobody else there…

But you're aware, the president was saying a lot about the “Greater Middle East”, about other issues in relation to the Iraq invasion. The president also said publicly that this will have ramifications for probably decades, not only in Iraq, but also in the region. Twenty years later, he is proving right.

I don't think the president made the decision lightly. I think he understood that would have ramifications. I understood it would have ramifications. But I also understood his goal. His goal was to help the Iraqis recover their country economically and politically.

You replaced Jay Garner, the general appointed to rule Iraq after the invasion, soon after the fall of Saddam. How did that come about? Why did he decide to leave?

I have great respect for General Garner, I thought he did a very good job under very difficult circumstances. My understanding is that (…) somehow my name arrived on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's desk…

You don't know how?

I do know that he had it. He had a list of 12 or 14 other people. And I don't know what process he went through. Anyway, he in the end recommended me to the president.

You may have mentioned this in your book “My Year in Iraq”. Garner wanted to organize elections within 90 days after the invasion. It did not seem realistic to me. Was it realistic to you?

No, no. In my meetings with the president, and with the National Security Council, and with the Vice President, with the Secretaries of Defense and State before I left, the one clear message from the president and the others, including Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Powell was that we're going to have to take our time.

I was asked about that, and I said: “I agree it will take at a minimum a year, it might take a couple of years. It's going to take a long time, and we have to be patient.” I heard a broadcast on the radio that Garner had just told everybody he was going to appoint a government in 10 days. And I said in my book, I almost drove off the highway. I was so surprised…

You were rushed to go to Iraq. What was the best advice you received before you went?

The best advice that people gave was to focus first on trying to bring some economic benefits to the Iraqi people as quickly as you can (…) Saddam had effectively destroyed the Iraq economy anyway. When I got to Baghdad, just to give an example, in the entire country, they were producing only 300 megawatts of electricity. It's not enough to run, you know, a small village.

- From Spain to Angola -

The country was under embargo. So, this didn't happen overnight?

No. It had obviously suffered somewhat from the UN sanctions, although we learned quickly about the corruption in the Oil for Food Program. When Saddam came to power, the gross domestic product per capita in Iraq was higher than it was in Spain. The World Bank told us that in 2002, Iraq's per capita income had fallen below that of Angola. The second piece of advice to answer your question was to be sure we were talking to a broad range of Iraqis about what kind of government was possible and what kind of government they wanted.

You mentioned, of course, who you met then from the US side. Did you meet anybody from the Iraqi opposition who were here in the US?

No, I don't remember meeting anybody. I may have met one or two…

Do you know Kanan Makiya. He was critical of why the US decided to make this Coalition Provisional Authority, instead of holding elections and selecting a democratic body…

I have great respect for Mr. Makiya. The people who think there was an alternative could not tell me what it would be. There had been no census in Iraq since 1957. There was no constituent boundaries. There was no effective separation of power between the legislature and the executive. It was all a dictatorship. There was no way to hold elections in Iraq quickly.

So General Garner was wrong about this.

Garner, I think was misunderstood. He was not kept informed of the way Washington was thinking.

- Baathism and Nazism -

You went to Iraq and issued a long set of orders. The first two orders are the most important with far reaching implications, the De-Baathification and then disbanding of the Iraqi army. Why did you do that? The decisions left the country in a very bad situation.

I actually don't think either of those left Iraq in a bad situation at all. I think they were the right decisions.

But where did they come from? So the Department of State in early 2002, a year and a half before the invasion, had established a study group in Washington under a career Arabic speaking American diplomat: Brian Crocker, who ran a yearlong study called “The Future of Iraq”, in which he and his colleagues at the State Department, Defense Department, intelligence services, met with hundreds, actually maybe thousands of Iraqis, most of them obviously in exile, about what should be the future of Iraq.

And there were two conclusions of this study; the first conclusion was that there can be no place in a post-Saddam Iraq for the Baath Party. Why? Because the Baath Party was Saddam's political instrument of control and terror over his own people. The Baath Parties in the Arab world, as you very well know, were modeled on the Nazi Party. But Saddam was in power three times as long as Hitler. So, the conclusion was there can be no place in post-Saddam Iraq for a Baath Party. I was handed, literally the day before I left for Iraq, a draft order.

Handed by who?

By Doug Feith, who was the number three man in the Pentagon (served as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy) under Rumsfeld. It was completely consistent with the conclusion of the State Department's study. Feith handed me this thing and said: “We're thinking of issuing this tomorrow. A Sunday.”

I said: “Wait a minute, I want to get out and talk to some of the people who are working for Garner (in the Office for Construction and Humanitarian Assistance) for Iraq (ORHA).”

It was not issued until I got out there. Then I issued (…) the Baath directive, which was loosely modeled on the decisions that were made by America, the occupying power in Germany in 1945, at the end of the Second World War. They had a program of De-Nazification, which was across the board, anybody with anything to do with the Nazi Party could not have anything to do from the top to the bottom. In contrast, the De-Baathification that was worked by the United States government was aimed only at the top 1% of the Baath Party members.

Now, I made a mistake here in turning the implementation of the very narrow order over to the Iraqi politicians, because it then became an instrument of battle between various factions among the Iraqis, who tried to broaden the implication, to throw many more Baathists, for example teachers, out of their jobs.

What I should have done was I should have turned the implementation over to a carefully selected competent group of Iraqi judges. What I should have done, was pick a panel of five Iraqi judges and said: “You oversee the De-Baathification.” But I turned it wrongly over to the politicians, and when I heard that they were throwing hundreds, thousands of teachers out of jobs, the Minister of Education came to me. So, I had to pull back the authority. So, it was a mistake.

- Two mistakes -

And disbanding the Iraqi army, I heard one time that you made a mistake about it.

Yes and no. So, The Future of Iraq study that we discussed, also looked at the question of the Iraqi military force. Iraq's army, the modern army, which was introduced after the Second World War, played a respectable, responsible role until the Baathists and Saddam came to power.

Then the Iraqi army became the primary instrument of forceful control of the Iraqi people. And again, The Future of Iraq study said the same thing: there can be no place in post-Saddam Iraq for the army. Well, there was no army there at the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003.

The Pentagon, the American generals said, General John Abizaid said there is not a single unit of the Iraqi army standing to arms anywhere in Iraq. The army went home.

And that army had conducted what the UN considered a genocidal war against the Kurds in the 1980s, including the use of weapons of mass destruction at the town of Halabja in 1988. The same army, the Republican divisions were used by Saddam to put down the uprising of the Shiites in the South after the first Gulf War. Less than a week after I got the Baghdad, they found the first of the mass graves due to these mass killings, which was outside of Hilah, south of Baghdad. In a way if you said: what was the mistake? It was the choice of the verb disband.

Some American officers apparently were talking about maybe we can recall the army. When the Kurds heard that, both leaders of the Kurds, Barzani and Talabani, said to me: If you recall the Iraqi army, we will secede from Iraq.” That would bring on a civil war. The Shiites, who were cooperating with the coalition, under guidance from Ayatollah Al-Sistani also heard the same rumor, and Sheikh Abdul Aziz Abdulaziz Al-Hakim told me: “We will not cooperate if you bring back that army.”

- Democracy or civil war? -

Ambassador, you meant to build a democratic Iraq.

Right.

Instead, the country plunged into a civil war under your control. I don't know the extent of the mistakes that you were describing. But that's what happened.

No, it was not a civil war. What happened was the emergence of al-Qaeda. We know for a fact because it was written down by Zarqawi in a letter he wrote to Osama bin Laden. The intention of al-Qaeda was just to provoke a tribal war between Shiites and Sunnis. And he said that's why they had done the vicious attacks that took place, first on the UN headquarters that killed Sergio de Mello, and then a major attack on the on the mosque in Najaf on August 30, 2003, which killed several hundreds of Shiites.

So, the intention of al-Qaeda was to provoke a civil war. And you say they didn't have democracy. That's not true. They held elections, the first would be held about a year and a half after the liberation of Baghdad in early January 2005, and the Iraqis have held six elections, five national elections and one referendum to approve the Constitution. And Iraq has had six peaceful transfers of power since we left. No other Arab country can say they've done that.

- American model -

Ambassador, you mentioned several very important things, De-Baathification built on De-Nazification. This pretext is being used now by Russia in their invasion to Ukraine.

Any president, and I can say I'm sure President Bush in this case, has to consider the whatever decision he's facing in the context of its impact on the rest of American interests. And I'm sure Bush did that. And he decided, I think correctly, that we could not tolerate letting Saddam continue. And so, he took the difficult decision to invade to get rid of Saddam, which in my view, succeeded. The impact on what American policy in Bangladesh or in Ukraine might be is a separate matter.

No, that's why some Americans, including presidents, said that the Iraq war was a disaster.

I will stand by what I just said to you about the success we had politically, the success we had economically.

So, your conclusion still is that Iraq is better off?

Absolutely. Iraq is better off on any metric… The Arab Spring started in Tunisia, where did they go? Look at Tunisia today.

Nowhere.

With the Iraqis, even under ISIS, even under all of the problems they've had, have selected their own government six times in a row.

So, you don't have good feelings about the Arab Spring?

I'm sorry, it didn't succeed. Iraq suffers now greatly from corruption. No question.

Did you model the new Iraq on the Lebanon model?

No.

Iraq was a secular country under Saddam. When you say that the Sunnis were ruling for a thousand years, but then you pulled Iraq from the Arab neighbors to throw it into the hands of Iran?

I can only talk with confidence about the time when I was there. The Iranians were really not present.

At least, al-Hakim and other figures from the Iraqi opposition were based there.

Well, and some were in Syria, and some of them had been in London, a few had been in Germany with a couple of them in France. It was up to them to figure out what to put in the Constitution, which is what they did. And they established a federal system, not at our suggestion.

Why did you boast on several occasions that Iraq was for a thousand years ruled by the Sunnis? You have stopped that.

That was just a statement of fact.

- Syrian Baath -

It was pretty clear that the Syrian Baathist government was supporting the so-called Iraqi resistance to fight the coalition forces in Iraq. Did you try to talk to the Syrian government?

I'm not aware of any specific discussions between American officials and the Syrians. I do know that the coalition forces in Iraq were more and more concerned about the Syrian support, in particular, the infiltration of people sometimes often recruited in North Africa, particularly in Libya, and trained in Syria and then infiltrated across the border of Al-Qaim.

And Iran played a role.

During my time, there was, as I said, no evidence of the Iranians playing a role.

- Iranians got scared -

Not even what we discovered later on, and it is all over the news nowadays that they harbored some of al-Qaeda members in Iran.

This was not part of the information we had at that time. The most important was the Zarqawi letter, which we intercepted in January 2004. That was clearly established. But he was Jordanian. He wasn't Iranian.

But you worked on fighting terrorism just before, so you were fully aware of the dangers.

Oh, yes. And well Iran. Iran was designated when I was in charge of counter-terrorism in the Reagan administration, Iran was already described as a terrorist state because of the bombings that Hezbollah did in Beirut in 1983.

So, there wasn't any doubt that it was a terrorist state. But the question that I was answering was, was Iran actively meddling or doing stuff. And the answer is: I never saw any convincing information that confirmed that. But there's certainly problems in Iran.

But if you think in terms of the people in Tehran in the fall of 2003, you know, they had an American army on their eastern border and their western border. They got two armies. And it's precisely in 2003, that the intelligence community, apparently, according to what you can read in the press, concluded that Iran had stopped its active nuclear program.

While the situation was unraveling in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan, you rid the Iranians of two archenemies at the borders. The Americans did them something huge. Did you meet with the Iranians?

No, there were no Iranians to talk to.

- Disagreement with Al-Sisatani -

But you didn't feel that you needed to talk to them.

The only Iranian I would like to talk to was Al-Sistani. But he wouldn't see me. That's fine. I understood. I didn't press. I didn't even really ask. I had a very good intense correspondence with Al-Sistani while I was there.

Through whom?

Various intermediaries. I looked at it. In 13 months, 48 exchanges with Al-Sistani.

Were they oral? Just messages?

Usually oral. Sometimes written.

So you have letters from him.

He has letters from me (laughter).

But do you have letters from him?

I have messages. He didn't put things in writing. That’s not the way somebody does at his level. But my view is that having looked at the whole question on the whole, he played a helpful role in the effort. He very much supported having elections, having the Iraqis choose their government. That was his sort of fundamental belief. And that was of course my job.

But there were periods of tension between you and him?

Given his importance in Iraq, but also in the broader region, I wanted to be sure that he understood what we were trying to do, which was to establish a political process with the Iraqis to choose their government. Here's the problem. The problem came about because Sergio de Mello, who was the UN Special Representative, went to see Al-Sistani shortly after he got to Iraq in early June of 2003.

He came and called on me. We had two meetings, one is in my office and one in his office, he went to Najaf to see Al-Sistani. I later heard from somebody who heard it from Al-Sistani in Najaf that de Mello had said to Al-Sistani that the Americans are going to write a constitution to structure the political body the way they did in Japan (through the Commander of allied forces Douglas MacArthur in 1945), which was completely wrong.

We had no intention of writing a constitution. What we intended was that the Iraqis, if they wanted a constitution, should write it, which is what in the end happened. So most of the communications with Al-Sistani from my side were directed at keeping him closely informed of our discussions, and I'm sure there were other people also, you know, in the Iraqi government were keeping him informed of our discussions about what we wanted, and trying to make clear that we had no intention of writing a constitution.

And a second thing: he wanted immediate elections. And for all the reasons we discussed earlier, it was simply not possible, and the UN agreed that it was not possible. De Mello understood that. So, the content of my communications with Al-Sistani were almost entirely based on wanting him to understand the broad view of what we were trying to accomplish politically, which was a constitution that the Iraqis would write, not us, and elections, and the difficulty of getting that done. In the end, he understood.

It took six or seven months. Really not until January of 2004 did it become clear that Al-Sistani understood that we could not hold immediate elections. We had to get the constitution written. And then that's the sequence we followed. The constitution was written in January and February 2004, and the first elections were held in January 2005.

Did you get his blessing in the end?

I wasn't looking for a blessing. First of all, I was simply trying to keep him informed. My view is that his role was helpful.

- Saddam’s capture -

I want to ask about Saddam. How were you informed about his capture?

The military had the job of trying to capture him. And we coordinated obviously. We all heard rumors, people would come to me, and they'd say where Saddam is. I would pass it to the military. They would go and he wasn't there. You know, they’d say: they saw him driving a taxi cab…

Was it true?

No, we heard rumors like that. I'm just saying that it was crazy. So, the military got a tip in December, that he was somewhere near Tikrit, which was his family place. You know the story that they found a hiding hole that he was in. I was not informed about the search when it took place. But I was called to go back from my room to my office at about 2 am on December 13, 2003, by the commanding officer General Abizaid, the CENTCOM commander.

He said: “We think we have Saddam.” He told me the story and said he looks like him. He's got a scar, or a mole, or something on one leg, and we think it's him. But we have to do a DNA check to be sure. We had some DNA from his sons who had been killed in Mosul in July. But it'll take two days, because the DNA is not here. It's in Germany.

I said: “You're never going to hold this story for two days.” Abizaid said: “Well, we're going to fly him back to Baghdad, and have some of the high value prisoners, particularly Tariq Aziz, to see him, and tell us if that's Saddam.” Several of them saw him and said that it's got to be Saddam. So, I found out at that time, whatever it was 2:00 in the morning. It was great, great news.

How did he look? How was he underground?

The problem we faced was this. His two sons attacked our forces in Mosul in July 2003, and they were killed. We needed to announce that, but we wondered if the Iraqis would believe us. So, the military, Rumsfeld and his people, organized a group of pathologists to go and see the bodies, and confirm whether or not these were Saddam's sons. Because in the Geneva Convention, you're not supposed to show pictures of dead soldiers.

Until we had the Iraqi forensic officials, who do the autopsies, and confirm it, at which time, celebratory gunfire took place all over in Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, and Kirkuk. So, we faced the same dilemma again about Saddam. The conclusion was we should take a group of Iraqis to see him where he's being held, which was at the Baghdad airport. I issued an invitation to the members of the governing council, anybody who wants to come.

In the end there were only a few: Adnan Pachachi, Ahmed Chalabi, Mowaffak al-Rubaie and Adil Abdul-Mahdi. Saddam was there, and they immediately knew him by his voice and everything else. So there was no question. Therefore, I felt it was important that Pachachi, who in that month was chairman of the Governing Council, should also be at the announcement. And that's how the announcement came about.

Had you seen Saddam before or spoken to him?

No, I said nothing. He didn't have any idea. I stood at the door.

Before that?

No, I didn't speak a word to him.

Did you have good relations with Ahmed Chalabi and Ayad Allawi?

I talked to them all, often… Talabani, Barzani, of course Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Abdulaziz al-Hakim, and Diaa Jubaili, the author of “The Lion of Basra”. I spent a lot of time with them.



32,623 Palestinians Killed in Gaza Offensive Since Oct. 7

A Palestinian man inspects the rubble in a house, following Israeli bombardment, in the Maghazi camp for Palestinian refugees in the central Gaza Strip on March 29, 2024. (Photo by AFP)
A Palestinian man inspects the rubble in a house, following Israeli bombardment, in the Maghazi camp for Palestinian refugees in the central Gaza Strip on March 29, 2024. (Photo by AFP)
TT

32,623 Palestinians Killed in Gaza Offensive Since Oct. 7

A Palestinian man inspects the rubble in a house, following Israeli bombardment, in the Maghazi camp for Palestinian refugees in the central Gaza Strip on March 29, 2024. (Photo by AFP)
A Palestinian man inspects the rubble in a house, following Israeli bombardment, in the Maghazi camp for Palestinian refugees in the central Gaza Strip on March 29, 2024. (Photo by AFP)

At least 32,623 Palestinians have been killed and 75,092 injured in Israel's military offensive on Gaza since Oct. 7, the Gaza health ministry said on Friday.

The top United Nations court on Thursday ordered Israel to take measures to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza, including opening more land crossings to allow food, water, fuel and other supplies into the war-ravaged enclave.

The International Court of Justice issued two new so-called provisional measures in a case brought by South Africa accusing Israel of acts of genocide in its military campaign launched after the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas.

Israel denies it is committing genocide and accused South Africa of trying to “undermine Israel's inherent right and obligation to defend its citizens.”

The court also ordered Israel to immediately ensure that its military does not take action that could that could harm Palestinians' rights under the Genocide Convention, including by preventing the delivery of humanitarian assistance.
It told Israel to report back in a month on its implementation of the orders.


UN Concerned over ‘Unacceptable’ Israeli Attacks on Lebanon’s Health Facilities

Mourners carry the flag-draped caskets of four people killed in an overnight Israeli strike in the southern Lebanese border village of Naqoura, during their funeral procession on March 28, 2024. (Photo by AFP)
Mourners carry the flag-draped caskets of four people killed in an overnight Israeli strike in the southern Lebanese border village of Naqoura, during their funeral procession on March 28, 2024. (Photo by AFP)
TT

UN Concerned over ‘Unacceptable’ Israeli Attacks on Lebanon’s Health Facilities

Mourners carry the flag-draped caskets of four people killed in an overnight Israeli strike in the southern Lebanese border village of Naqoura, during their funeral procession on March 28, 2024. (Photo by AFP)
Mourners carry the flag-draped caskets of four people killed in an overnight Israeli strike in the southern Lebanese border village of Naqoura, during their funeral procession on March 28, 2024. (Photo by AFP)

The United Nations has said that it was “deeply disturbed” by Israel’s “unacceptable” attacks on health facilities and health workers in Lebanon after up to 11 civilians were killed in a single day, including 10 paramedics.

“I am deeply disturbed by the repeated attacks on health facilities and health workers who risk their lives to provide urgent assistance to their local communities,” the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator for Lebanon, Imran Riza, said Thursday.

“Attacks on healthcare violate international humanitarian law and are unacceptable. The rules of war are clear: civilians, including healthcare workers, must be protected.”

He called for the protection of civilian infrastructure, including health facilities, saying “healthcare is not a target. Civilians are not a target.”

“The tragic events of the past 36 hours have resulted in a significant loss of life and injuries in south Lebanon. Up to 11 civilians were killed in a single day, including 10 paramedics,” Riza stated.

The UN peacekeeping force deployed in southern Lebanon along the border with Israel called for ending the escalation a day after exchanges of fire killed 16 people in Lebanon.

UNIFIL said Thursday it is very concerned over the surge of cross-border violence between the Israeli military and Hezbollah.

On Wednesday, a series of Israeli airstrikes in southern Lebanon killed 16 people and a barrage of rockets fired by Hezbollah killed one Israeli man, making it the deadliest day in more than five months of fighting along the border.

UNIFIL said the escalation has caused a high number of civilian deaths adding that it is imperative that “this escalation cease immediately.”

“We urge all sides to put down their weapons and begin the process toward a sustainable political and diplomatic solution,” UNIFIL said.

The Lebanese Foreign Ministry said its UN mission would file a complaint with the Security Council against the Israeli “massacres” in southern Lebanon.

The Ministry said on X that the complaint involves attacks on southern villages that have left more than 18 people dead, including civilians and paramedics, in only a few days.


Kabashi Warns of Risk of ‘Popular Resistance’ Beyond Sudanese Army Control

Deputy General Commander of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) Shams-Edin Kabashi made his statement during a military graduation event in Al-Qadarif, eastern Sudan (AFP)
Deputy General Commander of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) Shams-Edin Kabashi made his statement during a military graduation event in Al-Qadarif, eastern Sudan (AFP)
TT

Kabashi Warns of Risk of ‘Popular Resistance’ Beyond Sudanese Army Control

Deputy General Commander of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) Shams-Edin Kabashi made his statement during a military graduation event in Al-Qadarif, eastern Sudan (AFP)
Deputy General Commander of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) Shams-Edin Kabashi made his statement during a military graduation event in Al-Qadarif, eastern Sudan (AFP)

Member of Sudan’s Transitional Sovereign Council and Deputy General Commander of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), Shams-Edin Kabashi, has cautioned against the danger of “armed popular resistance” operating outside the command of the armed forces.

He warned against armed groups operating independently and urged against political parties misusing military camps.

It was evident that Kabashi’s remarks were directed towards the “Islamists” within the ranks of the ousted regime, whose factions are engaged in battle against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

Kabashi issued his strong warning during a military graduation event in Al-Qadarif, eastern Sudan, urging army leaders to prevent armed resistance members from carrying weapons outside military camps.

He stressed the importance of discipline, stating that while the army acknowledges the need for resistance, it must be regulated. Kabashi also urged political groups not to use resistance camps for anything other than supporting the army.

Political and civilian groups have warned about the rise of armed militias fueling conflict with the backing of the Sudanese army. Some factions linked to Sudanese Islamists are fighting alongside the army in the current battles across the country.

“The army is ready for genuine peace talks but won't stop fighting or agree to a ceasefire,” said Kabashi, adding that dialogue is essential.

Kabashi reiterated SAF’s commitment to the Jeddah peace platform mediated by Saudi Arabia, the United States, and other regional parties.

“We welcome any efforts, both national and international, to solve Sudan's issues,” he said, noting that this is on the condition that the RSF leave civilian homes using agreed-upon methods, including accountability and compensation for those affected.

“We won't engage in politics until military matters are resolved,” emphasized Kabashi, insisting on meeting basic demands outlined in the Jeddah agreement and subsequent developments.

He affirmed SAF’s readiness to end the war soon, describing it as a “proxy war” managed from afar, with RSF acting as mere instruments.

Kabashi also mentioned humanitarian aid, stating that SAF allows it to enter the country through ports and airports without restrictions. He urged all armed groups not to block relief supplies destined for conflict-affected areas.


Turkish Airlines Resumes Flights to Libya After 10-year Hiatus

A Turkish Airlines plane takes off from the city's new Istanbul Airport in Istanbul, Türkiye, April 6, 2019. (Reuters)
A Turkish Airlines plane takes off from the city's new Istanbul Airport in Istanbul, Türkiye, April 6, 2019. (Reuters)
TT

Turkish Airlines Resumes Flights to Libya After 10-year Hiatus

A Turkish Airlines plane takes off from the city's new Istanbul Airport in Istanbul, Türkiye, April 6, 2019. (Reuters)
A Turkish Airlines plane takes off from the city's new Istanbul Airport in Istanbul, Türkiye, April 6, 2019. (Reuters)

The Turkish Airlines launched on Thursday its first flight to Mitiga International Airport in the Libyan capital Tripoli, after a 10-year hiatus.
The Arab World Press said the announcement came on “Hakomitna,” the media platform of the interim Libyan Government of National Unity (GNU), led by Abdul Hamid Dbeibah.
Last week, Dbeibah said the Turkish Airlines would resume its flights to Libya after a hiatus of about ten years. He considered the return of Turkish flights as “an additional indicator of strengthening the state of stability in all its forms despite the challenges.”
“Alhamdulillah, Turkish Airlines will resume flights to Libya from next week after an absence of nearly 10 years,” Dbeibah wrote on his social media account last Saturday.
He then praised the efforts of the transportation and civil aviation sector, and everyone who contributed to facilitating air transport movement, as well as achieving the technical requirements for the return of major companies to the country.
Turkish Airlines' General Manager Bilal Ekşi announced in a press conference that the company would fly three flights per week to Mitiga Airport in the Libyan capital.

 

 


Egypt Reveals Start Date for Trial Operation at Dabaa Nuclear Plant

Egypt is preparing to receive Russian President Vladimir Putin to participate in the inauguration of the station's fourth reactor. (Egypt's Nuclear Power Plants Authority)
Egypt is preparing to receive Russian President Vladimir Putin to participate in the inauguration of the station's fourth reactor. (Egypt's Nuclear Power Plants Authority)
TT

Egypt Reveals Start Date for Trial Operation at Dabaa Nuclear Plant

Egypt is preparing to receive Russian President Vladimir Putin to participate in the inauguration of the station's fourth reactor. (Egypt's Nuclear Power Plants Authority)
Egypt is preparing to receive Russian President Vladimir Putin to participate in the inauguration of the station's fourth reactor. (Egypt's Nuclear Power Plants Authority)

Egypt on Thursday has unveiled the start date for trial operation at its first nuclear power plant in the city of Dabaa on the Mediterranean coast, in cooperation with Russia.
Amjad Al-Wakeel Chairman of Egypt's Nuclear Power Plants Authority, said on Thursday that the trial operation of the first reactor at the Dabaa plant will commence by the second half of 2027.
The commercial operation of the first reactor is set to start in September 2028, to be followed by the operation of the remaining units, El-Wakeel noted.
The Dabaa plant consists of four nuclear reactors with a total power-generation capacity of 4,800 megawatts (MW), 1,200 MW per reactor.
Speaking on the sidelines of the two-day Atom Expo 2024 forum in Russia’s Sochi, Al-Wakeel affirmed that the project will provide 7.2 to 7.7 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually after its full operation.
The Egyptian official said one of the agreements concluded with the Russian side stipulates the construction of a special storage facility for storing used nuclear fuel for up to 60 years.
In 2015, Cairo signed a contract with the Russian state nuclear corporation, Rosatom, to build Egypt’s first nuclear power plant at a cost of $25 billion.
In December 2017, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin witnessed in Cairo the signing of a document to kickstart the Dabaa nuclear power plant.
Last January, the two presidents inaugurated the construction of a new unit at Egypt's Dabaa nuclear power plant via video link.

 

 


Lebanon: Escape of a Politically Connected Prisoner Embarrasses Authorities

Personnel from the General Directorate of State Security (State Security Directorate)
Personnel from the General Directorate of State Security (State Security Directorate)
TT

Lebanon: Escape of a Politically Connected Prisoner Embarrasses Authorities

Personnel from the General Directorate of State Security (State Security Directorate)
Personnel from the General Directorate of State Security (State Security Directorate)

Lebanon’s judiciary kicked off an investigation on Thursday into the escape scandal or "smuggling" of a prisoner from his detention place at the State Security apparatus in the Sahet al-Abed area in eastern Beirut.
The incident has raised many interpretations despite the accused, Dani al-Rashid’s, re-arrest in coordination with the Syrian authorities. Rashid is considered a very prominent figure.
He is the director of the office of former minister Salim Jreissati (advisor to former President Michel Aoun) and the personal advisor to the head of the State Security apparatus, Brigadier General Tony Saliba.
Acting Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation, Judge Jamal al-Hajjar, held a meeting with the Government Commissioner at the Military Court, Judge Fadi Akiki. They agreed to initiate an immediate investigation to be conducted by Akiki under the supervision of al-Hajjar.
A judicial source said the investigation "has so far led to the arrest of three guards from the State Security prison, and will include officers and other personnel."
Akiki "summoned Brigadier General Tony Saliba for interrogation as the head of the State Security apparatus responsible for the actions of his officers and personnel”.
Rashid is accused of involvement in the attempted murder of engineer Abdullah Hanna in Zahle, eastern Lebanon. Reports emerged that he was receiving special treatment in prison from the State Security for his close relationship with political figures.
Hajjar has therefore sent a letter to Saliba requesting the transfer of all prisoners held by State Security to prisons and detention centers under the authority of the Internal Security Forces. However, it turned out that these prisoners had not been transferred.
Hajjar asked the State Security about the reasons for the delay in transferring the prisoners and requested a list of the detainees they have only to be surprised later by the news of Rashid’s escape.
Rashid’s escape occurred after the agreement on the date of his transfer into the custody of the Internal Security Forces. The source said that "communication between Brigadier General Saliba and the Director General of the Internal Security Forces, Major General Imad Othman, during which the transfer date of this prisoner to the custody of the Internal Security Forces was set. Hours later, news of his escape from prison was announced."
Investigations to uncover the escape operation are ongoing.
“Investigations and tracking operations will determine whether he left Lebanon or not”, a security source told Asharq Al-Awsat, adding that there could have been “an arrangement to smuggle him out of Lebanon before leaving prison because he realized well that if he remained in Lebanon, he would be rearrested”.
At night, the State Security announced in a statement the re-arrest of the escaped detainee after a joint security operation between the directorate and the relevant Syrian security authorities and a State Security force.
It said that Rashid “was handed over to the General Directorate of Lebanese General Security to carry out the required legal procedures. He will be referred again to the General Directorate of State Security on Friday morning for the necessary legal action to be taken against him under the supervision of the competent judiciary." 


Türkiye to Discuss Syria, YPG with US Officials

 US Secretary of State Antony Blinken meets with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan at the State Department in Washington, US, March 8, 2024. (Reuters)
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken meets with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan at the State Department in Washington, US, March 8, 2024. (Reuters)
TT

Türkiye to Discuss Syria, YPG with US Officials

 US Secretary of State Antony Blinken meets with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan at the State Department in Washington, US, March 8, 2024. (Reuters)
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken meets with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan at the State Department in Washington, US, March 8, 2024. (Reuters)

Turkish Defense Minister Yasar Güler will hold talks with a visiting delegation from the US House of Representatives on Friday to tackle the Syrian war and American support for the People's Protection Units (YPG), the largest component of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in Syria.

During a press conference in Ankara, the Turkish defense ministry's media and public relations advisor, Zeki Akturk, said four members of the US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee will pay a visit to Ankara on Friday for talks with the Turkish Defense Minister.

“The meeting will focus on several files, most notably the fight against terrorism, Syria in general, in addition to the US support for the YPG, which forms the Syrian branch of the Türkiye-based Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK),” Akturk said.

The US support for Kurdish militant groups in Syria is one of the pressing issues in US-Turkish relations. Washington considers the YPG as its main ally in the fight to dismantle ISIS in Syria.

In return, Ankara says the US must end support for the YPG, which it is fighting in northern Syria.

US and Turkish officials already discussed the Kurdish issue during the Türkiye-US Strategic Mechanism meetings held in Washington early this month.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, who led his country’s delegation, said he conveyed Ankara’s objections to the support provided by the US to the YPG/PKK, including the transfer of weapons and trainings.

“The Republic of Türkiye is fighting and will continue to fight against all threats and terrorist sources that pose a threat within or outside its borders,” the minister said, adding that his country “will not wait for permission from anyone to do so.”

Earlier, the Turkish defense minister echoed the same position. He criticized the US support for the Kurdish units and said it contradicts the alliance relations between Ankara and Washington. “It is not possible to fight a terrorist organization using another terrorist organization,” he stressed.

Last week, Turkish reports said Washington had expressed its readiness to discuss the Syrian war with Ankara, in light of the new climate in relations between the two countries.

The reports also said that during the meeting of the Strategic Mechanism, the US confirmed its readiness to “strategically discuss Syria.”

Currently, around 900 US troops are located in Northeast Syria.

During an annual Iftar with veterans in Ankara on Wednesday, Güler vowed that the Turkish military would uproot the “terrorist” PKK organization and its expansion in Syria (YPG), and would eliminate any threat to its southern borders and the security of its people.


US Military Says It Destroyed 4 Drones Launched by Yemen's Houthis

HMS Richmond, currently taking part in Operation Prosperity Guardian protecting merchant shipping in the Red Sea from Houthi rebel attacks, fires missiles to shoot down hostile Houthi drones heading towards the ship, on the Red Sea, March 9, 2024. LPhot Chris Sellars/UK Ministry Of Defense/Handout via REUTERS
HMS Richmond, currently taking part in Operation Prosperity Guardian protecting merchant shipping in the Red Sea from Houthi rebel attacks, fires missiles to shoot down hostile Houthi drones heading towards the ship, on the Red Sea, March 9, 2024. LPhot Chris Sellars/UK Ministry Of Defense/Handout via REUTERS
TT

US Military Says It Destroyed 4 Drones Launched by Yemen's Houthis

HMS Richmond, currently taking part in Operation Prosperity Guardian protecting merchant shipping in the Red Sea from Houthi rebel attacks, fires missiles to shoot down hostile Houthi drones heading towards the ship, on the Red Sea, March 9, 2024. LPhot Chris Sellars/UK Ministry Of Defense/Handout via REUTERS
HMS Richmond, currently taking part in Operation Prosperity Guardian protecting merchant shipping in the Red Sea from Houthi rebel attacks, fires missiles to shoot down hostile Houthi drones heading towards the ship, on the Red Sea, March 9, 2024. LPhot Chris Sellars/UK Ministry Of Defense/Handout via REUTERS

The US military said on Thursday that it had destroyed four unmanned drones launched by Iran-backed Houthi militias in Yemen.
The US Central Command said on the social media site X that the drones "presented an imminent threat to merchant vessels and US Navy ships in the region."
The drones were aimed at a coalition vessel and a US warship and "were engaged in self defense over the Red Sea," the statement from the US Central Command said, adding there were no injuries or damage reported to the US or coalition ships.


Israeli Strikes on Syria Kill Dozens

A general view of Aleppo International Airport (North Press Agency)
A general view of Aleppo International Airport (North Press Agency)
TT

Israeli Strikes on Syria Kill Dozens

A general view of Aleppo International Airport (North Press Agency)
A general view of Aleppo International Airport (North Press Agency)

Israeli strikes on the northern Syrian city of Aleppo early on Friday killed 38 people, including five members of Lebanese armed group Hezbollah, two security sources said.
The Syrian defense ministry said earlier on Friday that a number of civilians and military personnel were killed after Israel and militant groups launched attacks against Aleppo.
The Israeli airstrikes targeted several areas in Aleppo's countryside at about 1:45 a.m. local time (2245 GMT), the ministry said a statement.
The airstrikes coincided with drone attacks carried out from Idlib and western rural Aleppo that the ministry described as having been conducted by "terrorist organizations" targeting civilians in Aleppo and its surroundings.
However, the ministry did not mention a specific death toll or clarify whether the casualties were caused by the Israeli airstrikes or the attacks by militant groups, said Reuters.
"The aggression resulted in the martyrdom and injury of a number of civilians and military personnel and caused material losses to public and private property," the statement said.
The Israeli military declined comment.
Since the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians and soldiers, Israel has escalated its strikes on what it says are bases of Iranian-backed militia in Syria. It has also struck Syrian army air defenses and some Syrian forces.
Fighters allied with Iran, including Hezbollah, now hold sway in vast areas of eastern, southern and northwestern Syria and in several suburbs around the capital.
Israel and Hezbollah have been trading fire across the Israel-Lebanon border since the war erupted in Gaza, the biggest escalation since they fought a month-long conflict in 2006.


UN Peacekeepers Decry Escalating Violence on Lebanon-Israel Border

People inspect the damage at the site of an airstrike in Habbariyah, southern Lebanon, 27 March 2024. (EPA)
People inspect the damage at the site of an airstrike in Habbariyah, southern Lebanon, 27 March 2024. (EPA)
TT

UN Peacekeepers Decry Escalating Violence on Lebanon-Israel Border

People inspect the damage at the site of an airstrike in Habbariyah, southern Lebanon, 27 March 2024. (EPA)
People inspect the damage at the site of an airstrike in Habbariyah, southern Lebanon, 27 March 2024. (EPA)

The United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL) deployed in the South along the border with Israel called on Thursday for ending the escalation a day after exchanges of fire killed 17 people.

The force known as UNIFIL said Thursday it is very concerned over the surge of cross-border violence between the Israeli military and Lebanese militant groups including Hezbollah.

On Wednesday, a series of Israeli airstrikes in southern Lebanon killed 16 people and a barrage of rockets fired by Hezbollah killed one Israeli man, making it the deadliest day in more than five months of fighting along the border.

UNIFIL said the escalation has caused a high number of civilian deaths adding that it is imperative that “this escalation cease immediately.”

“We urge all sides to put down their weapons and begin the process toward a sustainable political and diplomatic solution,” UNIFIL said. It added that the peacekeeping force remains ready to support that process in any way it can.

The fighting along the border started a day after the attack by the Palestinian militant group Hamas into southern Israel on Oct. 7. The violence has displaced tens of thousands in both countries, caused widespread damage in towns and villages and killed civilians, including journalists.

Nine civilians and 11 soldiers have died in Israel, and more than 240 Hezbollah fighters and about 50 civilians have been killed in Lebanon.