US says airstrike killed Islamic State official in Syria
WASHINGTON: The US military announced Thursday that a recent airstrike had killed an Islamic State group official in northwest Syria.
In a post to social media, US Central Command (CENTCOM) said its forces 'conducted a precision airstrike in northwest Syria killing Rakhim Boev, a Syria-based ISIS official,' using another name for IS.
The post on X said Boev was 'involved in planning external operations threatening U.S. citizens, our partners, and civilians.'
The accompanying image depicts an SUV vehicle with a bashed-in windshield and roof.
AFP previously reported that two people were killed in separate drone strikes Tuesday, on a car and a motorcycle, in the northwestern bastion of the Islamist former rebels who now head the Syrian government.
A call to CENTCOM seeking confirmation that the incidents are related was not immediately returned.
The twin drone strikes in the Idlib region mirror the US-led coalition's past strikes on jihadists in the area.
During a meeting in Riyadh last month, US President Donald Trump called on his Syrian counterpart Ahmed al-Sharaa to help Washington prevent a resurgence by IS.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
5 hours ago
- The Star
Interview: China-Africa expo highlights deepening economic ties, says Zimbabwean expert
HARARE, June 13 (Xinhua) -- The ongoing China-Africa Economic and Trade Expo (CAETE) showcases the deepening economic ties between China and Africa and serves as a platform for advancing pragmatic, mutually beneficial cooperation, a policy expert told Xinhua on Friday. "The ongoing CAETE shows that China and Africa can work together to develop pragmatic solutions that will enhance cooperation and mutual benefit, while enhancing sustainable development and modernization in Africa," Munetsi Madakufamba, executive director of the Southern African Research and Documentation Center, a Zimbabwe-based think tank, told Xinhua in a written interview. Noting that trade between China and Africa has expanded significantly since the inception of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) in 2000, Madakufamba said platforms such as CAETE help further deepen trade, drive Africa's industrialization and narrow trade disparities. "Africa aspires not only to import finished goods but also to develop its manufacturing sector, which requires the development of infrastructure and machinery to produce finished goods," he said, adding that Africa welcomes China to establish more manufacturing hubs in Africa to facilitate the continent's modernization and industrialization. Such cooperation, he added, would allow Africa to leapfrog with cutting-edge technology and build robust industrial capacity, while creating new trade and investment opportunities for both sides. Besides strengthening economic and trade relations, Madakufamba said that the expo also aligns with the 10 partnership action plans proposed at last year's FOCAC summit. During a ministerial meeting in Changsha city ahead of the expo, China announced plans to extend zero-tariff treatment on 100 percent of tariff lines to all 53 African countries with which it maintains diplomatic ties. Madakufamba praised this commitment as a major step forward in boosting trade and deepening Sino-African cooperation. "In today's environment characterized by trade wars and worldwide tariff impositions by the United States, the CAETE presents a platform for pragmatic solutions that have the potential to balance global trade," he said, noting that engaging with African entrepreneurs and innovators is essential to address the unique demands of the African market. The expo is further evidence of China's commitment to economic globalization, multilateralism, and the sharing of development gains with the world, he added.
New Straits Times
5 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Attacking Iran, Israel again calls bluff of 'man of peace' Trump
WHEN US President Donald Trump publicly implored Israel not to attack Iran, he declared, once again, that his goal was to be a peacemaker. Hours later on Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – one of Trump's closest international allies – unleashed a major military campaign described as a "preemptive" strike against Iran's nuclear programme. The attack marks the latest setback for Trump's lofty goal set out at the start of his second term of being a "man of peace." Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom Trump has also boasted a warm relationship, has rebuffed his overtures for a ceasefire with Ukraine. And Israel resumed another massive offensive in Gaza after talks bogged down on extending a ceasefire with Hamas reached with Trump's support at the end of his predecessor Joe Biden's term. Trump's friend and roving envoy Steve Witkoff – who has negotiated in all three crises – had been set to meet Iranian officials again Sunday in Oman. Trump later was careful not to distance himself from Israel, where some sources sought to suggest that the public US statements were meant to catch Iran off guard. In successive social media posts, Trump said that Iran had failed to accept his terms and that the attack came one day after a 60-day deadline he had issued, although that did not explain why Witkoff had still scheduled talks with Iran. Trump separately has repeatedly hailed US diplomacy that helped reach a ceasefire last month between India and Pakistan as a triumph, saying he averted nuclear war. Before Israel launched its operation, Trump said: "I don't want them going in, because I think it would blow it." Netanyahu has described Iran's cleric-run government, which backs Hamas, as an existential threat and already last year ordered strikes that knocked out its air defences. "We've clearly seen a fork in the road in the American and Israeli approaches to this problem set," said Dana Stroul, a former senior Pentagon official who is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "These strikes are going to disrupt and delay and degrade Iran's nuclear program. The question, I think, is whether or not the United States and Israel in the future are going to work together on what to do to maximise the time that's put back on the clock," she said. Stroul noted that rifts had been building between Israel and Trump, who last month agreed to remove sanctions on Syria after former Islamist guerrilla Ahmed al-Sharaa swept into power. Trump embraced the new Syrian leader after appeals on a tour of Gulf Arab monarchies – which have also backed diplomacy on Iran. In Qatar last month, Trump said after meeting the emir that he believed a deal was in sight with Iran and that there would be no "nuclear dust" over the region. Despite growing disagreements, Israel enjoys robust support in Trump's right-wing base. The Trump administration in recent days has again taken lonely positions to back Israel, with the United States casting one of the only votes at the UN General Assembly against a Gaza ceasefire resolution and criticising top allies, including Britain, for imposing sanctions on far-right Israeli ministers. Justin Logan, director of defence and foreign policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the Israeli attack will "destroy US diplomatic efforts" on Iran and called for Trump to reject any US military role in protecting Israel from retaliation. "Israel has the right to choose its own foreign policy. At the same time, it has the responsibility to bear the costs of that policy," he said. But lawmakers in Trump's Republican Party quickly rallied behind Israel. Senator Tom Cotton said that the United States should "back Israel to the hilt, all the way," and topple Iran's Islamic Republic if it targets US troops. Trump's Democratic rivals, who mostly backed his diplomacy on Iran, were aghast at Israel's action ahead of new US-Iran talks. "Israel's alarming decision to launch airstrikes on Iran is a reckless escalation that risks igniting regional violence," said Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Forces Committee.
New Straits Times
7 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Malaysia needs to recalibrate long-term strategy
THE strategic rivalry between the United States and China has intensified in recent years, evolving into a long-term contest for primacy across technology, trade, ideology and defence. While the epicentres of this contest may lie in the Taiwan Strait, South China Sea and East Asian high-tech corridors, the ramifications reverberate far into Southeast Asia — placing heightened expectations on the foreign and defence policies of niched powers such as Malaysia. For Malaysia, the stakes have never been higher. After all, our strategic geography — located along the vital sea lanes of the Malacca Strait, a maritime choke point further connecting the Indian and Pacific Oceans — renders our country a natural focal point in this zero-sum contest. But unlike the US or China, Malaysia does not seek hegemony. Instead, it seeks relevance through diplomacy, strategic autonomy and non-alignment. However, such a posture is becoming harder to sustain when both great powers demand visible allegiance — whether in the form of defence procurement, port access or rhetorical support in multilateral forums. Recent developments only underscore this pressure. The US has called for Indo-Pacific partners to commit up to five per cent of their gross domestic product on defence spending, an unrealistic ask for a country like Malaysia, which is still navigating post-Covid-19 pandemic economic recovery. Similarly, great powers continue to deepen its presence in the South and East China Seas, testing the limits of many countries on their exclusive economic zone, as evidenced by repeated forays of their defence assets in these waters. While Malaysia has lodged diplomatic protests on some of these incursions, it has not escalated these incidents publicly, preferring quiet diplomacy without acquiescence and occasionally airing the concerns in institutional mechanisms such as Asean; often behind closed doors. But the room for ambiguity is narrowing. The revival of US-led security coalitions such as the Quad (with India, Japan, and Australia) and AUKUS (with Australia and the United Kingdom), as well as the Five Power Defence Arrangements (Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and the UK), demonstrates that security alignments are being reconfigured. These alliances suggest a rebalancing of defence resources and infrastructure away from ad hoc deterrence and towards integrated defence ecosystems. Thus, what is Malaysia's long-term strategy in navigating this geopolitical rivalry? FIRST, we must clearly articulate a doctrine of strategic autonomy. It involves having sufficient economic, diplomatic and defence capabilities to independently determine national interests without succumbing to pressure from any single external actor. SECOND, we should deepen multilateralism. As Asean chair, Malaysia has a unique platform to reinvigorate regional diplomacy, particularly through the Asean Defence Ministers' Meeting Plus, the East Asia Summit, and the Asean Regional Forum. They should be retooled to facilitate Track 1.5 and Track 2.0 dialogues that can defuse tensions and offer third-party mediation options in flashpoints in IndoChina such as Myanmar or the Thailand-Cambodia border skirmish; of which the latter is being adeptly handled by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as Asean chair. THIRD, Malaysia's defence modernisation must be calibrated and intelligent. We should prioritise unmanned systems, cyberdefence and maritime domain awareness — areas that offer asymmetrical advantages. The recent acquisition of Turkish-made drones and the partnership with the UK, France and South Korea on defence industrial collaboration provide a useful template. FOURTH, Malaysian diplomacy must evolve in line with 21st-century expectations. This involves embedding economic statecraft into foreign policy. The China-US contest is as much about 5G networks, semiconductors and artificial intelligence supply chains as it is about military deployment. Malaysia's participation in frameworks such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and digital economy partnerships can serve as hedging tools against overdependence. LASTLY, the political leadership must communicate this complexity to the public. Geopolitics can no longer be confined to bureaucratic corridors. The Malaysian public needs to understand why defence spending, diplomatic engagements and new partnerships matter in ensuring national sovereignty, food security and economic resilience. A well-informed populace can be a bulwark against foreign misinformation and manipulation.
