Syrian foreign minister met Israeli delegation for regional stability talks
Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shibani met an Israeli delegation in Paris on Tuesday to discuss bolstering stability in the region and southernSyria, Syria's state news agency SANA reported.
Syrian and Israeli officials have been conducting US-mediated talks on de-escalating the conflict in southern Syria.
The discussions between the Israeli and Syrian sides focused on de-escalation and non-interference in Syrian domestic affairs, according to SANA.
The meeting also saw discussions on the reactivation of the 1974 disengagement agreement between Israel and Syria that created a UN buffer zone in the Golan Heights.
What are the tensions between Syria, Israel?
It was the second meeting between the two sides in the French capital in less than a month after they agreed in July to continue talks after no final accord was reached on de-escalating tensions in southern Syria.
Hundreds of people have been reported killed in clashes in the southern Syrian province of Sweida between Druze fighters, Sunni Bedouin tribes, and government forces. Israel intervened with airstrikes to prevent what it said was mass killings of Druze by government forces.
The clashes last month underlined the challenges interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa faces in stabilizing Syria and maintaining centralized rule, despite warming ties with the US and his administration's evolving security contacts with Israel.
Solve the daily Crossword
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
7 minutes ago
- Axios
Scoop: U.S. asks Israel to scale down Lebanon strikes after decision to disarm Hezbollah
The Trump administration has asked Israel to reduce "non-urgent" military action in Lebanon to bolster the Lebanese government's decision to start the process of disarming Hezbollah, two sources with direct knowledge tell Axios. Why it matters: The Lebanese cabinet's unprecedented decision to prepare to disarm Hezbollah came at the urging of the U.S., but many in the region doubt the government will be able to carry it out. The Trump administration thinks reciprocal steps by Israel would give Beirut more space and credibility to follow through. State of play: Since the Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire in Lebanon last November, Israel has still conducted almost daily air strikes in Lebanon. Israel claims it's acting in response to Hezbollah violations, or threats that weren't addressed by the Lebanese government. Lebanese officials have rejected those claims and condemned Israel for violating the ceasefire and its sovereignty. Israel also continues to occupy Lebanese land by maintaining its presence in five military outposts in southern Lebanon. Israel has said it will remain in these outposts as long as Hezbollah is a threat. The Trump administration has now asked Israel to consider withdrawing from one outpost and significantly reducing air strikes for a few weeks as an initial step to show willingness to cooperate with the Lebanese effort. Driving the news: The Lebanese cabinet decision two weeks ago ordered the military to prepare a plan for disarming all non-state armed groups to give the state a monopoly over weapons. The decision was made under pressure from the Trump administration, which has demanded Hezbollah be disarmed by the end of 2025. Hezbollah rejected the cabinet decision and threatened that "there will be no life in Lebanon" if the government tries to enforce it. Behind the scenes: U.S. envoy Tom Barrack has been discussing with the Israeli government steps that Israel could take in parallel to the disarming of Hezbollah, the sources said. The U.S. plan calls for a temporary pause on "non-urgent" strikes that could be extended if the Lebanese military takes more action to prevent Hezbollah from reestablishing itself in southern Lebanon. Barrack also proposed a step-by-step withdrawal from the five outposts in response to practical steps from the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah, the sources said. According to the sources, the U.S. plan also envisions a "Trump economic zone" in parts of southern Lebanon adjacent to the border with Israel. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have already agreed to invest in the reconstruction of these areas after Israel's withdrawal is complete. The idea is that the economic zone will make it much harder for Hezbollah to reestablish a military presence close to the Israeli border, and therefore Israel's security concerns will be addressed without an occupation. State of play: The most recent discussion of these issues came Wednesday in Paris, when Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer met for several hours with Barrack and U.S. diplomat Morgan Ortagus. One source said there was progress but no final decisions. "The Israelis didn't say no and they are willing to give it a chance. They understand that what the Lebanese cabinet did was historic and that they need to give something back."
Bloomberg
9 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
US Hits Greek Shipper in Expansion of Iran Max-Pressure Campaign
The US Treasury Department sanctioned a Greek shipper it said facilitated the transport of Iranian oil, broadening the Trump administration's maximum-pressure campaign against Tehran and a crackdown on its so-called shadow fleet. Antonios Margaritis was designated along with a web of companies overseen by him in Greece and the Marshall Islands. The move comes weeks after US Treasury's biggest Iran sanctions action in seven years, which targeted a network overseen by oil tycoon Hossein Shamkhani, whose father is a senior adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
WIRED
9 minutes ago
- WIRED
Trump Is Betting Big on Intel. Will the Chips Fall His Way?
Aug 21, 2025 1:04 PM The Trump administration is aiming to take an equity stake in Intel, according to US commerce secretary Howard Lutnick. Experts say the unconventional deal could backfire. Photograph: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/Getty Images The US government is aiming to take an equity stake in Intel in exchange for grants the company was already committed to receive under the Biden era CHIPS Act, according to comments US commerce secretary Howard Lutnick made in an interview with CNBC. The move is part of the government's efforts to boost US chip manufacturing. 'We should get an equity stake for our money, so we'll deliver the money which was already committed under the Biden administration,' Lutnick said. 'We'll get equity in return for it.' Previously, the government was discussing taking a 10 percent stake in Intel, according to the New York Times . The deal could help the venerable chipmaker fund its US-based semiconductor fabrication plants, or fabs, which have required billions of dollars to construct and maintain, even as demand for Intel chips has waned in recent years. Some chip industry experts and members of the Trump administration say that keeping Intel afloat is essential to US national security, because it lessens the country's reliance on chipmakers overseas. But analysts and one notable economist say a potential tie-up between Intel and the US government could present a conflict of interest, and may not result in the kind of domestic chip-making industry the administration is angling for. 'It's not the right policy to have the US government own things, to have privatization in reverse,' says Stephen Moore, a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a former senior economic advisor to Trump's 2016 campaign. 'That's similar to Europe's industrial model, and we haven't done that often here in the US because a lot of it ends up failing.' Government Intervention The US government has some history of investing in the private sector. Moore cites a 1980s program called the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, a federally-directed multibillion dollar investment in companies producing liquid fuels from coal, oil shale, and tar sands. It was hailed by President Jimmy Carter as 'the cornerstone of our energy policy,' and had fallen apart by 1986. Then, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the US government stepped in with multibillion dollar bailouts to stop US automakers and some banks from going under. Those funds were issued either through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, in which the US Treasury Department bought up or guaranteed toxic assets, or in the form of bridge loans. Many were eventually repaid. More recently, the Department of Defense agreed to fund a US-based rare earth magnet company, MP Materials, via equity and loans, in order to expand production and decrease the country's reliance on China. The deal would in theory give MP Materials the capital to increase its manufacturing capacity from 3,000 to 10,000 metric tons. Moore says the ideal scenario is that these arrangements between the government and private industry have an endpoint. 'It should be an agreement to own a short-term stake, and then divest,' he says. But the current Trump administration has been taking some of these public-private business dealings a step further: In June, the administration approved a partnership between Japanese steel company Nippon Steel and Pittsburgh-based US Steel, dependent on a national security agreement and a so-called 'golden share' provision. The government insisted that it have a say in US Steel's company decisions, including board appointees and future relocation plans. (This deal was also designed to help the US compete with China on steel production.) Lutnick told CNBC that, in the case of Intel, the Trump administration would not get a voting stake or a say in the company's operations. 'Intel is deeply committed to supporting President Trump's efforts to strengthen US technology and manufacturing leadership,' Intel spokesperson Cory Pforzheimer said in a statement to WIRED. 'We look forward to continuing our work with the Trump Administration to advance these shared priorities, but we are not going to comment on rumors or speculation.' The US Department of Commerce did not respond to questions from WIRED prior to publication. Political Theater Patrick Moorhead, a longtime semiconductor industry analyst and CEO of the research firm Moor Insights & Strategy, says the deal could benefit Intel in the short term. 'It means Intel gets its cash without a bunch of strings attached,' he says. So far, the company has received $2.2 billion of up to the $7.86 billion it was granted through the 2022 CHIPS Act— $1.1 billion in the first quarter of 2024 and another $1.1 billion in January 2025. But these grants are tied to milestones around fabrication construction and output; if Intel doesn't reach its goals, it doesn't receive CHIPS Act funding. The company has also far outspent the $2.2 billion of grant payments in fab construction and research and development over the same time period. Intel is currently valued at $101 billion, a steep decline from its heyday in the early 2000s. Earlier this week, Softbank announced it's buying roughly $2 billion worth of Intel shares, which briefly boosted the chip firm's stock price. Intel went through a major shakeup in executive leadership this year. In December 2024, Intel announced the retirement of CEO Pat Gelsinger, a chip industry veteran, after he struggled to turn around the company's fortunes. Lip-Bu Tan, the longtime previous CEO of the electronics design firm Cadence Design Systems, succeeded Gelsinger as chief executive. Insiders describe Gelsinger's tenure as an expensive one, in which the company invested heavily in building cutting edge technology and fabs. Over the last five years, Intel invested $107.5 billion in capital expenditures and $78.8 billion in R&D expenditures, the vast majority of which were dedicated to expanding its US manufacturing capacity. Tan, in contrast, is more measured, and has told employees that Intel's investment in its newest chip node will be based on 'confirmed customer commitments,' adding that 'there are no more blank checks.' Since he took over, Intel announced it was cancelling plans for chip-making plants in Germany and Poland and slowing down construction of an Ohio fab. Intel also plans to lay off 15 percent of its workforce this year. Tan got caught in the crosshairs of the Trump administration earlier this month: In reaction to a letter from Arkansas senator Tom Cotton flagging Tan's ties to investments that reportedly have links to the Chinese People's Liberation Army, Trump called on the CEO to resign from Intel. Less than a week later Trump met with Tan and began praising the CEO. Moorhead believes that it's essential for the US to support Intel so that the country has a thriving domestic chipmaker with research and development teams in close proximity to its fabs. He points out that even as TSMC builds out its US fab in Arizona, its research and development efforts still happen in Taiwan, and its top manufacturing engineers are kept close to home. For this reason and others, Moorhead says, even if the US government begins funneling money into US semiconductors, it might lag behind in staffing domestic fabs with top talent. Many questions remain: whether the deal with Intel will actually go through, if the administration plans to convert existing CHIPS Act grants to Intel into an equity investment or invest some other way, and whether the US government might try to coerce tech companies into buying more Intel chips. Money from Softbank and the US government might help Intel's balance sheet in the short term, but the company still needs to secure big customers. Until some of those questions are answered, Moorhead says, this proposed investment doesn't accomplish much. 'It's more political theater than anything else,' he explains. 'I think what it accomplishes is it gives the Trump administration the ability to say, 'What Biden did was a giveaway, and I'm making deals,'' he adds.
