Rojava administration reiterates call for ‘decentralized' Syria, constitutional overhaul
Rojava ruling party rejects Damascus 'integration' as bid to 'dismantle' institutions
Rojava official says concerned about hate speech, treason accusations after US envoy remarks
Washington prioritizing unified Syria, not Kurdish autonomy: Former US diplomat
Syrian, Israeli officials meet in Baku: Sources
A+ A-
ERBIL, Kurdistan Region - The Kurdish-led administration in northeast Syria (Rojava) on Sunday reiterated its call for a 'decentralized Syria' built on democratic and pluralistic foundations, while firmly rejecting accusations of separatist ambitions and reaffirming its 'unequivocal' commitment to Syria's territorial unity. The statement comes amid ongoing negotiations with the interim government in Damascus.
In a statement released Sunday, the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (DAANES) stated, 'For decades, Syrians suffered under a centralized system that monopolized power and wealth' and 'dragged the country into repeated crises.
'Today, we aspire to be genuine partners in building a new Syria - a decentralized state that embraces all its people and guarantees their rights equally,' DAANES said.
The Rojava administration further emphasized that its calls for 'a pluralistic democratic system' are longstanding, while reaffirming that the unity of Syrian territory is 'a non-negotiable principle and a constant pillar' of its vision, warning that politicizing this issue 'only serves those who seek to undermine the prospects of a political solution.'
Following a swift offensive in December, a coalition of opposition groups - then headed by the now-dissolved Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) under Ahmed al-Sharaa - toppled the regime of longtime dictator Bashar al-Assad.Sharaa. Sharaa was appointed interim president in January, vowing to lead an inclusive political transition.
However, in the months that followed, the interim government's policies have drawn criticism from minority groups, including the Kurds, who accuse it of exclusion and centralization.
A key breakthrough came in early March, when Sharaa and Mazloum Abdi, commander of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), signed an agreement to integrate the Kurdish-led force, which serves as the de facto army in Rojava.
The accord also outlined the integration of 'all civil and military institutions' in Rojava under the Syrian state, including border crossings, Qamishli International Airport, and oil and gas fields.
Since then, multiple rounds of talks have been held between DAANES and Syrian government delegations, with participation from US and French envoys. While these talks have made some headway, a core disagreement continues to stall further progress.
Damascus maintains that DAANES's administrative and military structures must be fully absorbed into a centralized state, adhering to the principle of 'one Syria, one army, one government.'
In contrast, the Kurdish pirates in Rojava are advocating for a decentralized, democratic Syria that preserves the autonomy and institutions developed in Rojava over the past decade.
In its Sunday statement, DAANES welcomed the latest meetings with the Syrian government - held in the presence of US and French representatives - as 'a crucial step toward launching a serious Syrian-Syrian dialogue.' It also expressed 'sincere thanks and gratitude' to both countries for their 'constructive role and continuous efforts in supporting stability, peace, and democracy in Syria.'
The Kurdish-led administration also reiterated its call for the drafting of a new constitution 'that guarantees the rights of all components' of Syrian society.
In mid-March, Sharaa signed a 53-article constitutional declaration that enshrines Islamic jurisprudence, requires the president to be Muslim, and outlines a five-year transitional period.
The document retains the country's name as the Syrian Arab Republic and grants sweeping powers to the president, including exclusive executive authority, the ability to appoint one-third of the legislature, and control over appointments to the constitutional court - the only body capable of holding the president accountable.
Kurdish groups in Rojava quickly rejected the declaration, arguing that any constitution must emerge from a genuine national consensus, not be imposed unilaterally.
Of note, the DAANES statement came a day after a senior official in Rojava's ruling party warned on Saturday that the interim government's approach to integration amounts to an effort to 'dissolve the institutions' of the DAANES and strip it of its political and administrative roles.
Fawza Youssef, a member of the presidential body of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), further stated that DAANES's model - established over the past 13 years - should not be viewed as "an obstacle, but as a pillar for strengthening Syria's power and cohesion' and a cornerstone for rebuilding a democratic Syria.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rudaw Net
10 minutes ago
- Rudaw Net
Senior KDP, PUK figures to meet Iraqi PM amid financial crisis
Also in Iraq Iraq's three presidencies condemn 'drone attacks' on Kurdistan oil fields Kurdistan Region presidency condemns drone strikes on oil fields, urges Baghdad to act Iraq signs oil deal with US firm Water crisis in Iraq, Kurdistan Region to halve supply per person by 2035: Rudaw Research Center A+ A- ERBIL, Kurdistan Region - In a bid to resolve the ongoing financial crisis between Erbil and Baghdad, Rudaw has learned that Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) leader Bafel Talabani and Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein - a senior Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) figure - are set to meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia' al-Sudani on Tuesday, with Supreme Judicial Council head Faiq Zidan also attending. A well-placed source told Rudaw that a member of the KDP politburo is also expected to attend. The Kurdish officials are scheduled to hold further meetings with several senior Iraqi political leaders on Wednesday morning, the source added. Tensions between Erbil and Baghdad escalated in late May after the Iraqi federal finance ministry suspended budget transfers to the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), accusing it of exceeding its 12.67 percent share of the federal budget and failing to deliver the agreed oil quota to the State Oil Marketing Organization (SOMO). The suspension has left over 1.2 million public servants in the Kurdistan Region without salaries for more than two months. Crucially, the Baghdad meetings come just a day after senior delegations from the Kurdistan Region's ruling parties met in Erbil's Pirmam district to form a 'unified stance' on the financial dispute. A joint statement following the meeting said it was chaired by preeminent Kurdish leader and KDP head Masoud Barzani, with Kurdistan Region President Nechirvan Barzani and PUK leader Talabani also in attendance. The Kurdish parties pledged to adopt a unified strategy to 'intensify efforts' and 'ensure the provision of salaries and entitlements for the Kurdistan Region,' emphasizing that all steps would be taken within the constitutional framework. The high-level meeting notably followed a special session of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) Council of Ministers held Sunday to address the worsening financial crisis. A day prior, the KDP had issued a warning, saying it would give Baghdad a 'final chance' to resolve the ongoing budget dispute.
Memri
an hour ago
- Memri
Reactions In Lebanon To War Against Iran: Hizbullah Justifies Its Non-Intervention; Its Opponents Hope For Downfall Of Iranian Regime
Israel's military operation against Iran, launched on June 13, 2025, and the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025, sparked conflicting reactions in Lebanon, reflecting the depth of divisions in this fractured country that has yet to recover from the war between Hizbullah and Israel, which ended in November 2024. During the fighting, many in Lebanon – including President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam – were deeply concerned that Hizbullah would fulfil the role assigned to it by its patron, Iran, by coming to its aid in the conflict and thus dragging Lebanon into another war. The country's leaders made it clear to both Hizbullah and Iran that Lebanon had no connection to the war and must not be embroiled in it. Hizbullah, for its part, found itself caught between a rock and a hard place. Battered and weakened by the damage to its military infrastructure and its standing within Lebanon after its war with Israel – which it launched in order to support Hamas – the organization was hard put to justify renewing the hostilities with Israel on behalf of a foreign country and dragging Lebanon into another round of fighting. Moreover, joining the war would have strengthened its opponents and validated their argument that Hizbullah must be fully disarmed. On the other hand, aiding its patron Iran, especially amid an unprecedented assault by Israel and the U.S., is one of Hizbullah's main roles and one of the key reasons Iran has supported it in the first place. Yet now, when it was expected to 'repay' Iran for its support, the organization was failing to fulfill its role. Throughout the fighting, Hizbullah limited itself to expressing solidarity and organizing rallies in support of Iran. Its senior officials claimed that this country could defend itself, meaning it did not need Hizbullah's assistance. As expected, after the ceasefire, Hizbullah adopted Iran's narrative of victory, partly to demonstrate that its intervention had indeed been unnecessary. Conversely, Hizbullah's opponents did not hide their satisfaction and joy over the attacks on Iran, describing them as a "gift" to Lebanon and openly expressing support for Israel and the U.S. Like liberal voices across the Arab world,[1] some in Lebanon mocked Iran, calling it a "paper tiger" after it failed to prevent the significant damage to its military capabilities. While voicing concern that Hizbullah would join the fighting, these actors renewed their calls to accelerate the disarming the group, so that it could no longer threaten to use its weapons. This report presents reactions in Lebanon to the Israeli and U.S. attacks on Iran. The Official Lebanese Position: Lebanon Has No Connection To The War; We Condemn Iran's Strike on the U.S. Base in Qatar Like all the Arab countries, with the exception of Syria, the state of Lebanon condemned the Israeli attack on Iran, on the grounds that it "undermined international efforts to maintain stability in the Middle East."[2] At the same time, Lebanese officials conveyed a clear message – to audiences both within Lebanon and abroad – that they opposed dragging their country into war, as Hizbullah did after Hamas launched its terror attack against Israel on October 7, 2023, a decision that brought heavy losses and massive destruction upon Lebanon. President Joseph Aoun emphasized during a June 16 cabinet meeting that Lebanon must be kept away from conflicts "in which it has no part."[3] Following the U.S. strike on Iran he reiterated this position, stressing that "Lebanon – its leadership, its parties and its people – now understands better than ever that we paid a heavy price for the wars that have taken place on our soil and in the region. Lebanon does not want to pay anymore, and has no national interest in doing so, especially given that the cost of these wars has been, and will continue to be, more than it can bear." It is worth noting that President Aoun did not condemn the U.S. strike on Iran but merely expressed concern over "the escalation of tensions that threaten stability and security in many regions and countries," and called for "restraint and serious and constructive negotiations to restore stability to the countries of the region and to avoid further destruction and bloodshed."[4] Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a close ally of Hizbullah, likewise expressed his position on involvement in the war, saying in an interview with Lebanon's MTV channel on June 19: "[I am] 200 percent [sure] that Lebanon will not join the war, because it has no interest in doing so and because it would pay the price. [Moreover,] Iran does not need us..."[5] According to Lebanese press reports, government officials did not stop at declarations, but exerted significant pressure on Hizbullah to stay out of the war. For example, Lebanese Armed Forces Commander Rodolph Haykal made it clear to Hizbullah leaders that Lebanon must steer clear of the conflict and must not be dragged into a war in which it has no part, and that they must conform to the official position that only the state has the authority to decide on matters of war and peace."[6] However, following Iran's strike on the U.S. base in Qatar, official Lebanon deviated from its neutral stance and, like the rest of the Arab states, condemned it as an attack on a sovereign Arab country. President Aoun called it "an infringement of the sovereignty of a sister state and a move that will escalate tensions in the region." He added that Qatar enjoys the "sympathy and support of the Lebanese president and people in protecting its sovereignty, territorial integrity and its fraternal people."[7] Hizbullah: We Support Iran, Which Does Not Need Anyone To Defend It It appears that these pressures exerted on Hizbullah – along with the severe blow dealt by the war with Israel to its military capabilities and its standing within Lebanon – achieved their goal. Throughout the fighting between Israel and Iran, and even after the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran's allies in Lebanon, chief of them Hizbullah, refrained from taking military action against Israel or the U.S. Instead, they sufficed with condemning the Israeli and American attacks, organizing support rallies (which drew only small crowds) and applauding Iran's strikes on Israel. Iran's war with Israel and the U.S. was described as a battle between truth and falsehood, as a continuation of the Battle of Karbala,[8] and, in an effort to rally support from the Arab and Islamic world, as a war against the entire Islamic nation. To justify their failure to intervene in the fighting, Hizbullah officials stressed that Iran could take care of itself and needed no assistance. The organization's secretary-general, Na'im Qassem, said after the start of the Israeli operation against Iran that Hizbullah "supports the rights and the position of the Islamic Republic of Iran and any measures it takes to protect itself and its choices…"[9] Hizbullah MP Hassan Fadlallah said that "Iran never told anyone to fight in its name. When it is attacked, its national honor and its sovereign status compel it to rely on its own strength, on the will of its people and on the decisions of its leadership…"[10] Rally in solidarity with Iran in South Lebanon (Image: June 20, 2025) However, three days before the American strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, Hizbullah Secretary-General Na'im Qassem expressed a somewhat different position, stressing that Hizbullah was not neutral in its position on the war. He said: "We in Hizbullah and the Islamic resistance are not neutral [in our stance] towards Iran's legitimate rights and independence and America's falsehood and aggression… We stand with Iran in its confrontation against this global injustice… We are not neutral. Therefore, we express our position in support of Iran, its leadership and its people." Qassem then hinted that Hizbullah might even take military action against Israel, stating: "We will act as we see fit in response to this oppressive 'Israeli'-American aggression… This [Iranian] people cannot be defeated. Past aggression by 'Israel' has proved its steadfastness under any pressure… However, this does not absolve us of our responsibility to stand with Iran and support it in any way that will help end this tyranny and arrogance."[11] The shift in Hizbullah's position was possibly the result of pressure from within the organization and perhaps also from Iran itself. These statements exacerbated the prevailing fears in Lebanon that Hizbullah would intervene in the conflict, and sparked criticism from government officials and from the group's opponents – which prompted Hizbullah to convey once again that it had no intention of joining the fray. For example, in its response to the U.S. strike on Iran, the organization limited itself to expressing "full solidarity" with Iran and complete confidence in Iran's ability "to withstand this aggression and make the American and Zionist enemy taste the bitter flavor of defeat." In other words, it signaled that it did not intend to join the fighting.[12] Iran Defeated Israel And The U.S. Just By Standing Up To Them; It Gave Us Everything And Received Nothing In Return Predictably, just as it did after its own war with Israel, Hizbullah tried to present Iran's non-surrender as a victory. In a statement it issued on June 25, a day after President Trump declared a ceasefire with Iran, the organization congratulated Supreme Leader Khamenei and the Iranian people for the "divine victory" they achieved by means of their "precise and painful" strikes against "the Zionist enemy" and for their "amazing response" to the American attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Calling this "the dawn of a new historical era in the confrontation with the American hegemony and the Zionist savagery in the region," the statement also urged all the peoples of the Islamic nation "to derive inspiration from this tremendous victory."[13] On the same day, the organization held a support rally outside the Iranian embassy in Beirut, [14] at which Hizbullah MP Muhammad Ra'ed congratulated Iran on its "victory" and declared, "Iran is now a deterrent regional force… It proved this with its steadfast stance and by bending the usurping Zionist enemy to its will."[15] Two days later Hizbullah Secretary-General Na'im Qassem said, in a similar vein, that Iran had won the war because Israel had not achieved its three goals in launching its attacks: the destruction of Iran's nuclear program, the destruction of its missile array and the toppling of the Iranian regime. Qassem justified the Iranian regime's decision to agree to a ceasefire, saying that this was "truly in Iran's interest because it put an end to the aggression against it." He added that his organization's support for Iran was "a sign of respect for Iran, due to its support for the downtrodden. It gave us everything and received nothing in return… We are proud of our support for Iran and stand under the banner of the wise and courageous leadership of Imam Khamenei."[16] Hizbullah Opponents: The Attack On Iran Is A Gift To Lebanon Conversely, many other voices in Lebanon supported the Israeli and American attacks on Iran and even relished its defeat. Opponents of Hizbullah and Iran in the country thanked President Trump and indirectly also Israel, and described the attacks as "a gift" to Lebanon, due to the heavy damage this country has suffered over the years at the hands of Iran and its ally Hizbullah. Opponents of Iran in Lebanon expressed hope that the attacks would not only damage the regime's military capabilities but actually bring about its collapse, and opponents of Hizbullah called to accelerate the disarming this organization so that it could no longer threaten to use its weapons on behalf of external forces. Concern That Lebanon Would Be Dragged Into Another War; If Hizbullah Wants To Fight Let It Go To Iran And Fight There As stated, during the war many voices in Lebanon, including regime officials, expressed deep concern that Hizbullah would decide to violate the ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel and fulfill the role assigned to it by its patron Iran, of protecting Iran in its time of need. They presented this concern as yet another argument for disarming Hizbullah completely rather than disarming it only in South Lebanon. MP Sa'id Al-Asmar of the Strong Lebanon parliamentary bloc said: "The Lebanese have no part in the war on Iran. Our domestic interest is to keep Lebanon out of it. What we want is for Iran not to interfere in our internal affairs and not to export its program. We have had enough of its evil and its export of weapons and wars… [We say] no to the culture of death and to wars in Lebanon… Only the [Lebanese] state – and not any sect or party [within it] – can defend the Lebanese people. Salvation can only come from the state and from Hizbullah surrendering its weapons."[17] Lebanese journalist Tarek Abou Zainab wrote on his X account: "The Lebanese refuse to become victims of destructive regional conflicts and refuse to be fuel for Iran's nuclear ambitions."[18] Journalist Rami Na'im warned Hizbullah to stay out of the war, writing: "#Lebanon_does_not_want_war. Do not drag us into proxy wars, because you will be digging your grave with your own hands. #Thank_you_Trump."[19] Political activist Karen Al-Bousany called on President Aoun, Prime Minister Salam and Parliament Speaker Berri to officially decare that Lebanon would not join the war between Israel and Iran, and added, "We do not want civil wars or a war that has nothing to do with us. And last but not least: Hizbullah, where was Iran when Israel attacked you in Lebanon?"[20] Georges Hayek, a member of the Central Council of the Lebanese Forces party, wrote on his X account: "The Iranian people will not allow Lebanon to be sacrificed again on the Iranian altar. Neutrality is the source of security and stability. Whoever wants to defend Iran can go and commit suicide over there."[21] Lebanese activist Carla Hayek wrote: "O Na'im Qassem, sit tight. Lebanon has no part in this war. If you want to fight, go to Iran and volunteer to join the IRGC."[22] Calls To Accelerate The Disarming Of Hizbullah As noted above, the concern that Hizbullah would decide to extend military support to Iran and thus drag Lebanon into another war caused its opponents to intensify their calls to completely disarm the organization. Amjad Iskandar, editor-in-chief of the daily Nidaa Al-Watan, which opposes Hizbullah, criticized the Lebanese authorities for delaying in fulfilling their commitment to disarm this organization, as well as Hizbullah itself for evading this. He wrote: "The ball is now in the court of the state as well as in Hizbullah's court. But Hizbullah is a totalitarian organization that adopts a suicidal policy and ascribes no importance whatsoever to the homeland or the people. For this reason, it is inconceivable that the state should continue to delay. What should have happened six months ago [after the signing of the ceasefire agreement between Lebanon and Israel] must [now] happen within six weeks or less. Only determination will prevent civil war. The Lebanese people and all its sectors will support the state if it actually decides to act like one. The Lebanese are tired of being fuel for other people's wars, of defending foreign agendas and of becoming victims of sectarian adventures that do not suit them."[23] In an article in Nidaa al-Watan, Charbel Jabbour, a Lebanese journalist and senior member of the Lebanese Forces party, wondered whether the state would "take advantage of the end of the Iranian role – [a role] that gave birth to Hizbullah – to complete the imposition of its sovereignty [over all of Lebanon's territory]..." He urged Hizbullah itself to "take the initiative and declare the end of its armed project. Otherwise the state must assert its sovereignty and announce, for example, that the discovery of weapons depots will expose their owners to arrest and prosecution." He stressed that the fact that Hizbullah had not yet joined the fray did not mean that its armed role had ended for good, and added: "Today Hizbullah is weak, but tomorrow it may become stronger. Therefore, the state must act decisively and swiftly to disarm it."[24] Iran Is A Cancer That Must Be Excised; It Poses A Much Greater Danger To Lebanon Than Israel; The Attack On It Is A Gift For Lebanon Many Lebanese welcomed the attacks on Iran due to the numerous crimes it had committed against the Arab peoples in general and Lebanon in particular, as they put it. For example, one day before Israel launched its operation against Iran, political activist Karen Al-Boustany called for military action against the Iranian regime, which she likened to a cancer. She wrote on her X account: "If you want to get rid of a cancer you must excise it completely. [In this case] the patient is the Middle East, the hospital is the U.S., the surgeon is Israel, the disease is Iran, and the type of disease is Khamenei. Soon the region will be completely healthy, Inshallah." [25] These voices expressed support for the Israeli offensive and called it a "gift" to the Lebanese people. Lebanese journalist Rami Na'im wrote on his X account a few hours after the start of the Israeli attacks: "Iran is a lie that has cost us thousands of lives. The resistance [axis] has become a thing of the past. Lebanon is grateful to Trump..."[26] In an interview with a website called "No to the Iranian Occupation," Na'im said: "I want to congratulate the Lebanese people on the occasion of the attack on Iran. Congratulations to every Lebanese who has fought against this criminal Iranian regime, which brought Lebanon to a state of collapse on every level. Iran is far more dangerous than Israel, for Israel is restrained by the U.S., whereas Iran is restrained by no one. Iran is a danger to Lebanon. What happened today [the attack on Iran] is a gift to all the Lebanese people. It is a gift to the martyrs of the Cedar Revolution[27]... a tribute to every youth who died defending Lebanon's sovereignty."[28] Georges Hayek of the Lebanese Forces party wrote on X: "The souls of the martyrs, from Mahsa Amini[29] to Rafic Hariri,[30] Gebran Tueni and Luqman Salim,[31] are breathing in relief after the removal of the Iranian mullah regime."[32] Activist Carla Hayek discussed the damage caused by Iran to the region, writing: "A Lebanese kills a [fellow] Lebanese, an Iraqi kills an Iraqi, a Syrian kills a Syrian and a Yemeni kills a Yemeni – [all] for the sake of that Zoroastrian pig [Khamenei] and his destructive enterprise."[33] Opponents of the Iranian axis in Lebanon praised U.S. President Donald Trump for his decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, with some even describing this as a mission to save humanity. Journalist Rami Na'im wrote: "Thank you, Donald Trump. The entire Middle East thanks you, first and foremost Lebanon. Iran is without a nuclear program, and must surrender before time runs out."[34] Charles Jabbour wrote: "When the U.S. president carried out the attack that ended Iran's nuclear program, the threats of Iran and its proxies to harm American interests in the region did not cause him to hesitate even for a moment. This is because, by destroying the [Iranian] nuclear program, which could have turned the region into a firestorm, he is saving humanity..."[35] The Iranian Regime Is A Paper Tiger In light of Israel's successful attacks on Iran, some mocked the latter for touting its military capabilities and said that its defeat spelled the end of the entire resistance axis. Georges Hayek wrote in an article on the Grand Lebanon website titled "The Official End of the Resistance Axis": "…What Israel has done obviously humiliated the [Iranian] regime, which 'puffed itself up' for years and presented itself as a 'tiger' that could destroy Israel in seven hours. The Israeli attack reveals that the opposite is true…"[36] Carla Hayek shared an image depicting Iran as a cat that sees itself as a lion, and commented, "The Iranian regime is a paper tiger."[37] Hopes That The Attacks Would Lead To The Downfall of The Iranian Regime, Making The World A Better Place Many of the writers expressed hope that the attacks would lead to the downfall of the Iranian regime and put an end to the danger it poses. Journalist Rami Na'im wrote: "Khamenei's time is almost up. His regime is teetering, and like the [former] Syrian regime [its officials] are preparing to flee. It's only a matter of time until Iran is liberated." In another post the following day, he wrote: "Soon we will visit Tehran to celebrate Khamenei's downfall. Iran will not last long. It has begun to crumble from within..."[38] In his article on the Grand Lebanon website, Georges Hayek wrote: "For 35 years, Khamenei's regime has impoverished Iran, plundered it and turned it into a place of political oppression. The Iranian people and the peoples of the region, who have suffered from its military proxies, deserve to live in stability, in prosperity and in partnership with the international community. After the collapse of the [resistance] axis, the region may not immediately become more stable and united... but with the end of the Iranian revolutionary project it will undoubtedly become a better place."[39] Georges Hayek wrote on X: "If this war [ends] without any change in the Iranian regime, it will be like someone showering and then failing to change their underwear."[40] Lebanese activist Raymond Hakim wrote: "Never trust someone you have wounded, because once the wound heals he will destroy you. If the loathsome Iranian regime is not overthrown, once its wounds heal it will rebuild itself again and commit even more despicable crimes against us. I hope the Persian regime falls for good."[41] Mockery Of The Iranian Regime's Victory Celebrations: If This Is A Victory, What Does Defeat Look Like? Alongside expressions of satisfaction over the outcomes of the war, several commentators expressed disappointment that the campaign did not end with the fall of the Iranian regime. Journalist and politician Charles Jabbour, for example, wrote on X: "In just 12 days, Iran's nuclear [program] was put out of commission. That is, in less than two weeks, we were rid of a program that had been in development for over two decades and cost hundreds of billions – [funds] that were denied to the Iranian people – all in order to achieve a goal that evaporated in a matter of days." He added: "Sadly, the goal [of the war on Iran] was not to overthrow the Iranian regime but to eliminate the nuclear program. That has been achieved. Bye-bye."[42] In another post, he wrote: "Heroism is not for the U.S. to overthrow the Iranian regime but for the Iranian people to overthrow it. I hope it will do so."[43] Some writers mocked Iran's victory celebrations. Writing in the Nidaa Al-Watan daily, journalist Abu Zouheir wondered what victory the Iranian leadership was talking about, given the hundreds of fatalities and the destruction of hundreds of homes. He also slammed the Iranian regime for holding these celebrations in the context of the attack on the U.S. Al-Udeid air base in Qatar, saying: "Tehran did not celebrate the harm caused to the 'usurping entity' Israel but rather the strike on the Arab soil of Qatar."[44] Activist Karen Al-Boustany shared an image of Khamenei congratulating the Iranian people on its 'victory over Israel,' and commented: "[This is] the latest joke. Congratulations to Iran and to Khamenei. It looks like they have the idea of victory backwards."[45] Lebanese activist Raymond Hakim posted on X: "Iran has won. It lost officials and leaders, lost its air force, lost airports and sea ports, lost its nuclear facilities, lost engineers and nuclear scientists, lost oil and gas facilities, lost billions of dollars, and lost infrastructures. The question is: If all that is a victory, what does defeat look like[?]!!"[46] *N. Moses is a research fellow at MEMRI.
Rudaw Net
2 hours ago
- Rudaw Net
Iraq's three presidencies condemn ‘drone attacks' on Kurdistan oil fields
A+ A- ERBIL, Kurdistan Region - The Iraqi presidency, premiership and parliament on Tuesday strongly condemned the recent 'drone attacks' on oil fields in the Kurdistan Region, calling them a flagrant assault on national security and stability. In a statement, the Iraqi Presidency vehemently denounced the 'terrorist attacks' on the Sarsang oil field in northern Duhok early Tuesday and the Khurmala oil field southwest of Erbil late Monday. It warned that such attacks threaten the country's 'economy and the security and safety of its citizens,' describing them as 'equivalent to targeting the state's public interests.' The presidency urged "the relevant security authorities' in Baghdad and Erbil 'to take appropriate and urgent measures to identify the perpetrators and prevent the recurrence of such terrorist attacks." Echoing the presidency's stance, Sabah al-Numan, spokesperson for the Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia' al-Sudani, said on Tuesday that the assaults were carried out using drones, branding them 'criminal acts' and a 'direct threat to national interests.' He added that the Iraqi premier had 'ordered an immediate and comprehensive investigation' into the incidents, which reflect a "malicious intent aimed at creating confusion." Baghdad pledged decisive action against the perpetrators and stressed the need to protect vital infrastructure. Meanwhile, Iraqi Parliament's Second Deputy Speaker Shakhawan Abdullah condemned the 'deliberate operations' targeting oil and critical infrastructure in the Kurdistan Region. He confirmed that 'these attacks caused material and economic damages' and called on the federal government to "maintain security and identify the parties responsible." He further tasked the parliament's Security and Defense Committee with investigating the "repeated targeting incidents and breaches that are threatening the security of the [Kurdistan] Region.' Earlier on Tuesday, an explosion hit the Sarsang oil field in the Kurdistan Region's northern Duhok province, operated by the US-based HKN Energy, which holds a 62 percent stake in the field. In a statement posted to its official Facebook page, HKN Energy confirmed that 'an explosion occurred' around 7:00 am local time. 'All personnel have been safely accounted for, and no injuries have been reported,' the company said, adding that 'operations at the affected facility have been suspended until the site is secured and a full evaluation is completed.' Just a day earlier, two explosive-laden drones targeted the Khurmala oil field, southwest of Erbil, late Monday night. According to a security source speaking to Rudaw, the drones were intercepted by US-led coalition forces. No casualties were reported in that incident either. The Kurdistan Region Presidency on Tuesday strongly condemned 'the drone strikes on infrastructure and various locations within the Kurdistan Region,' urging the federal government in Baghdad to take urgent measures to prevent further attacks and bring those responsible to justice. The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) natural resources ministry also denounced the incidents as 'terrorist attacks' against the Region's economic infrastructure. Drone strikes in the Kurdistan Region have increased since the outbreak of a 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran that began on June 13 and ended with a US-brokered ceasefire. While no group has claimed responsibility for the latest attacks, the Kurdistan Region's interior ministry has accused the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) of involvement - a charge dismissed by Baghdad as 'unacceptable.'
