Syria's Kurdish-led SDF, govt forces clash in Aleppo province
Damascus
The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have said that armed factions associated with the country's security forces have attacked some of its positions in the northern province of Aleppo, as efforts by Syria's fledgling government to unify the nation have been hit on several fronts.
In a post on X, the group, which controls much of northeastern Syria, claimed the incident took place early on Monday morning in the Deir Hafer area. The allegation comes just months after the SDF and the Syrian interim government signed a landmark integration agreement in March.
Government-linked factions launched an assault on four of the SDF's positions in the village of Al-Imam at 3am on Monday morning, the SDF said, noting that the ensuing clashes lasted for 20 minutes.
'We hold the Damascus government fully responsible for this behaviour, and reaffirm that our forces are now more prepared than ever to exercise their legitimate right to respond with full force and determination,' the SDF added.
The latest incident came after the Syrian government accused the SDF of injuring four soldiers and three civilians in the northern city of Manbij on Saturday. The Defence Ministry called the attack 'irresponsible', saying it had been carried out for 'unknown reasons', according to Syria's state news agency SANA.
Meanwhile, the SDF, which allied with the United States to help defeat ISIL (ISIS) in the region, blamed the Syrian government.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Qatar Tribune
a day ago
- Qatar Tribune
Syria's Kurdish-led SDF, govt forces clash in Aleppo province
Agencies Damascus The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have said that armed factions associated with the country's security forces have attacked some of its positions in the northern province of Aleppo, as efforts by Syria's fledgling government to unify the nation have been hit on several fronts. In a post on X, the group, which controls much of northeastern Syria, claimed the incident took place early on Monday morning in the Deir Hafer area. The allegation comes just months after the SDF and the Syrian interim government signed a landmark integration agreement in March. Government-linked factions launched an assault on four of the SDF's positions in the village of Al-Imam at 3am on Monday morning, the SDF said, noting that the ensuing clashes lasted for 20 minutes. 'We hold the Damascus government fully responsible for this behaviour, and reaffirm that our forces are now more prepared than ever to exercise their legitimate right to respond with full force and determination,' the SDF added. The latest incident came after the Syrian government accused the SDF of injuring four soldiers and three civilians in the northern city of Manbij on Saturday. The Defence Ministry called the attack 'irresponsible', saying it had been carried out for 'unknown reasons', according to Syria's state news agency SANA. Meanwhile, the SDF, which allied with the United States to help defeat ISIL (ISIS) in the region, blamed the Syrian government.
Qatar Tribune
a day ago
- Qatar Tribune
Legal challenge to Trump's tariffs likely headed to Supreme Court
Agencies A federal appeals panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of US President Donald Trump's argument that a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets gave him the power to impose tariffs. Regardless of how the court rules, the litigation is almost certainly headed to the US Supreme Court. Here is what you need to know about the dispute, which Trump has called 'America's big case,' and how it is likely to play out in the months ahead. The litigation challenges the tariffs Trump imposed on a broad range of US trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. It centers around Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to address 'unusual and extraordinary' threats during national emergencies. Trump has said that trade imbalances, declining manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs justified the tariffs under IEEPA. A dozen Democratic-led states and five small US businesses challenging the tariffs argue that IEEPA does not cover tariffs and that the US Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. A loss for Trump would also undermine the latest round of sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries that he unveiled late Thursday. Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic plan, arguing they will promote domestic manufacturing and substitute for income taxes. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on Thursday in the case. The panel of 11 judges sharply questioned the government about Trump's use of IEEPA, but did not rule from the bench. The Federal Circuit has not said when it will issue a decision, but its briefing schedule suggests it intends to move quickly. Meanwhile, the tariffs remain in effect after the Federal Circuit paused a lower court's ruling declaring them illegal. A Federal Circuit ruling would almost certainly not end the litigation, as the losing party is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Federal Circuit rules against Trump, the court could put its own ruling on hold while the government appeals to the Supreme Court. This approach would maintain the status quo and allow the nine justices to consider the matter more thoroughly. The justices themselves could also issue an 'administrative stay' that would temporarily pause the Federal Circuit's decision while it considers a request from the Justice Department for more permanent relief. The Supreme Court is not obligated to review every case appealed to it, but it is widely expected to weigh in on Trump's tariffs because of the weighty constitutional questions at the heart of the case. If the Federal Circuit rules in the coming weeks, there is still time for the Supreme Court to add the case to its regular docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins on October 6. The Supreme Court could rule before the end of the year, but that would require it to move quickly. There is no consensus among court-watchers about what the Supreme Court will do. Critics of Trump's tariffs are optimistic their side will win. They point to the Supreme Court's decision from 2023 that blocked President Joe Biden from forgiving student loan debt. In that ruling, the justices limited the authority of the executive branch to take action on issues of 'vast economic and political significance' except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action. The justices in other cases, however, have endorsed a broad view of presidential power, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. Can importers seek refunds for tariffs paid? If Trump loses at the Supreme Court, importers are likely to seek refunds of tariffs already paid. This would be a lengthy process given the large number of anticipated claims. Federal regulations dictate that such requests would be first heard by US Customs and Border Protection. If that agency denies a refund request, the importer can appeal to the Court of International Trade. There is precedent for tariff refund requests being granted. Since May, CBP has been processing refunds to importers who inadvertently overpaid duties because of tariff 'stacking' — where multiple overlapping tariffs are applied to the same imports. And in the 1990s, after the Court of International Trade struck down a tax on exporters that was being used to finance improvements to US harbors, the court set up a process for issuing refunds. That decision was upheld by both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court. Would a courtroom defeat unravel Trump's trade deals? Trump has used the threat of emergency tariffs as leverage to secure concessions from trading partners. A loss at the Supreme Court would hamstring Trump in future negotiations. The White House, however, has other ways of imposing tariffs, like a 1962 law that allows the president to investigate imports that threaten national security. Trump has already used that law to put tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and those levies are not at issue in the case before the Federal Circuit. Some legal experts say a loss for Trump at the Supreme Court would not impact bilateral trade agreements the US has already inked with other countries. Others say that the trade deals alone might not provide sufficient legal authority for taxes on imports and may need to be approved by Congress.
Qatar Tribune
a day ago
- Qatar Tribune
South Korea begins removing loudspeakers along border with North
DPA Seoul The South Korean military on Monday began dismantling loudspeakers used for propaganda broadcasts along the border with North Korea, local media reported, citing the Defence Ministry in Seoul. The ministry said the move was intended to help calm tensions between Seoul and Pyongyang, the official Yonhap news agency reported. 'It is a practical measure that can help ease inter-Korean tensions without affecting the military's readiness posture,' Yonhap quoted the ministry as saying in a notice to reporters. The dismantling follows orders from President Lee Jae Myung, who took office in June and days later ordered the suspension of loudspeaker broadcasts as part of a shift towards a more diplomatic approach after years of hardline policies under his conservative predecessor Yoon Suk Yeol. The loudspeakers had been in operation for over a year, broadcasting political news programmes and pop music to South Korea's isolated northern neighbour. The measure was a reaction to hundreds of balloons filled with refuse sent over the border by Pyongyang. Tensions on the Korean Peninsula have risen over recent years, with Pyongyang modernizing its nuclear and missile programme at a rapid rate. It has also entered into military cooperation with Russia, supporting Moscow with troops and ammunition.
