Latest news with #IslamicState
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
Islamic States claims its first attacks on new Syrian gov't as bombs allegedly kill soldiers
While the Syrian government said it conducted two raids in Damascus earlier this week, to arrest ISIS operatives, it has not yet acknowledged any attack by the terror group. Islamic State (ISIS) has claimed responsibility for two bomb attacks on the new Syrian government, which would be the first move against the new Syrian government since it took power in December, according to a war monitoring group and international media reports on Friday. The bombs allegedly killed and wounded multiple government soldiers and members of a government-allied militia, according to the SITE Intelligence Group. ISIS said it had planted a bomb on a "vehicle of the apostate regime" in the desert of the southern province of Sweida last Tuesday and claimed to have killed a member of the US-backed Free Syrian Army in a second bomb attack this week. While the Syrian government said it conducted two raids in Damascus earlier this week to arrest ISIS operatives, it has not yet acknowledged any attack by the terror group. While ISIS's hold on Syria was significantly reduced in 2019 after large-scale efforts by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, small cells have continued to carry out attacks. Kurdish authorities struck a deal with the Syrian government earlier this week to begin clearing camps of ISIS families in eastern Syria, TheJerusalem Post's Seth Frantzman reported. 'THE KURDISH authorities and the Syrian interim government have reached an agreement to empty the notorious al-Hol camp from Syrians and return them to their homes, a Kurdish official said on Monday,' according to a report from Kurdish media Rudaw on Monday. While Syria's interim president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, was once a member of a group affiliated with Al-Qaeda, he has since distanced himself from the group in order to seek alliances among Western nations. While Sharaa has warmed ties with the Trump administration, ISIS has planned several attacks against the US. An ISIS-affiliated attack claimed the lives of 14 people in New Orleans in January and only two weeks ago a national guardsman was arrested for allegedly planning an attack in the name of the group. An anonymous senior US defense official told Reuters that following the New Orleans attack, there had been growing concern about the Islamic State increasing its recruiting efforts and resurging in Syria - worries which were heightened when the Assad regime fell. A UN team that monitors Islamic State activities reported to the UN Security Council in July a 'risk of resurgence' of the group in the Middle East and increased concerns about the ability of its Afghanistan-based affiliate, ISIS-Khorasan (ISIS-K), to mount attacks outside the country. European governments viewed ISIS-K as 'the greatest external terrorist threat to Europe,' it said. 'In addition to the executed attacks, the number of plots disrupted or being tracked through the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Levant, Asia, Europe, and potentially as far as North America is striking,' the team said. REUTERS contributed to this report.
The Hill
9 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Africa terror group could soon strike inside the US, general says
The U.S. military's top general in Africa said terrorist factions in the Sahel region have increased their presence so much in the past three years that they soon may be able to launch attacks within the United States. The region, which mainly includes Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, is 'the flashpoint of prolonged conflict and growing instability,' U.S. Africa Command head Gen. Michael Langley told reporters Thursday. 'It is the epicenter of terrorism on the globe.' 'Extremist groups are gaining ground and also expanding their ambitions. Therein lies the threat to the homeland,' he added on the sidelines of the African Chiefs of Defense Conference in Nairobi, Kenya. Sahel countries have long struggled to combat violent extremist groups, with some facing greater instability after falling to military coups, U.S. officials have warned. The military juntas in power have forced out American and French troops, including in September 2024, when the U.S. completed a withdrawal from its bases in Niger after the military seized power in 2023. At the time, defense leaders predicted the pullout would endanger counterterrorism efforts in an important regional foothold. Langley reiterated those concerns, saying that 'we have lost our ability to monitor these terrorist groups closely.' He said terrorist networks affiliated with the Islamic State and al-Qaeda thrive in the region, particularly in Burkina Faso — where the government no longer controls large swaths of its own territory — as well as Lake Chad, located at the junction of Nigeria, Niger, Chad, and Cameroon in western and central Africa. Langley said that one group that is of particular concern is Jama'at Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin, or JNIM, which has expanded 'fourfold' since 2022 and now controls much of Burkina Faso. He said one of the militants' key goals is gaining access to the West African coast. Should they control the coastline, they can finance their operations through smuggling, human trafficking and arms trade, 'more easily supporting terrorism to American shores.' Langley's warnings come as the Trump administration has canceled aid programs across Africa and is mulling consolidating its forces on the continent. China and Russia have moved to fill the void left by departing U.S. troops, investing and forming partnerships with local governments to exert influence. Langley would not say if the U.S would further cut its force levels in Africa but stressed that African militaries will need to bear more of the security burden. 'Our strategy is about partnership. It's about the mutual goal of keeping homelands, both ours and our partners, safe,' he said. 'It's about building a long-term capacity, not dependence. It's about investing in Africa's ability to solve African problems.'
ABC News
10 hours ago
- Business
- ABC News
Travel influencers say they are helping the people of Afghanistan. Not everybody is so sure
Afghanistan has everything a tourist could want: stunning landscapes, delicious cuisine and unmatched hospitality. A land of rich history, invaded by empires but never conquered, left scattered with ornate mosques and ancient Buddhist sites. And it's also a place some say has become safer — less violent — than before the Taliban seized power again in 2021. Australian tour guide Paris Hailwood is one of them. "I know it's controversial, but the Taliban have been able to provide some security," she told the ABC on the eve of leading a 10-day, women-only tour of Afghanistan for women from North America and Europe. "The people causing trouble before are now the people in power. So it's within their own interest, really, to keep you safe." The Australian government categorically warns against visiting Afghanistan. "There are no Australian officials in Afghanistan, and our ability to provide consular and passport assistance is severely limited," says the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's Smartraveller website. "Do not travel to Afghanistan due to the extremely dangerous security situation and the very high threat of terrorism and kidnapping." The regional offshoot of the Islamic State group is at odds with the Taliban and routinely carries out terror attacks. Three Spanish tourists and three Afghans were killed at a Bamiyan market in a March 2024 attack claimed by Islamic State. That didn't deter American adult film performer Whitney Wright, who earlier this year promoted her visit to Afghanistan during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. Nor did the threat of violence put off UK-based content creator Kieran Brown. "This is your sign to book that lads' trip to Afghanistan," a video on his Instagram page declares. "I would encourage travel there but only to experienced travellers that have their wits about them," he told the ABC via WhatsApp from Bali, where he is based. "A lot of the things you read online are exaggerated," Mr Brown said. "Although the people in Afghanistan have a tough life, it's not as bad as it's made out to be." Around 85 per cent of the population lives on less than $US1 per day, according to the United Nations. Travellers argue they are injecting much-needed cash into the Afghan economy and that the flow-on to the Taliban authorities is minimal. "My $80 visa fee isn't going to fund all those activities," Ms Hailwood said. "When I'm in the country and I'm paying the restaurants directly, the hotels directly, that's how I'm contributing to the society." Mr Brown said locals told him how grateful they were that he was in their country. "I may have contributed money to the Taliban by spending money in Afghanistan, but I also helped local businesses," he said. The Taliban recaptured Afghanistan's capital Kabul in 2021 and have since enforced laws to "prevent vice and promote virtue". Women have been banned from education, most jobs, and visiting public places such as parks — a situation the UN describes as "gender apartheid". Nasima Kakae once worked for Afghanistan's ministry of women's affairs — which was abolished and replaced by Taliban morality police in 2021. She now runs a travel agency in suburban Melbourne and volunteers as the secretary of Women for Change, a non-profit organisation aimed at empowering Afghan women. "The people who are travelling to Afghanistan — if they are YouTubers, if they are tourists — they are in the coordination of the Taliban, absolutely," she said. "They go to the beautiful hotels, they are escorted by the Taliban … have they knocked on the doors of a [shut-down] school? "Have you seen any of them go to a prison and see where those activist women are who have been arrested by Taliban years back?" Afghan women's advocates were opposed to moves whereby the international community might normalise the Taliban regime said Ayesha Khan, a senior research fellow in gender equality at London-based think tank ODI Global. "On the one hand, you appreciate the interest in engaging with another culture and seeing how people live and wanting to spend your foreign currency in a country that you know to be poor," Dr Khan said of those travelling to Afghanistan. "At the same time, the voyeurism of going to travel in a country that is experiencing gender apartheid is something that I would encourage tourists to ask themselves: why are they doing this?" The Australian NGO Mahboba's Promise has worked in Afghanistan for 26 years with vulnerable groups such as widows and orphans. "Oftentimes you see in these [travel] videos, you see all these kids surrounding these travellers laughing, smiling — and that's pure and real joy," said the organisation's vice president, Nawid Cina. "But what's the story behind these kids? Why are they outside? Why are they trying to shine your shoe?" It is estimated that there are more than 2 million widows and 1.5 million orphans in Afghanistan — many of whom lost spouses or parents during decades of armed conflict. Mr Cina said Taliban prohibitions on women working or leaving the home without a male guardian had led to an uptick in child labour, as boys sought to help support their families. According to UNICEF, less than half of Afghan children under 12 are attending primary school. "If you're coming to Afghanistan, you need to be showed this reality," Mr Cina said. Officials in Afghanistan reported that foreign tourist numbers increased from 691 in 2021 to 7,000 in 2023. Ms Hailwood said the Taliban were "very happy" about receiving Western visitors — and that tourist visas were granted almost immediately. "They definitely want foreigners there," she said. "I think for them, as well, it's about legitimising their power and legitimising that the Taliban are the new government. "And I think whether or not we like it, they are." No nation has formally recognised the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government since it returned to power. The Taliban's foreign ministry did not respond to the ABC's requests for comment. Dr Khan said there were many ways people could support income-generating activities in Afghanistan without visiting, such as channelling money to women's education and employment programs that are run from abroad. "That might be more constructive in the long run," she said.
Russia Today
11 hours ago
- Business
- Russia Today
What is Trump's game in Syria?
US President Donald Trump's recent announcement that he intends to lift all sanctions on Syria stands as one of the most unexpected and controversial foreign policy moves Washington has made in the past decade. Declared during Trump's Middle East tour at the US-Saudi Investment Forum in Riyadh, the decision marks a dramatic shift in America's approach to the region – one that could reshape the strategic landscape for both allies and adversaries. The sanctions on Syria, first imposed in 1979, were progressively tightened over decades in response to accusations of sponsoring terrorism, human rights abuses, and close ties with Iran. Their full repeal is an unprecedented gesture, especially considering that Syria's current president, Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa, was until recently regarded by the US as a senior figure in Al-Qaeda – with a $10 million bounty once placed on his capture. In return, Damascus has made a series of strategic commitments. According to Trump, al-Sharaa has pledged to prevent the resurgence of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS), bring all jihadist detention camps under state control, and expel all foreign terrorist formations from Syrian soil. This latter promise is particularly significant, as these militant units – many of them composed of fighters from Central Asia – played a pivotal role in the collapse of Bashar Assad's regime and the rise of the current leadership. Many of these same groups are also responsible for large-scale ethnic purges, including the massacres of Alawites and other religious minorities earlier this year. Thus, Trump's proposal does more than legitimize al-Sharaa's regime – it places on it the mantle of a regional stabilizer, albeit one whose legitimacy remains heavily disputed. The decision to lift sanctions cannot be divorced from Washington's broader economic and strategic interests. That the announcement came in Saudi Arabia is no coincidence – it signals a broader understanding with Riyadh, which is eager to deepen its footprint in post-conflict Syria. From the US perspective, the Syria deal is a building block in a new Middle Eastern architecture – one dominated by pro-Western governments and designed to neutralize Iranian influence. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have long viewed Syria's reconstruction as an opportunity to entrench themselves politically and economically. US sanctions had previously prevented them from acting overtly, and the lifting of restrictions may now be part of a grander bargain: Riyadh receives a green light to invest in Syria, while Washington secures massive financial commitments. On May 14 – the day of Trump's announcement – Saudi Arabia signed a $142 billion arms deal with the US and pledged an additional $600 billion in American investments. At first glance, Trump's move might appear as a betrayal of Israeli interests – an accusation made in several media commentaries. Yet in practice, Israel gains a neighbor that, while unpredictable, is now positioned to suppress Islamist radicals within its borders. This allows it to refocus on countering Iran and Hezbollah without the added distraction of threats emanating from Syria. The lifting of sanctions also aligns with Türkiye's strategic goals. President Erdogan, just prior to the Trump-al-Sharaa meeting, personally urged the US president to dismantle the sanctions. Türkiye is a key partner of Syria's new leadership but has been constrained by its own economic crisis. Moreover, the sanctions hindered Ankara's allies – particularly Qatar – from taking part in Syria's postwar reconstruction. In sum, Trump's Syrian deal represents more than just a diplomatic maneuver; it is a bold attempt to reengineer the regional balance of power. Whether it brings long-term stability or fuels new fault lines remains to be seen – but its impact on the Middle East is already unmistakable. The developments unfolding in Syria following the rise to power of Ahmed al-Sharaa increasingly evoke the atmosphere of 2011 – the era of the Arab Spring, when the Middle East fractured into two ideological and geopolitical camps. At the time, Türkiye and Qatar actively championed the cause of 'political Islam', seeking to expand their influence through the emergence of Islamist-oriented governments. In contrast, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates perceived Islamist forces as a direct threat to regional stability and the survival of their monarchical order. Today, under al-Sharaa's leadership, Syria once again reflects that same fault line. A sense of déjà vu looms: The region's main players find themselves navigating renewed tensions, caught between the desire to preserve influence and the necessity of adapting to a rapidly evolving reality. Ankara and Doha, both instrumental in al-Sharaa's ascent, view his leadership as an opportunity to reclaim their diminished standing in the Levant. Despite its internal economic turmoil, Türkiye continues to position itself as a regional arbiter, relying on a network of loyal political and military actors within Syria. Qatar, for its part, is providing financial and diplomatic support, effectively replicating the strategy it previously deployed in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia. Yet the current landscape differs markedly from that of 2011. Al-Sharaa, though buoyed by Turkish support, has signaled a desire for greater autonomy from the outset. His first official foreign visit was not to Ankara, but to Riyadh – a symbolic gesture toward Saudi Arabia and the UAE, whose economic power is now essential for Syria's reconstruction. It was also a clear signal that Damascus is open to dialogue, even with those who once backed the opposing side in the civil war. For Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the resurgence of politically motivated Islamist forces is a source of deep concern, though their response has remained deliberately muted. Rather than overt confrontation, these Gulf monarchies have opted for economic engagement, believing that financial leverage will grant them influence while curbing radicalization. They also see the new Syrian leadership as a potential partner in shaping a new Middle Eastern order – provided that Damascus does not become an instrument of Turkish expansionism. This explains al-Sharaa's active display of 'independent maneuvering', as he skillfully balances between centers of power – from the Gulf to Ankara, from Washington to Moscow. Amid this geopolitical mosaic, the US has crafted a new strategic vision. Under Trump's leadership, US policy increasingly focuses on economic leverage and security cooperation while moving away from direct military engagement in the Middle East. Trump proposes a new model: 'Regional self-sufficiency' under an American umbrella. The essence of this model is to arm and equip regional actors, enabling them to maintain stability independently, with the US acting as a supplier of advanced technology and a guarantor of balance. In return, Washington demands loyalty, political restraint, and – crucially – substantial financial contributions. This underpins the strategic alignment with Gulf monarchies, who possess the means and motivation to counterbalance Iran. At the same time, Trump is attempting to bridge the divide between Türkiye and Israel, laying the groundwork for an economic partnership despite ideological differences. The goal is to prevent friction among US allies and to forge a unified front against Iran and other hostile forces. Syria, in this context, becomes a testing ground for America's new security architecture – a controlled regional equilibrium maintained without the Pentagon's direct footprint. If successful, this model could be replicated in other crisis zones. A potential next step is the normalization of relations between Syria and Israel – a previously unimaginable prospect, now discussed as part of a broader settlement. In parallel, Trump plans to introduce a new Middle East peace framework that includes recognition of Palestine in exchange for diplomatic and economic incentives from Arab states. This scenario may also presage political change in Israel: If Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu resists the plan, centrist alternatives like Yair Lapid or Benny Gantz – more amenable to compromise – could come to the fore. All of this unfolds against the backdrop of a fundamental reordering of US global priorities. Washington is increasingly pivoting toward the containment of China, its primary strategic rival in the 21st century. The Middle East is no longer seen as a vital sphere; the new approach favors balance over expansion, mediation over presence, partnership over intervention. Thus, US regional strategy is evolving from rigid control to a more adaptive configuration – one in which local actors are granted greater autonomy, though still within an overarching framework engineered in Washington. Syria may well serve as the first case study of this new era – an era in which the return to the logic of 2011 unexpectedly becomes the launchpad for a very different Middle East. The US decision to lift sanctions on Syria following the rise of al-Sharaa to power marks a pivotal moment for a country that has endured over a decade of devastating war, international isolation, and socioeconomic collapse. This move not only removes one of the most significant external constraints on the Syrian leadership, but also opens a window of opportunity to construct a new model of governance – one grounded in pragmatism, economic rationality, and cautious multilateralism. Al-Sharaa now faces a critical choice: To use this opportunity to consolidate centralized authority and restore effective governance – or, through missteps or weakness, to allow Syria to fragment further into a collection of ethno-regional entities devoid of a unifying national project. The World Bank has cleared over $15 million of Syrian debt, once again making the country eligible for participation in international financing programs. This development was made possible through targeted financial contributions from the Gulf states – particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar – signaling their intention to take the lead in Syria's reconstruction. Following this, the IMF expressed its readiness to provide technical assistance, while the Syrian authorities issued a series of statements inviting investment in agriculture, energy, transportation infrastructure, and tourism. These actions indicate the new regime's ambition to craft an economic model that not only addresses the war's legacy but also generates employment, stabilizes the currency, boosts public revenues, and – most importantly – restores public trust in the institution of the state. However, economic recovery is only feasible if accompanied by the genuine restoration of governance. Syria remains deeply fragmented. Kurdish regions in the northeast are governed by a de facto autonomous administration with its own armed forces and international channels. In the south, the Druze community in Suwayda exhibits growing political and organizational independence, alongside protest movements and local defense initiatives. Along the coastal regions – home to significant Alawite and Christian minorities – distrust toward centralized power continues to grow, especially amid persistent ethno-sectarian tensions. These communities, should the center weaken, may gravitate toward political separatism or at least self-organization into autonomous administrative structures. If the al-Sharaa government fails to propose a coherent model of political integration – one that includes power-sharing, resource distribution, and the participation of regional elites in governance – Syria could enter a new phase of 'soft disintegration': A de facto federalization where unity is maintained in name only. In this context, foreign policy becomes critically important. Fully aware of the dangers of unilateral alignment, Ahmed al-Sharaa is pursuing a balanced external strategy. Unlike the previous era, which was defined by dependence on a narrow circle of allies, Syria's new president is embracing a diversified diplomatic approach. He seeks to build relations with the West and the US – especially in the context of economic recovery and Syria's international rehabilitation – without abandoning existing strategic ties. It is within this framework that Russia remains a key partner to Syria across several strategic domains. Russia continues to play a central role in Syria's security architecture and diplomatic positioning, including defending Syrian interests at the UN Security Council and engaging in technical, military, and energy cooperation. Its presence in Tartus and Khmeimim, involvement in humanitarian initiatives, and potential contributions to infrastructure reconstruction ensure its continued relevance in any long-term settlement scenario. At the same time, Damascus under al-Sharaa is also looking to build stronger ties with other non-Western power centers – including China, India, and Brazil – while deepening economic engagement with the Arab world. This will help Syria avoid overdependence on any single actor and enhance its strategic flexibility amid global uncertainty. This approach reflects a clear-eyed understanding of Syria's geopolitical reality: The country can no longer afford to be part of rigid geopolitical axes. Its survival now depends on its ability to navigate between competing powers – leveraging their rivalry for national benefit without becoming anyone's pawn. Maintaining cooperative relations with Russia and expanding dialogue with non-Western powers is not just a matter of foreign policy – it is a means of preserving autonomy in a context of limited sovereignty. The lifting of sanctions and al-Sharaa's ascent have opened a potential path toward stabilization. But the durability of this trajectory depends on the regime's ability not only to harness economic resources but also to execute a complex, multi-layered political and diplomatic agenda. Domestically, this means launching mechanisms of integration and decentralization; externally, it requires deft maneuvering between Western and non-Western actors. In this evolving environment, Russia remains an important partner for Syria – not as an exclusive ally, but as a key component in the multifaceted diplomacy that al-Sharaa will seek to construct in order to reinforce not just his own authority, but the very foundations of the Syrian state.
Los Angeles Times
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Islamic State group claims first attack on Syrian government forces since Assad's fall
BEIRUT — The Islamic State group has claimed responsibility for two attacks in southern Syria, including one on government forces that an opposition war monitor described as the first on the Syrian army to be carried out by the extremists since the fall of Bashar Assad. IS said in a statement on Thursday that in one attack, a bomb targeting a 'vehicle of the apostate regime' detonated, leaving seven soldiers dead or wounded. It said the attack occurred 'last Thursday,' or May 22, in the al-Safa area in the desert of the southern province of Sweida. In a separate statement, the group said another bomb attack occurred this week in a nearby area, targeting members of the U.S.-backed Free Syrian Army. It claimed that it killed one fighter and wounded three. There was no comment from the government on the claims. A spokesperson for the Free Syrian Army didn't immediately respond to a request for comment by the Associated Press. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the attack on government forces killed one civilian and wounded three soldiers, describing it as the first such attack to be claimed by IS against Syrian forces since the 54-year rule by the Assad family ended in December. IS, which once controlled large parts of Syria and Iraq, is opposed to the new authority in Damascus led by President Ahmad al-Sharaa, who was once the head of al Qaeda's branch in Syria and fought battles against IS. Over the past several months, IS has claimed responsibility for attacks against the U.S.-backed and Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces in the northeast. IS was defeated in Syria in March 2019 when SDF fighters captured the last sliver of land that the extremists controlled. Since then, its sleeper cells have carried out deadly attacks, mainly in eastern and northeast Syria. In January, state media reported that intelligence officials in Syria's post-Assad government thwarted a plan by IS to set off a bomb at a Shiite Muslim shrine south of Damascus. Al-Sharaa met with President Trump in Saudi Arabia earlier this month, when the American leader said that Washington would work on lifting crippling economic sanctions imposed on Damascus since the days of Assad. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement after the meeting that Trump urged al-Sharaa to diplomatically recognize Israel, 'tell all foreign terrorists to leave Syria' and help the U.S. stop any resurgence of the Islamic State group. Mroue writes for the Associated Press.
