During the interview, the anchor asked the Syrian president, also known as "al-Julani," about his political evolution: "Just 11 months ago, you were designated by the US government a foreign terrorist; you were actually on the wanted list. Times have obviously changed, now you're playing basketball with military leaders here in Washington," she said, referring to footage showing al-Sharaa with CENTCOM Gen. Brad Cooper from Nov. 10. "What has changed in the US-Syria relationship?" she continued.

The Syrian president answered factually about his meeting with US President Donald Trump, who decided to lift the sanctions on him, adding that "there was a decision at the United Nations Security Council to lift the sanctions on me and several other people," while refraining from addressing the interviewer's question about his past.

Twenty years ago Ahmed al-Sharaa was an American prisoner of war in Iraq. He's now playing hoops with the commander of CENTCOM.

Insane glow up. I don't agree with the jihadism necessarily but a reminder to never give up. pic.twitter.com/WnNHDepQTb

— Drew Pavlou (@DrewPavlou) November 8, 2025

The anchor then asked if the matter was discussed personally with President Trump, saying: "Has President Trump raised with you your own past affiliation with al-Qaida terrorism?" to which al-Sharaa responded, "I think this is a matter of the past, we did not discuss it actively. We talked about the present and the future, the investment opportunities in the future in Syria." He then added that Syria is now viewed as a "geo-political ally."

When the anchor raised the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans in al-Qaida's attacks, the Syrian president claimed he was "only 19 years old, a very young person who didn't have any decision-making power at that time." He added, "I don't have anything to do with it; al-Qaida wasn't present then, in my area, so you're speaking to the wrong person."

Al-Sharaa's responses drew criticism across social media, with users suggesting the leader is "a terrorist in a suit" and claiming it is merely "a facade, nothing's changed about him." Another user said, "the only things that changed are his suit and the gel in his hair, trying to convince the world he is not a serial killer."

Ahmed al-Sharaa rose to international prominence following the collapse of the Assad regime in December, when he assumed Syria's presidency as the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

The post 'A terrorist in a suit': Syrian leader's evasive answers spark backlash appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his side was much more focused, even statesmanlike, and the gap between them was evident. It is hard to imagine Trump persuading Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or even Jordan to sign onto Netanyahu's version.

Video: Trump and Netanyahu on Sept. 30, 2025 / Credit: Reuters

And yet, behind this American-Israeli scene hides another stage, Doha, Qatar. A place that already knows how to close deals that appear impossible on paper.

It is very possible that this chapter in the Middle Eastern saga was already quietly closed in the corridors of a department in a hospital in Doha, where perhaps the foreign leadership of Hamas has been hospitalized since the failed assassination attempt. When also considering the strange anecdote about Netanyahu's apology, there are those who see this as no more than a complementary move to a grand bargain finalized in Qatar.

It is hard not to recall another Trumpist agreement that was also signed in Doha – only with a different kind of enemy, "Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan." The agreement with the Taliban, February 2020, looked then like a historic breakthrough. Mutual commitments, withdrawal of American forces on an almost military timeline, commitments by the Taliban to sever ties with al-Qaida and to open dialogue with the Kabul government – there was grand language of peace there.

It took less than a month for that bubble to burst. The Taliban returned to attacking the Afghan army, al-Qaida ties were not severed, and the talks with the central government sputtered until they disappeared. The agreement turned from golden yellow to a resounding farce.

Trump got from the Taliban a technical ceasefire against the Americans, and in return later handed the country to the Taliban.

Here comes the obvious question, is "Doha 2.0," with Hamas this time on stage, looking different? Or is it again grains of sand that will scatter in the desert wind?

Optimism with a trap

For Israel, on the face of it, this is a peak of achievements. An American administration that adopts most of the Israeli version and promises full backing is not taken for granted in an era of hostile international public opinion and diplomatic pressures from all sides. Israel succeeded in bringing the optimal combination, a diplomatic-security plan that touches the heart of Israel's declared war goals, while receiving a rubber stamp from the White House. The question of whether this will really translate on the ground is much less clear.

Hamas holds the cards tightly in its hands, the hostages. To demand blanket release in 72 hours, without the organization remaining with any bargaining chip, is almost a fantasy. Even if Trump and Bibi think there is a document that obligates this, the people of Gaza will always find a way to evade, "The hostage is held by a rogue clan"; "We need time to locate the hostages"; or a modern version of "The computer fell out of our bag." The procrastination will be a built-in part of the strategy.

The issue of disarming Hamas is perhaps the central landmine in the future agreement. Israel can insist, the US can commit, Trump can promise in a hoarse voice, but for Hamas this is a matter of survival. The last weeks revealed a new reality in Gaza, the dense population is moving south despite the organization's threats, its authority is slipping, and above all – the greatest fear is not Iron Dome or the paratrooper brigade, but the local clans: Those strong families, who, when the regime loses grip, will try to settle personal scores and perhaps also take over Hamas' bloated cash box. Here lies the real threat from the perspective of the leadership in Gaza. Israel is a clear and stable enemy, but chaos is an existential danger.

Days of upheavals are ahead of us. It is possible that the first conditions for releasing some of the hostages will be set already this week. It is possible that the effect will be delayed, that the familiar Palestinian evasion campaign will continue. It is not impossible that we will discover that even before the cameras flashed at the White House, the most important chapter was already written in Doha. And if history teaches anything, even a deal signed in glittering ceremonies can dissipate in the sounds of explosions coming from hospitals, mosques, and neighborhoods in southern Gaza.

Hamas will not rush to give up all its bargaining cards within 72 hours.

We all hope that the agreement will take shape and materialize and the hostages will return home. However, the common denominator between the two "Doha agreements," that of the Taliban and this one brewing against Hamas, is the temptation to embrace an illusion, that a publicized text and detailed wording are enough to change a complex political and social reality. In reality, deep dynamics are stronger and more consistent than any document. Trump perhaps looked tired in front of the cameras, but the real fatigue is that of the whole world in the face of the repetitiveness of this tragic comedy.

The post The Trump plan – and the clause that could doom Hamas appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The United Nations is proposing to pay nearly $6 million for protection in Afghanistan to Taliban-run Interior Ministry personnel, whose chief is under UN and US sanctions and wanted by the FBI, according to a UN document and a source familiar with the matter.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The proposed funds would be paid next year mostly to subsidize the monthly wages of Taliban fighters guarding UN facilities and to provide them a monthly food allowance under an expansion of an accord with the former US-backed Afghan government, the document reviewed by Reuters shows.

The plan underscores the persisting insecurity in Afghanistan following the Islamist Taliban's takeover in August as the last US troops left, as well as a dire shortage of funds hampering the new government because of a cutoff of international financial aid.

"The United Nations has a duty as an employer to reinforce and, where necessary, supplement the capacity of host states in circumstances where UN personnel work in areas of insecurity," deputy UNN spokesman Farhan Haq wrote in an email in response to Reuters' questions about the proposed payments. He did not dispute the contents of the document.

Several experts said the proposed payments raise questions about whether they would violate US and UN sanctions on the Taliban and their top leaders, and whether the United Nations could detect diversions of funds for other purposes.

"What it comes down to is there is no proper oversight," said the source, who requested anonymity to discuss the matter.

Those under sanctions include deputy Taliban leader and Interior Ministry chief Sirajuddin Haqqani. He heads the Haqqani network, a faction blamed for some of the bloodiest attacks over 20 years of war. The United States, which says Haqqani is close to al-Qaida, is offering a $10 million reward for information leading to his arrest.

The UN Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA) budget is "currently under review," but the mission "maintains full compliance with all UN sanctions regimes," Haq said.

He did not respond to a question about whether the proposed payments would breach US sanctions.

A US Treasury Department official said the Taliban and the Haqqani network remain designated under the US government's counterterrorism sanctions program and that unauthorized people supporting them "risk exposure to US sanctions."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, declined to comment on the UN proposal.

The proposed funds would bolster the cash-strapped Taliban's ability to protect some 3,500 UN personnel in Kabul and 10 field offices. Many are striving to help the country of 39 million cope with food shortages amid a public services breakdown and an economic collapse accelerated by the evaporation of foreign financial aid. The UN document says most of a proposed $4 million security budget for 2022 shared by the 20 UN agencies operating in Afghanistan "constitutes payments in respect of supplementing host nation resources for their primary responsibility to protect UN personnel (as foreseen in our SOMA)."

SOMA stands for a Status of Mission Agreement with the former government. Under the accord, the United Nations subsidized the costs to the Interior Ministry of police who protected UN facilities, the source said.

Most of the $4 million would boost the wages of individual Taliban members by $275-to-$319 per month and provide a monthly food allowance of $90 per person, "which was previously only paid in the regions but now also extended to Kabul," the document said.

UNAMA would spend an additional nearly $2 million "for similar services" outside the security budget shared with other UN agencies, the document added.

"The UN system provided allowances to personnel who perform supplementary security services which are critical to the safety of personnel and compounds, as well as operations and movements in the country," said Haq.

Such funds, he said, are paid directly to recipients "and not through the de facto authorities."

The post UN suggests paying Taliban $6M to provide security appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Guns supplied by Iran to its Houthi allies in Yemen are being smuggled across the Gulf of Aden to Somalia, where al Qaeda-linked al-Shabab insurgents are battling a weak and divided government, according to a Geneva-based think tank.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime said its study drew on data from more than 400 weapons documented in 13 locations across Somalia over eight months and inventories from 13 dhows, or traditional sailing vessels, intercepted by naval vessels.

It is the first publicly available research into the scale of illicit arms smuggling from Yemen into the Horn of Africa country.

"Weapons originating in the Iran–Yemen arms trade are being trafficked onward into Somalia itself," the authors of the study said.

"Iran has repeatedly denied any involvement in the trafficking of arms to the Houthis. However, a preponderance of evidence points to Iranian state supply."

Iran's Foreign Ministry and a spokesman for Yemen's Houthi forces did not respond to a request for comment from Reuters on the study. Iran has repeatedly denied any involvement in the trafficking of arms to its Houthi allies in Yemen, where the six-year-old civil war has killed tens of thousands.

The Somali government spokesman and the internal security minister did not return calls or messages seeking comment.

The study said the investigators were not able to fully document the buyers and sellers of the weapons.

It said signs the weapons were originally supplied by the Iranian state included serial numbers that were very close together, indicating they were part of the same shipment, information from satellite navigation systems on seized dhows, and human intelligence from trafficking gangs.

One dhow carrying weapons that was seized by a US navy vessel had a GPS with stored points in Iran, southern Yemen, and Somalia, the report said, including a small anchorage near Jask port, which hosts an Iranian naval base, and "home" set as the Yemeni port of Mukalla, a well-known arms smuggling hub.

The guns end up with commercial smuggling networks whose customers can include armed factions seeking advantage ahead of Somalia's repeatedly delayed presidential elections, as well as clan militias and rival Islamist insurgent groups linked to al Qaeda and Islamic State, the study's authors said.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Iran-supplied weapons smuggled into Somalia from Yemen, study finds appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In a few months, Egypt will mark 40 years since receiving the Sinai Peninsula back from Israel under the auspices of their peace treaty. Even then, similar to today, some in Israel occasionally argue that ceding the Sinai was a mistake that will cost us dearly one day when Egyptian army divisions cross the Suez Canal into the Sinai and attack Israel along the internationally recognized border.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The Yom Kippur War taught us that we cannot disregard any warning signs, but the accumulated experience of the past 40 years hasn't justified this concern: The border with Egypt, similar to the border with Jordan, has become tranquil from a security perspective, which has allowed the IDF to deploy very sparse forces to man those lines.

Forty years ago, Hosni Mubarak, who died last year, told me as a senior army officer at the time and the commander of the Egyptian air force during the Yom Kippur War, that he was more aware than most about the price of war, and therefore swore: "There will never be another war between us." He reiterated that oath to me several times throughout the years.

And he kept his promise. The cold peace between us and Egypt throughout his 30-year time in power also held firm in the face of crises and harsh conflicts between Israel and its ill-wishers in the Arab world. The Egyptian army never entered the Sinai and the demilitarization agreement has been fastidiously upheld.

A series of threats

However, it was at the twilight of Mubarak's rule, accelerating immensely following his removal 10 years ago, that new threats against Israel began sprouting from the south. One of these threats was linked to the growth and entrenchment of terrorist cells in northern Sinai. These cells are a lethal combination of organizations such as al-Qaida and the Islamic State group and local Bedouin youths frustrated and angry after decades of neglect from the central government in Cairo.

Although the majority of the attacks carried out by these terrorist groups have targeted the Egyptian army – in the Sinai and in Egypt proper as well – Israel, too, has been hit with shootings and missile attacks at Eilat, alongside frequent attacks on gas pipelines. Meanwhile, weapons, equipment, explosives and military knowledge has flowed unimpeded between Egypt and Gaza in the underground tunnels connecting them.

The other threat to rise against Israel from the south in the wake of Mubarak's ouster was the ascent of the Muslim Brotherhood to power and the election of Mohammad Morsi as president. The friendly and ideological ties between Morsi and his camp and the Hamas echelon in Gaza, and the mutual visits between them, sparked considerable concern in Israel. These concerns were amplified even further when Morsi declared his intention to "re-examine" the military addendum to the peace treaty and deploy the Egyptian army to the Sinai.

Both these threats against Israel were erased by General Abdel Fattah el-Sissi, the youngest member of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which had managed Egypt post-Mubarak. In the summer of 2013, el-Sissi kicked Morsi out of the presidential palace and outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood. The sigh of relief emanating from Jerusalem could be heard far and wide.

Simultaneously, el-Sissi launched a campaign, which lasted for several years, to wipe out the jihadist cells in northern Sinai responsible for killing hundreds of Egyptian soldiers and wounding thousands more. According to reports, Israel not only aided this campaign with intelligence information and other means, it even allowed Egypt to deploy dozens of battalions to fight the terrorists.

Within the framework of this military cooperation, el-Sissi almost immediately tasked two battalions with preventing rocket and missile fire at Eilat. At the same time, he took action to debilitate most of the tunnels linking Gaza and the Sinai. The result: the terror was eliminated, even if not yet completely eradicated. The security coordination between Israel and Egypt became stronger.

Out of the north the evil will be unleashed

The skeptics will say this cooperation was merely interest-based and temporary, and can easily be stopped with a decision from high up. They will also argue, justifiably, that we cannot ignore the astounding armament rate of the Egyptian army, which has procured the very best offensive weaponry from the West in recent years. Submarines, warplanes and much more, while also building new bases and developing its military infrastructure. "One day, all of it will be turned against us," they say.

Additionally, there is no apparent explanation for this armament aside, perhaps, from Egypt's desire to preserve its status as a strong and significant player in the Middle East and to prepare for future threats in the Mediterranean Sea from powers such as Turkey, which could try appropriating the still undrilled gas reservoirs in the area.

When assessing a military threat, however, it isn't enough to point only at capability. One must also point at intent. And the Egyptian president is not only bolstering security cooperation with Israel, he has also taken several cautious steps recently – perhaps influenced by Israel's peace treaties with the Gulf states – to normalize other aspects of the relationship. He publicly met Prime Minister Naftali Bennett in Cairo, an Egyptair flight landed in Israel, and surprisingly, he publicly called on other Arab states to follow in the footsteps of Anwar Sadat and make peace with Israel.

It's true that in any future conflict with Egypt, if one were ever to erupt, the IDF will have to contend with a massive army equipped with modern, sophisticated weapons. At this current juncture, however, the clear and present dangers to Israel are from the north, not the south.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Fear and loathing in Sinai: Is Egypt a threat to Israel? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A little more than a month after toppling the Western-backed government in Kabul, Afghanistan's new Taliban rulers are facing internal enemies who have adopted many of the tactics of urban warfare that marked their own successful guerrilla campaign.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

A deadly attack on Kabul airport last month and a series of bomb blasts in the eastern city of Jalalabad, all claimed by the local affiliate of the Islamic State group, have underlined the threat to stability from violent militant groups who remain unreconciled to the Taliban.

While the movement's spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid has downplayed the threat, saying this week that Islamic State had no effective presence in Afghanistan, commanders on the ground do not dismiss the threat so lightly.

Two members of the movement's intelligence services who investigated some of the recent attacks in Jalalabad said the tactics showed the group remained a danger, even if it did not have enough fighters and resources to seize territory.

Using sticky bombs – magnetic bombs usually stuck to the underside of cars – the attacks targeted Taliban members in exactly the same way the Taliban itself used to hit officials and civil society figures to destabilize the former government.

As a result of both abandonment and poor tracking, the Islamic State group, the Taliban and other militant groups managed to acquire American-supplied anti-armor weapons, tanks, drones and massive numbers of small arms, like rifles, and light weapons, such as machine guns and basic rockets.

"We are worried about these sticky bombs that once we used to apply to target our enemies in Kabul. We are concerned about our leadership as they could target them if not controlled successfully," said one of the Taliban intelligence officials.

Islamic State in Khorasan, the name taken from the ancient name for the region that includes modern Afghanistan, first emerged in late 2014 but has declined from its peak around 2018 following a series of heavy losses inflicted by both the Taliban and US forces.

Taliban security forces in Nangarhar said they had killed three members of the movement on Wednesday night and the intelligence officials said the movement still retains the ability to cause trouble through small-scale attacks.

"Their main structure is broken and they are now divided into small groups to carry out attacks," one of them said.

The Taliban have said repeatedly that they will not allow Afghanistan to be used as a base for attacks on other countries. But some Western analysts believe the return of the Islamist group to power has invigorated groups like ISIS-K and al-Qaida, which had made Afghanistan their base when the Taliban last ruled the country.

"In Afghanistan, the return of Taliban is a huge victory for the Islamists," said Rohan Gunaratna, professor of security studies at Singapore's Nanyang Technological University. "They have celebrated the return of the Taliban, so I think that Afghanistan is the new theater."

ISIS-K is believed to draw many of its fighters from the ranks of the Taliban or the Pakistani version of the Taliban, known as the TTP, but much of the way it operates remains understood.

It has fought the Taliban over smuggling routes and other economic interests but it also supports a global Caliphate under Islamic law, in contrast with the Taliban which insists it has no interest anywhere outside Afghanistan.

Most analysts, as well as the United Nations, peg ISIS-K's strength at less than 2,000 fighters, compared to as many as 100,000 at the Taliban's disposal. The ranks of ISIS-K were swollen with prisoners released when Afghanistan's jails were opened by the Taliban as they swept through the country.

According to a June report by the UN Security Council, ISIS-K's financial and logistic ties to its parent organization in Syria have weakened, though it does retain some channels of communication.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

"Funding support to the Khorasan branch from the core is believed to have effectively dried up," the report said.

However, the report said signs of divisions within the Taliban, which have already started to emerge, could encourage more fighters to defect as the wartime insurgency tries to reshape itself into a peacetime administration.

"It remains active and dangerous, particularly if it is able, by positioning itself as the sole pure rejectionist group in Afghanistan, to recruit disaffected Taliban and other militants to swell its ranks," the UN said.

The post Islamic State uses Taliban's own tactics to attack Afghanistan's new rulers appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in late August and the takeover of the country by the radical Taliban group should be a cause for concern in the West, particularly because of a potential resurgence of al-Qaida in that part of the world, a former Trump administration key national security official told Israel Hayom in a recent interview.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The former official, Nathan A. Sales, served as the coordinator for counterterrorism and designated a special envoy to the global coalition to defeat the Islamic State under the previous US administration.

He was one of the speakers at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) 20th Annual International Conference, known as Reichman University's World Summit on Counterterrorism held earlier in September.

Although Sales believes that the US national security posture has been drastically improved since 2001 and hence it is unlikely that the homeland would be caught off guard should threats materialize, it is safe to say that the world as a whole should brace for a new reality in the wake of the lack of US leverage in Afghanistan, not just in terms of insufficient physical presence.

"In light of the violence and chaos in Afghanistan over the past month, there is the temptation, at least in the US, to think that the war on terrorism has been a failure that we are no more safe than we were 20 years ago or that we are not up to the challenge. I think that really misreads the history of the past 20 years; I think the US and our counterterrorism partners – which Israel is one of the closest – have made mistakes but the bottom line is that we are in a dramatically better position today when it comes to countering terrorist threats.

"Whether you are talking about military capabilities or key civilian-sector counterterrorism tools like sanctions, like border security, like law enforcement – across the board the US is significantly safer today than 20 years ago. There hasn't been a catastrophic terrorist attack on our homeland in 20 years. That is the most important thing to know about the war on terrorism. There are efforts to defeat and degrade our terrorist enemies using a combination of military and civilian tools that have produced an incredible success that nobody thought was possible 20 years ago. You will remember in the aftermath of 9/11 everyone in the US was just waiting for the next shoe to drop, we all assumed that there was a second wave of attacks that was imminent and that was not the case, and it's not an accident – it's because the US put in place a number of new policies and built new capabilities."

Q: What about the future?

"We are better off today than 20 years ago, but we are worse off when it comes to counterterrorism than we were one month ago because of the collapse of the Afghan state. I think this will have long-term repercussions on the global fight against Sunni terrorism but also all forms of terrorism, including Iran-backed Shia terrorists. The fall will result in dozens and dozens of high-grade military weapon systems falling into the hands of terrorists, we are going to see a terrorist black market and it's not just al-Qaida terrorists, but also ISIS and presumably Hezbollah. Presumably, other Iranian proxies like the Houthis will all benefit from ready access to this weaponry. Like the collapse of Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi's regime resulted in weapons caches that fueled a number of jihadist and other terrorist insurgencies. The Taliban and al-Qaida had a hand-in-glove partnership, you can even call it an alliance because it is an alliance. That relationship did not break over two decades of war in Afghanistan and it is not going to break now, so the fear is that al-Qaida is going to enjoy something like the safe haven in Afghanistan that they also enjoyed in the years prior to 9/11. We know that when groups like al-Qaida have a safe haven, they use that to plot external operations. The real fear is that with the Taliban back in charge, they would once again provide a security blanket to al-Qaida and maybe other terrorist groups that we don't know about yet that they can use to plot attacks in the region, in Europe, and ultimately in the US homeland."

Should we prepare for new terrorist attacks against the US?

"That is the fear that we have to work very hard to prevent turning into reality. I think our intelligence community in the US previously assessed that after the fall of the Afghan government it could take up to two years for al-Qaida to reconstitute its networks in Afghanistan, to the point that it could carry out external operations. I think in light of what we have seen over the past month, that timeline is out the window, I think it's going to be a considerably shorter amount of time for a number of reasons: One, is the weapons that we have already discussed; two, is the prisoners who have been released from custody as the Taliban swept to power, thousands of battle-hardened al-Qaida and other terrorist fighters are back on the battlefield and they are certainly looking to return to the fight; and the other thing that I think bears mentioning, the US intelligence-collection capabilities in Afghanistan are going to be severely degraded without a diplomatic or military presence on the ground. It would be much harder for us to first of all collect intelligence around what our terrorist adversaries are planning and where their camps are located and it will similarly be much more difficult for us to take action to remove those people from the battlefield if we assess that they present a threat to the homeland. So the Biden administration is going to have its hands full, trying to recreate the intelligence collection and strike capabilities that have been degraded with the withdrawal. They are talking about over-the-horizon counterterrorism but that is very difficult. Flying drones into Afghanistan from bases in the Persian Gulf is not as nearly as good as having those assets positioned in the country or neighborhood. Eight hours of flight time from the Gulf there, and 8 hours to fly back, that gives you five or six hours to take action. So I commend the administration for thinking about what comes next and developing an over-the-horizon capability but I fear it would be a pale shadow of the capabilities that we have given up.

"I think our goal has to be to provide a safe haven to all Afghans who are vulnerable whose lives are at risk because they worked with the US government. These are people who literally put their lives on the line because they believed in America and they took enormous risks to work with our military and embassy. We have to treat them properly and stand up `with them the way they stood up with us. That said, you also have to make sure that everybody who is trying to come to the US is who they say they are. We can't take the risk that terrorists might try to exploit our hospitality by disguising themselves as Afghan govt workers or military translators or others who worked closely with the US. For that reason, our congress enacted a law, a 14-step process, to make sure all the security guarantees are met and background checks are done. So on the one hand we have to stand by the sides of our Afghan allies, the second we have to make sure the people we are getting into the country actually are our Afghan allies and not terrorists masquerading as our friends."

Q: Will Iran move closer to a nuclear breakthrough by taking advantage of this new situation?

"It's hard for me to answer that specific aspect since I am not an expert on proliferation. What I can say is that the threat posed by Iran to Israel, to the Gulf, and indeed to the rest of the world is indeed a very significant threat. The nuclear ambitions that Iran has are very worrying. But we also have to understand Iran's nuclear ambitions against the backdrop of the full range of malign activity that Iran supports across the globe. Tehran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, they support dozen of proxies all over the world including Hezbollah, just to the north to Israel. Iran has seen the Hezbollah model as a proof of concept that it is trying to replicate in other countries: Create a terror proxy that would promote its interests and use force against not only against Iran's enemies but also to do violence to the society where that terrorist group is located. In Yemen, what we have seen in Iraq – it's all taken from the Hezbollah playbook; use Iranian provided weapons to commit acts of violence against the state and create a shadow parallel government that competes with the legitimate government and commits acts of violence against innocent protestors and those who reject Iran's malign influence. We certainly need to negotiate a better nuclear deal, but we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that if Iran does come around to sign a stronger agreement that would solve the Iran problem. Iran is still going to be providing weapons to terrorist groups and funding terrorist groups and engaging in research into ballistic missiles so the nuclear ambitions of Tehran are an important part of the threat that this regime poses but we have to address these other aspects to it as well. The economic strategy of the Trump administration paid some real dividends. Iran used to provide upward of 700 million a year to Hezbollah and that dropped off pretty dramatically to the point where Hassan Nasrallah was pleading for donations because they could not rely on the same financial support from their masters in Tehran. The core of the strategy was economic, but there were also circumstances where the US was willing to use discrete applications of military force to remove specific threats, the strike on Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani was a good example of this. It's not always the case that you want to use military force, but you at least need to have it as one of the topics that are under consideration to be used under appropriate circumstances and you also need to make heavy use of sanction power to get people from Tehran to sit up and take notice that you mean business. My hope had been that the Biden administration would continue to use sanction tools in an aggressive way to force the Iranian regime back to the negotiating table, to use that as leverage, but unfortunately, this administration seems to have taken a different course."

Q: So where are we heading?

"It's difficult to say how Iran will respond with the new Iranian president who has been sworn into office. I don't know what that means for the future of the talks between the West and Iran. Iran is certainly not going to be more conciliatory under Ebrahim Raisi, it's not going to be less committed to terrorism under Raisi, not going to respect human rights more. The Biden administration will have its hands full."

Q: What other terrorist threats do you see on the US?

"I think the terrorist threat in West Africa is underappreciated in the US. Africa has in recent years really faced a wide array of terrorist threats, not just from al-Qaida but also from ISIS affiliates. In West Africa, in particular, these threats are becoming even more dangerous. The reason why this matters is that what happens in West Africa doesn't stay there. If that region has violence and instability, it will have knock-on effects for the movement of people out of that region into the Gulf, into North Africa, potentially into Europe. So the real worry here is that as these terror threats continue to grow and evolve and metastasize, the US and our partners are going to need to pay even more attention. Biden wants to stop focusing so much on counterterrorism in order to focus on great power competition with China, and that's an understandable impulse given the strategic challenges that the Chinese communist party poses. But it is important to keep in mind that one of the most effective ways that you can compete against China in Africa, is through counterterrorism assistance. We can provide capabilities that our rivals cannot, that Russia can't and China can't and Iran certainly can't. It's critical for the US to remain engaged in Africa in areas where ISIS and al-Qaida are active and pose a significant threat to local populations not just for the purpose of defeating our terrorist enemies but also because that kind of coordination with local governments can produce important benefits when it comes to great-power competitions."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post 'When groups like al-Qaida have a safe haven, they use that to plot external operations' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Afghanistan's Taliban rulers said on Tuesday there was no evidence of Islamic State or al-Qaida terrorists being in the country, days after the Islamic State group claimed responsibility for bomb attacks in the eastern city of Jalalabad.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Since toppling the Western-backed government in Kabul last month, the Taliban have faced pressure from the international community to renounce ties with al-Qaida, the group behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

At the same time, they have had to deal with a series of attacks claimed by an affiliate of the Islamic State, with which they have been in conflict for several years over a mix of economic and ideological disputes.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid rejected accusations that al-Qaida maintained a presence in Afghanistan and repeated pledges that there would be no attacks on third countries from Afghanistan from militant movements.

"We do not see anyone in Afghanistan who has anything to do with al-Qaida," he told a news conference in Kabul. "We are committed to the fact that, from Afghanistan, there will not be any danger to any country."

The Taliban were ousted from power by US-led forces in 2001 for refusing to hand over al Qaeda leaders responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. They returned to Kabul last month after US forces announced they were leaving and the US-backed government and military collapsed.

The Afghan affiliate of Islamic State, known as Islamic State Khorasan (ISIS-K), after an old name for the region, first appeared in eastern Afghanistan in 2014 and later made inroads into other areas, particularly the north.

Several years ago, the US military put the group's strength at about 2,000 fighters, though some Afghan officials at the time estimated the number was higher.

It battled US-led foreign forces and the Taliban, for control of smuggling routes while also apparently seeking to build a global Caliphate.

The group claimed responsibility for a series of bomb attacks in the city of Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan at the weekend read more. It also claimed a suicide bomb attack at Kabul airport last month that killed 13 US troops and scores of Afghan civilians who had crowded outside the airport gates.

Mujahid denied the movement had any genuine presence in Afghanistan though he said it "invisibly carries out some cowardly attacks."

"The ISIS that exists in Iraq and Syria does not exist here. Still, some people who may be our own Afghans have adopted the ISIS mentality, which is a phenomenon that the people do not support," he said.

"The security forces of the Islamic Emirate are ready and will stop them," he said.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Taliban say no al-Qaida or ISIS in Afghanistan appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Afghanistan's new foreign minister said Tuesday that the Taliban governing the country remain committed to preventing militants from using their territory to launch attacks. He refused, however, to say whether the country's new rulers would create a more inclusive government.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Without other political factions and women serving in the government, the Taliban appear unlikely to win international recognition as the legitimate leaders of Afghanistan. Without such recognition, the Afghan state will be unable to tap billions of its funds frozen abroad, leaving it virtually bankrupt at a time of immense humanitarian need.

The Taliban received sharp criticism last week after they announced a cabinet made up entirely of men from their movement, including several on international terror lists. Taliban leaders had previously promised broader representation.

On Tuesday, Amir Khan Mutaqi, a longtime Taliban negotiator named as foreign minister, appeared at his first news conference since becoming a member of the interim government. He gave little indication of whether the Taliban would bend to international pressure.

Asked if the Taliban would include women or ethnic and religious minorities in the government, Mutaqi replied, "We will decide in time."

He underscored that the current government was ruling on an interim basis. He said that when a permanent government is formed, "we will take into account what the people want." He would not give a timetable for the establishment of a permanent government.

"We are taking everything step by step. We have not said how long this cabinet will last," Mutaqi said.

After the withdrawal of Western troops and the Taliban's sudden return to power last month, the US and its allies have used money, potential recognition, and warnings of isolation to pressure the group to refrain from a repeat of their repressive rule in the 1990s. At that time, the Taliban governed according to a strict interpretation of Islamic law that included severe restrictions on women and minorities.

Mutaqi repeatedly said other countries must not interfere in Afghanistan's domestic affairs.

However, the foreign minister did confirm for the first time the new cabinet's intention to honor an agreement reached with the United States last year.

Under the deal, which paved the way for the American withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Taliban promised to break ties with al-Qaida and other terrorist groups and ensure they do not threaten other countries from the movement's territory.

"We will not allow anyone or any groups to use our soil against any other countries," Mutaqi said.

While ruling Afghanistan during the late 1990s, the Taliban sheltered al-Qaida and its chief, Osama bin Laden. Their refusal to hand over bin Laden and other al-Qaida members after the Sept. 11 terror attacks prompted the US to launch a military assault that ousted the Taliban and led to a 20-year war in Afghanistan.

Many experts remain skeptical the Taliban have broken ties with al-Qaida since they reached the 2020 withdrawal deal with the Trump administration. Nevertheless, al-Qaida has been significantly weakened, and Washington has made clear its top priority is preventing Islamic State attacks from Afghanistan.

The Taliban have battled the Islamic State group since its emergence in Afghanistan in 2014. A burgeoning IS affiliate has claimed responsibility for most recent attacks, including the horrific bombing outside the Kabul airport that killed 13 US service personnel and 169 Afghans during last month's chaotic evacuations.

Still, US Army Lt. Gen. Scott Berrier, who leads the Defense Intelligence Agency, said at a national security summit Tuesday that al-Qaida could begin to threaten the United States from Afghanistan within one to two years, echoing warnings that were issued before the US withdrawal.

Meanwhile, the broader terms of the world's relationship with the Taliban remain unsettled one month after they swept into Kabul on Aug. 15 and Afghanistan's US-backed president, Ashraf Ghani, fled the presidential palace.

There also appear to be divisions within the Taliban over the next steps. Some leaders are said to be more open to compromise, while others insist on resolute Taliban domination.

The makeup of the Taliban government poses a dilemma for the United Nations as it prepares to open a new session of the UN General Assembly. Several interim ministers, including Mutaqi, Prime Minister Mohammad Hasan Akhund, and Interior Minister Sirajuddin Haqqani are on the UN's so-called black list of international terrorists and terrorist financiers.

Haqqani is also wanted by the FBI for questioning in connection with attacks in the Afghan capital over the last two decades. As interim interior minister, Haqqani oversees Afghanistan's police and has already called former officers back to work. While some have returned, including most traffic police, many are reluctant.

Mutaqi urged the UN to remove the Taliban ministers from the watch list. "The list has no logic," he said.

When the Taliban last ruled, the UN refused to recognize their government and instead gave Afghanistan's seat to the previous, warlord-dominated government of President Burhanuddin Rabbani, who eventually was killed by a suicide bomber in 2011. It was Rabbani's government that brought bin Laden to Afghanistan from Sudan in 1996.

This time around, it is unclear whether the seat will be reserved for a representative of Ghani's government. The president's sudden departure shocked the political leadership in Kabul, including former President Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah, the government's chief negotiator, which was still negotiating with the Taliban to form an interim government.

The governments of the US and other countries promised millions in new humanitarian aid for the UN to spend in Afghanistan as the country faces increasing hunger and economic collapse, but they suggested their willingness to do so in the future could depend on the actions of the Taliban.

During the second day of tough congressional questioning about the Afghanistan withdrawal, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the Biden administration would hold the Taliban to their promises to keep Afghanistan from being used as a base for terrorist attacks once again.

Mutaqi said the Taliban-led government sought good relations with foreign nations but insisted they must not interfere in its affairs. He also called for international donors to send more aid and international banking institutions to continue their projects in Afghanistan.

"Afghanistan is poor. It needs all the help" the world can give, Mutaqi said, promising that foreign aid would be distributed without corruption.

He also said that all Afghan Embassies operating abroad were told to continue operations. He promised Afghans would be allowed to leave the country and said it was the job of the Taliban government to provide passports to its citizens.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Afghanistan's Taliban government vows to prevent terrorist attacks appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The world solemnly marked the 20th anniversary of 9/11 on Saturday, grieving lost lives and shattered American unity in commemorations that unfolded just weeks after the bloody end of the Afghanistan war that was launched in response to the terror attacks.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Victims' relatives and four US presidents paid respects at the sites where hijacked planes killed nearly 3,000 people in the deadliest act of terrorism on American soil.

Others gathered for observances from Portland, Maine, to Guam, or for volunteer projects on what has become a day of service in the US. Foreign leaders expressed sympathy over an attack that happened in the US but claimed victims from more than 90 countries.

"It felt like an evil specter had descended on our world, but it was also a time when many people acted above and beyond the ordinary," said Mike Low, whose daughter, Sara Low, was a flight attendant on the first plane that crashed.

"As we carry these 20 years forward, I find sustenance in a continuing appreciation for all of those who rose to be more than ordinary people," the father told a ground zero crowd that included US President Joe Biden and former presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.

In a video released Friday night, Biden said Sept. 11 illustrated that "unity is our greatest strength."

Unity is "the thing that's going to affect our well-being more than anything else," he added while visiting a volunteer firehouse Saturday after laying a wreath at the 9/11 crash site near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. He later took a moment of silence at the third site, the Pentagon.

The anniversary was observed under the pall of a pandemic and in the shadow of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, which is now ruled by the same Taliban terrorist group that gave safe haven to the 9/11 plotters.

"It's hard because you hoped that this would just be a different time and a different world. But sometimes history starts to repeat itself and not in the best of ways," Thea Trinidad, who lost her father in the attacks, said before reading victims' names at the ceremony.

Bruce Springsteen and Broadway actors Kelli O'Hara and Chris Jackson sang at the commemoration, but by tradition, no politicians spoke there.

At the Pennsylvania site – where passengers and crew fought to regain control of a plane believed to have been targeted at the US Capitol or the White House – former US President George W. Bush said Sept. 11 showed that Americans can come together despite their differences.

"So much of our politics has become a naked appeal to anger, fear and resentment," said the president who was in office on 9/11. "On America's day of trial and grief, I saw millions of people instinctively grab their neighbor's hand and rally to the cause of one another. That is the America I know."

"It is the truest version of ourselves. It is what we have been and what we can be again."

Calvin Wilson said a polarized country has "missed the message" of the heroism of the flight's passengers and crew, which included his brother-in-law, LeRoy Homer.

"We don't focus on the damage. We don't focus on the hate. We don't focus on retaliation. We don't focus on revenge," Wilson said before the ceremony. "We focus on the good that all of our loved ones have done."

Former US President Donald Trump visited a New York police station and a firehouse, praising responders' bravery while criticizing Biden over the pullout from Afghanistan.

"It was gross incompetence," said Trump.

The attacks ushered in a new era of fear, war, patriotism and, eventually, polarization. They also redefined security, changing airport checkpoints, police practices and the government's surveillance powers.

A "war on terror" led to invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, where the longest US war ended last month with a hasty, massive airlift punctuated by a suicide bombing that killed 169 Afghans and 13 American service members and was attributed to a branch of the Islamic State extremist group. The body of slain Marine Sgt. Johanny Rosario Pichardo was brought Saturday to her hometown of Lawrence, Massachusetts, where people lined the streets as the flag-draped draped casket passed by.

The US is now concerned that al-Qaida, the terror network behind 9/11, may regroup in Afghanistan, where the Taliban flag once again flew over the presidential palace on Saturday.

Two decades after helping to triage and treat wounded colleagues at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, retired Army Col. Malcolm Bruce Westcott is saddened and frustrated by the continued threat of terrorism.

"I always felt that my generation, my military cohort, would take care of it – we wouldn't pass it on to anybody else," said Westcott, of Greensboro, Georgia. "And we passed it on."

At ground zero, multiple victims' relatives thanked the troops who fought in Afghanistan, while Melissa Pullis said she was just happy they were finally home.

"We can't lose any more military. We don't even know why we're fighting, and 20 years went down the drain," said Pullis, who lost her husband, Edward, and whose son Edward Jr. is serving on the USS Ronald Reagan.

The families spoke of lives cut short, milestones missed and a loss that still feels immediate. Several pleaded for a return of the solidarity that surged for a time after Sept. 11 but soon gave way.

"In our grief and our strength, we were not divided based on our voting preference, the color of our skin or our moral or religious beliefs," said Sally Maler, the sister-in-law of victim Alfred Russell Maler.

Yet in the years that followed, Muslim Americans endured suspicion, surveillance and hate crimes. Schisms and bitterness grew over the balance between tolerance and vigilance, the meaning of patriotism, the proper way to honor the dead and the scope of a promise to "never forget."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Trinidad was 10 when she overheard her dad, Michael, saying goodbye to her mother by phone from the burning trade center. She remembers the pain but also the fellowship of the days that followed, when all of New York "felt like it was family."

"Now, when I feel like the world is so divided, I just wish that we can go back to that," said Trinidad, of Orlando, Florida. "I feel like it would have been such a different world if we had just been able to hang on to that feeling."

The post 'Don't focus on hate': World marks 20th anniversary of 9/11 appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.