标签： Asia

On a frigid winter morning years ago, officers from London’s Metropolitan Police arrived at the West London home of Anas Altikriti, a veteran Iraqi-born British anti-war and pro-reform activist. Altikriti was traveling abroad at the time, and only learned of the visit when one of his sons called to alert him that police were searching for him. The seasoned political activist, confused by the unexpected visit, initially brushed off the news—until officers returned two days later, this time with far more insistence.

When Altikriti followed up and called the police back, he received a chilling revelation: the force had issued him an Osman Notice, a formal alert to individuals when authorities judge their life is at imminent risk. Shaken by the news, he pressed for critical details: should he move his family to safety? Was he facing a targeted plot? Who was behind the threat? To every question, police had no answer. They told Altikriti they could share no further information, leaving him only with an ominous, unsubstantiated warning and no official protection.

It would take a full decade for Altikriti to uncover the full scope of what was happening. A British news team showed him a leaked dossier that laid bare a prolonged, granular foreign intelligence surveillance operation tracking his every movement. The files included photographs of his London home, his personal vehicle, and detailed internal WhatsApp messages from the surveillance team documenting his daily routine: from his daily commutes and school runs with his children to his scheduled lectures at a local mosque. The foreign government behind the operation, the documents confirmed, was the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

For Altikriti, the UAE’s hostility toward him came as no surprise. A prominent public voice who founded the London-based Cordoba Foundation think tank, formerly led the Muslim Association of Britain, and served as a senior official with the Muslim Council of Britain, Altikriti has long been an outspoken critic of authoritarian rule across the Gulf region. He publicly supported the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings, condemned autocratic governance in Gulf states, and repeatedly advocated for imprisoned Emirati political reformers, stoking official anger in Abu Dhabi.

While suspicion of UAE interest had lingered for years, seeing concrete evidence of a sustained surveillance operation on British soil hit Altikriti with unexpected force, he told Middle East Eye in an interview. As the initial shock faded, one overriding question pushed to the forefront of his concerns: what did British authorities know about this operation?

Altikriti says he has no trouble accepting that the UAE would target him for his political views. What he cannot reconcile is how a foreign government could run an extensive surveillance campaign inside the United Kingdom without British knowledge—or with British knowledge that was kept hidden from him. “If they knew, why is it that they didn’t tell me or at least warn me or protect me?” he asked. “Or if they didn’t know, that in itself would be a catastrophe in its own right.”

As a British citizen who has never been charged with a crime, questioned by authorities, or broken UK law, Altikriti says he holds a clear expectation that the British state will protect his basic rights. “I expect that my civil liberties would be protected, my freedom would be guaranteed,” he said. That core freedom, he argues, includes the right to criticize foreign governments and voice political opinions without being targeted by a foreign power on UK soil. “I would be guaranteed safety, at least, if nothing else, to air my views, to criticize whomever I wish to criticize whilst constantly throughout my entire life abiding by the law.”

The alleged surveillance, he argues, raises far broader questions about the unregulated scope of foreign influence in British public life. “A rogue, dictatorial, authoritarian regime such as the United Arab Emirates could actually reach into our society and infringe upon the civil liberties and freedoms and rights of citizens as well as organisations,” he said. Altikriti notes that the UAE has also targeted other British organizations, including his own Cordoba Foundation, through defamation and coordinated attacks, meaning his experience is not an isolated incident. The core systemic question, he says, is whether foreign governments can freely target British citizens and groups inside the UK—and what accountability the British state will demand in response.

Looking back to the 2010s Osman Notice he received, Altikriti says the vague, incomplete warning was deeply inadequate, particularly when he was raising two young children at the time. Police told him his life was at risk, but offered zero details about the source of the threat or what precautions he could take to stay safe. “Besides just handing me this Osman notice, as though this is a box that we’ve ticked, nothing whatsoever,” he said. That experience has gained new gravity in light of the leaked surveillance documents, he says, noting it is now clear British police were aware some threat was active. If the threat was severe enough to issue an Osman Notice, he argues, it is unacceptable that he was given no further context or protection. “The police not telling me that there is an actual threat, there is someone who is actually plotting against my life, I think is just absolutely unbelievable.”

Altikriti says he has never doubted why he drew the UAE’s attention: his long-held political views put him in direct conflict with the Gulf state’s ruling leadership. When the Arab Spring swept the Middle East and North Africa in 2011, Altikriti emerged as a high-profile supporter of pro-democracy movements across Egypt, Tunisia and other regional states, a stance that represented a direct threat to the political standing of Gulf monarchies including the UAE. “They found that extremely threatening to their own standing,” he said. The UAE made its displeasure clear in the years that followed, withdrawing invitations for Altikriti to visit and having embassy officials warn him against returning to the country. “So the fact that I’m in their bad books is of no surprise to me.”

What did shock him, he says, was the extreme extent of the UAE’s alleged actions on UK soil. For more than a decade, dozens of Emirati pro-democracy reformers have remained imprisoned in the UAE, and Altikriti’s public advocacy for their freedom further angered Abu Dhabi. “The fact that I have stood by them, the fact that I’ve spoken up for them as much as I can has angered the United Arab Emirates,” he said. “And apparently they want to silence me at any particular cost.”

Altikriti’s concerns ultimately circle back to the deep existing alliance between the UK and the UAE. The two countries maintain extensive economic, political and security ties, and the UAE has built a substantial public and economic footprint across the UK, with major investments in British football clubs, major sporting events, cultural institutions, financial markets and banking. Altikriti argues the question is not whether the UK should cut ties entirely with the UAE, but whether Britain should set clear boundaries for that relationship that protect the rights of its own citizens.

“The fact that the United Arab Emirates is one of our strongest allies is unbecoming of our own government, of our own society,” he said. He argues that the UK’s close relationship with Abu Dhabi should not come at the cost of British citizens’ fundamental rights. “If the government truly believes in freedom and civil liberties and human rights and the like, then they should take a different stand.”

That different stand, he says, must start with a full public investigation—one that examines not just the specific surveillance operation targeting him, but the full extent of UAE influence over British politics and foreign policy. Altikriti acknowledges his own experience is minor when compared to far more severe human rights abuses the UAE has been accused of committing against dissidents at home and abroad. “My story… pales in comparison to the crimes committed by the UAE regime,” he said. But that, he insists, is no reason to dismiss what happened on UK soil; it is all the more reason to examine the case closely.

Altikriti says he hopes UK political leadership will confront the issue head-on, and he has specifically called on Prime Minister Keir Starmer to challenge the status quo of the bilateral relationship. “We could be friends,” Altikriti said. “But friends do not come without conditions.” Those conditions, he argues, are straightforward: the UAE must respect British citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms, and end all covert interference in British domestic life.

For years, claims that the UAE targeted Altikriti could be dismissed or debunked, he says. But the leaked documents, which include direct photographs, internal correspondence, and surveillance team communications, have proven the operation was real. The reason for the targeting is no longer a mystery; Altikriti already understands why he was in the UAE’s crosshairs. The only question that remains unanswered is what the British government knew—and what it will do now. “Either they support the United Arab Emirates in its dictatorial ways, and as such they should come forth and say so,” he said. “Or if they truly believe in freedom and civil liberties and human rights and the like, then they should take a different stand.”

The annual Ulchi Freedom Shield joint military exercises between South Korea and the United States, which included participation from 18,000 South Korean troops and 11 additional allied nations, came to an abrupt and unplanned end on Friday, with only half of the scheduled maneuvers completed. The halt came just days after former U.S. President Donald Trump made a surprise announcement that he had ordered the Pentagon to slash the size of the drills dramatically. Trump’s decision, which framed the annual exercises as “inappropriate and hostile” to North Korea and an unnecessary financial drain on the United States, caught key U.S. allies completely off guard.

South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Hyun attempted to frame the early termination as a joint, mutually agreed-upon call, but publicly admitted that Seoul officials had no advance warning of Trump’s plan to scale back the drills. For Seoul, the joint exercises have long been viewed as a core pillar of the U.S.-South Korea alliance, a tangible demonstration of American commitment to defending South Korea against potential aggression from Pyongyang. While South Korea has voluntarily agreed to pause or scale down drills in the past to create space for diplomatic outreach to North Korea, Trump’s sudden, unilateral decision has severely eroded Seoul’s confidence in Washington as a reliable security partner, according to Jo Bee-yun, Senior Research Fellow at the Atlantic Council.

The unilateral move has also sparked anxiety among other U.S. regional allies including Taiwan and Japan, both of which rely heavily on American security guarantees to counter growing regional threats. Experts warn there is now widespread fear that Trump could go even further: drawing down the 27,000 U.S. troops permanently stationed in South Korea, or even abandoning the decades-long U.S. policy goal of complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, all without consulting the South Korean government.

The Korean Peninsula remains technically in a state of war, as no formal peace treaty was signed following the 1950–1953 Korean War. Until 2024, North Korean ideology centered reunification with the South as a core goal, a goal that leader Kim Jong Un formally abandoned that year. Despite the shift in reunification policy, Pyongyang has not eased its threats against Seoul. Just days before this year’s exercises began, North Korea launched ballistic missiles toward Japanese territory, repeated warnings that it would exercise its right to use nuclear weapons if threatened, and launched additional missile tests on Thursday, just one day before the drills were halted early.

Beyond security disagreements, the Trump administration has increasingly tangled South Korea in overlapping trade and foreign policy disputes. Trump has openly criticized Seoul for refusing to join U.S. military action against Iran, and has repeatedly complained that the $1 billion annual contribution South Korea makes to cover the cost of hosting U.S. troops is insufficient. Additional grievances include claims that Seoul has dragged its feet on fulfilling a pledged $350 billion investment in the U.S. and discriminates against American companies operating in South Korea. The merging of trade disputes and national security concerns has led growing numbers of analysts and policymakers in Seoul to call for South Korea to reduce its long-standing dependence on the U.S. for security.

Cheong Seong-chang, vice president of the Seoul-based Sejong Institute think tank and a prominent advocate for South Korea developing its own independent nuclear deterrent, argues that while Seoul should maintain its alliance with the U.S., it must “take steps to acquire its own nuclear deterrence” to counter growing North Korean threats. While a majority of the South Korean public now supports developing an independent nuclear arsenal, the current South Korean government has maintained that acquiring nuclear weapons is unnecessary, and would damage the country’s existing network of security alliances. That position could shift rapidly if the U.S. continues to reduce its security footprint in East Asia, analysts note.

South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, who has prioritized repairing inter-Korean relations, has sought to frame Trump’s decision as a positive step for regional diplomacy. In a post on X, Lee praised the move, writing, “I believe this was a bold decision that is the result of your deep consideration to achieve peace.” Lee also pledged to increase South Korea’s defense spending, and said he “fully agrees” with Trump’s position that South Korea should take greater responsibility for its own national security.

This is not the first time Trump has taken unexpected unilateral action on Korean Peninsula diplomacy during his presidency. Back in 2018, Seoul worked behind the scenes to facilitate the first ever meeting between a sitting U.S. president and Kim Jong Un, viewing Trump’s unorthodox approach to diplomacy as both a risk and an opportunity. Immediately after that 2018 summit, Trump suddenly announced a full suspension of joint U.S.-South Korea drills. A second planned summit in 2019 collapsed without any agreement after Kim refused to dismantle all of North Korea’s nuclear facilities. While Trump and Kim held a brief, widely publicized photo-op meeting at Panmunjom in the Demilitarized Zone later that year, no substantive nuclear negotiations have taken place between the two sides since.

It was South Korea that bore the worst consequences of the failed 2019 diplomatic push. North Korea demolished the inter-Korean liaison office on its territory, cut off all official communication with Seoul, passed a new law punishing the distribution of South Korean media with the death penalty, and formally codified the right to use nuclear weapons in its national constitution.

Trump has repeatedly insisted he shares a warm “great relationship” with Kim, telling reporters Wednesday, “He likes me.” But Kim Yo Jong, Kim Jong Un’s powerful sister and top advisor, issued a public statement casting doubt on that claim. She said North Korea had no knowledge of any recent contact between Kim and Trump, adding that the claim “must be the only thing I am unaware of in our foreign policy.” She also reaffirmed North Korea’s long-held position that it will never abandon its nuclear arsenal, arguing that the country’s nuclear program maintains regional military balance and stability. On the scaling back of the joint drills, Kim Yo Jong said the move “doesn’t merit our country’s interest nor comment,” and added that it does nothing to change the exercises’ “hostile and offensive nature,” according to state media reports.

While Trump has announced he expects to meet Kim Jong Un again later this year, few regional experts believe another summit will produce any meaningful progress. Kim has strengthened strategic ties with both Moscow and Beijing in recent years, with North Korea now supplying billions of dollars worth of artillery shells and missiles to Russia for its war in Ukraine, as well as an estimated 13,000 combat troops. Though North Korean troops have suffered thousands of casualties in Ukraine, they have gained substantial frontline combat experience, particularly in drone warfare, that has strengthened the country’s overall military capability. North Korea’s key non-negotiable demand for any new summit is that the U.S. formally accepts it as a nuclear-armed state, a concession Trump has not publicly indicated he is willing to make, leaving little incentive for Pyongyang to negotiate.

The early halt to the drills is already a major strategic concession for North Korea, and also aligns with long-held Chinese objections to the exercises, which Beijing views as a threat to its own regional security. Analysts warn the move could open the door to further demands from Pyongyang at a time when North Korea is militarily stronger than ever. North Korea has conducted six nuclear tests, and has developed intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the continental United States. For South Korea, which faces a persistent and growing threat from the North, the U.S. alliance remains a matter of survival. “There isn’t much South Korea can do to defend itself against the North on its own,” Jo Bee-yun notes, making the U.S. alliance “a matter of life-and-death.”

Former Pakistani Prime Minister and legendary cricket captain Imran Khan, who has remained behind bars on politically disputed charges since August 2023, has been transferred to a leading private hospital in Islamabad’s capital city to receive long-delayed medical care, following a binding order from the country’s Supreme Court.

Local Pakistani media outlets confirmed that Khan was moved from Adiala Jail, located in Punjab’s Rawalpindi, to Shifa International Hospital early this week, escorted by a heavy contingent of security personnel to maintain order and prevent unauthorized gatherings. The transfer was carried out in strict compliance with a 48-hour deadline issued by a three-judge Supreme Court panel, which mandated that the 73-year-old opposition leader receive a comprehensive medical evaluation from independent specialists.

Khan, who has been at the center of Pakistan’s political turmoil since he was removed from office via a no-confidence vote in 2022, has faced more than 100 separate legal charges since his ousting, ranging from corruption and illegal sale of state gifts to leaking classified state information. All charges have been consistently dismissed by Khan and his legal team as coordinated political retribution designed to remove him from the country’s political landscape. Most recently, late last year, both Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi were sentenced to 17 years of imprisonment in a separate corruption case related to state gifts.

For months, Khan’s legal team has raised urgent alarms over his declining health behind bars, claiming that prison authorities have repeatedly blocked him from accessing specialized medical care that he requires. The most pressing concern has been severe deterioration of Khan’s eyesight: in February, his legal team told the court that Khan only retains 15% of his vision in his right eye, a decline that was preventable if authorities had approved a specialist examination in a timely manner. Pakistani government officials have disputed these allegations, claiming that Khan has been provided appropriate care while in custody.

In its written ruling, the three-judge panel emphasized its core constitutional and legal duty to protect the fundamental rights of all prisoners, regardless of their charges. “We are mindful of the constitutional and legal obligation… to safeguard the life, health, dignity and security of the prisoner,” the order read. The court also specified that a qualified eye specialist must lead the medical evaluation and any subsequent treatment for Khan during his hospital stay.

In a joint appeal to avoid unrest, both the Supreme Court judges and leaders of Khan’s political party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), have warned Khan’s supporters against gathering in large groups outside Shifa International Hospital. Both parties noted that any unapproved public assembly would constitute a direct breach of the Supreme Court’s order, and could put Khan’s access to care at risk.

Khan’s imprisonment in August 2023 sparked massive nationwide protests across Pakistan by his thousands of supporters, which were ultimately met with a harsh crackdown by incumbent government authorities. Even more than a year after being jailed, Khan remains one of the most influential and popular political figures in Pakistan, with a large, dedicated base of supporters that cuts across regional and demographic lines.

The United Kingdom has issued a sharp rebuke of extreme, violence-inciting comments from Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, labeling his calls for the nightly targeted killing of 30 to 40 Palestinians in Gaza as “abhorrent” and “dehumanizing” in an exclusive statement to independent news outlet Middle East Eye (MEE).

In public remarks made earlier this week, Ben Gvir not only advocated for mass nightly assassinations in Gaza, he expanded the scope of his call to include Palestinians who do not pose an immediate security threat. “There are people there who are not worthy of life. They shouldn’t live. They’re not even people,” the far-right Israeli cabinet minister added. He also openly boasted about constructing a purpose-built facility to execute Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, claims MEE brought to the attention of the British Foreign Office for comment.

A senior Foreign Office spokesperson responded to MEE’s inquiry making clear that the UK views language that dehumanizes an entire people and open calls for violence from a sitting Israeli government minister as completely unacceptable. “These remarks… serve only to further inflame an already catastrophic situation,” the spokesperson added. The UK is calling on the Israeli government to take formal action against ministers who use rhetoric that fuels intercommunal violence, and to crack down on rising violence perpetrated by Israeli settlers against Palestinian communities in the occupied territories.

This is not the first time Ben Gvir has faced British repercussions for his anti-Palestinian incitement: he is already one of two sitting Israeli cabinet ministers, alongside far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, to be sanctioned by the UK for inciting violence against Palestinians. The spokesperson reaffirmed the UK’s ongoing commitment to working toward a long-term sustainable peace between Israelis and Palestinians, including an urgent end to the widespread humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza and equal security for all people living in the region.

The condemnation of Ben Gvir comes as the UK government prepares to roll out a package of new policy measures targeting Israeli settlement activity in September, MEE has previously reported. Senior UK officials, particularly Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, are pushing for stronger punitive action, and Miliband has held extensive consultations with civil society groups to shape the upcoming policies. One of the most anticipated measures is a ban on imports of goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements built on occupied Palestinian land.

Miliband publicly confirmed this week that the UK will announce formal measures against Israel over its latest settlement expansion plan in the E1 corridor, a strategically sensitive area east of Jerusalem that, if fully developed, would cut the occupied West Bank geographically in half and make the creation of a contiguous, independent Palestinian state impossible.

On Tuesday, Israeli authorities opened public tenders for the construction of 1,234 new settlement housing units in the southern portion of the E1 plan, moving one of the most controversial and long-delayed settlement projects out of the planning phase and into active implementation. Miliband said he directly conveyed to Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar that the Israeli government must immediately halt the E1 development, withdraw the construction tender, and end all settlement expansion across the occupied West Bank.

“The impact of settler violence and terrorism has been catastrophic for Palestinian communities. Settlement expansion and attempts to create irreversible divisions on the ground threaten peace, security and the prospects for a viable Palestinian state,” Miliband said.

In a dramatic reversal of its previous Middle East foreign policy, Colombia’s new far-right administration has implemented a series of swift, pro-Israel policy changes headed by a mutual visa waiver agreement that will take effect for citizens of both nations starting September 1. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs made the announcement public this Thursday, following high-level discussions between Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar and Colombian Foreign Minister Omar Bula Escobar.

The visa liberalization deal comes at a moment when Israeli travelers, including large numbers of active-duty Israeli soldiers, are facing growing international scrutiny and public backlash across much of the globe over Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza and its long-standing apartheid regime in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. The agreement removes a key barrier for Israeli visitors seeking entry to Colombia, opening the South American nation to far more Israeli tourism than previous policies allowed.

This visa waiver is just the latest step in President Abelardo de la Espriella’s systematic rollback of the independent foreign policy forged by his predecessor, Gustavo Petro. Under Petro’s leadership, Colombia made international headlines in May 2024 when it severed full diplomatic relations with Israel, with Petro explicitly labeling Israel’s military operation in Gaza as both a genocide and a crime against humanity. Petro’s administration also threw its full support behind international legal efforts to hold Israeli leadership accountable for actions in Gaza, including the ongoing genocide case brought before the International Court of Justice. Currently, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also faces an active arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity stemming from the Gaza conflict.

Since de la Espriella took office on August 7, his government has moved at breakneck speed to reverse every pillar of Petro’s Middle East policy. As early as July, before he formally assumed office, Sa’ar and Bula Escobar met in Washington D.C. to agree on a full roadmap to restore full diplomatic and economic ties, exchange ambassadorial appointments, and expand cross-border cooperation across multiple sectors. The new Colombian administration has also publicly announced plans to open a full Colombian embassy in Jerusalem, a move that deviates from the long-standing international norm of locating embassies in Tel Aviv ahead of a final negotiated resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In a further break with previous policy, Bogota has officially recognized Israel’s claim of sovereignty over the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, making Colombia only the second country in the world after the United States to endorse Israel’s 1981 annexation of the territory. Israel seized the majority of the Golan Heights from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War, and formally annexed the region 14 years later. The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 497 immediately after the annexation, which explicitly declared the move null and void and without any binding international legal effect, a ruling that has been reaffirmed by the global community repeatedly in the decades since.

Colombia has also shifted its position on another long-running territorial dispute, recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over the disputed territory of Western Sahara. This move abandons Petro’s administration’s previous support for the right to self-determination of the Sahrawi people, and aligns Colombian foreign policy with shared priorities of both Israel and the United States.

Taken together, the visa waiver agreement, the plan for a Jerusalem embassy, and the recognition of Israeli and Moroccan territorial annexations add up to a complete foreign policy realignment that has unfolded in less than two weeks. These rapid policy changes have already repositioned Colombia as one of Israel’s closest political allies in Latin America, even as Israel continues its military offensive in Gaza and pushes forward with the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.

This report was originally published by Middle East Eye, an outlet that provides independent, in-depth coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and surrounding regions.

ISLAMABAD – In a development tied to the legal and medical status of imprisoned former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, a senior cabinet official confirmed Thursday that the ruling government stands ready to comply with a Supreme Court order mandating a formal medical evaluation for the jailed ex-leader, and is open to moving Khan to a private medical facility or even abroad for treatment if sufficient care cannot be provided through public government institutions. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Tariq Fazal Chaudhry outlined the government’s position, noting that officials had submitted a request to the Supreme Court seeking clarification on whether the medical accommodations granted to Khan would apply exclusively to the former prime minister, or if similar provisions could be extended to other incarcerated individuals across the country. Chaudhry also emphasized in a post on the social platform X that the government’s clarification request was not an act of defiance or an attempt to delay the court’s order, and that the administration remained committed to full compliance with the ruling. The minister’s public statement came just hours after security forces were reinforced at a major Islamabad hospital, as political observers and media outlets anticipated that Khan would be transferred to the facility imminently. Dozens of reporters have gathered at the hospital site, waiting to capture visual footage of the former leader, who has not made any public appearance since he was first imprisoned on corruption charges in 2023. This latest exchange between the government and the Supreme Court follows a request from Pakistani authorities Wednesday to review or fully withdraw the court’s order requiring Khan to undergo a medical examination at a private hospital selected by Khan himself. The Supreme Court rejected the government’s request on procedural technical grounds, instructing officials to complete all required formal documentation before resubmitting any application. Per the terms of the original Supreme Court ruling, Khan must be transported to the designated hospital by midnight Thursday, where a multi-doctor medical board that includes Khan’s own personal physician will conduct the evaluation. The Pakistani government’s longstanding policy holds that incarcerated people receive routine medical care directly within prison facilities, and are only transferred to public government-run hospitals when their condition requires more advanced intervention. Public concerns about Khan’s overall health first surged in late January, when members of his family announced that he had lost approximately 85% of his vision in his right eye. The claim was immediately disputed by government officials, who later released a statement asserting that Khan had recovered roughly 70% of the vision in the affected eye and that his medical status was steadily improving. A former international cricket star who pivoted to national politics, Khan was removed from office via a parliamentary no-confidence vote in April 2022. He has remained behind bars since 2023 after being convicted on multiple corruption-related charges stemming from investigations launched following his ouster.

A recent Israeli airstrike on the Abu al-Duhur military airbase in northern Syria, located just 70 kilometers from the Turkish border, has ignited a sharp diplomatic standoff between Jerusalem and Ankara, reigniting long-simmering regional tensions that diplomatic efforts had sought to ease. On Thursday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz issued a thinly veiled warning to Turkey in a public social media statement, accusing Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of leading his country into risky, destabilizing military actions across Syria. Katz emphasized that Israel would not permit any foreign or regional actor to jeopardize its national security, urging Erdogan to rein in his frequent anti-Israel rhetoric instead of challenging Israel’s commitment to defending its territorial and strategic interests. Jerusalem’s core allegation centers on claims that Syria was on the brink of breaking a long-standing security status quo negotiated with Israel by allowing Turkish military personnel to deploy permanently at the Abu al-Duhur facility. However, both Ankara and Damascus have forcefully rejected these claims, offering consistent, detailed accounts that contradict Israel’s justification for the strike. The Turkish Ministry of Defense issued an official statement categorically denying that any Turkish military forces were present at the airbase either before or during the “unacceptable” Israeli attack, calling for an immediate end to what it described as reckless Israeli military incursions into Syrian territory. While Syrian officials confirmed that a small Turkish technical team had been deployed to the base to repair damaged infrastructure including the runway and air traffic control tower, they stressed no uniformed Turkish military personnel were stationed at the site. The last of the reconstruction crew had departed the base two full days before the Israeli strike, according to senior Syrian officials. Turkish authorities clarified that their work in Syria is focused on helping rebuild the Syrian military’s infrastructure and capabilities under the framework of the “single army” principle, which supports the development of a strong, sovereign Syrian military capable of defending the country’s own borders. Turkish officials emphasized that these efforts are not targeted at Israel, nor do they include plans for a permanent Turkish military deployment at any Syrian base. Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani echoed this denial in an interview with Axios earlier this week, stating that he had explicitly communicated to Israeli officials that there were no plans to host a permanent Turkish military presence at the site, which is being rehabilitated exclusively for use by the Syrian Air Force. This latest exchange of strikes and accusations has renewed open friction between Turkey and Israel, despite a series of high-level diplomatic talks held in 2023 that resulted in the creation of a dedicated bilateral diplomatic hotline designed to prevent accidental military clashes and miscommunication. Turkish officials speaking to Middle East Eye claim that Israel deliberately chose not to activate this hotline ahead of the strike, in a deliberate attempt to provoke the Ankara government. Diplomatic sources in Ankara also noted that U.S. authorities appear to have tipped off Turkish officials about the impending strike, providing clarity on why Israeli aircraft were operating near the Turkish border and easing immediate concerns of an intentional attack on Turkish assets. The Turkish presidency has further framed the Israeli strike as a politically motivated move by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is campaigning ahead of Israel’s general election scheduled for October. Netanyahu pushed back on this narrative, confirming that Israel had issued explicit warnings to Syria ahead of the strike to prevent any Turkish deployment to the base, telling reporters “Our message was very clear: Don’t. I guess they didn’t quite understand the message.” For its part, Damascus has rejected Israel’s justification as entirely illegitimate, with al-Shaibani reiterating that Israel had no right to carry out the bombing on sovereign Syrian territory. In the wake of the strike, U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Syria and Iraq Tom Barrack told reporters from Reuters that Washington is currently working to establish a formal deconfliction mechanism that would bring together Israel, Turkey, and Syria to prevent future military miscalculations. Analysis from Israeli media, quoting a senior Syrian source close to the Damascus government, suggests that the strike is likely to backfire on Israeli strategic goals. The source noted that while Syria does not seek an expanded permanent foreign military presence on its territory, repeated Israeli threats and military incursions are pushing the Syrian government to deepen its strategic alignment with Turkey. “The Israeli government is getting the opposite result of what it hopes to achieve,” the source added.