Fresh clashes break out in Syria as the interim government struggles to ease tensions
In the north, government-affiliated fighters confronted Kurdish-led forces who control much of the region, while in the southern province of Sweida, they clashed with Druze armed groups.
The outbreaks come at a time when Syria's interim authorities are trying to maintain a tense ceasefire in Sweida province after clashes with Druze factions last month, and to implement an agreement with the U.S.-backed, Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces that would reintegrate large swaths of northeastern Syria with the rest of the country.
The Syrian government under interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa has been struggling to consolidate control since he led a surprise insurgency that ousted former President Bashar Assad in December, ending the Assad family's decades-long autocratic rule. Political opponents and ethnic and religious minorities have been suspicious of Sharaa's de facto Islamist rule and cooperation with affiliated fighters that come from militant groups.
State state television said clashes between government forces and militias belonging to the Druze religious minority rocked the southern province of Sweida on Saturday after Druze factions attacked Syrian security forces, killing at least one member. The state-run Alikhbaria channel cited an anonymous security official who said the ceasefire has been broken. The Defense Ministry has not issued any formal statement.
Meanwhile, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based war monitor, said in addition to the member of the security forces killed, one Druze was killed and at least nine others were wounded in the clashes that took place in the in the western part of Sweida province. The Observatory said the clashes took place at the strategic Tal al-Hadeed heights that overlook Daraa province next door.
State media says that aid convoys continue to enter Sweida city as a part of a tense truce after over a week of violent clashes in July between Druze militias and armed Bedouin clans backed by government forces. However, humanitarian conditions remain dire, and residents of Sweida have called for the road into the city to be fully opened, saying the aid that has come in is not enough.
The clashes that displaced tens of thousands of people came after months of tensions between Damascus and Sweida. The fighting led to a series of targeted sectarian attacks against the Druze minority, who are now skeptical of peaceful coexistence. Druze militias retaliated against Bedouin communities who largely lived in western areas of Sweida province, displacing many to neighboring Daraa.
Elsewhere, in the northern Aleppo province, government-affiliated fighters clashed with the SDF. The Defense Ministry said three civilians and four soldiers were wounded after the SDF launched a barrage of rockets near the city of Manbij 'in an irresponsible way and for unknown reasons."
SDF spokesperson Farhad Shami on the other hand said the group was responding to shelling by 'undisciplined factions' within government forces on Deir Haffar, an eastern city in the same province.
The eastern part of Aleppo province straddles areas controlled by the government and by the SDF. Though the two are slowly trying to implement a ceasefire and agreement that would integrate the areas under Damascus, tensions remain.
'The Ministry of Defense's attempts to distort facts and mislead public opinion do not contribute to security or stability,' Shami said in a post on X, formerly Twitter.
Israeli forces carry out raids bordering annexed Golan Heights
In Quneitra province, in the south, the Israeli military announced it conducted another ground operation in the area that borders the Israeli-annexed Golan Heights. It said its troops questioned several suspects they accuse of involvement in weapons trafficking in the village of Hader, and raided four areas where they found weapons being trafficked.
Since Assad's ouster, Israel has conducted numerous strikes and military operations in southern Syria, saying its forces are taking out militant groups that they suspect could harm Israelis and residents in the Golan Heights.
Damascus has been critical of Israel's military activity, and the two sides have been trying to reach a security arrangement through U.S.-mediated talks. Syria has repeatedly said it does not intend to take military action against Israel.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
25 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
In Ecuador, environmentalists worry Noboa is unwinding nation's green reputation
BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — When Ecuadorians voted two years ago to block oil drilling in Yasuni National Park, it was a triumph for environmentalists seeking to protect one of the most biodiverse places on Earth. And it was in character for a country that was first to enshrine the 'rights of nature' in its constitution and is home to parts of the Amazon rain forest and the Galápagos Islands. But recent moves by President Daniel Noboa have alarmed environmentalists and Indigenous leaders who say the country's green reputation — and its protections for civil society — are unraveling. Noboa's administration has moved to scrap the country's independent Environment Ministry. It's pushing legislation ostensibly aimed at choking off illegal mining, but which critics fear will devastate nonprofits. The National Assembly — pressed by Noboa — approved a law last month allowing private and foreign entities to co‑manage conservation zones that critics say weakens protections and threatens Indigenous land rights. And Ecuador just signed a new oil deal with Peru that could accelerate drilling in sensitive areas. Natalia Greene, an environmental advocate with the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, said Noboa's decision to fold the Environment Ministry into the Ministry of Energy and Mines will speed up mining just as Ecuador is grappling with a surge in illegal gold mining tied to organized crime. She called it 'like putting the wolf in charge of the sheep.' 'The government's intention is very clear — to be a machine gun of extractivism,' she said. Noboa has defended the ministry moves and other changes as necessary to cut costs, reduce bureaucracy and address Ecuador's financial crisis. Officials argue that consolidating ministries will make decision‑making more efficient. Neither the Ministry of Energy and Mines nor Noboa's office responded to questions from The Associated Press. In July, Peru and Ecuador signed a deal for Ecuador's state oil company to sell crude directly to Petroperu and link its southern Amazon reserves to Peru's Norperuano pipeline, with drilling eyed for January 2026. Environmental groups say it could fast‑track drilling in sensitive areas while skirting safeguards and Indigenous consultation. Peru's Achuar, Wampis and Chapra nations denounced the plan in a public letter, saying it would gut long-standing protections that require communities be consulted before projects move forward on their lands. They warned the pipeline already averages 146 spills a year and that expanding it would be 'a grave threat to the Amazon and to Indigenous livelihoods.' 'They are going to violate all our rights to enter our territories and extract the resources they want," said Nemo Guiquita, a Waorani leader with the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon. She said Indigenous communities fear a surge of oil and mining projects across ancestral lands, threatening both ecosystems and livelihoods. 'There will be a weakening of environmental protection,' she said. 'There will be a lot of deforestation, contamination of rivers and destruction of the ecosystem, which is vital for our existence as Indigenous peoples.' Ricardo Buitrón, president of the Quito‑based environmental group Accion Ecologica, noted that the changes come just months after Ecuadorians voted to keep oil in the ground in Yasuni, a decision the government has yet to fully enforce. 'We have gone back decades,' he said. 'A development model is being prioritized that does not care about protecting ecosystems, but about extracting natural resources to the maximum.' Fears that proposed law will harm non-governmental organizations The proposed law that has alarmed nonprofits is formally called the Organic Law for the Control of Irregular Capital Flows. But activists call it the 'anti-NGO' law, saying it could impose heavy burdens on nonprofits and force many to close. The measure applies to more than 71,000 organizations nationwide, giving them six months to re‑register with the government, submit detailed financial records and disclose foreign funding sources. The government says the law is needed to prevent money laundering and political destabilization. Critics warn it could instead silence dissent by placing organizations under sweeping controls. Noboa submitted the bill to the National Assembly on July 29, giving lawmakers until Aug. 28 to act before it automatically becomes law. 'This has been hard for us,' Guiquita said. 'Practically, Indigenous organizations live mostly from donations and NGOs. The government is weakening us in every space.' 'It represents a threat because they could dissolve us under any pretext,' Buitrón said. 'This reminds us of what we already lived through a decade ago, when they tried to shut down some organizations in the country.' Regional and global stakes Kevin Koenig of Amazon Watch, a U.S.-based nonprofit that advocates for Indigenous rights and environmental protection in the Amazon, said the country's changes are part of a wider rollback. 'We are seeing a sweeping package of regressive reforms that are rolling back environmental protections, Indigenous rights guarantees, and threatening basic civil liberties like the freedom of speech and assembly,' he said. 'What it suggests is the massive expansion of oil and mining, particularly in the Amazon region.' Koenig said the changes send troubling signals ahead of COP30, the United Nations climate summit set for Brazil later this year. Similar trends are unfolding in Peru and El Salvador, where governments have limited environmental oversight, and in Brazil, where licensing for Amazon projects has been weakened. Mobilizing resistance Civil society groups are mobilizing against the changes. Greene said organizations have reactivated the Asamblea Nacional Socioambiental, a national coalition of environmental and social movements, and are planning legal challenges, demonstrations and appeals to international bodies. Many fear Ecuador's role as a global green pioneer is unraveling. 'Our only crime here has been protecting our territory, protecting our traditions, protecting our way of life,' Guiquita said. ___
Politico
26 minutes ago
- Politico
Gov. Greg Abbott's options to force a redistricting vote are more limited than they appear
'Come and take it,' dared state Rep. Gene Wu, the Texas House Democratic Caucus leader, in an appearance Monday morning on CNN. Wu declared Abbott's threat to be 'all bluster.' The governor's threat is rooted in a nonbinding legal opinion issued in 2021 by Attorney General Ken Paxton, amid the last attempt by Democrats to break quorum. Paxton, notably, took no position on whether breaking quorum is constitutional. The republican AG also declined to say whether fleeing Democrats could or should be removed from office. Rather, he called it a 'fact question for a court' that he said was beyond the scope of his office to decide. He noted instead that he could file what are known as 'quo warranto actions' in court, asking a judge to determine whether the missing lawmakers had officially vacated their seats. How would a judge make that call? Paxton said he wasn't certain. 'We find no constitutional provision or statute establishing an exhaustive list for why a vacancy occurs or the grounds under which an officer may be judicially removed from office,' he wrote. How long could it take Abbott to force the Legislature back into session? This is the most uncertain aspect of Abbott's gambit. Paxton's office would need to file 'quo warranto' actions in various judicial districts for more than 50 fleeing lawmakers. Judges may take up these cases on different timelines and reach different conclusions, requiring appeals that could wind their way to the Texas Supreme Court. Paxton acknowledged in an interview with conservative podcaster Benny Johnson that the timeline would be problematic. 'The challenge is that [it] wouldn't necessarily be an immediate answer, right?' he said. 'We'd have to go through the court process, and we'd have to file … in districts that are not friendly to Republicans,' Paxton said. 'So it's a challenge because every, every district would be different. We'd have to go sue in every legislator's home district to try to execute on that idea.' And even if Abbott and Paxton win a clean sweep in removing the Democrats from office, it would then require a time-intensive process of calling special elections to fill the vacancies — and guaranteeing that the winners of those elections also remain in the state as well. That timing matters when the GOP-led redistricting plan is on a fixed timeline: A new map must be adopted by early December in order to be in place for the 2026 midterm cycle. That would require Democrats to remain out of state for about four months while they accumulate $500-per-day civil fines. The current special Legislative session is slated to end on Aug. 19, but Abbott could call another one. Could the Democrats be charged with crimes? Abbott's letter, though sharply critical, stopped short of actually accusing Democrats of breaking the law. Rather, he suggested that if outsiders are helping them fundraise to cover their fines, they might run afoul of bribery laws. 'It would be bribery if any lawmaker took money to perform or to refuse to perform an act in the legislature,' Abbott said in a Fox News interview Monday. 'And the reports are these legislators have both sought money and offered money to skip the vote, to leave the legislature, to take a legislative act.' If Texas prosecutors in fact level any such charges, then Abbott's authority to return them grows stronger. He could then ask courts in Texas and Illinois to seek the return of the missing lawmakers. 'I will use my full extradition authority to demand the return to Texas of any potential out-of-state felons,' he said in his Sunday statement. Liz Crampton contributed reporting.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judges question whether Trump tariffs are authorized by emergency powers
WASHINGTON - U.S. appeals court judges sharply questioned on July 31 whether President Donald Trump's tariffs were justified by the president's emergency powers, after a lower court said he exceeded his authority with sweeping levies on imported goods. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., is considering the legality of "reciprocal" tariffs that Trump imposed on a broad range of U.S. trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. In hearing arguments in two cases brought by five small U.S. businesses and 12 Democratic-led U.S. states, judges pressed government lawyer Brett Shumate to explain how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, gave Trump the power to impose tariffs. More: Trump's final stumbling blocks for countries hoping to avoid tariff hikes: Live updates Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs. "IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs, doesn't even mention them," one of the judges said. Shumate said that the law allows for "extraordinary" authority in an emergency, including the ability to stop imports completely. He said IEEPA authorizes tariffs because it allows a president to "regulate" imports in a crisis. The states and businesses challenging the tariffs argued that they are not permissible under IEEPA and that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, and not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the businesses, said the government's justification for the tariffs amounted to "a breathtaking claim to power that no president has asserted in years. The arguments - one day before Trump plans to increase tariff rates on imported goods from nearly all U.S. trading partners - mark the first test before a U.S. appeals court of the scope of his tariff authority. The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, wielding them aggressively in his second term as leverage in trade negotiations and to push back against what he has called unfair practices. Trump has said the April tariffs were a response to persistent U.S. trade imbalances and declining U.S. manufacturing power. More: Trade whiplash: Appeals Court allows Trump to keep tariffs while appeal plays out He said the tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop illegal fentanyl from crossing U.S. borders. The countries have denied that claim. "Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again," Trump wrote in a social media post on July 31. "To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today." During the July 31 arguments, Shumate cited a 1975 appeals court decision that authorized President Richard Nixon's across-the board surcharge of 10% on imported merchandise to slow inflation. But that decision added that the president did not have authority to impose "whatever tariff rates he deems desirable." Shumate also said that courts cannot review a president's actions under IEEPA or impose additional limits that are not included in the law. Several judges said that the argument would essentially allow one law, IEEPA, to overwrite all other U.S. laws related to tariffs and imports. The case is being heard by a panel of all of the court's active judges, eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by former Republican presidents. The timing of the court's decision is uncertain, and the losing side will likely appeal quickly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trade negotiations Tariffs are starting to build into a significant revenue source for the federal government, with customs duties in June quadrupling to about $27 billion, a record, and through June have topped $100 billion for the current fiscal year. That income could be crucial to offset lost revenue from Trump's tax bill passed into law earlier this month. But economists say the duties threaten to raise prices for U.S. consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump's on-again, off-again tariff threats have roiled financial markets and disrupted U.S. companies' ability to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. Dan Rayfield, the attorney general of Oregon, one of the states challenging the levies, said that the tariffs were a "regressive tax" that is making household items more expensive. On May 28, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade sided with the Democratic states and small businesses that challenged Trump. It said that the IEEPA did not authorize tariffs related to longstanding trade deficits. The Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the administration's appeal. The case will have no impact on tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as duties on steel and aluminum imports. The president recently announced trade deals that set tariff rates on goods from the European Union and Japan, following smaller trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam. Trump's Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president's tariff authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations, while other Trump officials have said that negotiations have continued with little change after the initial setback in court. Trump has set an August 1 date for higher tariffs on countries that don't negotiate new trade deals. There are at least seven other lawsuits challenging Trump's invocation of IEEPA, including cases brought by other small businesses and California. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled against Trump in one of those cases, and no judge has yet backed Trump's claim of unlimited emergency tariff authority. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: US court to review Trump's power to impose tariffs
