Al Numani receives envoys
MUSCAT: Gen Sultan bin Mohammed al Numani, Minister of the Royal Office, received in his office on Monday Khondker Misbah ul Azim, Ambassador-designate of the People's Republic of Bangladesh to the Sultanate of Oman.
At the outset of the meeting, Gen Sultan al Numani welcomed the Ambassador, wishing him success in performing his duties. The two sides also exchanged friendly talks and ways to develop bilateral relations in a manner that achieves the common interests of the two friendly countries.
The Minister of the Royal Office also received Idris Ahmed Mia, Ambassador of the Syrian Arab Republic to the Sultanate of Oman.
During the meeting, Al Numani and the Syrian Ambassador discussed the latest developments and ways to enhance existing cooperation between the Sultanate of Oman and the Syrian Arab Republic.
The meeting also touched on issues of common concern on the regional and international arenas. — ONA
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
7 days ago
- Observer
Syria president vows church attackers will face justice
DAMASCUS: Syrian interim President Ahmed al Sharaa vowed on Monday that those involved in a "heinous" suicide attack on a Damascus church a day earlier would face justice, calling for unity in the country. The shooting and suicide bombing on Sunday at the church in the working-class Dwelaa district of the Syrian capital killed 25 people and wounded 63, the health ministry said, raising an earlier toll of 22 killed. The authorities said the attacker was affiliated with the IS group. "We promise... that we will work night and day, mobilising all our specialised security agencies, to capture all those who participated in and planned this heinous crime and to bring them to justice," Sharaa said in a statement. The attack "reminds us of the importance of solidarity and unity of the government and the people in facing all that threatens our nation's security and stability", he added. Condemnation has continued to pour in from the international community after the attack — the first of its kind in the Syrian capital since toppled longtime ruler Bashar al Assad in December. — AFP
Observer
19-06-2025
- Observer
Syria completes first global SWIFT transfer since war, governor says
Syria has carried out its first international bank transaction via the SWIFT system since the outbreak of its 14-year civil war, its central bank governor said on Thursday, a milestone in Syria's push to reintegrate into the global financial system. Central bank governor Abdelkader Husriyeh told Reuters in Damascus that a direct commercial transaction had been carried out from a Syrian to an Italian bank on Sunday, and that transactions with U.S. banks could begin within weeks. "The door is now open to more such transactions," he said. Syrian banks were largely cut off from the world during the civil war after a crackdown by Bashar al-Assad on anti-government protests in 2011 led Western states to impose sanctions, including on Syria's central bank. Syria needs to make transfers with Western financial institutions in order to bring in huge sums for reconstruction and to kickstart a war-ravaged economy that has left nine out of 10 people poor, according to the United Nations. Husriyeh chaired a high-level virtual meeting on Wednesday bringing together Syrian banks, several U.S. banks and U.S. officials, including Washington's Syria envoy Thomas Barrack. The aim of the meeting was to accelerate the reconnection of Syria's banking system to the global financial system and Husriyeh extended a formal invitation to U.S. banks to re-establish correspondent banking ties. "We have two clear targets: have U.S. banks set up representative offices in Syria and have transactions resume between Syrian and American banks. I think the latter can happen in a matter of weeks," Husriyeh told Reuters.
Observer
15-06-2025
- Observer
The New Middle East War
In its air strikes across Iran, Israel reportedly killed senior military leaders as well as prominent figures in the country's nuclear programme. It also appears that Israel further degraded Iranian air defences, struck additional military targets and attacked at least one nuclear-related installation – and possibly more. Despite Israel's claim that it was acting preemptively, the attacks constitute a classic preventive action, mounted against a gathering threat, rather than an imminent danger. The difference has legal and diplomatic implications, as preventive military attacks tend to be far more controversial, falling under the heading of wars of choice. Preemptive attacks are seen as a form of self-defence and tend to be accepted as necessary. These are likely to be distinctions without meaningful differences for Israel, which has carried out such strikes (though more limited) against nascent Iraqi and Syrian nuclear programmes in the past. Moreover, acting against Iran plays well domestically: It is one of the few issues that most Israelis – deeply divided over the war in Gaza, the role of the courts in their democracy, and the country's secular-religious balance – can agree on. Why Israel chose to conduct this operation now has yet to be satisfactorily explained. According to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, 'In recent months, Iran has taken steps that it has never taken before, steps to weaponise [its] enriched uranium.' But it will be important to see if the Israeli government had new intelligence or developed a new assessment of Iranian capabilities and intentions. We know from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran was actively producing highly enriched uranium and had not been forthcoming about its nuclear-related activities. In recent weeks, however, US intelligence officials confirmed their assessment was that Iran had not yet decided to produce a nuclear weapon. According to reports, largely based on statements from Israeli officials, the US knew about the intended attack in advance and did not attempt to stop it. While we will likely learn whether it truly gave a green as opposed to a yellow light, it seems all but certain that it did not flash a red one, as it has at other times over the years. Still, US officials have sought to distance America from the Israeli action, stating that Israel acted unilaterally and making it clear that Iran should not attack US forces in response. The degree to which the US is prepared to assist Israel in any future military actions against Iran, or in buttressing its ability to defend itself from Iranian retaliation, is unclear. Prospects for reviving US-Iran nuclear negotiations, which President Donald Trump has suggested should continue, seem remote. It is too early to offer a definitive assessment of this operation's success. That assessment will depend on several factors, beginning with the extent and consequences of the damage. A related question is whether and how the attack will affect the Iranian regime's hold on the country, which the Israeli attack may have been designed to weaken. A second consideration is the scope of future Iranian retaliation. Iran's initial response was relatively modest: some one hundred drones launched towards Israel, against which Israel is well prepared to defend. But subsequently Iran launched several waves of ballistic missiles. The obvious question is what else will Iran choose to do against Israel and Israeli targets around the world. It is far from clear, though, that Iran has an attractive set of options, given its demonstrated vulnerabilities. Also to be seen is whether Iran acts against the US, which withdrew many of its personnel from the region in anticipation of retaliation, or against one or more of its Arab neighbours. Despite Iran's ongoing efforts to improve relations with the GCC states, an Iranian effort to interfere with the region's energy industry cannot be ruled out. That would jeopardise its standing in the Gulf but raise the price of oil (already up in the wake of Israel's attack), inflicting pain on the West and possibly increasing Iranian revenues at a time when sanctions relief, a subject of the nuclear negotiations with the US, is no longer imminent. There is also the prospect of additional Israeli military strikes against known and suspected nuclear sites. This, too, would require an assessment of what was accomplished and what the consequences might be. Iran, seeking to deter an attack like the one that just occurred, will have to decide whether to redouble its nuclear efforts, reconstitute its programme in more difficult-to-destroy facilities and continue to cooperate with the IAEA. Adding to the complexity is whether outside partners – such as China, Russia and North Korea, all of which have experience developing nuclear weapons – will lend assistance, and how both the US and Israel will respond if they do. Before determining whether military action was the best available policy, we will also need to learn more about what could have been negotiated and verified between the US and Iran. This could affect the political reactions in both Israel and Iran concerning whether the attacks could and should have been avoided. For now, there are more questions than answers about what happened or what could happen next. The only certainty is that this latest chapter in the conflict-torn Middle East is just beginning. Project Syndicate, 2025.
