US envoy meets SDF commander, calls for Syria ceasefire to be upheld

The United States has reiterated support for a ceasefire in Syria’s north, urging the government and Kurdish-led forces to adopt “confidence-building measures” after recent clashes.

US envoy to Syria Tom Barrack made the diplomatic appeal on Thursday after meeting with Mazloum Abdi, commander-in-chief of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), and Ilham Ahmed, a leading Syrian Kurdish politician.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“All parties agreed that the essential first step is the full upholding of the current ceasefire, as we collectively identify and implement ‍confidence-building measures on all ⁠sides to foster trust and lasting stability”, he wrote on X.

Barrack also renewed US backing for an agreement signed on January 18 between the Syrian government and the SDF on integrating the Kurdish-led forces into state institutions, as part of Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s push to unify Syria.

Disagreement over how such integration would work had led to recent bouts of conflict between the government and the SDF, which had sought continued autonomy for some Kurdish-majority areas.

Over several weeks, Syrian government forces attacked numerous SDF-held areas, taking control of Aleppo, Raqqa and Deir Az Zor.

Territories seized by the government include some of Syria’s biggest oilfields, agricultural land and jails holding ISIL (ISIS) prisoners, 150 of whom have already been transferred to Iraq, which says it plans to initiate legal proceedings against them.

Under a ⁠ceasefire announced on Tuesday, Syria’s government gave the SDF four days to come up with a plan for its remaining enclaves to merge, and said government troops would not enter two remaining SDF-held cities – Hasakah and Qamishli – if a deal was reached. Both the SDF and the government have since accused each other of breaching the truce.

The SDF, once the US’s top ally in Syria to counter ISIL, appears to have lost leverage as US President Donald Trump strengthens ties with the country’s new leader, al-Sharaa. Barrack said on Tuesday that the SDF’s role as the “primary anti-ISIS force on the ground has largely expired” as Damascus steps up.

Former special counsel Jack Smith testifies before US Congress committee

Former Special Counsel Jack Smith has offered public testimony for the first time as he returned to Congress to answer questions about his investigations into United States President Donald Trump.

On Thursday, Smith sat before the judiciary committee of the US House of Representatives, where he alternately fielded praise from Democrats and barbs from Republicans.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

All the while, Smith insisted his investigations were nonpartisan — and that there were, indeed, grounds to bring two federal indictments against Trump during the period between his two terms in office.

“I made my decisions without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs or candidacy in the 2024 election,” Smith told the congressional panel.

“President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law — the very laws he took an oath to uphold.”

Formerly a war-crimes prosecutor at the international tribunal in The Hague, Smith was selected to serve as special counsel in 2022, under former Democratic President Joe Biden.

Special counsels are tapped to operate independently, without the usual day-to-day oversight from politically appointed Justice Department leadership.

But Smith’s mandate was particularly sensitive. He was charged with investigating Trump, Biden’s 2020 election rival whom the Democrat would face again in the 2024 race.

Former Special Counsel Jack Smith raises his hand to be sworn in on January 22 [Kevin Lamarque/Reuters]

Inside the investigations

The 2020 election was a central part of Smith’s investigation. So were Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, when thousands of his supporters stormed the US Capitol in an apparent attempt to disrupt the certification of the election results.

Smith ultimately determined that Trump had intentionally attempted to subvert the vote, and in August 2023, a grand jury indicted Trump on four charges: conspiracy to defraud the country, obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against the free exercise of rights under the US Constitution.

A separate grand jury, this time in the state of Florida, issued a second federal indictment related to probe that Smith led in June 2023.

That investigation focused on Trump’s decision to withhold classified documents after leaving office and defying a subpoena for their return. Trump was ultimately charged with 40 counts, including conspiracy to obstruct justice, making false statements, and failing to adhere to standards concerning sensitive documents under the Espionage Act.

Both federal cases were dropped after Trump was re-elected in 2024. It is Justice Department policy not to investigate or prosecute sitting presidents. Smith himself resigned shortly before Trump’s inauguration in January 2025.

Nevertheless, at Thursday’s hearing, Smith defended the indictments and suggested his cases would have been successful had the circumstances been different.

“I want to be clear: I stand by my decisions as special counsel, including the decision to bring charges against President Trump,” Smith told the committee.

“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity. If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or a Republican.”

He added that the evidence compelled him to move forward with the indictments, regardless of the high-profile defendant.

“The law required that he be held to account,” Smith said. “So that is what I did. To have done otherwise on the facts of these cases would’ve been to shirk my duties as a prosecutor.”

Later on in his testimony, he emphasised his stance: “ We were ready, willing and able to go to trial in the case.”

Jim Jordan and Jamie Raskin on the House Judiciary panel
Representative Jim Jordan, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and ranking member Representative Jamie Raskin speak to Jack Smith on January 22 [Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo]

Republican criticisms

But Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee sought to portray Smith as a partisan shill whose mission was to take down the Democrats’ political rivals.

Some of the most aggressive questioning came from Republican Representative Darrell Issa of California, who cast doubt on Smith’s independence as special prosecutor.

“You, like the president’s men for Richard Nixon, went after your political enemies. Maybe they’re not your political enemies, but they sure as hell were Joe Biden’s political enemies, weren’t they?” Issa asked.

“They were the enemies of the president. And you were their arm, weren’t you?”

Smith replied to the accusation with a single word: “No.”

Issa went on to assert that, in spreading false statements denying his 2020 election defeat, Trump was simply expressing his First Amendment right to free speech.

“ You understand the Constitution? Do you understand the Bill of Rights that someone has the absolute right to believe something, whether it’s true or not, and to advocate for something whether it’s true or not?” Issa said at one point.

“So if you know that people have a right to opine, lobby for, assert, do everything they can legally to ask for people to make different decisions, then why is it you saw criminal conduct on behalf of a president who believed he didn’t win?”

Smith was not able to respond to that question, but his indictment asserts that Trump went beyond simply voicing his disagreement with the results.

Rather, it argues that Trump and his allies attempted to recruit “false electors” to submit fraudulent Electoral College votes for certification, and it highlights evidence that Trump sought to pressure elected officials to reject unfavourable vote outcomes.

Another key point of criticism was Smith’s decision to seek “limited toll records” from the telephones of nine Republican lawmakers who communicated with Trump during his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was among the Congress members targeted.

Such toll records do not include the content of the calls in question. Rather, they identify where the call originated from, who it was received by, and how long the connection lasted.

Republicans argued that subpoenaing the telephone records amounted not only to a violation of privacy but also to an infringement of the US Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause, which protects Congress members from legal action stemming from their legislative duties.

They also questioned the secrecy of the subpoenas, something Smith argued was necessary.

“The subpoenas that we secured, we secured with non-disclosure orders from a judge because I had grave concerns about obstruction of justice in this investigation,” Smith said.

“Specifically with regards to Donald Trump, not only did we have the obstruction of justice that we were investigating in the classified documents case, but I was aware during the course of our investigation of the targeting of witnesses.”

A photographer snaps a shot of Jack Smith at a committee meeting.
Former Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith takes his seat as he prepares to testify [Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo]

Smith defends team’s work

While Republicans blasted Smith for what they perceived to be prosecutorial missteps, Democrats praised him as a paragon of integrity.

“I want you to lean in today. You have nothing to be ashamed of. You did everything right, sir,” Democratic Representative Eric Swalwell told Smith.

He then proceeded to accuse his Republican colleagues of hypocrisy, particularly after the 2021 attack on the Capitol.

“These guys are so lucky they’re not under oath because they would have to tell you what they really think of Trump,” Swalwell said, gesturing to the Republicans on the panel. “ They call him crooked. They call him cruel. They call him a scumbag. I’ve heard you all say it.”

Swalwell invited Smith to reflect on where he was when the Capitol attack unfolded and how he felt watching Trump supporters break into the building while legislators fled. Smith, at the time, was in Europe on behalf of the State Department, working on the war-crimes tribunal.

“ I was shocked by it. Being in Europe and not following things as closely, I was not frankly up to speed on the events leading up to it,” Smith replied. “ I just had never seen anything like that happen in our country.”

Smith also denied that he faced any pressure from the Biden administration to come to any foregone conclusion.

“ I was given the independence to conduct my investigation,” he said.

Since being named special prosecutor, Smith has become a frequent target for criticism on the political right. Trump himself this week called Smith a “sick son of a b****” who led a group of “ handpicked radical-left Marxist prosecutors”.

Over the past year, the Trump administration has largely removed the nonpartisan career federal employees who were involved in the two federal investigations Smith led, ending their employment.

Smith himself used the committee hearing to lash out at those decisions, accusing Trump of seeking retribution against government workers who served presidents of both parties.

“ I’m proud of the work my team did, and I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to correct false and misleading narratives about our work,” Smith told the panel.

“President Trump has sought to seek revenge against career prosecutors, FBI agents and support staff simply for having worked on these cases,” he added. “To vilify and seek retribution against these people is wrong. Those dedicated public servants are the best of us.”

Jack Smith testifies at House Judiciary Committee
The House Judiciary Committee hears Jack Smith’s testimony [Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo]

President responds to Smith’s testimony

Trump, however, appeared to be watching Smith’s testimony live. In the midst of the back-and-forth between the former prosecutor and Congress members, the president posted on Truth Social a message applauding Republicans for their takedowns of Smith’s work.

“Deranged Jack Smith is being DECIMATED before Congress. It was over when they discussed his past failures and unfair prosecutions,” Trump wrote. “He destroyed many lives under the guise of legitimacy. Jack Smith is a deranged animal, who shouldn’t be allowed to practice Law.”

Trump also suggested Smith should face professional penalties or even prosecution, akin to how he has used his social media platform to pressure the Justice Department to take action against his rivals in the past.

“If he were a Republican, his license would be taken away from him, and far worse! Hopefully the Attorney General is looking at what he’s done,” Trump continued.

“The whole thing was a Democrat SCAM — A big price should be paid by them for what they have put our Country through!”

Smith was subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee in early December and later testified in a closed-door hearing, despite his protestations that the proceedings should be public.

He is currently under a gag order barring him from divulging evidence about the classified documents case, though US District Judge Aileen Cannon has said she would lift the block on his report starting on February 24. The Trump administration has appealed that decision.

As part of his prepared remarks, Smith implored his audience to defend the rule of law, regardless of which party might seek to undermine it.

France seizes oil tanker in Mediterranean sailing from Russia: Macron

The French Navy has intercepted a tanker in the Mediterranean that officials allege belongs to Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet”, designed to evade international sanctions.

In a statement shared on social media on Thursday, French President Emmanuel Macron said the oil tanker was “coming from Russia, subject to international sanctions and suspected of flying a false flag”.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“The operation was conducted on the high seas in the Mediterranean, with the support of several of our allies. It was carried out in strict compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”, Macron said.

He added that the vessel was diverted and that an investigation has been launched.

Local maritime authorities said the navy seized an oil tanker called “Grinch” between Spain and Morocco.

The interception comes as the European Union has imposed more than a dozen sanctions packages against Russia in response to the country’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

But Moscow continues to sell millions of barrels of oil to other countries such as China and India, typically at discounted prices, despite the economic curbs.

Much of the oil is carried by a “shadow fleet” of vessels operating outside of the Western maritime industry.

A November report from the Helsinki-based Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air found that more than 100 Russian vessels flew a false flag in the first nine months of 2025, transporting about 11 million tonnes of oil valued at 4.7 billion euros ($5.5bn).

On Thursday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy thanked his French counterpart Macron for intercepting the vessel.

“This is exactly the kind of resolve needed to ensure that Russian oil no longer finances Russia’s war”, Zelenskyy wrote on social media. “Russian tankers operating near European shores must be stopped”.

The Russian embassy in France said it was not notified about the interception, Russian news agency TASS reported.

Senegal coach defends AFCON final walk-off before expected sanction

Pape Thiaw, the coach of Senegal, has defended the walk-off victory in the Africa Cup of Nations final as an emotional choice made in the chaos of the situation.

Senegal left the field on Sunday just as a potential trophy-winning goal was decided against, when Morocco was awarded a penalty in stoppage time.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

On Thursday, Thiaw wrote on Instagram, “It was never my intention to go against the rules of the game I love so much.” I merely attempted to defend my players from injustice. What some might think is a violation of the law is merely an emotional response to the bias present. We made the decision to resume the game and pursue the trophy after much discussion.

Brahim Daz could take Morocco’s penalty thanks to Sadio Mane’s persuasion. In the final frame of normal time, Diaz’s effort was saved, and Senegal won 1-0 in extra time thanks to Pape Guaye’s goal.

The Moroccan Football Federation filed legal action against FIFA and the Confederation of African Football because it “significantly impacted the normal flow of the match and the players’ performance,” according to FIFA President Gianni Infantino.

As stewards battled with Senegalese behind one of the goals, the decision to award the penalty led to fights on the field with opposing players on the sidelines. Some fans were able to enter the arena and get away while the fighting continued.

After the Senegal walk-off, Brahim took his unsuccessful sport kick, which caused the game to come to a 15-minute stop.

“We had a remarkable tournament with fantastic organization,” said Thiaw, “which unfortunately ended in a dramatic manner.”

Before the final, the Moroccan hosts’ blatant lack of “fair play” was exposed by the Senegalese Football Federation, which made the Teranga Lions feel less unfair when their late goal was rejected and a penalty was given to them.