No need to blame Bennett, whatever he got is Irony of fate

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett failed to stand up to pressure from US President Joe Biden on the Iranian issue, opposition representative Tzachi Hanegbi (Likud) said Tuesday in a special session of the Knesset during its summer recess.

Hanegbi, who is one of the longest-serving MKs, recounted the history of Israeli prime ministers resisting pressure from US presidents, from Menachem Begin to Benjamin Netanyahu. He said Bennett had failed to follow in their footsteps, but he should have learned from Netanyahu’s controversial 2015 speech to Congress on the Iran deal, which Hanegbi attended.

“It wasn’t easy or comfortable for them, but our prime ministers are not elected to receive compliments in the White House,” Hanegbi said. “Bennett collapsed when he should have said, “Mr. President, I respect your view that the Iran deal should be resumed, but we will not be obligated by the agreement, and we will not let Iran gain the power to wipe us off the map. We don’t need permission to defend ourselves.” That is what was not said in the White House, and because it

Religious Services Minister Matan Kahana (Yamina), a close confidant of Bennett, responded on his behalf that the government had inherited the situation with Iran from Netanyahu and was not party to the Iran deal.

“Israel reserves the right to decide for itself on the Iran issue,” he said. “On the Iranian issue, the opposition should give its support and not make it a tool for politics.”

Defense Minister Benny Gantz had asked on Monday to speak on the government’s behalf but was turned down by Bennett’s associates, who were angry at him for meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Opposition MKs mocked Bennett for sending the religious services minister to speak on Iran instead of the defense minister.

“I guess on the Iran issue, like other security matters, all we can do is pray, so they sent us the religious services minister to deal with that,” Religious Zionist Party MK Simcha Rothman said.

Bennett’s associates and right-wing ministers in the government continued to criticize Gantz on Tuesday for the meeting with Abbas. Gantz’s No. 2 in his Blue and White Party, Aliyah and Integration Minister Pnina Tamano-Shata, defended him.

“The cowards criticizing Defense Minister Gantz are narrow-minded politicians who are jealous of his leadership,” she told Army Radio. “They are jealous because he has earned the public’s trust on security issues and the fight against coronavirus.”

Ten lessons from the lost US war in Afghanistan

I feel privileged in sharing an article by Andrew Korybko. He has rightly concluded everything that went wrong was entirely foreseeable and many even warned about what was happening but their concerns were dismissed. 

The truth finally came out and now everyone knows that the entire war was built upon a mountain of lies and easily avoidable mistakes. The US reputation is ruined and it's no longer regarded as a superpower.

Tens of thousands of lives were lost and over US$2 trillion were wasted only for the situation to revert back to how it was almost exactly twenty years ago. Now it is the time for the decision-makers, strategists, media, and civil society to somberly find out what went wrong and to plan nothing like this ever happens again. Here are the ten lessons to be learned:

Legitimate anti-terrorist actions mustn't be exploited for ulterior motives

The US attacked Afghanistan on the pretext that it had the right to militarily respond against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in self-defense after it concluded that the terrorist group's leader there was responsible for planning the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but its greatest mistake was exploiting this as the pretext to engage in so-called “nation-building”. 

Nation-building will never succeed

It's impossible to sustainably support the cause of so-called “nation-building” whereby a foreign country aggressively imposes its completely different way of life onto a targeted state's inhabitants who historically organized their society on the basis of other morals, ethics, principles, and values. 

Local allies must be held to account

After regrettably getting caught up in the Afghan quagmire, America had the responsibility to hold its allies there to account instead of letting them steal from their people, enrich themselves from the drug trade and other forms of organized crime, and carry out extrajudicial killings on the pretext of targeting the Taliban.

International coalition doesn't have impunity

America and its international coalition allies arrogantly thought that they could commit crimes against the Afghan people with impunity, but that was impossible since the rest of the world inevitably found out about their killings and other such unsavory acts even if justice isn't yet served to the culprits. 

Winning hearts and minds is more important than winning territory

Strategically speaking, the war was lost shortly after it began once the US and its allies started abusing the Afghan people in terrible ways and therefore turned their hearts and minds towards the Taliban, which therefore made it impossible for the government to hold its ground despite being backed by the US military. 

Western mainstream media always lies

The dramatic developments of the past two weeks during the Taliban's lightning-fast conquest of the country shattered the countless lies spread by the Western mainstream media about the true state of affairs there, proving that they can't ever be trusted about anything, whether it's Afghanistan, China, or whatever else. 

Inevitable military withdrawals must be carried out responsibly

The US inevitable withdrawal wasn't carried out responsibly since America should have ensured that it didn't leave any military equipment behind, established tripwires for deterring Taliban attacks until it already left the country, and compelled former President Ghani to politically compromise towards a transitional government. 

Political proxies sometimes defy their patrons

Part of the problem with the US withdrawal was that its political proxy, former President Ghani, refused to make any meaningful compromises towards a transitional government that could have facilitated a smoother transfer of power and prevented America from being humiliated even more than it already was in recent days. 

Local allies must be rescued during the withdrawal

The US shamefully abandoned tens of thousands of its Afghan allies who fear for their futures after their American-backed government just fell, which shows how unreliable the US is as an ally that it would leave its local allies to fend for themselves under such uncertain conditions instead of letting them relocate to America.

Andrew Korybko is a political analyst, journalist and regular contributor to several online journals. He is a member of the expert council for the Institute of Strategic Studies and Predictions at the People’s Friendship University of Russia. He has published various works in the field of Hybrid Wars, including “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach to Regime Change” and “The Law of Hybrid War: Eastern Hemisphere”.

Longest war in the history of United States comes to an end

The longest war in the history of United States has come to an end with the departure of the last American military flight out of Afghanistan almost 20 years after troops first landed in the country. American planes took off from the Kabul airport shortly before midnight local time, US Central Command head Marine Corps Gen. Frank McKenzie told reporters on Tuesday.

The last C-17 left the Hamid Karzai International Airport clearing Afghanistan's airspace just under the Biden administration’s 31st August 2021 deadline to remove all US forces from the country, McKenzie said.

"I’m here to announce the completion of our withdrawal from Afghanistan and the end of the mission to evacuate American citizens, third-country nationals and vulnerable Afghans," McKenzie said.

"Every single US service member is now out of Afghanistan," he later added.

The Pentagon later released a photo of the last American soldier to board the flight, identifying him as Maj. Gen. Chris Donahue.

McKenzie could not say how many people were aboard the aircraft or where it was headed, as it was still in flight, but he confirmed that 82nd Airborne Division head Maj. Gen. Christopher Donahue and Ambassador Ross Wilson were on board and “were in fact the last people to stand on the ground, step on the airplane.”

The flight also carried the last remaining US troops and the core diplomatic staff of the US Embassy in Kabul.

But there are still several hundred Americans in Afghanistan who were unable to reach the airport, along with thousands of Afghans who assisted the US military during the war effort.

McKenzie said no American civilians were on the last five flights to leave.

“We maintained the ability to bring them in up until immediately before departure, but we were not able to bring any Americans out. That activity ended probably about 12 hours before our exit. ...  None of them made it to the airport,” he added. 

But he maintained that even if the Biden administration had extended the deadline, “we wouldn’t have gotten everybody out that we wanted to get out and there still would’ve been people who would’ve been disappointed with that. It’s a tough situation.”

McKenzie also said the United States will continue the diplomatic evacuation mission to recover those Americans and vulnerable Afghans.

“I want to emphasize again that simply because we have left that doesn’t mean the opportunities for both Americans that are in Afghanistan who want to leave and Afghans who want to leave. They will not be denied that opportunity,” McKenzie added.

McKenzie also said the United States will continue the diplomatic evacuation mission to recover those Americans and vulnerable Afghans.

“While the military evacuation is complete, the diplomatic mission to ensure additional US citizens and eligible Afghans who want to leave continues,” he said.

“Tonight's withdrawal signifies both the end of the military component of the evacuation but also the end of the nearly 20-year mission that began in Afghanistan shortly after 11th September 2001. It was a mission that brought Osama bin Laden to a just end, along with many of his al Qaeda co-conspirators," McKenzie added.

"And it was not a cheap mission. The cost was 2,461 US service members and civilians killed and more than 20,000 who were injured. Sadly, that includes 13 service members who were killed last week by an ISIS-K suicide bomber. We honor their sacrifice today as we remember their heroic accomplishments,” he said.

McKenzie said the final days of the withdrawal, beginning from 1th August 2021, was the “largest non-combatant evacuation” in the US military’s history.

In those 18 days, American forces evacuated 79,000 civilians from the airport, including 6,000 Americans and more than 73,000 Special Immigrant Visa holders, consular staff, at-risk Afghans and their families, McKenzie said. Since the end of July, more than 123,000 civilians have been evacuated.

McKenzie laid out the final hours US troops were in the country, noting that the military destroyed or removed remaining equipment.

Forces kept a counter rocket, artillery, and mortar (C-RAM) system in place “up until the very last minute” to protect against any rocket attacks before they “demilitarized those systems so that they’ll never be used again.”

In addition, troops made unusable up to 70 Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, 27 Humvees and 73 aircraft.

McKenzie said the Taliban were “very pragmatic and very businesslike” during the withdrawal and that Donahue spoke to the Taliban commander before leaving to coordinate “but there was no discussion” of turning over the airfield. 

 

Israeli Defense Minister meets Palestinian President

According to an Associated Press report, Israeli Defense Minister held talks with Palestinian President in Ramallah, the first high-level meeting between the two sides in years. 

The meeting between Benny Gantz and Mahmoud Abbas signaled a possible shift of direction after the near-complete breakdown of communication between Abbas and Israeli leaders in recent years.

It came two days after President Joe Biden urged Israeli Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett during a White House meeting to take steps toward improving the lives of Palestinians.

Gantz’s office said he told Abbas that Israel will take new measures to strengthen the Palestinian economy. It said they also discussed security issues and agreed to remain in touch. It was believed to be the highest level public meeting between the sides since 2014.

A Palestinian official said Gantz and Abbas discussed possible steps toward improving the atmosphere. He said this included Palestinian demands for a halt in Israeli military operations in Palestinian areas of the occupied West Bank, allowing unification of families with relatives inside Israel and allowing more Palestinian workers into Israel. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the late-night meeting.

Bennett is a hard-liner who opposes Palestinian independence, as do key partners in his diverse, ruling coalition. But Bennett has said he supports building up the Palestinian economy and expanding autonomy for Palestinians. He also is interested in bolstering Abbas in his rivalry with the ruling Hama  in Gaza.

While Biden supports a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, his administration is focused on interim confidence-building measures. Israel’s former Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, pursued a hard-line policy toward the Palestinians, backed by former President Donald Trump.

The Trump administration took a number of steps, including moving the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to contested Jerusalem. Abbas halted most contacts with the US and Israel in return.

Netanyahu had repeatedly claimed Abbas was not a reliable partner for negotiating a peace deal, a portrayal dismissed by Netanyahu critics as a pretext for avoiding making concessions.

Hussein Sheikh, a top Abbas aide, confirmed the meeting in a statement on Twitter. It took place on Sunday night in Ramallah in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, where Abbas maintains his headquarters.

Iran announces new regional policy

From the beginning, the new Iranian government of Ayatollah Seyed Ebrahim Raisi made it clear that change in the executive branch would bring about a shift in foreign policy. 

The new Iranian foreign minister, Hossein Amir Abdollahian, indicated how this shift would play out under Ayatollah Raisi.

In his speech at the Baghdad summit, Abdollahian reiterated what his predecessor often underlined in such regional platforms that Iran wants closer cooperation with the countries of the region, especially Iran’s neighbors. 

But at the same time, he was keen to let it be known that this cooperation should be done in a new spirit, one that would respect the legitimate interests of Iran and refrain from pursuing a zero-sum game. In addition, the top Iranian diplomat made it clear that no one should seek to change the balance of power in the region by relying on outside forces. 

Underlining Iran’s support for the Iraqi efforts to create areas for cooperation and interaction among the countries of the region, Abdollahian noted, “Our region has all the religious, cultural and civilizational characteristics as well as material and spiritual capacities for regional cooperation and convergence, but unfortunately, due to foreign interventions and the dominance of security-oriented ideas, it has many problems, including war, instability and insecurity.”

In pointing to a foreign role in the region, the Iranian foreign minister put the focus on the main thrust of the Baghdad summit. The Iraqi government put much energy and effort into holding this summit to bring closer the views of stakeholders of a region suffering from political divergence and polarization. 

The Iraqis portrayed the summit as a unique platform to foster intra-regional cooperation and partnership. From their point of view, bringing together officials from rival countries would make Iraq more secure and spare it the prospect of being collateral damage for regional rivalry. 

In addition, the Iraqi government was eager to convey the message that they want, and are able, to work with all countries of the region regardless of their political standing.
 
Iran welcomed the Iraqi efforts and underlined the need to strengthen regional security through dialogue among the players in the region. “What we need today more than ever before is "sustainable regional security" with the participation of regional countries. Regional security will materialize depending on the use of economic resources to build a coalition for peace and development,” Abdollahian told the summit. 

He added, “The Islamic Republic of Iran expresses its support for the Iraqi government and people and its internal decisions including the withdrawal of foreign troops and holding early elections, and it welcomes Iraq’s constructive role in promoting a culture of dialogue and regional cooperation. Iran considers cooperation within the region as the basis for establishing stability and peace in this way. The Islamic Republic of Iran, emphasizing the important role of other countries in the region, declares its readiness to advance these goals.”

At the end of his speech, the top Iranian diplomat underlined that Iran is adopting a new approach toward the region under Ayatollah Raisi, who has reiterated more than once that Iran’s foreign policy should focus on regional cooperation particularly in economic arenas.

Abdollahian pointed to this new pivot and said, “With great pleasure, I declare, at the inauguration of Iran’s new government that our foreign policy, being ‘balanced, active and smart’, emphasizes the priority of relations with neighbors and other countries in the region, and we warmly shake hands with all neighboring and regional nations.”

Whether this new approach would lead to the normalization of ties with regional heavyweights such as Saudi Arabia remains to be seen. But it seems that there is still a long road ahead until relations are fully normalized. 

Two things happened at the Baghdad summit that dampened hopes for closer regional cooperation. First, Syria was not invited to the summit despite being a major neighbor of Iraq. Some press reports suggested the exclusion of Syria was due to foreign pressure on the Iraqi government. 

Iran objected to this exclusion both before and during the summit. “We believe that Syria, as one of Iraq’s important neighboring countries, should have been invited to this meeting, too,” said Abdollahian before leaving Tehran for Baghdad.

During the summit, Abdollahian once again alluded to Syria’s absence. “I would like to emphasize the role and support of regional nations in stabilizing and resorting security to Iraq including the friendly and brotherly country of the Syrian Arab Republic. I would like to express regret that Syria is not attending this summit,” he said. 

Second, there were no reports of a meeting between Abdollahian and his Saudi Arabian counterpart Faisal bin Farhan in Baghdad. This is while many important meetings were held on the sidelines of the summit. One such meeting was between the Emir of Qatar and the president of Egypt. Another meeting was between the Emir and the governor of Dubai, who also met with Abdollahian.

US strikes vehicle loaded with explosives heading towards Kabul airport

A drone strike by the US on Sunday targeted a vehicle in Kabul loaded with explosives that officials said posed an imminent threat to the airport amid the final days of a massive military evacuation effort of Americans and allies from Afghanistan.

US Navy Capt. Bill Urban said in a statement that the airstrike eliminated "an imminent ISIS-K threat” to the Hamid Karzai International Airport, referring to the Islamic State faction in Afghanistan.

Urban called the strike an act of “self-defense” and said military officials were still assessing the possibility of any civilian casualties. 

“We are confident we successfully hit the target,” Urban said. “Significant secondary explosions from the vehicle indicated the presence of a substantial amount of explosive material.”

The Associated Press reported earlier Sunday that "multiple suicide bombers" had been targeted in a vehicle that was headed to the airport.

It was the second US military strike in Afghanistan since a suicide bomber killed 13 US service members and dozens of Afghans on Thursday at an airport gate, which officials blamed on ISIS-K.

On Saturday, officials said two ISIS-K members were killed in a US airstrike in the Nangarhar province.

A rocket attack that killed a child was also reported early Sunday in a neighborhood northwest of the airport, according to an Afghan police chief.

 

Takeaways from Wilson Center Seminar

The withdrawal of US and coalition forces from Afghanistan, the rapid deterioration of the Afghan government and military, and the return of the Taliban will have profound implications for the future of South Asia. 

At Wilson Center in the latest event in its “Afghanistan: Hindsight Up Front” initiative participants discuss the future of the region with leading journalists, former diplomats, and thought leaders from India and Pakistan. Following are selected quotes:

David Hale

"I’d like to comment first on Afghanistan. Our leverage remains real…it’s limited. The Taliban, in my opinion, do not crave international legitimacy so much that they will compromise on their core principles or change their true colors. Their statements, the ones that we're hearing now, are to be expected, while their behavior, which we're seeing now, demonstrates that they've not really changed since 2001. And when they say governance will be guided by Sharia, they mean their version of the Sharia, which will make Saudi Arabia look a lot like the city of San Francisco."

"We must apply pressure, even if chances of it altering behavior are limited. We can build a coalition that will take the measures we have already taken, and more. I am speaking of freezing assets, stopping cash transfers, withholding diplomatic recognition, continuing UN sanctions, while of course communicating to the Taliban, how to ease these pressures, which would be on their part, suppressing ISIS and Al Qaeda, protecting human rights and humanitarian access, and allowing the processing of refugees, among other goals."

Maleeha Lohdi

"While there is no daylight between various members of the international community on what the expectation is of the Taliban. If you look at the Security Council statement, if you look at the OIC communiqué, you look at the Human Rights Council statement of two days ago. They all say the same thing, so do not underestimate the power of collective opinion, this is extremely important. I also think it's unprecedented. Never have I seen—I've served at the UN for five years—never have I seen so much solidarity, in terms of expectations. So, I don't think it would be correct to say that the Russians and the Chinese want something else, and the Americans everybody wants, top of the agenda, as David Hale says, top of the agenda for everyone, is combating terrorism, there is no question about that."

Nandan Unnikrishnan

"A stable Afghanistan, under Taliban rule—oppressive or not, I'm not getting into that—would distinctly increase China's role in the region. China's BRI would definitely then move ahead and Central Asia, West Asia, and of course, parts of South Asia, would come under increasing influence of the Chinese. From an Indian perspective, given our current relationship with China, it is not necessarily the best scenario. But, at the same time, as I said, it is probably better than the second scenario, where Afghanistan is unstable. I think Ambassador Lodhi has very eloquently described what happens to the region, not only us, but even, let's say, Central Asia and other areas….It is a danger, not just to Pakistan, it's a danger for everyone."

Huma Yusuf

"No, I think this does get at the point that I was trying to make right at the outset, which is that, I think a lot of this, this myth of Pakistan’s leverage, or so-called, control, or puppet mastery of the Taliban, this is outdated and inaccurate and is certainly not rooted in what's to come. A lot of that will have to do with the dispensation that does emerge in Afghanistan and the level of control that a Taliban-led regime based in Kabul would have over the rest of the country, and on the sort of numerous militant groups that are operating in that area, and the fact that, we know that there will never be that kind of neat, centralized control, and we also know that, as activities happen and fingers are pointed here and there, that all groups will constantly try and refer to this idea of plausible deniability, that actually what I see emerging is a scenario where there is more potential for two sovereign states, Pakistan and Afghanistan, to find themselves at odds, and so there's this notion that Pakistan will be the leverage, Pakistan will speak to the Taliban, on behalf of the rest of the world, I just think that that's an outdated notion."

Venkateswaran Lokanathan

"The other question that I think requires a fair deal of deliberation is whether the US will accept a more proactive role for Russia and China in Afghanistan and the region moving forward. Russia has already started playing a more active role in neighboring Central Asia. President Putin has expressed concerns over the spillover of radical Islam into the region. Simultaneously, the presence of certain groups like the ETIM, which is sympathetic to the UYGHER cause in Xinjiang, also raises concern for China, and hence China is also now becoming more actively involved.  It has already begun diplomatic engagement with Taliban, and President Xi, and President Putin, have also agreed to cooperate with developments in Afghanistan, and more importantly against foreign interference. "

Mark Green

"In 2020, Congress created a blue-ribbon panel of experts called the Afghanistan Study Group. Its purpose was to create new recommendations on Afghanistan for policymakers. I was a member of that study group. Our final report called “A Pathway for Peace,” concluded that the best American approach for Afghanistan, required a new overarching regional strategy. The report stated that Afghanistan lies in the middle of a region beset with rivalries and low levels of trust. It saw the potential for a fragile, but real regional consensus, behind a stable and neutral Afghanistan, that is neither a haven for terrorists, nor a fiefdom of the Taliban. We found that a stable Afghanistan would create the potential for regional economic cooperation that could benefit all countries in the region. But we also warned that an unstable Afghanistan risks destabilizing the region, to continue trade and illicit drugs, the attraction of extremist ideologies, and the possible exacerbation of the rivalry between India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed powers."

Iranian tanker containing fuel for Lebanon approaching Suez Canal

The Lebanese Hezbollah vowed last week that Iran was sending fuel to Lebanon which is facing economic collapse and serious shortages of fuel for essential services. The first tanker has left now and must sail to the Suez Canal before reaching the Mediterranean.

Hezbollah leader Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah has threatened retaliation if anyone tries to interfere with the shipment and has said the tankers bringing fuel are considered Lebanese territory.

Nasrallah dropped a bombshell when he announced that an oil tanker carrying Iranian fuel oil was bound for Lebanon. Addressing a commemorative ceremony marking the Day of Ashura, Hezbollah’s chief announced that the first of several ships loaded with fuel would sail from Iran to Lebanon within hours, warning the United States and Israel against any sabotage.

“Our first ship has completed all arrangements and will sail within hours from Iran to Lebanon with the blessing of Imam Hussein (peace be upon him),” he said, noting, “This ship will be followed by other ships, but we gave priority to diesel oil on the first ship because it is a top priority and is linked to people’s lives.”

In a stark warning to Washington and Tel Aviv, which oppose any fuel trade between Tehran and Beirut, Nasrallah declared that the ship will be considered as a Lebanese property the moment it leaves Iran and that any aggression against it would be seen as an aggression against Lebanon.

“God willing, this ship and others will arrive safely; we don’t want confrontation with anyone. We are only after helping our people… We reject to be humiliated in any military, political or economic war. We refuse the humiliation of our people, let no one dare to challenge us,” he asserted.

The announcement made the US ambassador to Lebanon to scramble to find a way to prevent Lebanon from importing fuel from Iran. The ambassador, Dorothy Shea, rushed to speak with Lebanese President Michel Aoun hours after Nasrallah’s announcement. 

“President Aoun received a phone call from the US Ambassador to Lebanon, Dorothy Shea, informing him of the US administration’s decision to help Lebanon import electricity from Jordan through Syria through Egyptian gas,” the Lebanese presidency said on Twitter. It also quoted Shea as saying that “transfer of Egyptian gas will be facilitated through Jordan and Syria to northern Lebanon.”

Shea also told Aoun that negotiations are underway with the World Bank to secure financing for the cost of Egyptian gas, the repair and strengthening of electricity transmission lines, and the required maintenance of gas pipelines.

The US ambassador’s conversation marked the return of her anti-Hezbollah media activism. During the Trump administration, Shea had launched a propaganda campaign against Hezbollah in parallel with the Trump White House, tightening the noose on Hezbollah.

If Lebanon is now in an economic tailspin, it’s largely because of the US continued efforts to prevent any economic cooperation with Beirut under the pretext of combating Hezbollah's influence. Arab allies of the US in the region, who once helped Lebanon financially, have refrained from providing any aid to the religiously diverse Arab country. 

Then there was the Iranian helping hand. Iran has always offered to help the Lebanese people. But political factionalism and malign foreign influence in Beirut have stood in the way of Iranian help. 

Nasrallah announced the import of Iranian fuel only after the fuel crisis in Lebanon reached new heights with almost all Western countries and their Arab allies refusing to alleviate the crisis.

What is the reality of over the horizon military strike in Afghanistan?

Reportedly the United States has undertaken ‘an over the horizon’ military strike against an ISIS-K planner, which has been termed successful. The statement of over the horizon military strike has the lowest credibility. It is believed that a drone has been used and the next question to ponder is which airbase has been used in this strike?

The United States military conducted a military strike against an ISIS-K planner in what appeared to be a retaliatory attack for a suicide bombing at Kabul’s airport that killed 13 US service members and injured at least 100 Afghans. 

Capt. Bill Urban, a spokesman for US Central Command, said in a statement that military forces conducted an “over the horizon counterterrorism operation today against an ISIS-K planner” in the Nangahar Province of Afghanistan.

ISIS-K is based in the Nagarhar and Kunar provinces east of Kabul, according to NBC News.

“Initial indications are that we killed the target. We know of no civilian casualties,” Urban said.

ISIS-K militants claimed responsibility for Thursday’s attack, which occurred right outside of Abbey gate. Pentagon officials said earlier on Friday that a single attack was carried out by a suicide bomber, clarifying that a second attack had not occurred near a hotel adjacent to the airfield as was initially reported.

The drone strike, which took place early Saturday morning local time, comes after President Biden vowed on Thursday target ISIS-K facilities “at the place we choose, in a moment of our choosing.” 

 “We will not forgive. We will not forget. We will hunt you down and make you pay,” Biden said.

Earlier on Friday the US Embassy in Kabul warned the US citizens who are at the airport's Abbey gate, East gate, North gate or the New Ministry of Interior gate to “leave immediately” due to “security threats.” 

Bennett-Biden meeting postponed to Friday

On 25^th August 2021, I had posted a blog highlighting ill-timed visit of Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett to United States. I had also highlighted that he may not succeed in obtaining any favors from US President Joe Biden under the prevailing circumstances. The apprehensions came true with the blasts at Kabul airport.  

Bennett meeting with Biden was postponed to Friday in light of the suicide bombings in Afghanistan that killed at least 12 US Marines and soldiers.

“The President’s bilateral meeting with H.E. Naftali Bennett, Prime Minister of the State of Israel, has been rescheduled for tomorrow,” the White House announced Thursday evening.

The bombing took place an hour before the leaders were set to meet for the first time in the White House. Israeli journalists, who had already gathered in the Brady Press Room, were asked to leave the White House.

The meeting, which was expected to take place on Thursday at 6.00 pm, is now scheduled for Friday morning, according to Israeli media reports. However, a representative of the prime minister denied the report and said no new time had been set. The White House also denied the report.

Following the delay, Bennett and his delegation will remain in Washington until after Shabbat, likely departing on Saturday night or Sunday. Sunday’s cabinet meeting in Jerusalem was postponed.

Bennett’s visit to Washington was finalized days after the Afghanistan pullout crisis began. His staff and Biden administration officials said the timing was important due to developments on the Iranian nuclear front. However, the crisis in Kabul overshadowed the trip from its start on Tuesday.

Israeli media being sent back to our hotel! But Bennett staff insists meeting with Biden isn't canceled.

Two suicide bomb attacks killed and injuring dozens of people including the US Marines.

Is west ready to bargain with new Iranian president?

For years, Iranian moderates, such as former President Hassan Rouhani, tried but failed to reach an understanding with the West. Now, a hardliner is in charge. Does President Ebrahim Raisi’s election spell the end of what Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei once called Iran’s ‘heroic flexibility’ in dealing with the West? In the wake of the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan, the question now matters even more.

The answer is yes as well as no. Raisi is not going to take up the mantle of attempting to reconcile with the West. The ideological confrontation with the United States is central to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s fundamentalist identity.

Moreover, both moderates and radicals in Iran still view the strategy of building a proxy-supported Iranian ‘empire’ across the Middle East—advanced by the late military commander Qassem Suleimani, who was assassinated by the US last year—as vital to uphold and advance the Islamic Revolution’s purpose. No true rapprochement is possible between the West and Iran, especially now that hardliners are fully running the show.

It’s also worth noting that ‘heroic flexibility’ never applied to Iran’s dealings with Israel—another fundamental bugbear. Raisi’s administration will certainly maintain Iran’s shadow war with the ‘Zionist entity’.

Iran’s recent attack on an Israeli-managed cargo ship near Oman in the Arabian Sea has been viewed by some as a kind of strategic shift—or, at least, escalation—as it represented a blatant violation of freedom of navigation in international waters. But, in truth, it is merely a continuation of a war in which both Iran and Israel have never shown much regard for international norms.

Israel assumed that, by not using its own merchant fleet—99% of its foreign trade is handled by international ships, it could avoid such assaults. But just as Iran’s forces in Syria are vulnerable to Israeli attacks, Israeli-linked entities in the Arabian Sea, a theatre thousands of miles from the country’s coast, but close to Iran’s mainland are vulnerable to Iranian attacks.

Iran will not forgo the opportunities this represents, not only to impose direct costs on Israel, but also to undermine the Abraham Accords, which, by establishing diplomatic relations between Israel and four Arab states, are viewed by Iran as a strategic setback. Already, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are reaching out to Iran, out of concern that US President Joe Biden’s foreign policy in the region won’t protect their interests.

But none of this means that Iran is gearing up for a direct confrontation with the West. Raisi has inherited an economy on life support. The Covid-19 pandemic and Western sanctions have cost Iran about 1.5 million jobs. Moreover, oil and gas export revenues have plummeted; annual inflation has reached almost 50%, with the cost of basic foods soaring by nearly 60%.

Clearly, Khamenei’s 2011 vision of a self-reliant Iranian ‘resistance economy’ hasn’t been realized. Furthermore, now that Raisi is President, Iran’s hardliners can no longer blame pro-Western moderates for Iran’s economic woes. To stave off potential unrest, Iran’s government must stem the economy’s decline by persuading the international community to ease sanctions, which will require it to reach some sort of understanding with the US over its nuclear program.

Russia and China are Iran’s more natural allies, but neither country will give Iran the resources it needs to sustain its costly proxy wars or reverse its economic decline. China, in particular, views Iran as a pawn in its broader chess match with the US, one that it would willingly sacrifice for, say, an agreement on vital trade issues.

An Iranian empire in the Middle East is simply not a strategic priority for China. At the same time, Iranian fundamentalists can’t be too happy with their Chinese ally’s brutal crackdown on its Muslim Uyghur population. The bilateral relationship thus does not represent a way out of Iran’s current predicament.

A new nuclear agreement is an existential imperative for Iran. And, as much as he dislikes the idea of striking a deal with the US, Khamenei understands this. Remaining on the threshold of nuclear breakout, a position it attained following America’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018, without actually crossing it may be Iran’s current bargaining position. This is what Raisi might have meant when, prior to his election, he upheld Iran’s need to return to the JCPOA in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.

But the real bone of contention lies not in whether the parties are willing to go back to the old JCPOA, but the terms on which Iran would accept the US demand for a new, long-term deal once the JCPOA expires. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has unrealistically called for a ‘longer and stronger’ accord, one that stops Iran from amassing nuclear material for generations, halts its missile tests and ends its support of terrorist groups.

What is clear is that Washington should do all it can to encourage Iran’s ‘heroic flexibility’. After America’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, the last thing the US needs is even more chaos in the Middle East. Likewise, the victory in Afghanistan of the Sunni Taliban, staunch ideological enemies of Shia Iran, should strengthen Iran’s commitment to avoid stoking conflict with the West. Now might be as good an opportunity as the US is going to get to reach a lasting nuclear agreement with Iran.

Bennett exposes his anti peace policy

Palestinians on Wednesday strongly denounced Naftali Bennett for his statements on the eve of his visit to the US and said they do not expect anything to come out of the first meeting between an Israeli Prime Minister and President Joe Biden.

Bennett’s statements show that there is no real difference between him and his predecessor, Benjamin Netanyahu, according to Palestinian officials, who accused the prime minister of “sabotaging” efforts to revive the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Bennett, in an interview with The New York Times, said there would not be resolution of the conflict with the Palestinians for the foreseeable future. He said that his government will neither annex any part of the West Bank nor establish a Palestinian state.

Peace talks will not happen, partly because the Palestinian leadership is fractured and rudderless, he said.

“This government is a government that will make dramatic breakthroughs in the economy. Its claim to fame will not be solving the 130-year-old conflict here in Israel,” he said.

Bennett said the government will continue the standard policy of “natural growth” in the settlements, adding that “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It’s not the capital of other nations.”

In response, the Palestinian Authority Foreign Ministry said that Bennett has “clearly and frankly exposed his anti-peace positions” on the eve of his meeting with Biden.

The ministry pointed out that Bennett affirmed ahead of his visit to Washington his opposition to a Palestinian state and his support for settlement “expansion,” as well as his refusal to hold peace talks with the Palestinians.

 “These statements constitute redlines and preconditions ahead of Bennett’s meeting with Biden,” the ministry said in a statement. “This is an attempt to stave off pressure or advice from the Biden administration regarding Israeli-Palestinian relations, settlements, or any American effort to pave the way for the resumption of the peace process.”

The PA ministry accused Bennett of “disregarding” the Biden administration and international resolutions pertaining to the Israeli-Arab conflict.

It also accused him of “sabotaging” Arab and American efforts to “create a positive atmosphere for relaunching meaningful negotiations” between Israel and the Palestinians.

“It’s clear that Bennett is trying to create confusion in order to influence the priorities of US foreign policy with the purpose of marginalizing the Palestinian issue,” the ministry charged.

It claimed that the prime minister was trying to hide his “extremist right-wing” positions by offering the Palestinians a number of gestures as part of confidence-building measures between the two sides. The gestures he is talking about are already part of Israel’s obligations as an “occupying power,” the ministry argued.

“Bennett departed to the US, leaving behind occupation bulldozers that are devouring Palestinian lands for building and expanding settlements,” it said.

AZZAM AL-AHMAD, a senior official with the ruling Fatah faction headed by PA President Mahmoud Abbas, said the Palestinians were not pinning any hopes on the Bennett-Biden talks. The visit will not produce anything meaningful for the peace process, Al-Ahmad said.

He called on the Arab countries and European Union members to pressure the Biden administration to clarify its policies toward the Middle East, specifically the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Another senior Palestinian official in Ramallah said the Palestinians were ready to return to the negotiating table with Israel, “but only under the umbrella of the United Nations and the international community.”

The Palestinians, however, do not believe that the Bennett government is interested in resuming peace talks with the Palestinians, “because it includes far-right parties and politicians who are strongly opposed to the two-state solution,” the official said.

“Bennett’s remarks on the eve of his visit to the US are a clear indication that the Biden administration is wasting its time by talking about the revival of the peace process and its support for the two-state solution.”

Commenting on Bennett’s statements, Hussein al-Sheikh, head of the PA’s General Authority of Civil Affairs, said that “Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Palestine, regardless of whoever admits it. Occupation and apartheid will not remain. The establishment of the Palestinian state does not require the permission of the occupation.”

Fatah Central Committee secretary-general Jibril Rajoub said the Palestinians were not surprised by Bennett’s statements, which came as a “blow” to the US administration and the international community.

“Those who should be surprised are the Biden administration and the international community, because these statements are a clear challenge to international resolutions,” Rajoub told the PA’s Voice of Palestine radio station.

Dimitri Diliani, spokesman for the Democratic Reform Current headed by ousted Fatah leader Mohammad Dahlan, said that as far as the Palestinians are concerned, Bennett’s visit to Washington bears “no political significance,” because of the “weakness of the official Palestinian diplomatic apparatus.”

Diliani accused the PA of failing to keep the Palestinian issue at the top of the US administration’s list of priorities.

He said that Bennett’s remarks on the eve of his arrival in Washington exposed his “extremist right-wing agenda that is hostile to peace and stability.”

Diliani also said he does not expect the Bennett-Biden summit to produce anything good for the Palestinians, especially regarding the peace process with Israel.

Ill-timed visit of Bennett to United States

I may not be an admirer of Israeli Prime Minister, Natfali Bennett, but certainly dismayed at the bad timing of his visit to the United States. He has gone there with ambitious plan, but may not succeed in getting even sympathetic hearing.

His visit must have been scheduled, when no one had thought Taliban would be taking control of the entire Afghanistan. Now, the US president and his team are up to neck in Afghan due to very tight evacuation schedule and likely fallout, in case they fail in meeting 31st August 2021 deadline.

Despite hating it, the US is too eager in avoiding any bloody encounters at this juncture, resulting in accepting some of the conditions of Taliban. It is on record that Afghanistan has resumed buying petroleum products from Iran, despite the US sanctions in place.

Similarly, Iran-backed Hezbollah of Lebanon has announced to buy petroleum products from Iran. It has also warned all the foes not to make any attempt to stop movement of ships carrying Iranian products. Israel has expressed its dismay on the decision and it was feared that some mysterious actions may be taken to disrupt supply.

Naftali Bennett landed early Wednesday in the United States, kicking off his first state visit overseas since taking office.The trip comes in the midst of heightened tensions with Jerusalem’s regional enemy Iran, and as Israel grapples with a gradual resurgence of hostilities on its southern border with the Gaza Strip.

Bennett, who landed at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, was scheduled to meet Wednesday with senior US administration officials, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, and on Thursday with President Biden.

In a statement released by the Prime Minister’s Office before his departure, Bennett said the top priority in his conversation with Biden would be Iran, “especially the leapfrogging in the past two to three years in the Iranian nuclear program.”

He said other issues would also be discussed, including preserving Israel’s qualitative military edge in the Middle East, confronting the coronavirus pandemic and economic matters.

Bennett has spoken out against the possibility of a new nuclear accord between Iran and world powers, and says that any agreement must also put the brakes on Iran’s regional aggression.

Earlier this week, Bennett told the cabinet that he would tell the American president “that now is the time to halt the Iranians, to stop this thing,” and not to reenter “a nuclear deal that has already expired and is not relevant, even to those who thought it was once relevant.”

Bennett repeated that stance Tuesday in a Zoom call with US congressmen.

 “There’s a new government in the US and a new government in Israel, and I bring with me from Jerusalem a new spirit of cooperation, and this rests on the special and long relationship between the two countries,” Bennett said before takeoff.

Bennett took office two months ago after cobbling together a ruling coalition of eight disparate political parties — ranging from right-wing parties to the Islamist Ra’am faction — that ousted longtime leader Benjamin Netanyahu from office following the country’s fourth consecutive parliamentary election in two years.

Ahead of his US trip, Bennett told The New York Times in an interview published Tuesday that he would neither annex West Bank territory nor allow it to become a Palestinian state, since the left-to-right composition of his coalition government meant that drastic diplomatic moves in either direction were off the table for now.

Building resilience for Asia and Pacific countries

Countries meeting on Wednesday in Bangkok at the seventh session of the ESCAP Committee on Disaster Risk Reduction were called on to intensify their efforts to prepare for and tackle complex, overlapping crises as the region strives to increase the resilience of its people as well as its economies.

“Notwithstanding the progress made by many countries in devising more robust systems of early warning and responsive protection - with far fewer people dying as a result of natural disasters - the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that  almost without exception, countries around the world are still ill-prepared to deal with multiple overlapping crises, which often cascade, with one triggering another,” said Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana, United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Executive Secretary of ESCAP. “Tropical cyclones, for example, can lead to floods, which lead to disease, which exacerbates poverty.”

Since the start of the pandemic, the region has been hit by multiple natural and biological disasters. At the same time, climate change has continued to warm the world, exacerbating the impacts of many of these disasters. The Asia-Pacific Disaster Report 2021, also launched today, shows that the pandemic, combined with the persistent reality of climate change, has reshaped and expanded the disaster “riskscape” in Asia and the Pacific.

The triple threat of disease, disaster and climate change is causing not only considerable human hardship but also significant economic losses. Currently, the annual average disaster-related losses are US$780 billion. This could nearly double, to around US$1.4 trillion, in a worst-case climate scenario. Choosing a proactive strategy of adapting to natural and other biological hazards would be far more cost-effective at an annual cost of US$270 billion.

In her statement during the opening session, the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Disaster Risk Reduction, Mami Mizutori, voiced support for the Committee’s work and reiterated the need for immediate and decisive action to build disaster resilience.

“The string of record-breaking weather events show that we do not have the luxury of ‘waiting this out’ action must be taken now to address these risks,” she said. “This includes increasing international funding for disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation, especially for countries graduating from the least-developed category.”

Also speaking at the opening session, the Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization, Petteri Taalas, emphasized the importance of climate change mitigation efforts.

“All in all, successful climate mitigation doesn’t affect our everyday life very much,” he said, “but if we fail with climate mitigation the impact is going to be felt for centuries, even millennia.”

The final speaker at the opening session, the Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union, Houlin Zhao, highlighted the need for countries in Asia and the Pacific to make progress on digital transformation.

“It’s time for the Asia-Pacific region to rely even more on ICTs (information and communication technologies),” he said. “I am confident that countries in the region will access the unique opportunity presented by Covid-19 to accelerate digital transformation and leverage the historic role of ICTs in tackling the dual challenges of climate-related disasters and Covid-19.”

Today also saw the return of the ESCAP Regional Conversation series, with a Ministerial Panel on Disaster, Climate and Health Resilience. This was the first in a series of four events that will bring together eminent personalities and thought leaders to exchange ideas and solutions to some of the key challenges facing Asia and the Pacific.

In her remarks, Ms. Alisjahbana highlighted the need to build universal resilience to address the vulnerabilities the pandemic has exposed and to tackle rising levels of inequality and poverty. She called for a paradigm shift in disaster risk management toward a focus on investing in prevention and the building of resilience.

Israeli weapons used against Taliban in Afghanistan

From drones to missiles and armored vehicles, Israeli-made weapons systems helped coalition forces against Taliban fighters. Though Israeli troops have never been on the ground in the war-torn central Asian country, numerous coalition nations used Israeli systems during the 20 years of fighting against the radical jihadist terrorist group.

While many Israeli defense companies have stayed mum on the use of their products in Afghanistan, according to multiple reports, countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and Australia have used their products for years.

Numerous countries used remotely piloted aircraft (RPAs) to collect intelligence, and Israeli-made SPIKE missiles were used in battle. Troops were also able to drive around safely in high-intensity areas in Israeli-made MRAP (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) military light tactical vehicles.

One of the main Israeli weapons systems used by foreign militaries in Afghanistan was drones.

Foreign reports state that Israel is considered a leading exporter of drones and has sold such systems to numerous countries including Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, Germany, India, Mexico, Singapore and South Korea.

The German Air Force began operating the Heron TP, manufactured by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), in Afghanistan in 2010. They were involved in thousands of missions, logging thousands of flight hours.

The Heron TPs are IAI’s most advanced RPAs with 40-hour endurance, a maximum take-off weight of 11,685 pounds, and a payload of 2,204 pounds. They can be used for reconnaissance, combat and support roles, and can carry air-to-ground missiles to take out hostile targets.

The German pilots were trained in Israel regarding how to operate the RPA and learn about its surveillance capabilities.

The Canadian military and the Australians also flew IAI’s Heron 1 RPA in Afghanistan.

Equipped with satellite data link and electro-optical infrared sensors, the Heron 1 is not only able to provide reconnaissance to ground forces in combat situations, assist in convoying and patrolling, create movement profiles, and carry out long-term monitoring, but it is also able to track down explosives from the air.

Several of them crashed in Afghanistan.

But it wasn’t only the Heron that was flying in Afghanistan’s skies.

Since 2005, the Australian Army in Afghanistan has also flown the Skylark 1 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) manufactured by Elbit Systems.

The Skylark, measuring seven and a half feet, is used by troops for tactical surveillance and close-range counter-terror missions. It can be launched by one or two soldiers, and is operated on the roof of buildings or in the back of armored personnel carriers, providing live video to operators once airborne.

With a range of 10-15 km, the mini-UAV has an exceptionally quiet electric motor and outstanding observation capabilities giving troops beyond-line-of-sight intelligence, enhancing their performance in various mission scenarios.

Australia also flew the Skylark during missions in Iraq.

In addition to RPAs, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems’ Spike NLOS (Non Line Of Sight) missile was used by both the British and Canadians in Afghanistan.

The missile’s precision proved useful in battles against the Taliban. Although the Brits tried to keep its use quiet, they publicly admitted to using the missile, known as Exactor, in 2014.

The Spike NLOS is capable of penetrating 39 inches of armor, and can be operated in either direct attack or mid-course navigation based on target coordinates only. These modes enable the defeat of long-range hidden targets with pinpoint precision, damage assessment, and the obtaining of real-time intelligence.

It has a range of 25 km and can be used with a number of warheads such as heat, fragmentation, PBF (penetration, blast and fragmentation) and PBF/F suited for urban and high-intensity conflicts. The missile, which can be installed on a variety of platforms, provides the gunner with the ability to attack targets at stand-off range and get real-time intelligence and damage assessment following the strikes.

Though Israel does not comment on foreign reports, Iranian media reported in 2019 that troops were sent to Afghanistan to collect intelligence on Iranian military movement.

According to Iran’s Tasnim news agency, Israeli troops operated out of a United States Air Force base in Shindand in the western Afghanistan province of Herat some 75 km from the Iranian border and were collecting intelligence on Iranian movement around the Persian Gulf region.

Russia’s Sputnik News stated at the time that the Israelis were operating “under the flags of the United States and the United Arab Emirates.”

Sputnik quoted an expert on Israel as saying that the Israeli troops were operating under the framework of American forces stationed there, and that the activity was carried out with the knowledge and approval of the Afghan government.

As Western forces leave Afghanistan and the Taliban solidifies its power over the country, the jihadist group has also obtained advanced American weaponry, including some drones.

But with the Canadians, Brits and Germans having ended their fight several years ago, it’s unlikely that the Taliban got their hands on the Israeli-made systems that hunted them for so long.

Iran resumes fuel exports to Afghanistan at Taliban request

Iran restarted its petrol and diesel exports to Afghanistan a few days ago, following a request from Taliban, the Union of Iranian Oil, Gas and Gas Exporters announced on Monday.

The Sunni Muslim group seized power in Afghanistan last week as the United States and its allies withdrew their troops after a 20-year war.

Gasoline prices in Afghanistan hit US$900/ton last week as many panicked Afghans left towns fearing retaliation and a return to a harsh version of Islamic law imposed by Taliban when they were in power two decades ago.

To counter the surge in prices, the new Taliban government has asked Shia Iran to keep the borders open to traders.

“The Taliban have sent messages to Iran saying ‘you can continue to export petroleum products’,” Hamid Hosseini, member of the board of directors and spokesperson for the Iranian union in Tehran, told Reuters, adding that some Iranian traders had been cautious due to security concerns.

Iranian exports started a few days ago, after the Taliban cut tariffs on fuel imports from Iran by up to 70%, Hosseini added, showing an official document from the Afghan customs organization.

The main Iranian exports to Afghanistan are gasoline and diesel. Iran exported around 400,000 tons of fuel to its neighbor from May 2020 to May 2021, according to a report released by PetroView, an Iranian oil and gas research and advisory platform.

Hezbollah to arrange Iranian fuel for Lebanon in defiance of US sanctions

An Iranian fuel shipment arranged by Hezbollah for Lebanon is likely to sail on Thursday. The Group has cautioned its US and Israeli foes against any moves to halt the consignment aimed at easing an acute fuel crisis in Lebanon.

Hezbollah's opponents in Lebanon warned the move could have dire consequences. Saad al-Hariri, a former prime minister, said it risked sanctions being imposed on a country whose economy has been in meltdown for nearly two years.

Israeli military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Amnon Shefler declined to comment on whether Israel would take any military action to stop the shipment, but called it part of an Iranian scheme to export its revolution and promote its proxies.

The arrival of the Iranian fuel oil would mark a new phase in the financial crisis which the Lebanese state and its ruling factions, including Hezbollah, have failed to tackle even as fuel has run dry and shortages have triggered deadly violence.

There was no comment from the Lebanese government on the announcement made by Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.

The US ambassador to Lebanon, Dorothy Shea, told Al Arabiya English that Lebanon didn't need Iranian tankers, citing "a whole bunch" of fuel ships off the coast waiting to unload.

The United States was in talks with Egypt and Jordan to help find solutions to Lebanon's fuel and energy needs, she said, speaking hours after Hezbollah's announcement.

Marking the biggest threat to Lebanon's stability since the 1975-90 civil war, the financial crisis has hit a crunch point, with hospitals and other essential services being forced to shut or scale back due to power cuts and the acute scarcity of fuel.

Fuel shortages have worsened since the central bank said last week it would no longer finance the imports at heavily subsidized exchange rates. The government has yet to raise official prices, however, leaving shipments in limbo.

Nasrallah said further Iranian shipments would follow to help the people of Lebanon.

"I say to the Americans and the Israelis that the boat that will sail within hours from Iran is Lebanese territory," Nasrallah said, suggesting that any action to stop it would be met with a response.

"We don't want to get... into a problem with anyone. We want to help our people," he said in a televised address.

Iran's semi-official Nournews said the fuel was all purchased by a group of Lebanese Shi'ite businessmen.

"The shipments are considered their property from the moment of loading," said the news website, which is close to Iran's Supreme National Security Council.

In June, Nasrallah said Iran was prepared to accept payment in the Lebanese currency, which has lost more than 90% of its value in two years.

US sanctions on Iran, reimposed in 2018 when then-President Donald Trump withdrew from a 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran, aimed to cut its oil sales to zero.

Hezbollah, founded by Iran's Revolutionary Guards in 1982, is also targeted by US sanctions.

Nasrallah did not say when or where the shipment would dock. One possibility is in neighboring Syria, where Reuters reported in April the group was readying fuel storage capacity as part of plans to respond to the crisis.

Hariri criticized Nasrallah for declaring the ships Lebanese territory, rejected what he described as Lebanon being treated as an Iranian province, and said the country could suffer the fate of Venezuela, which is under heavy sanctions.

Samir Geagea, a Christian politician and Hezbollah opponent, said that having usurped government authorities in security and military affairs, the group was now taking over economic decision-making to the detriment of the Lebanese.

Badri 313 outfit of Taliban providing security at Kabul airport

Taliban-linked social media accounts claim that members of the group’s Badri 313 outfit are providing security at Kabul international airport. Badri 313 is a Special Forces wing of the Taliban’s army. 

It has been responsible for some of the group’s key battlefield successes and has also conducted complex “martyrdom” (suicide) operations.

Photos posted on Taliban-associated feeds purportedly show Badri 313 units in and around the airport in Kabul. It is not clear how many of the group’s men are there.

The Haqqani Network, which plays an integral role in the Taliban’s political and military command structure, has long advertised the operations carried out by its special forces in the “Badri Army.”

In February 2020, for instance, the Haqqani’s Manba Al Jihad media arm released a video entitled, “Badri Strike.” The production was posted online just weeks before the Trump administration entered into a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban in Doha.

“Badri Strike” contains clips of President Trump saying that “the American people are weary of war without victory.” Trump continued: “Nowhere is this more evident than with the war in Afghanistan, the longest war in American history, 17 years.” The video’s producers say America and its allies in Kabul have been defeated.

The video’s narrator states that whereas the US once declared the Taliban to be “terrorists,” it was forced to negotiate with the jihadists. The talks are portrayed as a clear victory for the Taliban’s Islamic Emirate, which the narrator holds up as an example for other Muslim groups around the world. The production also places the impending return of the Taliban’s Islamic Emirate in the context of Muslims’ quest to restore an Islamic caliphate to power. In other words, the Taliban was anticipating a complete victory in the months to come.

A key ideologue featured in “Badri Strike” is Ustadh Mohammad Yasir, a dual-hatted Taliban-Al Qaeda figure. Yasir reportedly died in 2012 under somewhat murky circumstances. 

He had been arrested by Pakistani forces several years before. Yasir was a key ideologue for al Qaeda’s recruitment efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Yasir appeared in al Qaeda’s media, including an interview with As Sahab. Ayman al-Zawahiri honored Yasir in a talk released on the 18th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Zawahiri recounted a meeting between Yasir and bin Laden in the Tora Bora Mountains in late 2001, during which the pair discussed the 9/11 hijackings.

The archival audio of Yasir included in “Badri Strike” is therefore telling. It demonstrates that the special forces wing of the Taliban is drawing from the same ideological well as al Qaeda. In the brief clip, Yasir explains the supposed virtues of martyrdom.

“This is the blessing of your sacrifices, blood and martyrs,” Yasir says in the clip included in “Badri Strike.” Yasir goes on: “Martyrs in every nation are like candles. It burns its own self, but lightens the darknesses, it burns its own self, but gives light to others. Similarly, if your martyrs have sacrificed and burnt their lives (for Allah SWT), they have also brightened the house of Islam.”

Much of “Badri Strike” is devoted to glorifying the team of jihadists responsible for the November 2018 attack on a G4S compound in Kabul. G4S is a British security and intelligence firm. “Badri Strike” documents the meticulous planning and training that went into the complicated suicide operation. A team of Badri 313 commandos received elite training in small arms beforehand. They infiltrated the compound after one of their comrades detonated a large vehicle bomb outside.

Commander Pakistan Navy visits Tehran

Admiral Mohammad Amjad Khan Niazi, Commander Pakistan Navy, visited Tehran on Saturday and was officially welcomed by his Iranian counterpart Shahram Irani. Admiral Niazi is visiting Iran upon the official invitation of the Iranian Navy commander.

The two commanders discussed a range of issues including expanding military relations, deepening ties in the sea, protecting regional security, and using military experience in undertaking missions and safeguarding the two neighboring countries’ national interests at the sea.

On the sideline of the meeting, Iranian and Pakistani navy commanders also paid tribute to the anonymous martyrs of the eight-year Sacred Defense buried in the National Museum of the Islamic Revolution and Holy Defense and then made a tour at the museum.

Iran refers to resistance against the invading Saddam Army in the 1980s as Sacred Defense.

Admiral Irani said that Iran and Pakistan could serve together as a powerful arm for ensuring regional security. 
  
Referring to strategic relations between the naval forces of Iran and Pakistan, the commander said that the two forces have staged different joint naval maneuvers over the past years.

He also called for efforts by the naval forces of both countries to establish security, particularly in the Northern Indian Ocean.

Iranian and Pakistani naval forces have in recent years promoted cooperation and staged several joint drills in the Indian Ocean and the Sea of Oman.

In April, a flotilla of the Pakistani Navy berthed at Iran’s southern port city of Bandar Abbas and held a joint war game in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman with the Iranian units.

The Pakistani Navy commander is scheduled to visit Iran’s northern fleet deployed at coasts of the Caspian Sea.

China to be the first major power to recognize new Afghan regime

I request all the readers of my blog to read this article written by Admiral James Stavridis. He was 16th Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and 12th Dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He spent the bulk of his operational career in the Pacific, and is author of "2034: A Novel of the Next World War."

For most of the 19th century, the Russian and British empires contended over Afghanistan in what was known as the Great Game.

The geopolitical competition recognized the strategic position of Afghanistan, and its potential to influence what is today Pakistan and India. Both the Brits and the Russians, of course, were defeated over time in Afghanistan, the so-called "graveyard of empires."

Today, following the spectacular collapse of the American-trained Afghan army, the triumph of Taliban and the humiliating withdrawal under combat conditions of the remnants of the US diplomatic mission, Afghanistan seemingly reverts to 2001 ‑ run by hardline religious zealots determined to follow strict Shariah law. Will anything change, and a new Great Game emerging?

Stavridis believes, Taliban 2.0 will not be kinder or gentler to their own citizens, they have probably learned that allowing their nation to serve as a base for international terrorist operations can lead to twenty years in the wilderness or in this case, the mountains of Pakistan. Likely they will be less interested in spreading jihad globally than in simply dominating the fractious Afghan nation.

That will not be easy. There are still regional warlords, especially in the north, which will not willingly bend a knee to the Taliban for long. Likewise, there are restive ethnic elements in the Afghan population - notably the Tajiks and Hazaras - who have no love for what they see as Pashtun fanatics from Kandahar. Afghanistan has a long and rich tradition of internal squabbling once an external foe is ejected.

All of which brings us to the role other major nations will play in Afghanistan now that the US has folded its tents and flown away into the night. The sudden shock to the system regionally is palpable. Other Asian nations, including China, Russian, India, Pakistan and Iran, all have interests that will drive events going forward.

China is clearly positioning itself to be a major international partner to the Taliban. They could care less about human or gender rights in Afghanistan, and will only want to consolidate a dominant position in regard to the US$2 trillion worth of rare earths - most notably lithium. As China seeks to consolidate as much control as they can over strategic supply chains for everything from microchips to electric car batteries, they want primacy in Kabul -- and will be the first major nation to recognize the new regime.

For Pakistan, this is a moment of triumph. They have assiduously supported the Taliban for the past two decades, both to control terrorist groups that occasionally threaten Pakistan and to deny India a foothold in a country on the other side of their border. Closely aligned with China internationally, they will seek to partner with the Chinese in exploiting the mineral wealth and blocking India from a role with the Taliban regime. Pakistan also wants a certain level of stability to avoid mass illegal migration, something they have dealt with repeatedly from Afghanistan.

Russia has a different set of interests than the China-Pakistan axis. They seek first and foremost a stable situation that can reduce the propensity for radical Islamic terrorism exported north through the former republics of the old Soviet Union.

And while Putin is always happy to see the US receive a black eye, the Russians are also hopeful that the Taliban can be encouraged to exert a higher level of control over the massive heroin production - much of which ends up in the arms of young Russians and other Europeans. Look for Russia to quickly recognize the Taliban, ignore any human or gender rights violations, and offer modest assistance in return for stability and at least some level of reduction in the narcotics trade.

To the west, Iran has had a fractious relationship with the Taliban in the past. Taliban are Sunni and the Iranians, of course, are Shia. Overall, the Iranians are thrilled with the ejection of the US from bases on their border and will place a premium on how the Pashtun Taliban treat the Tajiks, who are linguistically connected to the Iranians and constitute almost a third of the nation's population. In the west around Herat and in the north surrounding Mazar-e-Sharif, the Iranians will strengthen commercial relationships and seek amicable relations with the new government.

Perhaps the most interesting role may be played by India. The Indians have long sought relationships in Afghanistan, both for the commercial potential of the nation and to put pressure on Pakistan. China will do all it can, in concert with Pakistan, to foreclose any Indian influence in Kabul -- which had grown significantly under Ashraf Ghani's presidency.

Finally, while the US has departed Afghanistan, it will seek to maintain intelligence overwatch through satellite surveillance; clandestine CIA operations; cooperating with other nations who continue to maintain embassies there; monitoring cyber and cellphone intelligence; and building human networks.

NATO and other US allies will operate around the edge. But for the moment, the dominant forces in Afghanistan will be from the neighborhood -- notably led by China. Thus the Great Game continues, but the players are all locals.

Kamala Harris getting ready to visit Asia

US Vice President, Kamala Harris's trip to Singapore and Vietnam starting on Sunday will show that the United States is in the region "to stay," a senior administration official said, as Washington seeks to bolster international support to counter China's growing global influence.

Harris will be the most senior US official to visit the region since President Joe Biden took office in January promising to shore up alliances, which the United States considers key to checking Chinese expansion.

A senior White House official told Reuters earlier this month that the vice president's focus would be on defending international rules in the South China Sea, strengthening US regional leadership and expanding security cooperation in the region.

"The administration is ... making clear that we have an enduring commitment to this region, that we're part of the Indo-Pacific and in the region to stay," the official said.

The trip coincides with chaos in Afghanistan following Biden's decision to withdraw US troops after a 20-year war, the planning of which has been criticized at home and abroad.

The official said Harris would continue to work on issues tied to Afghanistan while on her Asia trip.

"It's been an overwhelming focus and priority of the whole team including the vice president ... at the same time; it is also true that Southeast Asia and the Indo-Pacific are really important. And that's why she's going," the official added.

Harris is due in Singapore on Sunday. She will be the first US vice president to visit Vietnam and arrives in the country on Tuesday and departs next Thursday.

During her trip, Harris will meet Singapore's President Halimah Yacob, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and deliver remarks on a US combat ship visiting Singapore. She will also hold a meeting to discuss supply chain issues with representatives from the private sector and government.

In Hanoi, Vietnam, Harris will meet with leaders including President Ngyuen Xuan Phuc and Prime Minister Pham Ming Chinh and lead the US delegation in launching a regional office for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The visit to Southeast Asia will be Harris' second foreign trip as vice president. In June, she went to Guatemala and Mexico for meetings on the "root causes" of the migrant crisis at the US-Mexico border.

Who is Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar?

Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, Taliban’s top political leader, who made a triumphal return to Afghanistan this week, battled the US and its allies for decades but then signed a landmark peace agreement with the Trump administration.

Baradar is now expected to play a key role in negotiations between the Taliban and officials from the Afghan government that the group deposed in its blitz across the country. Taliban say they seek an “inclusive, Islamic” government and claim they have become more moderate since they last held power.

But many remain skeptical, and all eyes are now on Baradar, who has said little about how the group will govern but has proven pragmatic in the past.

Baradar’s biography charts the arc of the Taliban’s journey from an Islamic militia that battled warlords during the civil war in the 1990s, ruled the country in accordance with a strict interpretation of Islamic law and then waged a two-decade insurgency against the US. His experience also sheds light on the Taliban’s complicated relationship with Pakistan.

Baradar is the only surviving Taliban leader to have been personally appointed deputy by the late Taliban commander Mullah Mohammed Omar, giving Baradar near-legendary status within the movement. He is far more visible than the Taliban’s current supreme leader, Maulawi Hibatullah Akhunzada.

On Tuesday, Baradar landed in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban movement he helped found in the mid-1990s. Ending 20 years of exile, he was thronged by well-wishers as he stepped off a Qatari government aircraft and drove off in a convoy.

Baradar, who is in his early 50s, was born in the southern Uruzgan province. Like others who would eventually become Taliban leaders, he joined the ranks of the CIA- and Pakistan-backed Mujahideen to fight against the Soviet Union during its decade long occupation of the country that ended in 1989.

In the 1990s, the country slid into civil war, with rival Mujahideen battling one another and carving out fiefdoms. Warlords set up brutal protection rackets and checkpoints in which their forces shook down travelers to fund their military activities.

In 1994, Mullah Omar, Baradar and others founded Taliban, which means religious students. The group mainly consisted of clerics and young, pious men, many of whom had been driven from their homes and had known only war. Their unsparing interpretation of Islam unified their ranks and set them apart from the notoriously corrupt warlords.

Baradar fought alongside Mullah Omar as he led Taliban through its seizure of power in 1996 and its return to an insurgency following the 2001 US-led invasion.

During the group’s 1996-2001 rule, the president and governing council were based in Kabul. But Baradar spent most of his time in Kandahar, the spiritual capital of Taliban, and did not have an official government role.

The US invaded Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, which had been planned and carried out by Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida while it was sheltering under Taliban rule. Baradar, Omar and other Taliban leaders fled into neighboring Pakistan.

In the ensuing years, the Taliban were able to organize a potent insurgency based in rugged and semi-autonomous tribal areas along the border. Baradar was arrested in Pakistan’s southern city of Karachi in 2010 in a joint raid by the CIA and Pakistan’s counterterrorism forces.

At the time, he had been making peace overtures to Afghanistan’s then-President Hamid Karzai, but the US was bent on military victory and it appeared that Pakistan wanted to ensure control over any political process. Baradar’s removal empowered more radical leaders within the Taliban who were less open to diplomacy.

Karzai later confirmed the overtures to The Associated Press and said he had twice asked the Americans and the Pakistanis to free Baradar but was rebuffed. Baradar himself refused an offer of release in 2013, apparently because the US and Pakistan conditioned it on his cooperation.

Karzai, who is now involved in talks with the Taliban about shaping the next government, could once again find himself negotiating with Baradar.

By 2018, Taliban had seized effective control over much of Afghanistan’s countryside. The Trump administration, looking for a way out of America’s longest war, persuaded Pakistan to release Baradar that year and began pursuing peace talks with Taliban.

Baradar led the Taliban’s negotiating team in Qatar through several rounds of those talks, culminating in a February 2020 peace agreement. He also met with then-US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Under the deal, the Taliban agreed to halt attacks on international forces and prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a haven for terror groups in return for a full U.S. withdrawal, now planned for the end of the month.

Last week, Taliban pushed into the country’s cities, seizing nearly all of the country in matter of days and then rolled virtually unopposed into the capital, Kabul.

In his first comment after the capture of Kabul on Sunday, Baradar acknowledged his surprise, saying that “it was never expected that we will have victory in Afghanistan.”

Wearing a black turban and vest over a white robe, the bespectacled Baradar looked straight into the camera.

“Now comes the test,” he said. “We must meet the challenge of serving and securing our nation, and giving it a stable life going forward.”