United States to end preferential trade treatment for India on 5th June 2019

President Donald Trump announced on Friday that the United States would end its preferential trade treatment for India on 5^th June 2019. Earlier, in March this year he had announced the intention to remove India from the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program.

Trump declared, “I have determined that India has not assured the United States that India will provide equitable and reasonable access to its markets.”

India is the biggest beneficiary of the GSP, which allows preferential duty-free imports of up to US$5.6 billion from the South Asian nation.

Indian officials have raised the prospect of higher import duties on more than 20 products of US origin, if President Trump drops India from the program.

The biggest point of satisfaction for India is that 24 members of the US Congress have sent a letter to the administration on 3^rd May 3 urging it not to terminate India’s access to the GSP.

India seeking resumption of oil import from Iran

India is planning to resume oil imports from Iran and the new government is going to hold talks with Iran in order to discuss ways of getting around US sanctions like paying in national currencies.

“The Modi government will immediately initiate talks with Iran to discuss steps that will allow it to resume oil imports,” India digital news portal ‘The Print’ has reported quoting government sources.

According to the sources, Iran’s Pasargad Bank and India’s Reserve Bank could be used to arrange the payments.

“Payments can be deposited in the Iranian bank and then Iranian authorities can decide how to utilize the money,” a senior government official who didn’t wish to be identified said.

“These talks have been held earlier too but got stalled due to elections. Talks will be revived soon and this will be one of the first focus areas of the government.” the official said.

India stopped oil imports from Iran after the six-month sanction waiver from the US ended on 2nd May 2019.

The US administration re-imposed sanctions on Iran after withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, which was signed in 2015, along with European countries. .

The US had instructed India and other countries to cut oil imports from Iran to "zero" by 4^th November 2018 or face sanctions. However, Washington granted a six-month waiver to India and seven other countries to buy oil from Iran. The waivers expired in May this year.

India, which is the second biggest purchaser of Iranian oil after China, has since then restricted its monthly purchase to 15 million tons in a year or 300,000 barrels per day, down from 22.6 million tons or 452,000 barrels per day, bought in 2017-18 financial year.

India is world's third biggest oil consumer that meets more than 80% of its oil needs through imports.

Bolton adamant at instigating war between United States and Iran

While there is growing consensus that United States should abstain from instigating a war with Iran, warmongers like US National Security Adviser, John Bolton, spare no chance accusing Iran and creating war hype. Lately he said that naval mines “almost certainly from Iran” were used to attack oil tankers off the United Arab Emirates this month, and warned Tehran against conducting new operations.

According to a Reuters report, Bolton said the “prudent and responsible” approach taken by the United States, which has beefed up its military presence in the region, had made it clear to Iran and its proxies that such actions risked a “very strong” U.S. response.

He was speaking to reporters in Abu Dhabi ahead of emergency summits of Arab leaders in Saudi Arabia on Thursday called to discuss the implications of the tanker attacks, and drone strikes two days later, on oil pumping stations in the kingdom.

Tehran has denied involvement in either of the attacks and Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi dismissed Bolton’s latest remarks as a “ludicrous claim”.

The UAE has not yet blamed anyone for the sabotage of four vessels, including two Saudi tankers, near Fujairah emirate, a major bunkering hub just outside the Strait of Hormuz.

Riyadh has accused Tehran of ordering the drone strikes, which were claimed by the Iran-aligned Houthis who have been battling a Saudi-led coalition in Yemen in a four-year conflict seen as a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

 Bolton said without providing evidence, “There is no doubt in anybody’s mind in Washington who is responsible for this and I think it’s important that the leadership in Iran know that we know.”

He declined to comment on the specifics of the investigation into the attacks in which the United States, France, Norway and Saudi Arabia are taking part, but said those other countries and ship owners involved could do so.

Bolton said the tanker attacks were connected to the strike on oil pumping stations on the kingdom’s East-West pipeline and a rocket attack on the Green Zone in the Iraqi capital Baghdad.

He said there had been a fourth unsuccessful attack on Saudi Arabia’s Yanbu port a few days before the tanker operation but that it was unclear if it was linked to the others. Saudi officials were not immediately available to comment.

Tensions between the United States and Iran have escalated since President Donald Trump withdrew from a 2015 multinational nuclear pact with Iran and re-imposed sanctions, notably targeting Tehran’s key oil exports. Iran says it will not be cowed by what it has called psychological warfare.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani signaled on Wednesday that talks with the United States might be possible if Washington lifted sanctions and met its commitments under the nuclear deal, state television said.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE have backed sanctions against Iran, a fellow OPEC producer but a regional foe, and have lobbied Washington to contain Tehran.

Bolton said the United States was discussing next steps with Gulf allies and the goal was “to make it clear to Iran and its surrogates that these kinds of activities risk a very strong response from the Americans.”

“We are very concerned about the Quds Force and Qassem Soleimani using Shi’ite militia groups and others in Iraq as indirect ways to attack our embassy in Baghdad, consulate in Erbil, our various bases around the country,” he said.

The U.S. Combined Air Operations Center is based in Qatar and its navy Fifth Fleet in Bahrain. The U.S. air force also uses al-Dhafra airbase in Abu Dhabi.

Washington said it was sending 1,500 troops to the region after speeding up deployment of an aircraft carrier strike group and sending bombers and additional Patriot missiles.

Bolton also voiced concern about perceived threats from the overseas arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

Can Pakistan play a role in defusing Saudi-Iran conflict?

The Arab League and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) emergency summits called by Saudi Arabia are to be held on Thursday, a day before the long-scheduled OIC summit. It is not yet clear how many countries will take part in the emergency gatherings, but Qatar which has been boycotted by a Saudi-led alliance has been invited to attend the GCC meeting.

Riyadh cut diplomatic ties with Tehran in 2016 after protesters stormed Saudi diplomatic missions in Iran following its execution of a prominent Shia cleric. The OIC summit will address "current issues in the Muslim world" and "recent developments in a number of OIC member states", the official agenda states. Saudi Arabia and its allies have repeatedly accused Iran of interfering in the affairs of other countries, including Bahrain, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, by supporting and arming fighters.

Qatar has grown closer to Iran, while Kuwait has expressed concern over Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. Oman, which has good ties with both Iran and the United States, has said it and other parties "seek to calm tensions" between the two countries. Ahead of the summits, Iran's top diplomats have been touring the region, including Iraq, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar. Iran, which shares a border with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Turkey, also has good relations with Ankara and Islamabad.

I am obliged to refer to an Editorial  published in one of Pakistan’s leading English newspaper and Dawn on 26th May 2019 that needs to be read by all Pakistanis very carefully and dispassionately. I have often asserted that Pakistan’s neighbors are turning hostile because the successive governments have been following the US foreign policy agenda, without taking into account the deprecations.

Dawn has rightly highlighted the need for serious deliberations because of the threat of a catastrophic conflict between the US and Iran looming larger over the region. It is encouraging that the incumbent government appears to be making a considerable diplomatic effort to defuse simmering tensions between the two countries.

On last Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif concluded his two-day trip to Pakistan with an encouraging message from Pakistan’s civil and military leadership — that maximum restraint must be exercised in the prevailing situation as any conflict in an already volatile region could threat global peace and stability. Zarif expressed his satisfaction with Pakistan’s view that US pressure on Iran was unjustified. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi also emphasized the need for a resolution of the crisis through dialogue.

It is evident from Zarif’s comments as well as Prime Minister Imran Khan’s earlier visit to Tehran that the incumbent government is making an effort to avoid taking sides. It is by no means an easy situation, given Pakistan’s relationship with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), both have been generous in extending monetary support to Pakistan. The situation becomes even more difficult to handle, when there is internal and external pressure.

In 2015, parliament’s decision against sending troops to support the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen was a brave step but the current scenario could test the limits of that position. Pakistan’s relationship with Saudi Arabia runs deep. The countries also enjoy strategic and military cooperation. If the warm reception and vows of solidarity during the Saudi crown prince’s February visit are anything to go by, it will not be easy to stay neutral in the face of a request for support from Riyadh.

In this situation, the guiding principle should be to resist any external pressure in the best interest of the country as well as the region. Pakistan has successfully avoided supporting any side during Iran-Iraq war and the ongoing Yemen conflict. Therefore, Pakistan must remain steadfast in protecting its own interests, while making the best efforts to resolve the conflict between the two Muslim countries.

Islamabad should use whatever little influence it has on Iran to demonstrate that it (Iran) is not directly involved in the Yemeni conflict. Or, if the OIC countries push for a strong anti-Iran stance, Pakistan must articulate its position in a way that is not offensive, while pointing out that the ultimate beneficiary of a war would be Israel. A diplomatic approach would involve a proactive move to counsel its warring allies and make note of positive statements coming from Washington or Tehran.

With strained relationships with two of its immediate but hostile neighbors, India and Afghanistan, Pakistan cannot afford another war in the region. If US-Iran conflict breaks into war, it could put Pakistan’s security into serious jeopardy.

Sheldon Adelson: Jackpot for Israel

A bet on Donald Trump for president may have seemed risky two years ago, but for billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the payout has been spectacular. Adelson (85-year old) and his wife Miriam gave around US$82 million to Republicans and candidate Trump in 2016, and within two years his two major asks were met: moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and withdrawing of US from Iran nuclear deal.

This was accomplished in consultation with Adelson comprador John Bolton, who in December 2016 promised members of the American Friends of Beit El that Trump would not only move the embassy by declaring Jerusalem the true capital of Israel, but he would not oppose any Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank territories. Adelson is also credited with opening the door for Bolton’s appointment to national security adviser in March

Adelson has enjoyed a direct line to Trump, speaking with him in person and on the phone at least once a month. Most recently, he was able to convince the president to cut off US aid to Palestinian refugees living in crowded, dirty, and unrelentingly hopeless refugee camps outside Israel. Around the same time, Trump withdrew US$25 million in assistance from impoverished East Jerusalem hospitals that also serve Palestinian cancer patients allowed in from the West Bank and Gaza for treatment.

Of course, Adelson’s pro Zionist agenda, which includes expanding the settlements as far as they can go most recently, is pouring his money into a huge new Israeli medical university on one of those settlements, in sync with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud party. It’s been a great year for all involved.

For the first time in recent presidential history, there is no pretense of peace with the Arabs. Trump’s endorsement of a two-state solution at the recent United Nations General Assembly in September may have appeared hopeful, but it was as lame as it was patronizing. “I like two state solutions,” Trump offered spontaneously, posing for smiling photographs with Netanyahu. “That’s what I think works best. That’s my feeling.”

For someone who supposedly has a “peace plan” but hasn’t announced it after two years in office, his “feelings” are as worthless as poker chips outside a casino. Maybe that’s why Bibi didn’t offer much of a response. After declaring he would consider Trump’s non-existent plan “with a keen and open mind,” Netanyahu reiterated that any Palestinian state endorsed by Israel will be an unarmed one, not really a state at all.

Not long after Adelson, Netanyahu also encouraged Trump to stop all funding (an estimated US$300 million allocated in 2018) from a UN agency tasked since 1950 with providing aid for Palestinian refugees, Trump abruptly closed the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) offices in Washington, the only diplomatic conduit between the US and the Palestinian National Authority. The reason given was “PLO leadership has condemned a US peace plan they have not yet seen and refused to engage with the US government with respect to peace efforts and otherwise.”

Trump’s point man for the peace plan is none other than his son-in-law Jared Kushner, whose family has generously supported the aforementioned Beit El settlement and is old friends with Netanyahu. Kushner was the primary agitator behind yanking the refugee funding, calling the aid entitlement program and withholding of it a punishment for Palestinian leaders who vilify the administration.

More cynically, reports indicate he is merely helping Israel end right of return for Palestinians and their kin displaced during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Similarly, the embassy move was designed to take the contested issue of Jerusalem off the table. Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s government just passed a nation-state law that declares Israel a Jewish state, one that affirms Jewish settlements and the right to self-determination for Israeli Jews only, codifying, in essence, that 1.8 million Arabs living there are second-class citizens. This loads the dice before the games even begin.

Only people like Kushner and Adelson, who at a net worth of US$42.5 billion is the 16th richest man on the planet, would see withholding food, education, and healthcare as way of disappearing a problem to gain leverage in future negotiations. Only Trump would consider that the art of the deal.

Western Media is Key to Syria Deception

In the past, I have often termed western media ‘dishonest’. Today, I refer to an elaborate work of Jonathan Cook, lately published by "Information Clearing House" to substantiate my assertion. He has referred to the claim recently made by al-Qaeda-linked fighters that they were targeted with chemical weapons by the Syrian government in Idlib province – their final holdout in Syria.

It is known to all that the US and other western governments enthusiastically picked up such claims, which lack credibility.  This particular news also lacked authenticity because no evidence has yet been produced to confirm the jihadists’ claims. Syrian government is poised to defeat these al-Qaeda groups without resort to chemical weapons – and without provoking the predictable ire (yet again) of the west.

Public has all the reason to doubt the credibility of this statement at a time they have learnt that the last supposed major chemical attack – which took place in April 2018 and was, as ever, blamed by all western sources on Syria’s president, Bashar Assad – was a false-flag operation by those very al-Qaeda groups now claiming the Syrian government has attacked them once again.

Most astounding in this week’s coverage of the claims made by al-Qaeda groups is the fact that the western media continues to refuse to learn any lessons, develop any critical distance from the sources it relies on, even as those sources have repeatedly deceived it.

This was true after the failure to find WMD in Iraq, and it is now even truer after the international community’s monitoring body on chemical weapons, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), was exposed this month as deeply dishonest.

It is bad enough that warmongering governments and their expert institutions deceive and lie. But it is even worse that the corporate media is addicted to such content to promote its importance. The conviction that the western media is dishonest is getting stronger with each passing day.

US Warmongering on Iran Showing Cracks

According to reports, Exxon was forced to withdraw some 80 staff from Iraq’s oil-rich Basra over ostensible Iranian threats to US interests in the fallout from Washington’s attempt to provoke Tehran.

Now the acting US Defense Secretary is saying, vaguely, that the threat of attacks by Iran has been “put on hold” thanks to US counter measures, while Trump has wavered back and forth about his intentions, based on criticism coming from the Democratic camp.

The dishonest western media continue to say that Saudis are lobbying for a war and Yemen’s Houthis are happy to oblige, claiming to have launched an armed drone at the Najran airport in Saudi Arabia. The tinted media also say that it is not the first time Houthis have targeted this airport, which is right on the Saudi-Yemen border and is an easy target.
In the meantime, Iraqi are furious on Exxon’s evacuation of staff, calling it “unacceptable and unwarranted”. Iraqi also claim that the southern part of their country is peaceful and secure and other oil companies (Lukoil, BP, Eni) have made no similar move and also have not expressed any intent.

Reasonably, Iraq is worried about the false message being sent to the investors and the market in general.

Iraq also says that 19th May 2019 rocket attack aiming Green Zone has served to ratchet up tensions further. The attack was being headlined in the media as “near the US Embassy in Baghdad”. This headline is grabbing ploy because the attack occurred a mile away from the embassy, suggesting that the embassy was clearly not the target.

The only significance of the attack was that it was the first in the Green Zone in some 8 months, but there were no casualties, and authorities know little about the nature of the attack, other than that the rocket was fired from an open field and may have been fired from Eastern Baghdad, where there are known Iranian militias.

Overtures and Confrontations between United States and Iran

I am an ardent reader of the proceedings of ‘United States Institute of Peace’, particularly on Iran. Today, I am referring to a few snapshots of its recent release on Iran. 

I want my readers to read the briefs but also keep two points in minds: 1) since Islamic revolution in Iran, US has emerged as its worst enemy and 2) every failed attempt to ‘change the regime in Iran’ adds to US frustration and desperation.

Keeping Iran under ‘stringent economic sanctions’ has not weakened it, on the contrary, Iran has emerged the biggest resistance in the creation of ‘US hegemony in the Arabian Peninsula’.

According to United States Institute of Peace, “Half of American adults expect the US to go to war with Iran “within the next few years.”  In a survey conducted by Reuters of a representative sample of 1,007 adults were asked a series of questions from May 17-20 amid heightened tensions between Washington and Tehran. Some 53 percent of adults considered Iran a “serious” or “imminent” threat. But only 12 percent said US forces should conduct a preemptive attack on Iranian military interests.” 

Since the 1979 revolution, Washington and Tehran have gyrated between hostile actions and diplomatic overtures. Relations have never recovered from the seizure of the US Embassy and 52 diplomats. The US attempted military action to end the drama but eventually turned to diplomacy. Since then, the Islamic Republic has been linked, directly or indirectly, to the deaths of hundreds of Americans, while the US has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Iranians. Yet both countries have also dabbled in bold outreach, with mixed results.  

Lately, Acting US Defense Secretary, Patrick Shanahan has reiterated that the US does not want to go to war with Iran. On May 21, he told reporters that recent US moves have deterred attacks on US interests in the Middle East. “Our biggest focus at this point is to prevent Iranian miscalculation,” he said.

US lawmakers have been divided over what to do next to deal with the escalating tensions between the US and Iran. The split is largely along partisan lines. Democrats voiced concern that the Trump administration was leading the US into a new Middle East war. Republicans largely denied that the administration sought war with Iran but emphasized that the US would respond forcefully if its forces in the Middle East were attacked.  

A peep into recent history indicates President Trump’s election produced dramatic change in US policy in 2017. The US withdrew from the nuclear deal with Iran and the word’s major powers in May 2018. The Trump administration has been following a “maximum pressure campaign” to press Iran to change its policies and negotiate a more comprehensive deal.

Since taking office, Trump has taken an increasingly aggressive posture toward Iran. The tone was set less than two weeks into Trump’s presidency when then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn responded to an Iranian missile test. “The Obama Administration failed to respond adequately to Tehran’s malign actions—including weapons transfers, support for terrorism, and other violations of international norms,” he said. “As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice.” 

The recent attacks on ships near a UAE port provided the US an opportunity to accumulate its troops, naval ships and aircrafts closer to Iran to warn of a preemptive attack. Though, both Washington and Tehran have been saying ‘we do not want a war’, it is feared that any adventurous move by any of the proxies could ignite a spark enough to break a war between two mind sets, Zionist and Islamisit.

Exempting Iranian Chabahar Port from US economic sanctions

It seems certain that the United States will not impose any sanctions on movement of Afghan transit goods through Iranian port Chabahar. This exemption will be aimed at consolidating Afghan-Indian economic relations.

The port has been constructed with the Indian assistance to boost trade between one of the largest regional economies, India, and landlocked and war ridden Afghanistan.

The exemption will be aimed at facilitating Afghanistan in reducing its dependence on Pakistan. If a contrary decision is made, it will increase the transit costs of Indian commodities and put further restrictions on Afghan merchants.

Some analysts believe reveal that imposing sanctions on Iran as the most secured and less expensive access route for Afghanistan implies imposing sanctions on Afghanistan as well.

As far as the India is concerned, the significant point is that the India’s commodities to be transit to Afghanistan are not extensive and voluminous enough to rationalize marine and road transportation expenses and to create a significant growth in India’s balance of trade.

Indian analysts are of the view that bearing in mind the trade volume of Afghanistan, Russia and Central Asian countries which altogether are more than 16 million tons and the insignificant share of Afghanistan, it could be concluded that without making possible the transportation of all India’s merchandise to above mentioned countries through Chabahar Port, the exemption of this port will not make any noticeable change in India’s trade.

Therefore, Chabahar Port’s exemption will only be a competitive advantage for India, if all Indian merchandise toward Afghanistan, Russia and Central Asian countries could be transported through Chabahar Port without any restriction in banking and insurance transactions.

The noteworthy point about Afghanistan is that the exemption of Chabahar Port will only be fruitful, if there is no restriction on entering and leaving Chabahar Port for vessels carrying Afghanistan’s merchandise; as well as commercial transactions of cargo owners, merchants and shipping lines, particularly banking transactions are done without limitation.

Pakistan grants oil exploration license to Kuwaiti firm

The Government of Pakistan (GoP) has granted the license for exploration of oil in the Makhad block to a subsidiary of Kuwait Foreign Petroleum Exploration Company.

According to the details, the GoP has executed an Exploration License (EL) as well as a Petroleum Concession Agreement (PCA) signed by Petroleum Division Secretary Mian Asad Hayauddin and Qazi Mohammad Saleem Siddiqui, Director General, Petroleum Concessions, and CEO of Kuwait Foreign Petroleum Exploration Company (KUFPEC) at a ceremony also attended by Federal Minister for Petroleum, Omar Ayub Khan.

On the occasion, the Petroleum Minister said that "the execution of PCA and EL will attract foreign investment in the petroleum sector and bridge the demand and supply gap in the energy sector."

Khan further said that the efforts will bear fruit in future years in the form of hydrocarbon reserves.

The Makhad block, is situated in Attock, Mianwali and Chakwal in Punjab as well as Kohat in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. It is said to be spread over 1,562.92 square kilometers.

Kufpec will invest at least US$9.8 million in the block. Apart from the minimum firm work commitment, the company is also obligated to spend a minimum of US$30,000 per year in Makhad block on social welfare schemes.

Israel’s role in Iran-United States conflict

The worst happening in the Arabian Peninsula is a war being waged by the Trump administration on Iran.  The financial terrorism and economic sabotage already inflicted on Iran by the US can also be termed acts of war. Truly, it does not get any more serious than this colossal foreign policy fiasco. Once again, Israel has successfully hijacked the US Military, State Department and Intelligence Community to wage an unprovoked war on a sovereign state in the Middle East. It may not be wrong to say that this war-in-the-making is the culmination of a covert plan to advance the Greater Israel project. The logic is as follows:

This is illegal, reckless and catastrophic war because such misguided warmongering is aimed at triggering the World War III. The global crime syndicate known as the International Banking Cartel, which runs the perpetual war economy across the planet, knows that the end is very near for them.  The entire Global Economic and Financial System is teetering on the precipice of a total and final collapse.  Their only way out is war, Third World War to establish a totalitarian One World Government.

Iran has become the lynchpin in this insane scheme to plunge the world community of nations into chaos.  This is precisely why President Trump was ordered by his Zionist masters to form his stone-cold war cabinet of Bolton, Pompeo, Pence, Haspel, Abrams and Shanahan.  Each chronic warmonger was hand-picked by Israel to develop and implement the war plans necessary to conquer Iran.

About eight months back MEK supporters tell them they will overthrow Iran’s regime and celebrate in Tehran with Bolton himself present. One also has to look at the rapidly evolving events in the Mideast, especially in the regions surrounding Iran. It has been quite clear ever since Trump first declared his candidacy in June of 2015 that war against Iran was the very centerpiece of his foreign policy.  Every major foreign affairs decision has been made toward that end, including the intentionally failed military coup against Venezuela.

Even Trump’s decision to continue the war in Afghanistan was made in order to maintain that strategic location which shares a long border with Iran.  The US occupation of Syria also remains firmly in place despite several promises to withdraw all troops because of the planned war with Iran; so is the large U.S. military presence in Iraq contrary to that nation’s wishes.

Now the whole world is seeing just how much premeditation and stealth have gone into this ‘American war’ against Iran fought on strictly behalf of Israel.  Zionists have been planning this armed conflict for decades, and they know it must not fail.

These warmongers know that there’s a tried and tested way to start any regional war, especially one that needs to capture the full support of the American people.  They will raise a false flag of terrorist attack on American assets somewhere in the world that is inordinately vicious and provocative.  If not that, they will secretly stage a surprise attack on the US Navy in the Mideast which will immediately be blamed on Iran.  There’s also the distinct possibility of a false attack on Saudi Arabian oil tankers.

The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty provides the best example of how Israel might be used to stage this false flag operation. Netanyahu has already proven to be an arch enemy of the United States as demonstrated by his own words and he will do whatever it takes to deceive the U.S citizenry into supporting another odious war to advance the Greater Israel project.

Can European Union resist United States pressure to join war against Iran?

With bitter memories of the catastrophic war in Iraq, European Union (EU) members seem united in opposing the United States’ effort to provoke Iran into a shooting war. However, flat refusal to Washington appears a difficult decision for the EU members. Initially, Britain expressed that there was no enhanced threat from Iran in Iraq and Syria, but expected to change its opinion under the US pressure.

While Europeans were reluctant to confront Washington directly, Britain officially agreed with the Americans and Germany and the Netherlands suspended their troop training in Iraq. Germany subsequently said it was planning to resume the training exercises.

“Every single European government believes that the increased threat we’re seeing from Iran now is a reaction to the United States leaving the Iran nuclear agreement and trying to force Iranian capitulation on other issues,” said Kori Schake, a former Pentagon official who is now deputy director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “They believe that the U.S. is the provocateur and they worry that the U.S. is reacting so stridently to predictable Iranian actions in order to provide a pretext for a U.S. attack on Iran,” Ms. Schake said.

“It is different from the debate preceding 2003 Iraq war, which split Europe in two,” said Tomas Valasek, the director of Carnegie Europe and a former Slovak ambassador to NATO. “This is a case of all European governments saying to Washington that this is insane, we shouldn’t be here, and it’s your fault that we’re actually talking of war.”

The Europeans are trapped between Trump and Tehran, trying to keep decent relations with Washington while committed to supporting the 2015 Iran nuclear deal that Trump mocked and then abandoned. Senior European government officials say they believe that Trump does not want a major war in the Middle East, but they also believe that Bolton does. They often cite a New York Times opinion article by Bolton in 2015, when he said “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.”

European officials are puzzled by Trump’s insistence that he simply wants to force Iran into new negotiations. Ms. Schake has rightly raised two question: “Why, would Tehran concede or even value any deal done with the president who just abandoned a nuclear deal so painfully negotiated with the last American president? “Why would they trust us now after Trump pulled the plug on the last thing they negotiated with Washington?”

The public position of European officials has been “maximum restraint,” that is opposite to Washington’s stated policy of “maximum pressure” on Tehran, including economic sanctions designed to block its international trade, especially in oil, on which the economy depends.

Foreign ministers, including Britain’s Jeremy Hunt and Germany’s Heiko Maas — have spoken about the dangers of escalation and accidental war. “We are very worried about the risk of a conflict happening by accident with an escalation that is unintended,” said Hunt.

Maas told German legislators that putting intense pressure on Iran added to the risk of an unintended escalation. “What has happened in recent days — acts of sabotage against ships or pipelines — are indications that these dangers are concrete and real,” he said, referring to reports that four oil vessels were recently attacked.

“The Iranians may have walked into a Washington hard-liner trap,” said Jeremy Shapiro, a former senior State Department official who is now research director for the European Council on Foreign Relations. “Iran as usual is sending messages and going up the escalator ladder one-eighth of a step at a time, through proxies,” he said. “They’re following the script. Iranian and US hard-liners have a toxic interaction and feed off each other.”

In the first gulf war, in 1990-91, the United States led a broad multinational coalition; in the second, in 2003, the European “coalition of the willing” was essentially reduced to Britain and Poland. Part of Europe’s skepticism is rooted in that 2003 war, when there were charges of fake or exaggerated intelligence, which continue to haunt the reputations of then-loyal European leaders, such as former Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and former President Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland.

“Every European politician who supported George W. Bush was taken out and effectively executed,” Shapiro said. “Even in the UK, no way there can be a repeat of that. If the US policy is in force, there will be no European support.”

But the Trump administration — which has already strained relations with Europe badly through unilateral moves over trade, climate change and relations with Israel and Russia, let alone Iran — probably doesn’t much care what the Europeans think.

 US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo came to Brussels and spoke to European foreign ministers about Iran and American assessments of enhanced threat. For internal administration debates, European may agree to tactical support or face a bitter choice, “Either you are with us or against us.”

Will Iran replace Pakistan in Afghan transit trade?

While the United States is creating war hype, India is using Iranian port, Chabahar as transit route to send goods to Afghanistan.   

According to an IRNA report, India’s first consignment of rice to Afghanistan which is due to be delivered through India-Iran-Afghanistan trade route arrived at Chabahar Port.

According to Khan Jan Alokozay, First Vice President, Afghanistan Chamber of Commerce and Industries (ACCI), it is the first of its kind and more shipments will follow in the near future.

India launched a trade route to Afghanistan via Iran through shipping its first consignment of wheat to Afghanistan in October last year, bypassing longtime rival Pakistan. 

Also in February, the Afghanistan-Iran-India trade corridor in which Afghanistan will export goods to India through Iran’s southeastern Chabahar Port was inaugurated.

Afghanistan's first 570 ton export cargo included 200 tons of grains and 370 tons of talc stone which arrived in Chabahar port late February.

Afghanistan is planning to boost is exports revenue to US$2 billion this year and according to Afghan officials, a significant share of the country’s exports will be through Iran’s Chabahar Port.

In 2016, Iran, India and Afghanistan decided to jointly establish a trade route for land-locked Central Asian countries.

India has committed US$500 million to Chabahar Port development as a way to bypass Pakistan and crack open a trade and transport route to landlocked Afghanistan, as well as the resource rich countries of central Asia.

India is expanding its economic diplomacy in Afghanistan, seeing itself as a regional power. Its involvement in Chabahar’s development is primarily about establishing a gateway to Afghanistan, more than Iran itself.

India expresses interest in investing US$20 billion in Iran

According to an IRNA report, India has shown interest in investing up to US$20 billion in Iran. This was expressed by Indian Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

He made these remarks during Iran-India Business Round Table which was held in New Delhi. He expressed India was willing to invest in Iran’s southeastern port of Chabahar. He said his country would make such an investment ‘if conditions become conducive’.
 Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, senior managers from Iranian and Indian chambers of commerce, banks, and other sectors including industry, trade, and science attended the business forum.

Pradhan also said that the two countries can increase bilateral oil and gas trade. He, in addition, showed his country’s willingness to participate in the development of Iranian Farzad-B gas field in the Persian Gulf.

During the meeting, the chairman of Iran Chamber of Commerce, Industries, Mines and Agriculture, Gholam-Hossein Shafei, said the current level of bilateral trade is not proportional to potentialities, saying that the value of trade can reach US$30 billion in the future.

Shafei underlined that possessing huge energy resources, the Islamic Republic can act as a reliable source to meet India’s need for energy.

He also mentioned transportation sector as one of the possible fields of cooperation between the two countries, adding that the recently signed trilateral agreement between Iran, Afghanistan, and India to develop the Iranian port of Chabahar can change Iran into the region’s transportation hub.

Highlighting the significance of Chabahar port in the expansion of Iran-India relations, the Iranian foreign minister noted that the port can be beneficial not only to Iran but also to all other regional countries.
Referring to the importance of banking relations as the backbone of economic ties between the two countries, Zarif expressed hope that relations would continue developing in the future.

On the first leg of his three-nation tour of Asia, Zarif arrived in New Delhi to take part in the Heart of Asia Conference on the situation in Afghanistan and also to hold talks with high-ranking Indian officials.

Iranian foreign minister is accompanied by a 70-member high ranking politico economic delegation who will take part in trade and business meetings with India, China, and Japan. 

US foreign policy to be driven by love for Israel

According to Reuters report, the United States is likely to review its ties with countries it deems ‘anti-Israel’. It can be termed a shift in policy toward equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.

Earlier in March, US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo had said in a speech that anti-Zionism - opposition to Israel’s existence as a homeland for the Jewish people - was a form of anti-Semitism, or hostility toward Jews, that was on the rise worldwide and that Washington would “fight it relentlessly”.

The State Department’s special envoy for monitoring and combating anti-Semitism, Elan Carr, said this US position could spell reviews of ties with foreign governments or leaders.

“The United States is willing to review its relationship with any country, and certainly anti-Semitism on the part of a country with whom we have relations is a deep concern,” he told Reuters during a visit to Israel.

“I will be raising that issue in bilateral meetings that I am undertaking all over the world,” he said. “That is something we are going to have frank and candid conversations about - behind closed doors.”

Carr declined to cite specific countries or leaders, or to elaborate on what actions the Trump administration might take.

“I obviously can’t comment on diplomatic tools that we might bring to bear,” he said. “Each country is a different diplomatic challenge, a different situation, number one. And number two, if I started disclosing what we might do it would be less effective.”

Some US political analysts say that President Donald Trump and other Republicans hope support for Israel will attract Jewish voters, including those disaffected by pro-Palestinian voices within progressive Democratic Party circles.

At the same time, critics have credited Trump’s confrontational, nationalistic rhetoric with encouraging right-wing extremists and feeding a surge in activity by American hate groups. The administration has flatly rejected that charge.

Carr said the administration’s equating of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism “certainly breaks new ground ... by making clear that something that a lot of us who are involved in the Jewish world and a lot of us who are proponents of a strong US-Israel relationship have known for quite some time, and that is that one of the chief flavors of anti-Semitism in the world today is the flavor that conceals itself under anti-Zionism”.

Turkey terms US sanctions against Iran ‘blatant violation of international laws’

Dr. Osman Faruk Logoglu, a senior member of Turkey’s Republican People's Party, condemning the US move to force his country to buy oil from Saudi Arabia and UAE instead of Iran has termed the move “flagrant violation of international law and sovereignty of nations to trade freely.”

In continuation of the US hostile policies against the Iranian nation, the White House recently decided not to reissue waivers on Iranian oil after these expire in early May. The statement went on to say that the United States, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates have pledged to ensure that the global market will have sufficient oil supply following Washington's decision to terminate sanctions waivers for countries importing Iranian oil.

Logoglu said, “The sanctions are illegal because these have been imposed unilaterally without a mandate from the UN Security Council or by any other authorized body.”  He also said, that the US was certainly not entitled to import Iranian oil or goods itself but has no right to stop others from engaging in what is legal and proper.  

Logoglu was of the opinion that the US effort to drive Iranian oil exports to zero is not possible.  There will certainly be buyers of Iranian oil who will not comply with US sanctions.  China has already declared that its trade with Iran is legal and normal.  Turkey has also taken a stance against the US move.

The US decision is not likely to bring peace and stability in the region, yet harm the Iranian people. Turkey has rejected unilateral sanctions and impositions on how to conduct relations with neighbors.  Iran's exports might be curtailed for some time in the near future, but in the longer run the volume of its exports could/should rise. Turkey expects adverse reactions to the US decision to grow in due course of time that could help Iran in selling more of its oil.

Logoglu said, “Iran is our neighbor.  We have a broad range of economic relations. Oil is one major element in the nexus of our ties with Iran.  The physical proximity is also an important asset as far as Iranian oil is concerned.   Given the state of our problematic relations with both Saudi Arabia and the UAE, there is no incentive for Turkey to buy oil from them.   

Logoglu, was very clear and said, “Even if Turkey reduces its oil imports from Iran and starts looking for other sources, the alternative for Turkey will be neither Saudi Arabia nor the UAE.  Current conditions do not allow Turkey to turn in that direction.  In any case, the US is not in a position to dictate Turkey where it is to buy its oil from.”