Rising suicide trend among US troops

Suicides among US troops rose 15% during 2020 as compared to the earlier year, according to an annual report from the Pentagon released on Thursday. The figures show that 580 US service members died by suicide last year, a nearly 80-person increase from the 504 who committed suicide in 2019.

The figure for 2020 was lower than the 543 suicides in 2018.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin called the new numbers "troubling," and said suicide prevention is "a paramount challenge" for the military.

"Suicide rates among our service members and military families are still too high, and the trends are not going in the right direction," Austin said in a statement Thursday. 

"We must redouble our efforts to provide all of our people with the care and the resources they need, to reduce stigmas and barriers to care, and to ensure that our community uses simple safety measures and precautions to reduce the risk of future tragedies."

He added that the Pentagon will "continue to work swiftly and urgently," in collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs.

USA Today was the first to report the new statistics before these were made public.

Alaska has been the site of several suicides, according to USA Today, with six suicides in the first five months of the year. The newspaper reported that the Army has spent more than US$200 million in an attempt to improve the quality of life at its bases in the state.

A study released in June this year uncovered that more than 30,000 active-duty personnel and veterans of wars that followed the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks had committed suicide.

That number, the study noted, was almost three times as many service members who were killed in post-9/11 war operations.

Earlier in September 2021 the Department of Veteran Affairs released a report that said veteran suicides in 2019 dropped to its lowest levels observed over the previous 12 years.

Has the game begun to promote Kamala Harris as next President of United States?

Reportedly poll numbers of Vice President Kamala Harris are rising, while numbers of President Joe Biden are falling. Kamala has rebounded in recent weeks, regaining her footing with approval ratings that now stand higher than Biden.

Harris got off to a rocky start at the beginning of the administration, including a botched response on why she hadn’t traveled to the Mexican border, when she said she hadn’t been to Europe either.

But her allies say Harris, whose difficult start provoked questions about her ability to be a future presidential candidate for the party, “has found her place” in the White House. 

“I think there’s definitely a feeling that things have been smoother,” said one ally. “It seems like they have ironed out some of the initial wrinkles.” 

Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, said Harris has “started to solidify her position and strengthen the office, gaining a sense — always difficult for a VP — of what her role should be in the administration.”

“The key will be how those numbers hold as policy controversies continue and politics heats up,” he added.

A Gallup poll last week showed 49% approved of Harris’s job as vice president, 6 points higher than Biden’s 43% approval rating. It’s a significant change for both Biden and Harris. The president fell 6 points since August and 13 points since June. Harris’s current approval rating is the same as Biden’s in 2009, when he served as Barack Obama’s vice president.

The September 22, 2021 Gallup poll — conducted earlier in the month — also revealed that the vice president performed better than Biden with independents, a stunning revelation for a man who was catapulted to the White House because of support from that demographic.

It’s unclear why Harris’s numbers have risen higher than Biden’s in some surveys, though Biden in the last two months has gone through the most difficult phase of his presidency so far. Biden has received bipartisan criticism related to the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and has also taken some hits over the prolonged coronavirus pandemic.

The president has also been criticized over his handling of the border and immigration, taking hits from the left and the right over an influx of migrants from Haiti for the last few weeks.

Harris, in contrast, has been more in the background than the foreground on those controversies, though she did win headlines for criticizing the way some Haitian migrants were being treated by border agents.

Most Democratic strategists and observers say Harris hasn’t had a singular moment or two that has boosted her in the public realm. 

“Nothing specific,” said Basil Smikle, the Democratic strategist and former Executive Director of the New York State Democratic Party, when asked if there has been a standout moment for the vice president.

He suggested the White House could actually benefit by doing more with Harris.

Smikle said that while Harris has been accessible, for example by appearing at Howard University’s homecoming, “the White House could bring her in more closely — as other administrations have — but they seem to keep her at a little distance, which may have been helpful to her in the long run.”

Other strategists say Harris has benefitted from Republicans setting their sights on Biden in recent weeks. They have portrayed him as weak on the border and Afghanistan.

“My instinct is to say that so much fire has been aimed at Biden, Harris’s numbers have gone up by sheer virtue of being out of the spotlight,” Democratic strategist Christy Setzer added. “She’s not giving anyone fresh reason to dislike her, so her polling numbers revert to the mean, with the country about evenly divided on the Black woman in the No. 2 spot.”

But Harris has appeared to settle into more of a role in her vice presidency. Last week, she hosted the leaders of Zambia, Ghana and India separately. On Wednesday, she hosted a meeting with five Latino small-business leaders.

Harris has been increasingly active politically too, giving a forceful speech for Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), fundraising for Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe and attending an event at George Mason University for National Voter Registration Day. 

To be sure, Harris’s polling numbers are not spectacular. The same Gallup poll that showed her with a 49% approval rating showed she had a 49% disapproval rating. Other polls in the last month also show her with support in the low or mid-40s, though some polls in August had her hovering in the mid- to high 30s. 

Not everything has gone to plan for Harris either. Aides and allies grew frustrated last week after she was scheduled for an in-studio interview on “The View,” but two of the hosts were pulled from the set after they tested positive for COVID-19. 

Harris conducted the interview virtually as a precaution, even though she had flown from Washington to New York for the program. The hosts subsequently tested negative, and the tests were ruled a false positive. 

The Harris ally called the incident “unfortunate” while saying Harris needs to continue to up her national stature for her own political prospects. 

“I think we’re all happy to see her settle into her role and find her bearings, but I think even she knows she has a long way to go,” the ally said

Countering drug trade in Afghanistan

According to reports, Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) urged President Joe Biden administration on Wednesday to provide a plan on how it will counter the illicit narcotics trade in Afghanistan. 

Jordan asked the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) if the administration has a strategy in place to address Afghanistan's opium and heroin trade in light of the Taliban’s takeover of the country.

“The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan due to President Biden’s reckless and chaotic withdrawal has created a power vacuum that has emboldened terrorist groups and threatened our vital national security interests. It has also led to the Taliban seizing control of the illicit drug trade in Afghanistan that will help to finance its terror activities,” Jordan said.

The Republican congressman cited a July report from the ONDCP that said more than 80 percent of the global heroin supply originates in Afghanistan and that poppy cultivation increased in 2020, following a two-year decline. 

The Taliban said in August it would ban the production of opium poppies after years of profiting from it.

“To date, President Biden has not yet established a comprehensive counternarcotics strategy to tackle our country’s drug crisis. This failure is particularly concerning in light of the Biden border crisis and the surge of illegal alien encounters at the southwest border,” Jordan said.

He also asked if ONDCP meets with the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, the Defense Department, and the Drug Enforcement Administration about drug eradication efforts, seizing illicit narcotics in transit, or deterring access to drug trafficking routes.

He questioned if ONDCP also works with those entities to enhance the capacity to stop the flow of illicit narcotics leaving Afghanistan and if programs the US had with Afghanistan to counter the drug trade have been terminated with the Taliban’s takeover.

Jordan requested answers from Regina LaBelle, acting director of ONDCP, by October 13, 2021. 

The July report from the ONDCP found that 90 percent of heroin seized and tested in the US originates from Mexico, despite the majority of the global supply originating in Afghanistan. The White House released the ONDCP report in July, prior to the fall of Afghanistan, and touted that President Biden’s budget request calls for US$10.7 billion in investments for populations at greatest risk or overdose and substance abuse.

Pakistan facing repercussions of “Absolutely Not”

On Wednesday the benchmark index of Pakistan Stock Exchange lost about 2% (908 points). The fall has been attributed to a bill being moved in the US senate. Foreign Office spokesperson Asim Iftikhar Ahmad said that "unwarranted" references to Pakistan in a bill that was recently introduced in the United States Senate was "inconsistent" with the spirit of cooperation that had existed between the two countries on Afghanistan since 2001.

"We see that a debate is under way in Washington both in the media and on Capitol Hill to reflect on and examine the circumstances leading to the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. The draft legislation introduced in the US Senate by a group of Senate Republicans seems to be a reaction to this debate," he said in a statement.

However, the references to Pakistan in the bill were "completely unwarranted", he said. Terming those references as "inconsistent in spirit" with Pak-US cooperation on Afghanistan since the American invasion in 2001, he recalled that Pakistan had facilitated the Afghan peace process and helped evacuate citizens of the US and other countries from Afghanistan in August.

Ahmad reiterated that Pakistan had always maintained that there was no military solution to the conflict in Afghanistan. It had also stressed that a coercive approach would not work and the only way to achieve sustainable peace in the war-torn country was through engagement and dialogue, he added.

He noted that sustained security cooperation between Pakistan and the US would "remain critical in dealing with any future terrorist threat in the region".

"Such proposed legislative measures are, therefore, uncalled for and counterproductive," the spokesperson said.

Twenty-two US senators moved a bill in the Senate on Monday that seeks to assess Pakistan's alleged role in Afghanistan before and after the fall of Kabul and in the Taliban offensive in Panjshir Valley.

Senator Jim Risch, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and other Republicans introduced the Afghanistan Counterterrorism, Oversight, and Accountability Act to address outstanding issues related to the Biden administration's "rushed and disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan".

The proposed legislation calls for a comprehensive report on who supported the Taliban during America's 20 years in Afghanistan, helped the group in capturing Kabul in mid-August and supported their offensive on Panjshir Valley.

The first report shall include "an assessment of support by state and non-state actors, including the government of Pakistan, for the Taliban between 2001 and 2020", including the provision of sanctuary space, financial support, intelligence support, logistics and medical support, training, equipping, and tactical, operation or strategic direction, according to the bill.

The legislation also requires "an assessment of support by state and non-state actors, including the government of Pakistan, for the September 2021 offensive of the Taliban against the Panjshir Valley and the Afghan resistance".

The proposed bill also seeks to impose sanctions on the Taliban and others in Afghanistan for terrorism, drug-trafficking, and human rights abuses, as well as on those providing support to the Taliban, including foreign governments.

It states that the US should not recognize any member of the Taliban as the ambassador of Afghanistan to the United States or as the ambassador of Afghanistan to the United Nations, and places restrictions on non-humanitarian foreign assistance to the war-torn country.

It also calls for a comprehensive review of foreign assistance to entities that support the Taliban.

Top US generals contradict President Joe Biden

Top US military officials told lawmakers on Tuesday that they had recommended 2,500 US troops remain in Afghanistan, contradicting comments made by President Joe Biden earlier this year.

Gen. Frank McKenzie, head of US Central Command, and Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, each acknowledged during public congressional testimony that they agreed with the recommendation of Army Gen. Austin Miller that 2,500 troops be left in the country, though they denied to detail what they advised Biden directly.

Biden announced his decision to end US military involvement in Afghanistan back in April.

“I won’t share my personal recommendation to the president, but I will give you my honest opinion, and my honest opinion and view shaped my recommendation. I recommended that we maintain 2,500 troops in Afghanistan. And I also recommended earlier in the fall of 2020 that we maintain 4,500 at that time. Those are my personal views,” McKenzie told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday under questioning from Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), the panel’s top Republican.

McKenzie said it had been his view that the full US withdrawal would lead to the collapse of Afghan forces and government.

Milley said he agreed with that assessment and that it was his personal view dating back to last fall that the US should maintain at least 2,500 troops in Afghanistan to move toward a peace agreement between the Taliban and Afghan government. Milley declined to comment directly on his specific discussions with Biden when questioned by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.).

Asked whether Miller discussed his recommendation with Biden, McKenzie told lawmakers he believed his opinion “was well-heard.”

Republican lawmakers repeatedly raised the matter in the context of an interview Biden gave to ABC News in August during which he denied that his top military commanders recommended he leave 2,500 troops in Afghanistan.

“Your top military advisers warned against withdrawing on this timeline. They wanted you to keep about 2,500 troops,” ABC’s George Stephanopoulos said to Biden in the interview.

“No, they didn't,” Biden replied. “It was split. That wasn't true.”

“Your military advisers did not tell you, ‘No, we should just keep 2,500 troops. It's been a stable situation for the last several years. We can do that. We can continue to do that’?” Stephanopoulos later pressed.

“No one said that to me that I can recall,” Biden replied.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki tweeted Tuesday afternoon that leaving 2,500 troops in Afghanistan would have escalated the conflict due to the Trump administration’s deal with the Taliban to withdraw.

“As @POTUS told ABC, ending the war in Afghanistan was in our national interest. He said advice was split, but consensus of top military advisors was 2500 troops staying meant escalation due to deal by the previous admin. @SecDef, the Chairman, and GEN McKenzie all reiterated,” Psaki tweeted.

Psaki further defended Biden's past comments during an afternoon press briefing, saying he was given a range of advice and that remaining in Afghanistan would have necessitated a further troop increase while risking lives of US service members. 

“The president is always going to welcome a range of advice. He asks for candor. He asks for directness. And in any scenario he’s not looking for a bunch of 'yes' men and women,” Psaki told reporters, adding that it is up to Biden to ultimately decide “what's in the best interest of the United States.”

Milley said during the hearing that the US would have been back at war with the Taliban if forces had stayed beyond August 31, 2021.

Military generals unanimously recommended that Biden stick to the August 31 withdrawal date on August 25, Milley said, when Biden was considering extending the deadline to accommodate the evacuation mission.

Asked about the ABC News exchange on Tuesday, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin called Biden an “honest and forthright man.”

“Their input was received by the president and considered by the president, for sure,” Austin told Cotton when asked if Biden’s statement to ABC was true. “In terms of what they specifically recommended, senator, as they just said, they’re not going to provide what they recommended in confidence.”

Later during the hearing, Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) grilled the witnesses on whether Biden made a false statement in the interview.

“That was a false statement, by the president of the United States, was it not?” Sullivan asked.

“I didn’t even see the statement, to tell you the truth,” Milley replied, adding, “I’m not going to characterize a statement of the president of the United States.”

In April, Biden ordered the full US military withdrawal from Afghanistan by September 11, 2021. US forces completed the withdrawal by August 31, capping a chaotic exit and evacuation mission from the war-torn country after the Taliban gained control of Kabul earlier the same month.

Miller appeared before lawmakers for classified testimony earlier this month. Tuesday's hearing was the first time that top military officials have testified publicly since the August withdrawal.

Investors getting jittery

USD traded sharply higher against all of the major currencies on Tuesday as Treasury yields surged and stocks plummeted. With several factors driving investors out of risk assets, FX traders need to beware of the possibility of risk aversion intensifying over the next few days. From surging commodity prices, the prospect of tighter monetary policies, risk of the US government shutdown and even a credit default, there are plenty of reasons to be worried.  

The cost of natural gas is skyrocketing and the increase is spilling over to oil. In the last 2 days, natural gas prices rose more than 10% and in the past year, it is up 180%. Heading into the cooler fall and winter months, households will be hit by significantly more expensive heating bills. The energy crisis is so severe that in countries like the UK and China, there have been forced blackouts and factory shutdowns.  In some Chinese provinces, traffic lights have been turned off. 

Aside from having a direct impact on pocketbooks, higher natural gas and oil prices is also a problem for inflation. In comments made today, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell admitted that “it’s fair to say that” inflation is broader, more structural and more concerning than earlier this year. More specifically he said supply chain constraints like shortages of chips “have not only not gotten better – they’ve actually gotten worse.” Stickier inflation increases the need for less accommodation, which is positive for rates, negative for stocks and risk currencies. Considering that no one expects the energy crisis or supply chain bottlenecks to be resolved quickly, risk aversion could intensify, leading to demand for USD, JPY and Swiss Franc.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned that the government would not be able to make all of their payments if the debt ceiling is not raised by October 18th.  Companies like JPMorgan said they have begun preparing for a potential US credit default. Although it is very unlikely, if that happens the consequences for the markets would be brief but significant. Equities and currencies would fall sharply.

The government’s current funding expires on October 1st and lawmakers are rushing to pass legislation that would avoid a partial shutdown. There’s a lot going on in Washington this week and the battle on Capitol Hill is hurting and not helping risk appetite.  Consumer confidence weakened in September and given recent developments, we expect further deterioration this month.

With no major economic reports on the calendar on Wednesday, equities and Treasuries will drive currency flows. The Bank of England and Reserve Bank of New Zealand may be two of the least dovish central banks but their currencies have been hit the hardest by risk aversion.

The UK is dealing with its own petrol crisis worsened by driver shortage. EUR remains the most resilient, experiencing only modest losses due to euro’s low yield. Risk aversion is normally negative for USD/JPY but 10 year Treasury yields which rose to its highest level since June is having greater influence on USD flows.

Israel trying to buy out loyalty of Jordan

Israeli Channel 12 reported that Foreign Minister Yair Lapid has secretly met with King Abdullah of Jordan as Prime Minister Naftali Bennett embarked for New York where he was expected to meet with Bahraini and UAE ministers and speak at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). 

Bennett and President Isaac Herzog have also met with King Abdullah, in what is seen as a series of overtures to repair Israel's relationship with the Hashemite Kingdom that had become strained under former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's tenure.

Lapid and King Abdullah discussed the tensions in Jerusalem, including around the Temple Mount, known to Muslims as al-Haram al-Sharif. The two men also spoke of ways to improve ties between Israel and Jordan, acceding to Channel 12.

It added that the Biden administration received a report of the visit.

Bennett's government has also signed a major water deal with the Hashemite Kingdom that almost doubled the amount of water Israel sends to Jordan. It also agreed to allow Jordan to increase its exports to Palestinian areas of the West Bank.

Israel's longest border is with Jordan and the stability of it is vital for Israel's security. 

Anti Iran stance of Bennett can’t make him true successor of Netanyahu

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett addressed the UN General Assembly for the first time, barely 100 days after he was sworn in, ending Benjamin Netanyahu's more than decade-long premiership. 

"For way too long, Israel was defined by wars with our neighbors," Bennett said in his address. "But this is not what Israel is about. This is not what the people of Israel are about. Israelis don’t wake up in the morning thinking about the conflict. Israelis want to lead a good life, take care of our families, and build a better world for our children."

Bennett warned the assembly that two problems – the coronavirus and political polarization – were "challenging the very fabric of society at this moment" and has the ability to "paralyze nations." 

“Israel had rejected polarization by forming the government he leads, what started as a political accident can now turn into a purpose," Bennett said. "And that purpose is unity. Today we sit together, around one table. We speak to each other with respect, we act with decency, and we carry a message: Things can be different."

As for the pandemic, Bennett said Israel had successfully developed a model for managing it by rejecting lockdowns and embracing booster shots. "Lockdowns, restrictions, quarantines – cannot work in the long run," he said. The government's decision to begin providing booster shots was a tough one, given the fact that the US Food and Drug Administration hadn't approved them, but it ultimately paid off, Bennett stated, saying that Israel "pioneered the booster shot."

Turning to the issue of Iran, Bennett blamed Tehran for funding, training and arming groups that "seek to dominate the Middle East and spread radical Islam across the world," as well as to destroy Israel. Furthermore, he said, Iran is trying to dominate the region by stretching its presence into Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Gaza, and "every place Iran touches – fails."

Bennett also warned that Iran's nuclear weapons program had "hit a watershed moment, and so has our patience," saying that Tehran has crossed all red lines and ignored international inspections. "Words do not stop centrifuges from spinning," he said.

Bennett took the opportunity to criticize countries that took part in a commemoration marking the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action.

"And to those countries who chose to participate in this farce, I say', Attacking Israel doesn’t make you morally superior, fighting the only democracy in the Middle East doesn’t make you "woke", adopting clichés about Israel without bothering to learn the basic facts, well, that's just plain lazy," he said.

The prime minister did not address the Palestinian issue after last week’s UN speech by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who delivered a one-year ultimatum to Israel to withdraw to pre-1967 borders.

Netanyahu’s Likud party quickly issued a statement criticizing Bennett’s speech and extolling his predecessor. “Netanyahu's speeches at the UN made waves all around the world and brought Israel's political interests to the forefront of international attention,” read the statement. “Unlike him, Bennett gave an empty speech in front of an empty hall and wasted empty words, instead of taking advantage of an important international platform.” 

The Palestinian ambassador to the UN, Riyad Mansour, told Palestinian radio station Ashams that Bennett had ignored not just the Palestinians, but also the international community, in his speech. "We will act on all fronts, especially the Security Council and the International Criminal Court and all the countries of the world, but the anchor will be the Palestinian people's unity and its hold on its land," he said. "The world remembers well what happened in May in the lands of Palestine," including within Israel's pre-1967 borders, Mansour added, referring to Jewish-Arab violence and rioting earlier this year during a military confrontation between Israel and Hamas.

Any attack by Israel on Lebanon will be met with a response, says Qassem

Any attack by Israel on Lebanon will be met with a response from Hezbollah, said Deputy Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem on Friday evening, according to Palestinian media.

"Any Israeli attack on Lebanon will be met with a response from Hezbollah. Even if [Lebanon] is dragged into a war, we will face the war. Our weapons are locked and loaded. If we need more, we have our ways to rearm ourselves," he said, according to reports on Twitter.

“We are waiting for the Lebanese government’s position on the indirect negotiations with [the Israeli enemy] regarding the border issue, and when our turn arrives, we will do our duty,” he said. 

"We will continue to bring oil as long as Lebanon’s central bank and Lebanese fuel companies do not supply Lebanon’s oil/fuel needs," he added.

Qassem's statement came in the backdrop of Lebanese President Michelle Aoun's speech at the United Nations General Assembly earlier on Friday.

In his speech, Aoun called for a resumption of the indirect talks on Lebanon's maritime dispute with Israel. 

"We remain gravely concerned at Israel's repeated threats against Lebanon and, more recently, Israel's plans to carry out oil and gas exploration activities along the contested maritime border," he said.

"We condemn any and all attempts to violate the limits of our exclusive economic zone and we maintain our right to the oil and gas found within that zone," he said. 

"Lebanon demands the resumption of indirect negotiations on the demarcation of the southern maritime borders in line with international law," Aoun said. "We will not relinquish or compromise on our border claims and it is the role of the international community to stand with us."

Israel and Lebanon began US-mediated negotiations regarding their maritime border in October 2020, which were the first talks between the countries in 30 years. The two Middle East neighbors hoped that settling the border dispute would encourage further gas exploration in the area.

Israel already pumps significant amounts of gas from the Mediterranean, but Lebanon has yet to do so.

The Lebanese delegation at the time faced significant pressure from Hezbollah to abandon the negotiations.

After four rounds of talks, negotiations stopped in November. Israeli Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz accused Lebanon of changing its position seven times, presenting “positions that add up to a provocation.”

Aoun's remarks came two weeks after a new Lebanese government was sworn in, ending a 13-month long political crisis that began after a devastating blast destroying the Beirut port on August 4, 2020.

Qassem's statement may be an attempt to signal to the Lebanese people that despite Aoun's condemnation of Israel's actions, Hezbollah still sees itself as the true defender of Lebanon.

Germany gets ready for most unpredictable elections

For the first time in well over a decade, German voters will enter polling booths for federal elections on Sunday with no clear idea which party will win, who will be the next chancellor, or what governing coalition will be formed.

Only a razor’s edge separates the centre-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) from the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), according to the latest poll by the Allensbach Institute, which puts the archrivals at 26 percent and 25 percent, respectively.

Other polls released in recent days put the SPD’s lead at two to four points, with a margin of error of about 3 percent.

Experts have urged caution when interpreting polling data due to the uncertain influence of a historically high number of undecided voters, as well as an expected surge in postal voting.

Exit polls will be released when voting ends at 6pm local time (16:00 GMT) on Sunday, and results will emerge throughout the night.

Angela Merkel’s decision to depart as chancellor after 16 years has upended German politics and led to the most unpredictable race in years. At various points in the campaign, the SPD, CDU/CSU and the Greens have each been leading the polls.

Climate change has dominated party programs and televised debates more than any other issue. On Friday, more than 100,000 protesters joined outside the German parliament building in Berlin, where activist Greta Thunberg told crowds that “no political party is doing even close to enough” to avoid climate disaster.

Other points of debate included social welfare spending and raising the minimum wage, overhauling Germany’s rickety digital infrastructure, and the country’s role in the NATO alliance.

Success and failure in the campaign have largely been determined by party leaders’ ability to frame themselves as a natural heir to Merkel, who remains Germany’s most popular politician.

Gaffes by CDU leader Armin Laschet saw his approval rates tank, while allegations of CV-padding and plagiarism knocked Green candidate Annalena Baerbock’s race off course.

Finance Minister and SPD candidate Olaf Scholz has played up his reputation as a boring, pragmatic centrist to great effect.

A recent poll found that 47 percent of voters favoured him for chancellor, compared with 20 percent for Laschet and 16 percent for Baerbock.

“The issue of succession became perhaps the most important campaign issue,” Kai Arzheimer, a professor of politics at the University of Mainz, told Al Jazeera.

“Voters are more worried or more interested in who would be most competent, and who would be best able to manage Germany and Germany’s future. So personalities have become a major focus in this campaign.”

A total of 60.4 million voters aged above 18 are eligible to cast a ballot on Sunday. Voting booths will open at 8am (06:00 GMT) on Sunday and close at 6pm (16:00 GMT).

Under Germany’s electoral system, voters cast two ballots for the Bundestag, the federal parliament, which has a base number of 598 seats.

The first is for a candidate to represent one of Germany’s 299 districts, which is determined in a United Kingdom-style first-past-the-post system.

The second is for a party. These votes are distributed according to proportional representation to each party that passes a 5 percent threshold, who chose 299 more candidates from internal lists to represent them.

A number of “overhang” seats are created if there is an imbalance between a party’s directly elected seats and its share of voters, a feature that has caused the Bundestag to balloon in size.

In 2017, the total number of seats rose to 709, and the number is expected to rise again this year.

The states of Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern will also hold simultaneous state elections. Berliners will receive a further ballot for a referendum to expropriate the capital’s largest landlords and take nearly a quarter-million homes into state ownership.

Germany’s federal returning officer told local media that the number of votes submitted by post would be at least 40 percent, potentially even doubling the 28.6 percent in 2017.

The COVID-19 pandemic is not expected to reduce turnout, he added, noting that regional elections earlier this year did not see any significant decline.

In the coming weeks and months, German parties will negotiate with each other to form a coalition capable of governing with a majority in the new Bundestag.

There is little appetite to renew Merkel’s favoured “grand coalition” of SPD and CDU/CSU, so polling suggests three parties will be required.

There are no formal rules that govern coalition talks, which will last until MPs vote in a new government and elect a new chancellor.

The CDU and the SPD have indicated that they will seek to lead a coalition even if they do not come out in the first place.

The most likely options, taking their names from the party colours, are a so-called “traffic light” combination of SPD, Green and Free Democratic Party (FDP); or a “Jamaica” coalition of CDU/CSU, Green and FDP.

The pro-business FDP wants tight fiscal control over finances, which complicates a marriage with the SPD and the Greens, who have staked their campaigns on increasing spending for social welfare and climate protection.

“This might be a very big issue, whether we will have more taxes or higher taxes, or not,” said Ursula Munch, director of the Academy for Political Education in Tutzing.

“The Free Democrats, they promised their voters to have a tax reduction.”

A left-wing coalition of SPD, the Green and the Left Party may be mathematically possible if the latter clears the 5 percent hurdle to enter parliament. The Left’s program has more in common than the FDP, but its opposition to NATO is a major barrier to the larger parties.

“It will take quite a long time,” said Munch. “It’s impossible to form a coalition before November and we’ll be happy if we have one in February.”

If Merkel does stay on as interim chancellor until December 17, she will make history by overtaking her mentor, former CDU leader Helmut Kohl, as Germany’s longest-serving post-war leader.

Israel aims at repairing relationship with ruling junta in United States

Israel is deeply concerned with what is happening in the Democratic Party and how even something like Iron Dome - a purely defensive system - is no longer a matter of consensus.

On Thursday evening, the House of Representatives approved a bill to provide Israel with US$ one billion in aid to replenish stockpiles of Iron Dome interceptors, used up during the IDF’s last clash with Hamas in the Gaza Strip in May.

The decision to provide the funding was made earlier this year by US President Joe Biden during his meeting at the White House in August with Prime Minister Naftali Bennett.

Initially, the Democratic Party leadership tried to insert the provision into a stopgap spending bill aimed at averting a government shutdown at the end of the month. But then they came up against opposition from the far-left flank of the party, including members of the so-called “Squad” like representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.

Leadership of the party pulled the provision from the bill and decided to bring it back to the House as a stand-alone piece of legislation, which was done on Thursday, passing with an overwhelming majority of 420 to 9.

Interestingly, Ocasio-Cortez voted “present” – a form of abstaining – after initially planning to vote against the bill. She was later seen crying on the House floor.

In a letter to her constituents in New York that she posted to Twitter Friday, Ocasio-Cortez said she was inclined to vote “no” at first because she opposes giving “unconditional” aid to Israel while “doing nothing to address or raise the persistent human rights abuses against the Palestinian people.” She did not explain what caused her to switch her vote to “present.”

On the one hand, Israel can breathe a sigh of relief. The bill passed and it received overwhelming support. On the other hand, Israel needs to be deeply concerned with what is happening in the Democratic Party and how even something like Iron Dome – a purely defensive system that saves lives – is no longer a matter of consensus. Instead, even Iron Dome stirs controversy.

It is important that we recognize the truth, Israel has a problem. Part of it is the fault of Israel and part of it has nothing to do with Israel.

The part that is on Israel is the active role the previous prime minister played in undermining support for Israel in the Democratic Party. He did this by intentionally clashing with then-President Barack Obama, the way he spoke against the Iran deal in 2015 in Congress and the way he cozied up to former President Donald Trump, while knowing that it could push away Democratic friends.

On the other hand, some of the trends seen today in the Democratic Party have nothing to do with Israel. The Squad wasn’t created around Israel but rather to advance progressive, far-left issues in which Israel gets entangled.

It is into this situation that Mike Herzog, Israel’s newly-confirmed ambassador will enter when he arrives in a few weeks in Washington. He will have to maneuver between an administration and Congress that is seemingly supportive of Israel on the one hand, but also needs to balance that support within a party that appears to be moving farther and farther to the Left.

The Iron Dome fiasco shows what Herzog’s number one mission needs to be, trying to repair ties within the Democratic Party while building new alliances and relationships with minority groups throughout the US.

Policy on Iran is important but that will anyhow be determined by the political echelon. Policy on the Palestinians is also important but everyone knows that not too much can happen now anyhow due to the unique makeup of the current government.

Where the needle can potentially move is in the relationship between Israel and the current ruling party in the US. Herzog should come to this with a strategic plan, focused on identifying friends and untapped potential allies, and communicating about Israel and its policies in a way that can appeal to a progressive and liberal demographic.

Waiting out an administration or a Congress is not a strategy even though that is what former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did when Obama was president.

Israel needs to initiate, to communicate and to build relationships. What happened with Iron Dome shows how important all of this is?

Angry Americans Hysterical Reactions

After Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi virtually addressed the 76th United Nations General Assembly, many political analysts commented on the contents of his speech. However, what is interesting is that the authors of the JCPOA are crying over an empty coffin. 

To examine this issue, let’s review what the president told the UN General Assembly.

“Sanctions are the US new way of war with the nations of the world,” Raisi said at his speech. 

Is this a remark that anyone can object it? No. The fact is the United States has imposed crippling sanctions against Iran cannot be denied. Even the American or hardliner Israeli analysts admit this. As the Iranian president rightfully said, sanctions against the Iran started “not with my country’s nuclear program; they even predate the Islamic Revolution and go back to the year 1951 when oil nationalization went underway in Iran…”

The United States went too far in its illegal sanctions on Iran to the extent that strict financial sanctions even impeded the import of medicine and medical equipment to Iran at the time of the global Coronavirus pandemic. There is little doubt that the Americans committed medical terrorism against the Iranian people. Raisi also pointed to this fact in his speech.

“Sanctions, especially on medicine at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, are crimes against humanity,” he said.

He also emphasized, “I, on behalf of the Iranian nation and millions of refugees hosted by my country, would like to condemn the continued illegal US sanctions especially in the area of humanitarian items, and demand that this organized crime against humanity be recorded as a symbol and reality of the so-called American human rights.”

Soon after the speech, a network of analysts and commentators started bashing Raisi, as well as screaming over a revival of the JCPOA. Since Raisi administration took the power in early August, Iran started to patiently evaluate the situation to return to the negotiations table. In a phone call on 14th September 201 with former British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian said that Iran is in the process of “consultations on how to continue the Vienna talks,. He reiterated to welcome negotiations that have tangible results and secure the rights and interests of the Iranian people.”   

This is what the Iranian president had previously touched on during first TV interview on 5th September.

“Negotiation is an option as a tool for diplomacy, but negotiation under pressure and threats is not acceptable at all,” Raisi insisted.

After Raisi’s speech, Ali Vaez, Director of Iran Project and Senior Advisor to the Crisis Group tweeted, “.@raisi_com’s speech at #UNGA was one of the most anti-American speeches I’ve heard from an Iranian president in years.” 

Barbara Slavin, Director of the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council, replied to Vaez’s tweet, saying, “As harsh as @Ahmadinejad1956 but more coldly rational. Did you notice at the end, #Raisi said #Iran wanted 'large scale economic and political cooperation with all countries of the world? We need to remember, as well, that he is only the front man, not the decider.” 

Yet, the most predictable strategy was outlined by the CEO of The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), Mark Dubowitz.

He tweeted, “Raisi’s new negotiating team will ask for total sanctions relief and give less than the JCPOA. @USEnvoyIran @Rob_Malley will give them 97% and then pretend that they held the line and that there’s a “longer and stronger” deal to be had.”

It seems that the thinkers, who helped draft the JCPOA, don’t agree with the text anymore, as it ostensibly contradicts their desires. The plan is now clear. Bashing Raisi and his foreign policy team with every tool in order to write a “longer and stronger” deal to satisfy desires is not helpful at all. But what is really a longer and stronger deal? 

The United States has always been interested in dragging the Iranian missile program into the negotiations. For eight years, since the intensive negotiations started, Iran has made it crystal clear that its defensive capabilities are not up for negotiations. Yet, the United States is using various pressure tools to impose a deal on Iran. Iran has always reiterated that it will only go back to the original 2015 JCPOA text, if and only if the US verifiably lifts all sanctions. 

As for Raisi’s speech, he condemned US terrorism and extremism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, asked for the lifting of all sanctions, and restated that Iran will return to the Vienna talks were intended to revitalize the nuclear deal.

If this is too harsh for the Crisis Group, then it shows that the JCPOA revival is not their concern. Had it been so, they would not have objected to a rational speech in which Raisi insisted on the need to lift sanctions. It is advised that the thinkers would not shed crocodile tears over the JCPOA revival. 

Pakistan Stock Exchange Benchmark Index Declines 3.4%WoW

Moving along the trend set in motion in previous week, Pakistan Stock Exchange posted negative performance throughout the week. On last trading day of the week ended on 24th September 2021, bench mark index closed at 45,073 points, touching a low of 44,788 points. 

During the outgoing week, the index cumulatively lost 1,562 points or 3.4%. A 25bps hike in interest rates by the central bank suggests further hikes in future.

Other major news flows during the week included: 1) the central bank tightening regulations on consumer financing and mandating banks to share 5-day import payments schedule, 2) the GoP considering re-imposing higher regulatory duties to curb auto imports, 3) Petroleum division proposing to increase gas prices by up to 35 percent, 4) Pakistan planning to issue international Sukuk in October 2021 to raise US$1.5 billion and 5) EU extending GSP+ status for Pakistan with six new conventions.

Volumes relatively dried up with average daily turnover sliding to 383.5 million shares as against 400.1 million shares a week ago. Major activity tilted towards main board items. Pressure was witnessed across sectors, with Engineering hit the most, registering a decline of 6.3%WoW followed by Auto Assemblers, down 5.9%WoW. Refineries emerged the worst performer (down 17.2%) over uncertainty on refinery policy. The resignation of SAPM Tabish Gauhar, the architect of the Policy, hints towards possible delays in finalization of the Policy.

Flow-wise, Foreigners and Others played a major role in absorbing selling pressure by other participants, with cumulative net inflow at US$12.6 million, while Individuals and Companies cumulatively squared US$11.0 million positions. The major gainers were: HMM, PSEL, SCBPL, ARPL and SNGPL, while laggards were, ANL, ATRL (down 17.9%WoW), BYCO, PAEL and BNWM.

Market is likely to remain volatile in the near term, direction to be determined by IMF review. Reversing certain incentives such as in the case of Autos should be viewed as material positive particularly from a macro perspective, easing pressure on external account. Moreover, investors should adopt a top-down approach to investing where possibility of further interest rate hikes could bring Banking Sector into limelight, while Techs and Textiles (on currency depreciation where stronger earnings are yet to be priced in) are other sectors of interest. Techs may remain under pressure owing to structural impediments faced by one of the companies. The weakness should be taken as an opportunity to accumulate.

United States supports Iron Dome funding for Israel

The US House of Representative passed legislation on Thursday to provide US$ one billion to support Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system.

The standalone bill to ensure the Iron Dome funding passed handily on a bipartisan basis, 420-9, with two Democrats voting present. Eight liberal Democrats and one Republican voted in opposition.

The debate over the Iron Dome funding once again laid bare the internal Democratic divisions over Israel, which have repeatedly flared since they took over the House majority two years ago.

Those tensions flashed on the House floor Thursday as Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the lone Palestinian American member of Congress, spoke out against the Iron Dome funding.

“We cannot be talking only about Israelis’ need for safety at a time when Palestinians are living under a violent apartheid system,” Tlaib said, calling the Israeli government an apartheid regime.

“We should also be talking about Palestinian need for security from Israeli attacks,” she said. 

Rep. Ted Deutch, who is Jew, subsequently abandoned his prepared remarks and angrily blasted Tlaib for having besmirched our ally.

“I cannot, I cannot allow one of my colleagues to stand on the floor of the House of Representatives and label the Jewish democratic state of Israel an apartheid state. I reject it,” Deutch said.

The Senate is expected to consider the standalone Iron Dome funding bill at a later time.

United States paving way for export of Iranian fuel to Afghanistan

Reportedly, the US administration is reviewing waiver of 2018 sanctions, which allowed Afghanistan to purchase Iranian gasoline and diesel.

According to the details a State Department spokesperson told London-based Middle East Eye online news outlet that the waiver put in place by former president Donald Trump's administration remains under active review after the overthrow of the Afghan government last month.

An amendment to repeal a part of the waiver reached the House Foreign Relations Committee last month but was blocked by the Committee Chairman Gregory Meeks.

According to Alex Zerden, who led the Treasury Department's office at the US embassy in Kabul from 2018 to 2019, the sanctions waiver on Iranian fuel exports to Afghanistan was intended at the time to protect Kabul even as Washington was pushing ahead its maximum pressure campaign against Tehran. 

“There were real concerns about Iran sanctions harming Afghanistan's economy and a waiver to import Iranian fuel was seen as crucial,” Zerden noted.

Trump left the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 and reimposed the sanctions on Tehran that had been lifted.

Zerden said the 2018 waiver on Iranian fuel sales to Afghanistan was intended to allow fuel traders to skip the sanctions imposed on Tehran, but not Taliban sanctions.

Taliban have already been subject to a range of US sanctions under an executive order enacted after the 9/11 attacks.

Howard Shatz, a senior economist at the Rand Corporation, said that even if Washington wanted to enforce the sanctions, it could prove difficult. “We don't have a lot of leverage with Iran and Afghanistan,” he said.

Zerden said, "Enforcing violations of sanctions would be difficult because this occurs outside formal financial channels." 

The fuel sales take place in cash at the Iranian-Afghan border. Most of the transactions occur through Afghanistan's informal Hawala banking system.

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

Iranian fuel flows have been vital to Afghanistan in the last few years, according to traders and an Afghan Government report.

Between March 2020 and March 2021, Iran accounted for US$367 million of imports, mostly fuel, according to the report compiled by the Afghan Ministry of Finance, chambers of commerce, and data from private enterprises.

Meeting of Foreign Ministers of SAARC countries scheduled for 25th September cancelled

A meeting of foreign ministers of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) countries, scheduled on Saturday, 25th September 2021 in New York, has been cancelled.

It is being stated by certain quarters that Pakistan wanted the Taliban to represent Afghanistan in the SAARC meet.

India along with some other members objected to the proposal and due to lack of consensus or concurrence, the meeting has to be cancelled.

Nepal is the host of the meeting, which is annually held on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.

An official letter sent by the SAARC secretariat to the foreign ministries of the eight countries stated it received a note verbal or unsigned diplomatic correspondence from Nepal’s foreign ministry that stated the informal meeting of foreign ministers will not take place because of the lack of concurrence from all member states.

Sovereign Palestinian State: Best option for maintaining peace in Middle East

US President Joe Biden said on Tuesday that a sovereign and democratic Palestinian state is the best way to ensure Israel's future. “We must seek a future of greater peace and security for all people of the Middle East,” Biden said in a speech at the UN General Assembly.

“The commitment of the United States to Israel's security is without question and our support for an independent Jewish state is unequivocal,” he said.

“But I continue to believe that a two-state solution is the best way to ensure Israel's future as a Jewish democratic state, living in peace alongside a viable, sovereign and democratic Palestinian state,” he said.

“We're a long way from that goal at this moment but we should never allow ourselves to give up on the possibility of progress.”

The US will help resolve crises from Iran to the Korean Peninsula to Ethiopia, Biden told the annual UNGA gathering.

The world faces a “decisive decade”, Biden said, one in which leaders must work together to combat a raging coronavirus pandemic, global climate change and cyber threats. He said the US will double its financial commitment on climate aid and spend $10 billion to fight hunger.

Biden did not ever say the words “China” or “Beijing” but sprinkled implicit references to America's increasingly powerful authoritarian competitor throughout his speech, as the two nations butt heads in the Indo-Pacific and on trade and human rights issues.

He said the US will compete vigorously, both economically and to push democratic systems and rule of law.

“We'll stand up for our allies and our friends and oppose attempts by stronger countries to dominate weaker ones, whether through changes to territory by force, economic coercion, technical exploitation or disinformation. But we're not seeking — I'll say it again — we are not seeking a new Cold War or a world divided into rigid blocs,” Biden said.

Biden came to the UN facing criticism at home and abroad for a chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan that left some Americans and Afghan allies still in that country and struggling to get out.

His vow for allied unity is being tested by a three-way agreement among the US, Australia and Britain that undermined a French submarine deal and left France feeling stabbed in the back.

“We've ended 20 years of conflict in Afghanistan and as we close this era of relentless war, we're opening a new era of relentless diplomacy,” Biden said.

He vowed to defend vital US national interests, but said that “the mission must be clear and achievable,” and the American military “must not be used as the answer to every problem we see around the world”.

Biden, a Democrat, hoped to present a compelling case that the US remains a reliable ally to its partners around the world after four years of America First policies pursued by his Republican predecessor Donald Trump.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who begins a second five-year term at the helm of the world ,warned earlier of the dangers of the growing gap between China and the US, the world's largest economies.

“I fear our world is creeping towards two different sets of economic, trade, financial and technology rules, two divergent approaches in the development of artificial intelligence — and ultimately two different military and geopolitical strategies,” Guterres said.

“This is a recipe for trouble. It would be far less predictable than the Cold War,” Guterres said.

Chinese President’s most audacious geopolitical bet

A head-spinning series of seemingly disparate moves over recent months add up to nothing less than a generational wager that Chinese President, Xi Jinping  can produce the world’s dominant power for the foreseeable future by doubling down on his state-controlled economy, party-disciplined society, nationalistic propaganda, and far-reaching global influence campaigns.

With each week, Xi raises the stakes further, from narrowing seemingly mundane personal freedoms like karaoke bars or a teenager’s permitted time for online gaming to three hours weekly to the multi million US dollar investor hit from his increased controls on China’s biggest technology companies and their foreign listings.  

It is only in the context of Xi’s increased repressions at home and expanded ambitions abroad that one can fully understand Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s decision this week to enter a new defense pact, which he called “a forever agreement,” with the United States and the United Kingdom.

Much of the news focus was either on the eight nuclear-powered submarines that Australia would deploy or the spiraling French outrage that their own deal to sell diesel submarines to Australia was undermined by what French officials called a “betrayal” and a “stab in the back” from close allies. France went so far as to recall its ambassador to the United States for the first time in the history of the NATO alliance.

All that noise should not distract from the more significant message of the ground-breaking agreement. Prime Minister Morrison saw more strategic advantage and military capability from the US-UK alignment in a rapidly shifting Indo-Pacific atmosphere, replacing his previous stance of trying to balance US and Chinese interests.

“The relatively benign environment we’ve enjoyed for many decades in our region is behind us,” Morrison said on Thursday. “We have entered a new era with challenges for Australia and our partners.”

For China, that new era has many faces: a rapid rollback of economic liberalization, a crackdown on individual freedoms, an escalation of global influence efforts and military buildup, all in advance of the 20th national party congress in October 2022, where Xi hopes to seal his place in history and his continued rule.

Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, one of the world’s leading China experts, points to Xi’s “bewildering array” of economic policy decisions in a recent speech as president of the Asia Society.

They started last October with the shocking suspension of Alibaba financial affiliate Ant Group’s planned initial public offering in Hong Kong and Shanghai, clearly aimed at Alibaba co-founder Jack Ma. Then in April, Chinese regulators imposed a $3 billion fine on Alibaba for “monopolistic behavior.”

In July, China’s cyber regulator removed ride-hailing giant Didi from app stores, while an investigative unit launched an examination of the company’s compliance with Chinese data-security laws.

Then this month, China’s Transport Ministry regulators summoned senior executives from Didi, Meituan and nine other ride-hailing companies, ordering them to “rectify” their digital misconduct. The Chinese state then took an equity stake in ByteDance, the owner of TikTok, and in Weibo, the micro-blogging platform.

Xi was ready to accept the estimated US$1.1 trillion cost in shareholder value wiped from China’s top six technology stocks alone between February and August. That doesn’t factor in further losses among the education, transportation, food delivery, entertainment and video gaming industries.

Less noticed have been a dizzying array of regulatory actions and policy moves whose sum purpose appears to be strengthening state control over, well, just about everything. 

“The best way to summarize it,” says Rudd, “is that Xi Jinping has decided that, in the overall balance between the roles of the state and the market in China, it is in the interests of the Party to pivot toward the state.” Xi is determined to transform modern China into a global great power, “but a great power in which the Chinese Communist Party nonetheless retains complete control.”

That means growing controls as well over the freedoms of its 1.4 billion citizens.

Xi has acted, for example, to restrict the video gaming of school-aged children to three hours a week, and he has banned private tutoring. Chinese regulators have ordered broadcasters to encourage masculinity and remove “sissy men,” or niang pao, from the airwaves. Regulators banned “American Idol”-style competitions and removed from the internet any mention of one of China’s wealthiest actresses, Zhao Wei.

“The orders have been sudden, dramatic and often baffling,” wrote Lily Kuo in the Washington Post. Jude Blanchette of the Center for Strategic and International Studies says, “This is not a sector-by-sector rectification; this is an entire economic, industry and structural rectification.”

At the same time, President Xi has launched a push to share the virtues and successes of the Chinese authoritarian model with the rest of the world. 

“Beijing seeks less to impose a Marxist-Leninist ideology on foreign societies than to legitimate and promote its own authoritarian system,” Charles Edel and David Shullman, the recently appointed director of the Atlantic Council’s new China Global Hub, wrote in “Foreign Affairs.” “The CCP doesn’t seek ideological conformity but rather power, security, and global influence for China and for itself.”

The authors detail China’s global efforts to not remake the world in its image, but rather “to make the world friendlier to its interests — and more welcoming to the rise of authoritarianism in general.”

Those measures include “spreading propaganda, expanding information operations, consolidating economic influence, and meddling in foreign political systems” with the ultimate goal of “hollowing out democratic institutions and norms within and between countries,” Edel and Shullman write.

Within President Xi’s bold bet lie two opportunities for the US and its allies.

The first is that Xi, by overreaching in his controls at home, will undo just the sorts of economic and societal liberalization China needs to succeed. At the same time, the world’s democracies, like Australia, are growing more willing to seek a common cause to address Beijing.

In the end, however, Xi’s concerted moves require an equally concerted response from the world’s democracies. The French-US crisis following the Australian defense deal this week provides just one example of how difficult that will be to achieve and sustain.

Israeli showoff for friends backfires

According to a report by The Tehran Times, in a heavily fictionalized report published on Saturday night in the New York Times, Ronen Bergman, who is mostly known as the official voice of the Israeli regime in the New York Times, claimed to have “revealed” some new, groundbreaking information regarding the assassination of the Iranian scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. 

The report did not add anything to the spectrum of this cowardly assassination by the Mossad. It was mostly information already published in media outlets put together.

The Times claims that its report is “based on interviews with American, Israeli and Iranian officials, including two intelligence officials familiar with the details of the planning and execution of the operation…”

According to the Times, the assassination occurred in the most fictional way, something that could only be spotted at commercial fictions in Hollywood. The authors seem to have forgotten that this is not some Mission Impossible scene.

Many Iranians looked at the report with a pinch of salt. The described fictionalized surveillance operation was something that caught the eyes of many Iranians, as well as a poorly described Fakhrizadeh. Who would have thought that the Times would resort to such desperate measures such as the ring late Fakhrizadeh wore? 

“…the machine gun, the robot, its components and accessories together weigh about a ton. So the equipment was broken down into its smallest possible parts and smuggled into the country piece by piece, in various ways, routes and times, then secretly reassembled in Iran,” Bergman says in the report!

Expressions such as “sending data at the speed of light,” or “Israel had an effective network of collaborators inside Iran” clearly shows that the piece was meant to be written as propaganda for the Israeli regime, and to show off the non-existent high-tech Mossad intelligence facilities. While there are several examples of Iranian intelligence power, which the Tehran Times is not authorized to discuss in detail, Iran has never felt the need to brag about its intelligence activities and continues to do its job in total silence. 

Well, there is no doubt that a report, co-authored by Ronen Bergman, is nothing but a cheesy attempt to promote and propagate Israel for its friends and allies. Now, why is the New York Times becoming a mouthpiece for propagating Israel? The answer lies within the disputes between the EU bloc, the United States, and Israel. 

The Israeli regime looks confused about the new approach taken by the American establishment. The case in point is the embarrassing withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, the AUKUS pact, and even Biden taking a joyful nap in his meeting with the Israeli regime’s Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett. 

The piece says that preparations for the assassination began “after a series of meetings toward the end of 2019 and in early 2020 between Israeli officials, led by the Mossad director, Yossi Cohen, and high-ranking American officials, including President Donald J. Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the CIA Director, Gina Haspel.” 

Everyone knew that the assassination was done with the backing of the United States and it is evident that such cowardly acts could not have taken place without Washington’s consent. The Times have taken the bull by the horns! 

Bergman who wrote a book titled “Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations”, is the co-author of this piece. It is no surprise to describe the assassination scene like a fictional Hollywood movie. 

The NYT must know that its readers are smart enough to be able to distinguish facts from fiction. It must also remember that it has not revealed a wow! factor. Most of what they published had already been on the news outlets. This is not investigative journalism.

Surge in militant activity in West Bank

According to a report, over the last six months, there has been a notable increase in militant activity in the West Bank, particularly by the members of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. 

A surge in militant activity has been reported in the West Bank. Although, a recent US Department of State Travel Advisory on 13th September warned, ‘exercise increased caution when travelling to the West Bank due to terrorism and civil unrest.’ 

The rise in activity can be linked to a number of factors; the high number of killings of Palestinian Islamic Jihad and al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades militants by Israeli security forces since May and the recent escape of six Palestinian militants from a high-security prison in northern Israel. 

One can look back to the postponement of Palestinian elections and TikTok intifada as the initial stages of this surge. However, it was the conflict between Israel and Palestinian factions in May that spurred the West Bank’s militant groups to become operationally more active. 

On 18th May, Palestinian Islamic Jihad sent one of its militants in Hebron, Islam Zahideh, to attack an IDF post in the West Bank as a part of what Palestinian factions dubbed ‘Sword of Islam’ operation during the Gaza conflict. Zahideh, armed with pipe bombs and a Carlo-style submachine gun, was killed during the attack. Several days later, PIJ acknowledged its responsibility for the attack and named Zahideh as the perpetrator. 

Two weeks after the killing of Zahideh, Fadi Weshat, an al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades member, died from a gunshot wound received by Israeli security forces during clashes in the West Bank. 

On 9th June, Israeli counter-terrorism forces entered Jenin and shot two Palestinian Islamic Jihad members, killing one and capturing the second. 

Two months later, Diya’a al-Sabarini, an al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades militant died of wounds he received after clashing with Israeli security forces in Jenin. 

Several days later, four Palestinians were killed in clashes with Israeli counter-terrorism forces in Jenin. Two of those Palestinians were members of militant groups. 

The deaths of the militants mentioned above, including more than 40 Palestinians killed in a period of six months in clashes with Israeli security forces, have spurred armed groups to march openly in the streets calling for revenge. 

Lastly, the escape of six militants from a high-security prison in northern Israel on 6th September exacerbated the already unstable security situation in the West Bank. Factions held rallies in Gaza and the West Bank threatening a response if the escapees were harmed. 

However, despite weeks of threatening rhetoric from militant groups, including a reported resurrection of the ‘Joint Operations Room’ of Palestinian factions in the West Bank, the last two remaining militants on the run were captured on Sunday by Israeli forces in the militant stronghold of Jenin, unharmed and undefended by Palestinian factions.

The surge in militant activity in the West Bank over the last six months has likely reached its peak with the capture of the last two remaining militants. A few rockets may be fired by Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza out of frustration over the arrests in the coming days, but the success of Israeli security forces in capturing all of the militants alive and unharmed will likely have a stabilizing effect over the coming weeks in the West Bank. 

Amendment introduced in US Defense Budget Bill to suspend sale of arms to Israel

In United States, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has introduced an amendment to the US Defense Budget Bill which would suspend the transfer of US$735 million worth of Boeing Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) to Israel. JDAMs are kits that convert unguided bombs into precision-guided munitions.

The amendment was introduced alongside six others, including one to block arms sales to the Saudi Arabia, allegedly involved in the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and an amendment concerning the US relationship with Colombia.

Ocasio-Cortez’s office announced that the amendment concerning the sale of weapons to Israel was meant to block the transfer of the same kind of Boeing weaponry that the Israeli government used to kill 44 Palestinians in one night in al-Rimal, an Israeli airstrike on Hamas, led to a building collapse killing 44 Gazans.

Israeli Ambassador to the United States and the United Nations, Gilad Erdan criticized Ocasio-Cortez for her new amendment, stating he would expect a Congressperson to understand that Israel is defending its citizens against Hamas.

“Your amendment further legitimizes their heinous attacks against innocent civilians, as well as antisemitic lies,” Erdan wrote on Twitter. “Israel is a world leader in the fight against terrorism, and our partnership has helped prevent terrorist attacks against American citizens,” the ambassador added.

Biden administration approved the sale of US$725 million in JDAMs to Israel in May as Israel and Gaza fought in Operation Guardian of the Walls, according to The Washington Post. Congress was officially notified about the sale about a week before the fighting broke out.

During the fighting, US President Joe Biden expressed support for Israel, saying “my expectation and hope is this will be closing down sooner than later, but Israel has a right to defend itself.”

The congresswoman, along with a number of other House Democrats, including Rashida Tlaib, introduced a similar resolution shortly afterward.

“For decades, the US has sold billions of dollars in weaponry to Israel without ever requiring them to respect basic Palestinian rights. In so doing, we have directly contributed to the death, displacement and disenfranchisement of millions,” said Ocasio-Cortez in a statement in May. “At a time when so many, including President Biden, support a ceasefire, we should not be sending ‘direct attack’ weaponry to the then Prime Minister Netanyahu to prolong this violence.”

The resolution in May was endorsed by over 70 organizations, including IfNotNow, Jewish Voice for Peace Action, and Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Hassan Nasrallah Messiah for Lebanese

In the recent past Lebanon has faced multiple domestic crises. At present one of the biggest challenges facing the country is the unprecedented energy crisis that is literally suffocating a nation struggling to keep the light on. 

This crisis got worse, on the verge of reaching a point where hospitals, shops, bakeries, etc. cannot function because of a lack of fuel. Lebanon was heading towards the unknown. 

Hezbollah devised a plan to alleviate the crisis, while preventing any foreign interference or trouble for Lebanon. 

After careful consideration, Secretary General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah and other high ranking officials in the movement decided to purchase oil from the Islamic Republic of Iran and bring the oil tankers to Lebanon itself. 

Hezbollah chief said, after being told of possible sanctions or other measures by the United States that could hurt the government if the tankers docked in Lebanon; it decided to dock the first vessel in neighboring Syria and take the cargo by land across Lebanese-Syrian border crossing. 

Nasrallah extended his gratitude to the Syrian government for helping coordinate the logistics of importing this vital commodity. He thanked the Syrian government for understanding the situation of Lebanon and the dangers of Lebanese and Syrian enemies in trying to harm Damascus for the assistance it provided.

The vessel was expected to dock at Syrian seaport by Sunday and the process of unloading and dispatching fuel to Lebanon was has to be completed by Thursday. Hezbollah said, this is the first of many ships to bring oil from Iran to Lebanon.

According to Nasrallah, the negative statements were the following and he noted how they ended up in dustbin of history. 

One: The announcement of importing oil from Iran was just a stunt. However, the oil has arrived.

Two: Those who said the operation will fail because Iran itself has problems exporting gasoline and diesel. 

Three: Those who stated Israel will prevent the tanker from reaching Lebanon or Syria, especially because Hezbollah announced the move publicly on the day of Ashura. It wasn’t a secret operation.

Nasrallah believes it's unfortunate that some had hoped Israel would prevent the ship from reaching Lebanon. 

He highlighted that the 2006 war which created a security equation with Israel is what prevented the regime from stopping the fuel from arriving. This is despite the fact that Tel Aviv is very well aware the arrival of the fuel would increase Hezbollah’s popularity even more, something Israel has, for decades, tried to prevent.

Four: Those who said America will prevent this operation. Nasrallah noted the US knew any action would lead to a reaction “from a certain party”.

The Hezbollah chief said, the US only knows sanctions, tried to pressure Lebanese officials and when that did not work, the US embassy in Beirut presented an alternative plan.

The US plan had already been widely ridiculed among Lebanese commentators and analysts. 

Those who said the import of oil would cause problems for the new government and this never happened.

Five: Finally, those who said this was a sectarian move and the energy would only be distributed to Hezbollah strongholds in Southern Lebanon. Nasrallah said, oil would be sent to every region of Lebanon.

In the upcoming days, the second ship will dock in Syria and will also contain diesel.

A third ship has been loaded with gasoline and the paperwork has been completed for it to sail. The fourth tanker will contain diesel.

The fourth ship will contain diesel because it will arrive at a time when some areas of Lebanon get cold and more diesel is needed than gasoline. 

The Hezbollah chief reiterated the movement is not after trade and profit or competing with energy companies. The initiative is simply adding to a product short in supply. 

Nasrallah studied the distribution process from a humanitarian point of view and came up with the following.

A months’ worth of supply will be offered, free of charge, to government-run hospitals, centers that care for the elderly and vulnerable, every facility that cares for orphans, water facilities in poorer provinces, fire stations, the Lebanese Red Cross. 

The reality of this humanitarian mission cannot be emphasized enough when Hezbollah says it is offering the diesel to the above free of charge. 

The second list will be sold, but also in terms of priority, to those that need the energy most and at a reasonable price whereby other energy supplier’s businesses are not affected. 

Private hospitals, pharmaceutical manufacturers, mills, bakeries selling bread, companies purchasing, storing and selling vital food products, food manufacturers, and agricultural companies remain top priority. Among those also considered high-priority, that will be offered the diesel, are electricity companies who provide generators to help people with power outages. 

According to the Hezbollah Chief, the oil will not be sold to individuals, but he did leave this door open when the suffering among the priority lists is gone. 

A Lebanese company has been chosen to assist and Hezbollah says this company has been chosen because it is suffering under US sanctions. 

Nasrallah added this commodity is for all Lebanese, regardless of faith or political allegiance. It will be sent to every province in the country. 

Every effort will be done to prevent the oil from entering the black market “because the black market has already profited significantly”.

Hezbollah says this operation will hopefully break the black market, which is selling oil at unreasonable prices and hurting ordinary Lebanese waiting in line for hours. 

Hezbollah said, it will not consider the import costs of the oil tankers when it sells the oil. The movement says it will bear responsibility for these costs and says it doesn’t want to make a profit.

The Hezbollah Chief said, the movement wants this initiative to be considered as a gift to Lebanese people from the Islamic Republic of Iran and from Hezbollah. 

Nasrallah said, Hezbollah won’t use the dollar to sell any of the oil imports. Any fuel sold will be done using the Lebanese Lira. 

Hezbollah could have imported a flotilla of oil tankers and not begin with one ship. He pointed out this would have led to extensive media speculation about the whereabouts of the ships and when they will arrive; something that would have boosted Hezbollah’s popularity. 

The Hezbollah chief said, “We could have done that with the first tanker”. However, the moment chose to keep a low profile because it didn’t want to frighten the Lebanese people, especially when there are officials and enemies scaremongering the public. 

Hezbollah’s goal is easing the suffering of the people, serving the Lebanese nothing more, nothing less.