Saudi Arabia and Kuwait assert ownership of Durra field

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait underscored their unequivocal stance regarding the Durra field, asserting its location entirely within Kuwait's exclusive maritime areas. They emphasized that the natural resources in the divided submerged area, including the Durra field, are shared exclusively between Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This unequivocal stance rejects any claims of rights by any other party in this area.

The assertion of this stand came in a joint statement issued following the visit of Kuwait's Emir, Sheikh Mishal Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday. During the visit, the Kuwaiti Emir held talks with Saudi Arabia's King Salman, as well as Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammad bin Salman.

The two nations renewed their call on Iran to engage in negotiations over the eastern border of the divided submerged area, involving Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as one party, in accordance with international law.

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have reaffirmed their call to neighboring Iraq to honor the 2012 agreement concerning the regulation of navigation in the Khor Abdullah waterway.

The joint statement emphasized the importance of the Khor Abdullah agreement, which came into force on December 5, 2013, after ratification by both countries and subsequent submission to the United Nations on December 18, 2013.

The two nations expressed their disapproval of Iraq's unilateral cancellation of the security exchange protocol established between Kuwait and Iraq in 2008, as well as the endorsed map signed between the two countries on December 28, 2014. The map included a clear mechanism for amendment and cancellation.

Moreover, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait reiterated their support for the UN Security Council Resolution No. 2107 (2013). This resolution seeks the Special Representative of the Secretary-General to facilitate efforts in determining the fate of missing Kuwaitis, and third-country nationals, and the return of the seized Kuwaiti property, including national archives.

The joint statement covered various aspects of cooperation, including economic, commercial, and investment collaboration. Both sides hailed the growth of trade relations and mutual investments, emphasizing the importance of expanding economic cooperation and partnership, aligning with their respective visions – Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 and Kuwait's Vision 2035.

The Saudi side extended an invitation to Kuwaiti investors and companies to expand their presence in the Kingdom and take advantage of available investment opportunities. Additionally, the two nations expressed their desire to sign an agreement to prevent double taxation.

On the defense and security front, both countries highlighted their commitment to strengthening defense cooperation and strategic relations to ensure regional security and stability. They emphasized the importance of combating crimes such as drug trafficking, border security, extremism, and terrorism, and promoting a culture of moderation and tolerance.

Regarding the Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait voiced deep concern about the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip due to the Israeli occupation's military operations. They called for international action to halt the Israeli aggression, protect civilians, and enable humanitarian organizations to provide aid to Palestinians. They stressed the need for a comprehensive and just settlement of the Palestinian issue based on a two-state solution, the Arab Peace Initiative, and relevant UN resolutions.

The joint statement also addressed the Yemeni crisis, expressing support for international and regional efforts to reach a comprehensive political solution. Kuwait praised Saudi Arabia's initiatives aimed at encouraging dialogue and reconciliation among Yemeni parties, as well as the Kingdom's humanitarian aid efforts.

Regarding navigation in the Red Sea, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait emphasized the importance of maintaining security and stability in the region and respecting the right to safe maritime navigation in accordance with international law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982. They called for restraint and de-escalation amid the region's heightened tensions.

Why United States has bases in Middle East?

United States has been operating bases around the Middle East for decades. Often questions are asked: what are US troops doing in the Middle East and where are these bases located? These questions have got louder after three US soldiers were killed and dozens wounded as a drone hit a military outpost in Jordan, known as Tower 22, on Sunday. The location is just one of many bases the US has in the Middle East.

Tower 22 holds a strategically important location in Jordan, at the most northeastern point where the country's borders meet Syria and Iraq.

Specifically, Tower 22 is near Al Tanf garrison, which is located across the border in Syria, and which houses a small number of US troops. Tanf had been the key in the fight against Islamic State and has assumed a role as part of a US strategy to contain Iran's military build-up in eastern Syria.

US bases are highly guarded facilities, including with air defense systems to protect against missiles or drones.

Facilities in countries like Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are not usually attacked, but US troops in Iraq and Syria have come under frequent attacks in recent years.

Reportedly, since October 07, 2023 US troops have been attacked more than 160 times, injuring about 80 troops, even prior to Sunday's attack on Tower 22, which has injured around 40 more

The US has been operating bases around the Middle East for decades. At its peak, there were more than 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan in 2011 and over 160,000 personnel in Iraq in 2007.

The number has declined substantially after withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, but still about 30,000 US troops scattered across the region.

Since the Israel-Gaza war began in October 2023, the US has temporarily sent thousands of additional troops in the region, including on warships.

The largest US base in the Middle East is located in Qatar, known as Al Udeid Air Base and built in 1996. Other countries where the US has a presence include Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The US has roughly 900 troops in Syria, in small bases like al Omar Oil field and al-Shaddadi mostly in the northeast of the country. There is a small outpost near the county's border with Iraq and Jordan, known as the Al Tanf garrison.

There are 2,500 personnel in Iraq, spread around facilities like Union III and Ain al-Asad air base, though talks are ongoing about the future of those troops.

 US troops are stationed in the Middle East for different reasons and with the exception of Syria, they are there with the permission of each country's government.

In some countries like Iraq and Syria, US troops are there to fight against Islamic State militants and are helping local forces. But they have come under attack over the past several years and have taken action against the attackers.

Jordan, a key US ally in the region, has hundreds of US trainers and they hold extensive exercises throughout the year.

In Qatar and the UAE, US troops have a presence to reassure allies, carry out training and are used as needed in operations in the region.

While Washington's allies sometimes send their troops to train or work with US troops, there are no foreign military bases inside the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

Israel pushing United States into a full-fledged war in Middle East

President Joe Biden’s unwavering, unjustified, and blind support for Israel’s carnage in the Gaza Strip is pushing the region into a wider conflict.

The United States is already caught in a conflict with Yemen’s Ansarullah and the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, which has claimed responsibility for the Sunday drone attack on a US base in Jordan near the border with Syria that left three US three service members dead. 

Hamas reacted to the drone attack, saying it was a message to the American administration and that the American-Zionist aggression on Gaza risks a regional explosion.

Biden has been opposing a ceasefire in Israel’s war in Gaza, shipping weapons to Israel, and vetoing UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.

Moreover, the shadow of a full-fledged war between Israel and Hezbollah is looming.

While the scandalous US exit from Afghanistan in August of 2021 is still fresh in minds, the US is inadvertently but foolishly being dragged into another war in the region.

Ansarullah started attacking American vessels and warships in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden just because the United States and Britain have so far launched a series of attacks on sites inside Yemen in response to Ansarullah’s attacks on Israeli vessels and those destined to and from Israel’s ports.

Ansarullah had said if Israel allowed humanitarian aid into Gaza and stopped the war on the besieged enclave it would have ceased attacks on Israeli-linked vessels.

However, Biden, instead of pressing Israel to end its savage war in Gaza, decided to launch attacks on Yemen.

In a commentary immediately after the attacks on US troops in Jordan, the Qunicy Institute said, “They (three service members) didn’t die defending US interests, they died defending Biden’s refusal to press Israel for a ceasefire. Their lives were put at risk by Biden to defend Israel’s ability to continue its carnage in Gaza.” 

Given the United States’ bitter wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was expected that Biden and his national security team would deal with the Gaza war circumspectly, especially as many countries, politicians, analysts and international bodies have been warning about the spread of the war in the region.

The Biden administration has been claiming that it opposes the spread of war but in practice it is adding fuel to the fire by backing criminals in Tel Aviv whose thirst for blood is unquenchable.

Now the feeling to respond to those who killed American troops in Jordan’s border with Syria is boiling. This feeling is being fanned by Republican hardliners.

With each passing day, the US is getting closer to a new bloody, endless, foolish, and guerrilla warfare in the Middle East. Since the attack by Hamas on Israel on October 07, former and current officials in Israel have been earnestly working to push the US toward a war in the region.

It seems that they are succeeding in their plot and the region is entering a highly dangerous situation.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on December 28 headlined “The US and Israel need to take Iran on directly”.

We hope that the United States under the Biden administration will come to its senses and stop sacrificing the US interests for Israel.

Courtesy: Tehran Times

Gold prices to remain on upward trajectory

Gold prices are expected to dip in the near term before climbing to new highs later in the year, peaking at $2,300/ounce (oz) in 2025. This would be driven by further interest rate cuts by the US Federal Reserve and falling US real yields  

According to a report by JP Morgan Research, this would be driven by further interest rate cuts by the US Federal Reserve and falling US real yields  

Following the first cut of the last three Fed cutting cycles in 2001, 2007 and 2019, gold prices have followed an upward trajectory.

The commodity soared to an all-time high of $2,135.39/oz at the end of 2023 after a powerful rally was sparked by central bank purchasing and mounting investor concern over the Israel–Hamas and Russia–Ukraine conflicts, the report said.

“Commodities are unlikely to benefit from core inflation in 2024. Inflation should fall to under 3%, so that, along with properly timing the business cycle, are the two conditions needed to initiate long positions, making the outlook for the sector very tactical in 2024,” said Natasha Kaneva, Head of Global Commodities Strategy at JP Morgan.

“Across commodities, for the second consecutive year, the only structural bullish call we hold is for gold and silver.”

Economic and geopolitical uncertainty tend to be positive drivers for gold, which is widely seen as a safe-haven asset due to its ability to remain a reliable store of value.

"It has low correlation with other asset classes, so can act as insurance during falling markets and times of geopolitical stress."

 

 

Aramco to maintain oil production at 12 million bpd

Saudi Aramco, the world's largest oil-producing company, announced on Tuesday that it has received directives from the Ministry of Energy to maintain its maximum sustainable capacity (MSC) at 12 million barrels per day. This directive puts a hold on previous plans to increase production to 13 million barrels.

The determination of MSC, as outlined in the press release, is a responsibility of the state under the Hydrocarbons Law, which was enacted by Royal Decree M/37 on December 20, 2017. This law provides the framework for Saudi Arabia's oil production strategies and capacity decisions.

Aramco also indicated that it would provide an update on its capital spending guidance when it announces its full-year 2023 results in March. This update is eagerly anticipated by investors and market analysts, as it will provide insights into the company's strategic planning and investment priorities in light of the current market conditions and the ongoing energy transition.

Iran denies involvement in killing of US troops

Iran’s mission to the United Nations has noted that Tehran is not embroiled in last night’s drone attacks on the US troops stationed in Jordan.

In a statement on the late Sunday, it said that this matter is not tied to Iran but a kind of conflict between US forces and resistance groups.  

The statement comes in the wake of drone attacks on a US base on the border of Jordan and Syria that left three American forces killed and at least 34 wounded.

It went on to add that there is no link in the attack, underling that the incident was part of the conflict between the army of the United States of America and resistance groups in the region, which reciprocate retaliatory attacks.”

The US President Joe Biden purportedly said that Iranian-backed groups are culprits of the attack.

The escalation of menacing rhetoric started a day after the incident among certain world countries and anti-Iran media outlets, alleging that Iran has provided weaponry to its so-called proxies in Iraq and Yemen. Such a spurious claim was vehemently dismissed by Iranian officials.   

The attack marks the first time that US military personnel were killed since the onset of the Israeli onslaught on Gaza on October 7.

Biden, in his statement, pointed out that all kinds of efforts are underway to garner information about the culprits and then bring them to justice.    

“Have no doubt – we will hold all those responsible to account at a time and in a manner of our choosing,” he said.

Based on a statement issued by the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM or CENTCOM), it was stated that there is a possibility that the number of those injured in the attack would increase.  

Eight personnel were evacuated from Jordan for higher-level care, but are in stable condition.

The US president vowed revenge for those involved in the attacks, saying, “These service members embodied the very best of our nation: Unwavering in their bravery. Unflinching in their duty. Unbending in their commitment to our country — risking their own safety for the safety of their fellow Americans, and our allies and partners with whom we stand in the fight against terrorism. …  have no doubt – we will hold all those responsible to account at a time and in a manner our choosing.”

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani reacted to the attacks on Monday, saying, “As we have clearly stated before, the resistance groups in the region are responding to the war crimes and genocide of the child-killing Zionist regime and… they do not take orders from the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

The spokesman ruled out the baseless accusations against Iran, describing them as a blame game and a plot by those who try to protect their own interests and cover up their problems by dragging the US into a new conflict in the region and provoking it to intensify the crisis.

He went on to add, “These groups decide and act based on their own principles and priorities as well as the interests of their country and people.”

Kanaani also averred that the allegations of Iran’s involvement are popped up by certain countries having political machinations to distort the realities and are under the direct influence of the child-killing Zionist regime. 

The Islamic Resistance in Iraq claimed responsibly for the attacks on three bases, including one on the Jordan-Syria border.

Since the start of Israel’s onslaught on the Gaza Strip on October 7, there have been around 160 attacks on US forces in Iraq and Syria. Most of those have been claimed by regional resistance forces.

Iranian officials have frequently said resistance groups act on their own in response to Israeli crimes in Gaza.

 

US attack on Iran could prove a fatal mistake

The killing of three United States troops and wounding of dozens more on Sunday is piling political pressure on President Joe Biden to deal a blow directly against Iran, a move he's been reluctant to do out of fear of igniting a broader war.

However many in the United States believe that direct attack on Iran or its bases in the neighboring countries could prove a big mistake

"As we see now, it is spiraling out of control. It's beginning to emerge as a regional war, and unfortunately the United States and our troops are in harms way," Democratic Representative Barbara Lee said, renewing calls for a ceasefire in the Israel-Palestinian war.

Democratic Representative Seth Moulton, who served four tours in Iraq as a Marine, urged against Republican calls for war, saying "deterrence is hard; war is worse.”

"To the chicken hawks calling for war with Iran, you're playing into the enemy's hands—and I’d like to see you send your sons and daughters to fight," Moulton said. "We must have an effective, strategic response on our terms and our timeline."

Experts caution that any strikes against Iranian forces inside Iran could force Tehran to respond forcefully, escalating the situation in a way that could drag the United States into a major Middle East war.

Jonathan Lord, director of the Middle East security program at the Center for a New American Security, said striking directly inside Iran would raise questions for Tehran about regime survival.

"When you do things overtly you represent a major escalation for the Iranians," Lord said.

Charles Lister of the Washington-based Middle East Institute said a likely response would be to go after a significant target or high-value militant from Iran-backed groups in Iraq or Syria.

"What happened this morning was on a totally different level than anything these proxies have done in the past two to three months... (but) despite all of the calls to do something in Iran, I don't see this administration taking that bait," Lister said.

"Unless the US is prepared for an all out war, what does attacking Iran get us," the official said.

Israel had hit Iranian targets in Syria for years, without dissuading Iran, including four Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps officials in Damascus.

The United States has also struck Iranian-linked targets outside of Iran in recent months.  

But Lister said the US had gone after Iranians outside of Iran in the past, like the 2020 strike against top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, and only yielded a response during a limited period of time.

"So to an extent, if you go hard enough and high enough, we have a track record of showing that Iran can blink first," Lister said.

According to a Reuter report, Biden's response options could range anywhere from targeting Iranian forces outside to even inside Iran, or opting for a more cautious retaliatory attack solely against the militants responsible.

The US forces in the Middle East have been attacked more than 150 times in Iraq, Syria, Jordan and off the coast of Yemen since the Israel-Hamas war erupted in October.

But until Sunday's attack on a remote outpost known as Tower 22 near Jordan's northeastern border with Syria, the strikes had not killed the US troops nor wounded so many. That allowed Biden the political space to mete out US retaliation, inflicting costs on militants without risking a direct war with Tehran.

Republicans accused Biden of letting American forces become sitting ducks, waiting for the day when a drone or missile would evade base defenses. They say that day came on Sunday, when a single one-way attack drone struck near base barracks early in the morning.

"He left our troops as sitting ducks," said Republican US Senator Tom Cotton. "The only answer to these attacks must be devastating military retaliation against Iran's terrorist forces, both in Iran and across the Middle East."

The Republican who leads the US military oversight committee in the House of Representatives, Representative Mike Rogers, also called for action against Tehran.

"It's long past time for President Biden to finally hold the terrorist Iranian regime and their extremist proxies accountable for the attacks they've carried out," Rogers said.

Former President Donald Trump portrayed the attack as a consequence of Joe Biden's weakness and surrender.

One Democrat openly voiced concern that Biden's strategy of containing the Israel-Hamas conflict to Gaza was failing.

 

 

 

Pakistan Elections 2024: Likely Outcomes

According to a report by Pakistan’s leading brokerage house, Topline Securities, after a lot of uncertainties, Pakistan Elections are all set for February 8, 2024, to elect representatives for the National and Provincial Assemblies for the next five years.

Many political analysts a few weeks back were not sure about timely elections due to legal, operational, and weather-related issues. Now it seems that all these issues have been settled, and the process is likely to be completed on time.

According to detailed strategy note titled 'Stock Market Recovery Has Just Begun; Index Likely to Reach 75,000 in 2024,' dated November 18, 2023, mentioned that things are now looking stable, and elections are likely to happen on February 8, 2024, contrary to earlier fears that elections may be delayed for a few years.

A smooth transfer of power to an elected government will help overcome concerns of bilateral and multilateral lenders, including the IMF, at a time when Pakistan is facing a severe external debt repayment challenge.

IMF in its country report in July 2023, stated that the new Stand By Agreement (SBA), can play a crucial role in anchoring policies ahead of the national elections due in the fall and until a new government is formed. IMF team also met with leaders of major political parties in Pakistan to get assurances of support for key objectives ahead of final approval of US$3 billion SBA in July 2023 crucial to save the country from default.

With only two weeks left for the Elections, political activities and election campaign is not what it used to be. This could be due to lack of interest by political parties or may be due to lesser competition in most of the constituencies after PTI did not get the “Bat” symbol.

Looking at the manifestos and promises of major parties, it seems no one is addressing the key economic challenges faced by Pakistan. Most of the parties are focusing more on the popular measures to gain public confidence amid record high inflation.

Comparing the performance of three large political parties in their last tenure, PML-N and PTI have performed relatively well on key economic indicators as against PPP. This has also being endorsed by a recent news analysis by Bloomberg whereas per Misery Index, PML-N (score 14.5%) has better record on managing the economy followed by PTI (score 16.1%) and then PPP (score 17.2%).

Considering the recent developments, the question investors are interested in is not who will win the elections but whether the new government will get a majority or if it will be a weak coalition government. As reported by leading political experts, it looks like PML-N will form a new coalition government. This is also supported by few recent surveys.

The brokerage house believes that in case one party gets 50% plus seats, that will definitely boost investors' confidence and markets will react positively. This will also give a positive signal to the IMF and other lenders. On the contrary, a coalition government with support of smaller parties will remain fragile and may struggle to implement the much-needed economic reforms.

Another key area to look for is how the new government will manage economic challenges, especially to deal with the IMF for a long-term program. Considering the not-so-pleasant experience with the PML-N nominated Finance Minister in the last opposition-led government of PDM, investors are eager to see the finance team of the new government.

The new government and its Finance Minister can play a significant role in negotiating with friendly countries for debt rollover/debt re profiling and finalizing a new IMF program that requires a lot of painful reforms.

Furthermore, it will be interesting to evaluate the new government's relationship with the establishment. Pakistan has a poor history of worsening civil-military relationships that have badly affected the political continuity, with negative implications for the economy and the markets.

Pakistan Stock market recovery is likely to continue in the year 2024. The brokerage house expects benchmark KSE-100 total return index to reach 75,000 by December 2024. However this is based on current low PE multiples without assuming any re rating amid high risk of debt sustainability. Investors may also see a post election rally in line with historical trend.

Smooth transfer of power to new government after elections, new long term funding program from IMF and expected fall in Interest rate will be the key drivers of equity market in 2024.

In spite of recent rally, Pakistan market is currently trading at PE of 3.7x based on 2024 estimated earnings. This is far lower than last 5 year and 10 year average PE of 6x and 8x respectively. This is even lower than countries that have defaulted on external debt. 

The brokerage house prefers high quality private sector companies with strong cash flows. In cyclical sectors it prefers Cement and Steel due to expected decline in policy rate and better volumetric sales. It also likes Banks due to unmatched valuation.

Its 2024 top picks include Meezan Bank (MEBL), United Bank (UBL), MCB Bank (MCB), Mari Petroleum (MARI), Lucky Cement (LUCK), Maple Leaf Cement (MLCF), Fauji Cement (FCCL), Engro Corporation (ENGRO), Pak Elektron (PAEL), Indus Motors (INDU) and Interloop (ILP).

On the other hand some mid and small caps have the potential to provide above average gains that includes Pakistan Aluminium Beverage Cans (PABC), Mughal Iron & Steel (MUGHAL), Image Pakistan (IMAGE), Tariq Glass (TGL), Century Paper & Board (CEPB), Panther Tyre (PTL), and Murree Brewery (MUREB).

 

Julia Sebutinde: Only ICJ judge opposes all measures against Israel

Julia Sebutinde, Uganda’s representative to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), has become a hero amongst Israel supporters, though her country distanced itself from her. She was among the 17 judges who deliberated on interim measures in the case concerning the Application of the Genocide Convention in the Gaza Strip. She uniquely voted against all proposed provisional measures, standing out as the sole permanent judge to do so, in contrast to Ad hoc Judge Aharon Barak, who opposed most but supported two.

In her dissenting view, she argued that the core of the dispute was fundamentally political, not legal, and asserted the absence of a credible indication of genocidal intent by Israel.

Adonia Ayebare, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Uganda to the United Nations, criticized Sebutinde on X.

“Justice Sebutinde ruling at the International Court of Justice does not represent the Government of Uganda’s position on the situation in Palestine. She has previously voted against Uganda’s case on Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

Uganda’s support for the plight of the Palestinian people has been expressed through Uganda’s voting pattern at the United Nations,” the ambassador tweeted.

69-year-old Julia Sebutinde is a distinguished judge from Uganda, serving her second term on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) since March 2012. She is the first African woman to hold this position. She has a rich background in law, having graduated from Makerere University, obtained a diploma from the Law Development Centre in Kampala, and a Master of Laws from the University of Edinburgh, after which she worked in various legal capacities in Uganda, Britain and Namibia. Sebutinde's notable career includes serving as a judge in the Special Court for Sierra Leone, presiding over high-profile corruption inquiries in Uganda, and her election to the ICJ, reflecting her significant contributions to international justice.

“In my respectful dissenting opinion, the dispute between the State of Israel and the people of Palestine is essentially and historically a political one,” she wrote in her dissenting opinion.

“Calling for a diplomatic or negotiated settlement, and for the implementation in good faith of all relevant Security Council resolutions by all parties concerned, to find a permanent solution whereby the Israeli and Palestinian peoples can peacefully coexist,” she wrote.

 

 

 

 

 

Genocide in Gaza by Israel would have not been possible without silence of Muslim rulers

Many analysts, including me, have not been able to comprehend the reasons of silence of Muslim rulers on the genocide going on in Gaza for more than 100 days. Today, I read a post at LinkedIn and sharing it with readers of my blog.

In November 2023 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, "I say to the Arab leaders, if you want to preserve your interests, you must do one thing, Remain silent."

They have complied with this demand as if it were a command revealed by Allah (God). Abdullah of Jordan has mobilized his armed forces to protect the border for the IDF, Sisi of Egypt has ensured the Israeli terrorist genocide continues in all its forms including starvation and preventing aid from reaching Gaza. Even Erdogan from Turkey did not want to be left out in serving Netanyahu, he has increased trade with the Zionist entity ensuring they have essential resources such as steel for weaponry and munitions.

It will not be wrong to say that the Muslim rulers have played a pivotal role in this genocide and have worked tirelessly to silence their own populations and have threatened their own armed forces from even thinking of taking action to save the people of Gaza.

It is easy to infer that these rulers are truly loyal servants of Israel and without their help genocide in Gaza would not have been possible.

Israeli President Herzog should confer the most prestigious award, ‘The Israeli Presidential Medal of Honor’ to these rulers.

 

Bangladesh: Apparel export to EU falls 20%

Bangladesh’s apparel exports to the European Union (EU) in the 11 months, from January to November 2023, declined by 19.92% to 16.26 billion euro from 20.30 billion euro during the same period of 2022.

Exporters said that the shipment of readymade garments to the EU market decreased in recent months due to the economic slowdown caused by the Russia-Ukraine war.

Global brands and buyers also placed orders in lower quantity due to the election time in Bangladesh but the orders started to increase after the national election in the country.

They hoped that the export to EU would rebound in the next quarter as buyers started to increase their orders thanks to easing inflation.

According to data from Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union, the readymade garment imports of the EU from the world in January-November 2023 fell by nearly 10% cent to 82.71 billion euro from 91.89 billion euro during the same period of 2022.

Apparel imports of the EU from China in the first 11 months of 2023 declined by 21.42% to 21.15 billion euro from 26.92 billion euro during the same period of 2022.

Although China remained the top apparel exporter to the EU in value, the Eurostat data showed that, in terms of volume, Bangladesh emerged as the highest knitwear exporter to the market in January-November 2023.

Bangladesh’s woven garment exports to the EU in the first 11 months of 2023 were reported at 6.89 billion kilogram while those of China were 5.74 billion kilogram.

In value terms, Bangladesh’s knitwear exports to the EU in January-November of 2023 were reported at 9.94 billion euro against China’s exports of 10.48 billion euro during the period under review.

Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association President Faruque Hassan recently said that apparel exports to the EU would come back on a positive track in the second quarter of 2024 as the inflation was coming down in the western countries and retail sales were getting better.

He also said that not only Bangladesh but also all the major RMG suppliers witnessed negative growth in the EU and the United States as the global demand decreased due to the economic turmoil.

Apparel imports of the EU from Turkey in January-November of 2023 declined by 13.42% to 9.20 billion euro from 10.62 billion euro during the same period of 2022.

India’s RMG exports to the EU in the first 11 months of 2023 also fell by 11.87% to 3.81 billion euro from 4.33 billion euro during the same period of 2022.

As against this, apparel imports of the EU from Vietnam during January-November of 2023 grew by 2.48% to 3.49 billion euro from 3.40 billion euro during the same period of 2022.

Netanyahu must be removed, reports CNN

According to a CNN report also published in Saudi Gazette, more than 40 senior former Israeli national security officials, celebrated scientists and prominent business leaders have sent a letter to Israel’s president and speaker of parliament demanding that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu be removed from office for posing what they say is an existential threat to the country.

The letter was sent to Israeli President Isaac Herzog on Thursday and to Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana on Friday. Neither the president nor the speaker has the power to remove a prime minister from office unilaterally.

The signatories on the letter include four former directors of Israel’s foreign and domestic security services, two former heads of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and three Nobel Prize winners.

The letter blasts the coalition Netanyahu assembled to form the most right-wing government ever in Israel, along with his highly controversial efforts to overhaul Israel’s judiciary that they say led to security lapses resulting in the October 07 attacks, the deadliest day in Israel’s history.

“We believe that Netanyahu bears primary responsibility for creating the circumstances leading to the brutal massacre of over 1,200 Israelis and others, the injury of over 4,500, and the kidnapping of more than 230 individuals, of whom over 130 are still in Hamas captivity,” it reads. “The victim’s blood is on Netanyahu’s hands.”

Netanyahu’s popularity has fallen dramatically since starting his sixth term as prime minister, just over a year ago. Critics have blasted his judicial reform efforts – which threatened to trigger a constitutional crisis and divided the country, with months of massive, regular demonstrations.

“Leaders of Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas,” the letter says, “openly praised what they correctly saw as a destabilizing and erosive process of Israel’s stability, led by Netanyahu, and seized the opportunity to harm and damage Israel’s security.”

Among the 43 signatories are former IDF chiefs Moshe Ya’alon and Dan Halutz, Tamir Pardo and Danny Yatom, who ran the Mossad intelligence agency, and Nadav Argaman and Yaakov Peri, who were directors of the domestic security service, Shin Bet. Former CEOs, ambassadors, government officials and three Nobel laureates for chemistry — Aaron Ciechanover, Avram Hershko and Dan Shechtman — also signed the letter.

A poll released this week by Israel’s Channel 13 suggests that Netanyahu’s political party, Likud, would now come in a distant second if elections were held today.

The frontrunner in the poll was the National Unity Party led by former IDF chief of staff Benny Gantz, currently a member of Netanyahu’s war cabinet.

The next elections aren’t planned until late 2026, though there have been protests and calls for early elections, including from one of Israel’s main opposition leaders, Yair Lapid.

“The situations that brought Israel to elections beforehand are almost nothing in comparison to what Israel is going through now,” said Haim Tomer, a longtime Mossad officer who retired after heading the agency’s intelligence division and who signed the letter demanding Netanyahu’s removal.

“Everybody understands that Netanyahu is incompetent to lead Israel,” Tomer told CNN.

In the past week Netanyahu has repeatedly expressed his opposition to Palestinian sovereignty for security reasons, as Israel’s main ally, the United States, continues to call for a two-state solution.

The letter’s signatories accuse Netanyahu of spending years propping up Hamas in Gaza at the expense of the Palestinian Authority, which the US has argued should be revitalized to govern both the West Bank and Gaza.

CNN has reported that for years Qatar delivered cash-filled suitcases to Gaza with Netanyahu’s blessing, despite concerns from his own government.

The money was intended to pay civil servants’ salaries and retirees’ benefits. It is now delivered via bank transfers rather than in cash, and as recently as last month, Qatar said it was continuing to pay it.

To form his current government, Netanyahu brought together other parties well to the right of Likud and assembled the most right-wing government in Israeli history.

Two of its most prominent members, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, have been called out by the Biden administration for arguing that Palestinians should leave Gaza.

The letter accuses Netanyahu of refusing to take responsibility for the October 7 attacks, instead “blaming others and inciting against those who had fought to save the Israeli democracy from his destructive actions and plans, and now mobilize whole heartedly to support Israel’s national war efforts.”

It concludes with a plea to the Israeli president and Knesset speaker to replace the prime minister, as well as a warning, “The Israeli nation and Jewish history will not forgive you if you don’t fulfill your utmost national responsibility.”

The right people need “to get their hands on the steering wheel,” said Tomer, the former Mossad official.

“I think people start to look from the outside towards Israel and ask themselves what happened to this country,” Tomer said. “What’s happened to this country with very, very smart people that are now being led with some idiots?”

“The word that we have been using in the circles that I’ve been participating in is: we need a restart, we need a restart.”

Israel has come under intense international criticism for its war in Gaza, which has killed more than 25,000 Palestinians and displaced almost two million people since the October 7 Hamas attacks.

Israel has repeatedly insisted that its war is not against the Palestinian people but Hamas militants who are holding more than 130 hostages in dire conditions in the war zone.

Netanyahu told a news conference last week that politicians who are asking him to step down are essentially asking for a Palestinian state.

Israel’s actions in Gaza are the subject of a genocide case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), initiated by South Africa that accuses the country’s leadership of intending to “bring about the destruction of its Palestinian population.”

Israel denies the allegations, arguing that the war is being fought in self-defense and that its leadership has not displayed genocidal intent.

 

ICJ Ruling: Greatest political dilemma for Joe Biden

In both a national and international context, the ICJ decision poses a huge problem for the Biden administration. White House and State Department officials took the absolute position immediately after South Africa filed their petition to the ICJ that the claim of genocide was meritless.

A close to unanimous court ruling that Israel’s assault on Gaza is plausibly genocidal — and with the singular US judge standing with the majority — that dismissive attitude, and related claims that ​the UN is biased against Israel will not get much traction.

“The much-anticipated decision by the International Court of Justice ​marks the greatest moment in the history of the court” says Richard Falk, a noted international law professor and former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

It strengthens the claims of international law to be respected by all sovereign states — not just some, Falk says about the ICJ’s ruling that South Africa’s magisterial presentation of evidence ​was sufficient to conclude Israel may be committing, conspiring to commit, or publicly inciting the commission of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

The ICJ decision gave new strength to South Africa’s groundbreaking accomplishment — demolishing the taboo against holding Israel accountable for its crimes. As South Africa’s foreign ministry put it, “Today marks a decisive victory for the international rule of law and a significant milestone in the search for justice for the Palestinian people.”

“The decision is a momentous one,” says the foreign ministry, noting how important the determination is for the implementation of the international rule of law. ​“South Africa thanks the Court for its swift ruling.”

The decision was a significant victory beyond what most observers hoped for — not only the recognition that Israel’s actions are plausibly genocidal, but because of the imposition of provisional measures based on measures South Africa requested in order to stop Israel’s actions that are continuing to kill and put Palestinians at risk. 

The ruling was also particularly important because of the overwhelming majority of judges who supported it, including the sole US judge on the court. When the president of the court, Judge Joan Donoghue, who was a longtime State Department lawyer before being elected to the ICJ, read out the provisional measures, she included the line-up of how judges voted on each one. And she was among the 15 or 16 out of 17 judges who supported every one. 

 

While judges serve as individuals and are not supposed to represent their governments, there is no question that national allegiances and other political considerations often emerge. In this case, only the judge from Uganda opposed all the court’s measures while the temporary Israeli judge opposed four out of six.

It should not have been a surprise that this preliminary finding recognized that Israel’s war against the entire population of Gaza may well constitute genocide.

The definition, under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, says that two things are required to fulfill that definition: a specific intent to destroy all or part of a racial, ethnic, religious or other group (in this case the Palestinian population of Gaza), and the commission or attempt to commit any one of five specific acts to realize that intent.

South Africa presented evidence that Israel is already committing — and conspiring to commit and inciting commitment — of at least four of those acts: killing, seriously injuring members of the group, creating conditions that make survival of the group impossible, and preventing births within the group.

The ICJ decision was not a full determination of the facts and the law — as usual, those issues in international legal venues take years. This kind of initial finding requires a very low bar only that it is plausible that Israel’s military actions, the siege and more could plausibly be found to constitute genocide.

It took the court only two weeks to come to this ruling, though still too long given the numbers of people the Israeli military is killing on a daily basis. But it still represents a hugely important step that will play a major role in strengthening the growing, broadening movement for Palestinian rights that is now playing such an unprecedented role in U.S. and global politics.

And then the ICJ went further, imposing six provisional measures to try and ensure that the rights of Palestinians might be protected from those actions. The measures imposed by the court say Israel ​shall take all necessary measures to prevent the commission of any of the five acts named in the Genocide Convention, that it ensure that its military forces do not commit any of those acts, that it punish any public incitement to those acts, that it take all measures to provide humanitarian assistance, to prevent the destruction of evidence relevant to the charges of genocide, and to report to the court within one month on what Tel Aviv is doing to abide by the court’s ruling. 

The first measure was the only one weakened by the court. South Africa had requested the immediate suspension of military operations: a cease-fire.

The ICJ language refers only to taking all necessary measures to prevent the five genocidal actions, but without demanding an actual end to the military assault.

However, the Court’s second measure arguably answers that weaker language by keeping to the South African request that Israel make sure that the military does not commit any of the relevant acts — meaning that the IDF should stop killing people and be prevented from doing so.

Not just prevented from killing too many people, as President Joe Biden’s administration and others have urged, but prevented from killing any people.

Next Iranian Supreme Leader, Israeli Perspective

According to The Jerusalem Post, from 1997-2005 and again from 2013-2021, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei experimented with Iranian presidents who were reformists and pragmatists, Mohammad Khatami and Hassan Rouhani respectively.

Although Rouhani was still in power in 2020, by that time the United States had pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, which was a signature policy of Rouhani and Khamenei had already decided to cut anyone other than hardliners out of future power.

For the 2020 Iranian parliamentary elections, Khamenei not only disqualified reformists, the closest Iran has to a group that believes in some Western values, who had been disqualified from running for years.

He started to also disqualify pragmatists, whose bedrock values were as anti-Western as Khamenei’s hardliners, but who believed that trying to reach deals with the West to improve relations was a tactical imperative.

This continued in the 2021 presidential election of hardliner and Khamenei favorite, Ebrahim Raisi, with the shocking disqualifications of top Iranian officials First Vice-President Eshaq Jahangiri and former parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani from running for office.

These moves and the banning of hundreds of other candidates, by Khamenei, or technically by his Guardian Council, which does his bidding in banning undesirable candidates from running, brought voter turnout down to record lows.

While some areas still reached 40% or more in voter turnout, some areas had single digit voter turnout, as compared to 70% voter turnout in 2017.

At a collective level, whereas Raisi lost the 2017 election to Rouhani (back when Khamenei was still allowing partially free elections) by around 23.6 million to around 15.8 million, Raisi’s victory in 2021 saw him only rise to 18 million.

In other words, had all the voters who voted in 2017 voted again, Raisi still would probably have lost by a couple of million votes.

He only won because he had no real opposition and an artificial coerced drop in voter turnout.

Many reformists and pragmatists have been critical of Iran’s role in Syria’s civil war during the 2010s and other adventurous violent moves, such as the recent missile attacks on adversaries in Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan.

If the pragmatists had remained in power, there probably would have been a renewed nuclear deal JCPOA 2.0 in mid-2021, given that the US and Iranian pragmatist negotiators had agreed on around 90% of the terms.

Israel would not have liked America relieving sanctions pressure from Tehran, but the fact is that once China and Russia made the strategic decision to ignore sanctions, mere sanctions from the United States and the European Union were going to be insufficient to force the Islamic Republic to change its terrorist proxies and nuclear behavior.

Under Raisi’s hardliners, this has meant a constant push for enriching record levels of uranium to get to the nuclear threshold for not only one nuclear weapon but potentially for an arsenal.

 

 

Pakistan Stock Exchange gains 531 points

The week ending January 26, 2024 started on a positive note, riding the wave of optimism generated by the IMF's favorable review report. The benchmark index closed the week with gains of 531 points at 63,812.

Following this upbeat start, the E&P sector took center stage over developments on clearance of circular debt amounting to PKR1.2 trillion.

As the week drew to a close, conflicting narratives emerged, creating uncertainty around the viability of the circular debt plan. News reports, citing insiders, presented divergent stories—one suggesting the imminent presentation of the plan to the IMF and another reporting objections raised by the Finance Ministry. This uncertainty contributed to corrections observed in the last two trading days, with the likelihood of rate cuts diminishing.

Although discussions around rate cuts gained traction with reduction in cut-off yields in the last T-bills auction, the specter of persistent inflation, projected at 28% for Jan’23, tempered expectations of any rate cut.

The foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan witnessed a weekly increase of US$243 million. The inflow of US$700 million from the IMF was constrained by debt repayments.

Market participation remained cautious due to uncertainties surrounding the circular debt plan and the impending Monetary Policy Committee stance, with average daily traded volume exhibiting a decline of 16%WoW at 392 million shares from 467 million shares in the earlier week.

Other major news flows during the week included: 1) Pakistan and Kuwait to set up US$1 billion fund and 2) Cabinet body set to okay brown-field refinery policy.

Textile Composite, E&P, and Leather & Tanneries companies were amongst the top performers, while Automobile parts & Accessories, Transport, and Property were amongst the worst performers.

Major net selling was recorded by Foreigners with a net sell of US$22.7 million. Insurance absorbed most of the selling with a net buy of US$9.6 million.

Top performers of the week were: OGDC, ATLH, APL, LCI, and HMB, while top laggards included: HCAR, PTC, GADT, JVDC, PIBTL.

Market outlook hinges significantly on interest rate move scheduled to be announced on Monday January 29. While the status quo has already been factored into the market expectations, any surprise rate cut could likely trigger an immediate rally.

The resolution of the circular debt clearance plan in the upcoming week is anticipated to provide clarity to market participants, especially in the context of E&P stocks.

As the elections draw near, the settling dust is indicative of stabilization and with successful completion is anticipated to inject positive momentum into the market.

Investors are advised to seize every opportunity for the accumulation of blue-chip stocks.

 

USIP highlights Implications of Iranian attack on US Policy

While the US policymakers and the broader policy community are accustomed to Iranian aggression — mostly through proxies — across the Middle East, direct Iranian military strikes in Pakistan are a novel development for them.

The strikes will only reinforce US leaders’ perception of Iran as a reckless actor.

In line with that, the State Department issued a statement condemning Iran’s actions against Pakistan — and disputed the Iranian charge against Pakistan by calling Iran the “leading funder” of terrorism and instability in the region.

As for a Pakistan policy perspective, it is in United States’ interest that there is no further regional flare-up involving Pakistan which destabilizes the country at a time of economic and political stress.

Policymakers will also hope for a de-escalation to not jeopardize, or at least not disrupt, ongoing counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan on Afghanistan.

Beyond the immediate standoff, some policymakers and US Central Command, which maintains strong ties with Pakistan, may see synergies with a Pakistan feeling threatened by Iran to balance Iranian military and proxy power in the region.

Iran-Pakistan tensions are not endemic, with incentives on both sides to maintain a functional relationship.

This basic diagnosis of Iran-Pakistan relations, combined with the United States’ Indo-Pacific priorities and uncertainty in Pakistan about working with the United States on Middle East issues, will put a ceiling on any cooperative agenda around nefarious Iranian activities in the region.

USIP rationale Iran attacked Pakistan

In a surprising turn on January 16, Iran launched missile strikes into Pakistan’s Baluchistan province, claiming it had hit two strongholds of anti-Iran insurgent group Jaish al-Adl (Army of Justice). Many Pakistanis are perplexed and just could not find the reasons for Iranian assault. Following is the logic offered by United States Institute of Peace (USIP) behind Iranian attack on Pakistan.

Iran’s calculus remains difficult to know — and Pakistan and other countries are left wondering what prompted Iran to take such a radical step against a more militarily powerful neighbor.

Iran’s logic of striking Pakistan remains opaque. On the face of it, Iran claims it struck terrorist cells of the Jaish al-Adl, which Iran says has a haven in Pakistan and implying also that the group has links to Israel.

Jaish al-Adl is a US-designated terrorist group fighting the Iranian regime with the goal of securing political and economic rights for the ethnic Baluch and Sunni in Iran.

On December 15th of last year, the group carried out an attack on a police station in the town of Rask, in Iran’s Sistan-Baluchistan province, killing several police officers.

Iranian logic that a preemptive strike against Jaish al-Adl is in response to the Rask attack doesn’t fully explain the attack.

Jaish al-Adl enjoying a haven in Pakistan with purported help from the external actors has been a long-standing Iranian complaint, but Iran has not struck Pakistan in cross-border raids before and hasn’t indicated an intent to undertake cross-border strikes of late.

There are two other possibilities for why Iran may have targeted Pakistan.

First, Iran may well be seeking to broaden the ongoing regional conflict and decided to draw Pakistan into the mix. If this is driving Iran, we may see more Iranian action in Pakistan.

Second, Iran may be attempting to force regional countries, including Pakistan, to rethink their preexisting alignment with the United States and to not offer further help that might allow the United States to counter Iran or its proxies in the region.

USIP view of Pak Iran relations

In a surprising turn on January 16, Iran launched missile strikes into Pakistan’s Baluchistan province, claiming it had hit two strongholds of anti-Iran insurgent group Jaish al-Adl (Army of Justice). Many Pakistanis are perplexed and just could not find the reasons for Iranian assault. Following is the narrative offered by United States Institute of Peace (USIP) on Iran-Pakistan relations.

Iran announced the attack in Pakistan concurrent to its strikes in Iraq and Syria. Less than two days later, Pakistan hit back with not only missiles but also fighter jets in Iran’s Sistan-Baluchistan province — claiming to target hideouts of anti-Pakistan ethno-nationalist insurgents operating from Iranian soil.

This sudden escalation and military hostilities between the two neighboring countries come at a time of heightened regional tensions, with Iranian-backed militias in Iraq carrying out near-daily attacks on bases with US forces in Iraq and Syria and escalation in the Red Sea due to another Iranian-backed entity, the Houthis, targeting global shipping.

Still the attack in Pakistan is unique. Relations between Iran and Pakistan have been generally peaceful and border skirmishes between the two sides have been minimal, or at least contained very close to the border and downplayed by both sides. This time, by announcing the attack, Iran broke from that trend.

Since the revolution in Iran in 1979, ties between Iran and Pakistan have been functional, and in periods warm, but ultimately not particularly strong. While Iran-Pakistan people-to-people exchanges are the strength of the relationship, there have been political grievances toward the other on both sides.

Iran’s Shia theocratic regime, for example, has felt ideologically discordant with Sunni-majority Pakistan. Pakistani leadership has also at times viewed the relationship through a sectarian lens, though the salience of the sectarian rift is much less acute compared to Iran’s ties with countries in the Persian Gulf region, as Pakistan has a sizable Shia minority.

Iran has also had a negative perception of Pakistan due to its strong relations with geopolitical forces opposed to Iran: the United States and Gulf powers, especially the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

For Pakistan’s part, it has seen Iran as a difficult and not very useful neighbor due to its pariah status in the West.

Iran has also had a closer relationship with Pakistan’s archrival India, and Pakistani leaders have long suspected Iran of supporting and providing haven to anti-Pakistan ethno-nationalist groups.

Axis of resistance as defined by western media

ran's role as leader of Axis of Resistance - which includes the Houthis, Lebanon's Hezbollah, Hamas and militias in Iraq and Syria - had to be balanced against avoiding getting sucked into a regional war over Gaza.

Tehran's messaging to - and about - the Houthis requires a measure of deniability about the extent of its control over them - but also an ability to claim some credit for their anti-Israel actions.

Strikes by United States and Britain on Houthi targets have failed to deter the group which controls a large chunk of Yemen including the capital Sanaa and much of the country's Red Sea coast by the Bab al-Mandab strait.

The Houthis, who first emerged in the 1980s as an armed group in opposition to Saudi Arabia in Yemen, are said to be armed, funded and trained by Iran and are part of its anti-West, anti-Israel Axis of Resistance.

As reported by Reuters, a senior US official informed that Washington had asked China to use its leverage with Iran to persuade it to restrain the Houthis, including in conversations Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan had this month with senior Chinese Communist Party official Liu Jianchao.

A senior Iranian official said while Chinese officials discussed their concerns thoroughly in the meetings, they never mentioned any requests from Washington.

On January 14, China's foreign minister Wang Yi called for an end to attacks on civilian ships in the Red Sea - without naming the Houthis or mentioning Iran - and the maintenance of supply chains and the international trade order.

Victor Gao, chair professor at China's Soochow University, said China, as the world's biggest trading nation, was disproportionately affected by the shipping disruption and restoring stability in the Red Sea was a priority.

Gao, a former Chinese diplomat and an adviser to oil giant Saudi Aramco, said Beijing would view Israel's treatment of the Palestinians as the root cause of the Red Sea crisis and would not want to publicly ascribe blame to the Houthis.

A diplomat familiar with the matter said China had been talking to Iran about the issue but it was unclear how seriously Tehran was taking Beijing's advice.

Two officials in the Yemeni government, an enemy of the Houthis, said they were aware that several countries, including China, had sought to influence Iran to rein the Houthis in.

Analysts Gregory Brew of Eurasia Group and Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group said China had potential leverage over Iran because of its oil purchases and because Iran was hoping to attract more Chinese direct investment in future.

Both said China had so far been reluctant to use its leverage, for several reasons.

"China prefers to free-ride on the US safeguarding freedom of navigation in the Red Sea by bloodying the Houthis' nose," said Vaez, adding that Beijing was also aware that Iran did not have total control over its Yemeni allies.

=============

Houthi spokesman Mohammed Abdulsalam said on Thursday that Iran to date had not conveyed any message from China about scaling back attacks.

"They will not inform us of such a request, especially since Iran's stated position is to support Yemen. It condemned the American-British strikes on Yemen, and considered Yemen's position honourable and responsible," he said.

The stakes are high for Iran as China is one of the few powers capable of providing the billions of dollars of investment Tehran needs to maintain the capacity of its oil sector and keep its economy afloat.

China's influence was evident in 2023 when it facilitated an agreement between Iran and regional rival Saudi Arabia to end years of hostilities.

There are robust economic ties between China and Iran, Beijing's influence on Tehran's geopolitical decisions was not absolute.

Iranian state media says Chinese firms have only invested US$185 million since then. State media also said last year that Iranian non-oil exports to China fell 68% in the first five months of 2023 while Iran's imports from China rose 40%.

By contrast, Chinese companies committed last year to invest billions in Saudi Arabia after the countries signed a comprehensive strategic partnership in December 2022.

While China could not be ignored, Tehran had other priorities to consider and its decisions were shaped by a complex interplay of factors.

Regional alliances and priorities as well as ideological considerations contribute significantly to Tehran's decisions.

Iran has to adopt a nuanced strategy when it came to the Gaza war, as well as the Houthi attacks, and that Tehran would not abandon its allies.

 

 

US and UK nationals ordered to leave Yemen

Yemen's Houthi authorities have ordered the US and British staff of the United Nations and Sanaa-based humanitarian organizations to leave the country within a month, a document and a Houthi official said on Wednesday.

The decision follows strikes by the United States and Britain, with support from other nations, against military targets of the group, which has been launching attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea that is says are linked to Israel.

The US government last week also returned the Houthis to a list of terrorist groups as Washington tries to stem attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea. The Houthis have said their attacks are in solidarity with the Palestinians as Israel bombards Gaza.

"The ministry ... would like to stress that you must inform officials and workers with US and British citizenships to prepare to leave the country within 30 days," said a letter sent by the Houthi foreign ministry to the UN's acting humanitarian coordinator in Yemen, Peter Hawkins.

The letter also ordered foreign organisations to not hire American and British citizens for Yemen's operations.

Houthi top negotiator Mohammed Abdulsalam confirmed the letter's authenticity to Reuters.

The US embassy said in a statement it was aware of reports about the letter but "cannot speak on behalf of the UN or humanitarian organizations in Yemen as to what they may have received from Houthi 'authorities'".

The British embassy said staff had not yet been told to leave and the mission was in close contact with the UN on the issue.

"The UN provide vital assistance to the Yemeni people ... via the very sea routes that the Houthis are jeopardizing," the British mission in Yemen said in a statement. "Nothing should be done that hinders their ability to deliver," it added.

The Houthi movement controls much of Yemen after nearly a decade of war against a US-backed coalition. The war has shifted to a no-war, no-peace stalemate as the fighting has largely stopped, but both parties have failed to renew formally a UN-brokered ceasefire.

US and British warplanes, ships and submarines have launched dozens of air strikes across Yemen in retaliation for Houthi attacks as container vessels have been forced to divert from the Red Sea, the fastest freight route from Asia to Europe.

US and British forces on Tuesday targeted a Houthi underground storage site as well as missile and surveillance capabilities, the Pentagon said.

 

 

US-led attacks on Yemen an exercise in futility

The United States and British operations against Houthi militants threatening ships in the Red Sea are making matters worse, China’s envoy to the European Union warned.

“They can only escalate the tension and it’ll not guarantee or maintain the safe passage of the commercial vessels,” Fu Cong said in an interview with Bloomberg. “It’ll even make the passage more dangerous.”

US Central Command forces conducted military strikes Wednesday against two Houthi anti-ship missiles, the latest in a series of efforts to diminish the group’s ability disrupt trade.

Hundreds of vessel operators that cross the Red Sea to access the Suez Canal as they move cargo between Asia, the US and Europe are avoiding the shortcut and taking the longer southern route around Africa.

It’s a massive diversion that’s delaying delivery of billions of dollars in goods, adding to costs and carbon emissions, and fueling fears of broader economic fallout, according to today’s Bloomberg Big Take. 

As the US and UK naval operations continue, the EU is moving ahead with its own plans to established a naval operation in the Red Sea to protect commercial shipping, but it’s still working out the details.

Fu, who is China’s top envoy in Brussels, said the Houthi attacks are a spillover from the Gaza crisis, where Israel has conducted its own military operations against Hamas militants who attacked, kidnapped and killed Israeli citizens on October 07, 2023.

Fu urged the international community, and the US in particular, to exercise more leverage or pressure on the Israeli authorities to stop the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza and in particular the civilians.

“Common sense will tell us that by escalating the tension, you will only aggravate the situation and you cannot resolve the problem with the approach that the US and UK are taking,” Fu said.

Courtesy: Bloomberg