Partnership between Chabahar and Gwadar

The Spokesperson and Additional Foreign Secretary of Pakistan has emphasized the enduring brotherly relations between Tehran and Islamabad and expressed Pakistan's readiness to expand bilateral cooperation with Iran, including the signing of an agreement to further the partnership between the ports of Chabahar in Iran and Gwadar in Pakistan.

During the weekly press briefing at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, spokesperson Mumtaz Zahra addressed the recent 10-year agreement signed between India and Iran concerning Chabahar port on May 13, and the subsequent reaction from the United States. 

Zahra clarified that Pakistan refrains from commenting on Iran's agreements with other countries and does not engage in discussions about the positions of third parties.

The agreement between India and Iran aims to facilitate the long-term development of the Shahid Beheshti terminal at Chabahar port, with operations managed by a subsidiary of India Global Ports Limited (IGPL). The Indian firm plans to invest US$120 million in equipping the terminal, and India has also extended a credit line of US$250 million to improve infrastructure around Chabahar.

Following the agreement, the US issued a warning that entities involved in business deals with Iran could face sanctions. US State Department Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel highlighted the potential risks associated with engaging in commercial activities with Iran.

Zahra also underscored the significance of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi's visit to Pakistan in April, describing it as a pivotal moment for bilateral cooperation. 

President Raisi's visit, accompanied by a high-ranking politico-economic delegation, included key meetings with Pakistani officials. 

During his two-day stay in Islamabad, President Raisi set an ambitious target of US$10 billion in bilateral trade, emphasizing the 900-kilometer shared border as a valuable opportunity for the development and prosperity of border areas.

 

 

Aid trucks moving ashore via US military pier

Aid trucks began moving through a temporary US-built pier off the Gaza Strip on Friday, amid growing international pressure to get more supplies into the besieged coastal enclave, where hundreds of thousands face an acute humanitarian crisis.

The US Central Command said trucks carrying humanitarian assistance began moving ashore 0600 GMT.

The floating pier was pre-assembled by the US military at the Israeli port of Ashdod and moved into place this week on the shore of Gaza, which lacks port infrastructure of its own, however no US troops went ashore, Centcom said.

Aid arriving at the pier would be part of "an ongoing, multinational effort" and would involve commodities donated by a number of countries and humanitarian organisations, it said.

The supplies will be subject to Israeli security checks in Cyprus before arriving but will have to pass through additional Israeli checkpoints once it lands, US administration officials have said.

Aid groups, the United Nations and Israel's closest allies, have all demanded that it do more to get aid into Gaza, which has been largely laid to waste by the Israeli campaign launched last year.

A new wave of upheaval has created additional need, as hundreds of thousands of people already displaced by the war and sheltering in the southern Gaza city of Rafah have evacuated to areas in central Gaza in anticipation of an Israeli assault.

Israel has said it is stepping up efforts to get aid into Gaza, and the military said 365 aid trucks had entered through the Kerem Shalom and Erez crossing points on Thursday, carrying flour and fuel.

In addition, hundreds of tents were delivered, intended for people evacuated from Rafah to the Al-Mawasi area, which Israel has declared a humanitarian zone.

"The IDF will continue its efforts to allow humanitarian aid to enter the Gaza Strip by land, air, and sea, in accordance with international law," it said in a statement.

The Israeli military said new inspection routes had been opened up in the occupied West Bank through the Tarqumiyah and Beitunia crossing points.

However, supplies coming through the West Bank have been disrupted by attacks carried out by Israeli settlers protesting against sending aid into Gaza.

 

US military pier moving towards Gaza

According to Reuters the US military has started moving a pier towards the Gaza coast, a US official said on Wednesday, one of the last steps before the launch of a maritime port promised by President Joe Biden to speed the flow of humanitarian aid to Palestinians.

The US military opted to pre-assemble the maritime pier at Israeli port of Ashdod earlier this month due to weather conditions at the Gaza site where it will now be installed.

Officials hope the pier can be anchored to the coast of Gaza and aid can start flowing in the coming days.

"Earlier today, components of the temporary pier ... along with military vessels involved in its construction, began moving from the Port of Ashdod towards Gaza, where it will be anchored to the beach to assist in the delivery of international humanitarian aid," a US official said.

A British shipment of nearly 100 tons of aid has left Cyprus bound for a new temporary pier in Gaza, the British Foreign Office said on Wednesday.

Israel launched a relentless assault on Gaza, killing more than 35,000 Palestinians, local health authorities say, in a bombardment that has reduced much of the enclave to a wasteland and triggered UN warnings of looming famine.

Over time, the civilian toll from the Israeli offensive has triggered global protests and strained relations with Washington, Israel's biggest backer.

Israel has sought to demonstrate it is not blocking aid to Gaza. Although the US officials and aid groups say some progress has been made, they warn it is insufficient.

Dan Dieckhaus, the response director at the US Agency for International Development, told reporters earlier on Wednesday Israel still has more work to do to address concerns about the killing of aid workers in Gaza.

"Overall we are still not satisfied. And we won't be satisfied as long as we continue to see aid worker deaths and injuries," Dieckhaus said.

 

Donald Lu in Dhaka again

Visiting United States assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu is scheduled to hold meetings with the ministries of foreign affairs and environment, forest and climate change.

During his visit, he would meet with government officials, civil society leaders, and other Bangladeshis to discuss US-Bangladesh cooperation, including addressing the climate crisis and deepening economic ties, according to a statement of the US embassy in Dhaka.

The US assistant secretary is scheduled to pay a courtesy call on foreign minister Hasan Mahmud and hold a meeting with foreign secretary Masud Bin Momen at the ministry.

Arriving in Dhaka on a three-day visit, Donald Lu on Tuesday had a meeting with civil society representatives at the residence of the US ambassador to Bangladesh Peter Haas in the afternoon before joining a dinner at the Gulshan residence of prime minister’s private industry and investment adviser Salman F Rahman, officials in Dhaka confirmed.

The Daily Star editor Mahfuz Anam, rights activist Nur Khan Liton, environmental activist Sohanur Rahman and labour leaders Kalpona Ahter and Babul Akter were present in the meeting with Lu at the ambassador’s residence.

Law minister Anisul Huq, state minister for commerce Ahsanul Islam, state minister for information and broadcasting Mohammad Ali Arafat, former state minister for foreign affairs Md Shahriar Alam and foreign secretary Masud Bin Momen, among others, attended the dinner hosted by Salman F Rahman.

During his previous visit in January 2023, he had a breakfast meeting with Salman at his residence.

Asked about specific reason why on the third visit to Bangladesh within 17 months the US assistant secretary was not holding meeting with any political party leaders unlike his previous two visits, the US state department deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel told a routine press briefing in Washington on May 13 that a lot of factors went into whom their government officials met with or not.

‘A lot of factors go into who our government officials meet with or not—the schedule, time of day, lots of other things. Assistant secretary Lu is on a swing through a number of South Asian countries—specifically India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. He is there to strengthen bilateral cooperation with each country and to demonstrate US support for a free, open, and prosperous Indo-Pacific region,’ he said,

‘In Bangladesh, he will meet with government officials, civil society leaders, and other Bangladeshis to talk about deepening our US-Bangladeshi cooperation, including deepening our economic ties in ways that we can collaborate further to address climate issues,’ Patel said, responding to a question whether the US had shifted its position on internal political matters of Bangladesh.

Foreign minister Hasan Mahmud said that the issues relating to the US visa policy for Bangladesh announced before the January 07 elections and Dhaka’s call for withdrawal of restrictions on the Rapid Action Battalion might come up during the visit of Donald Lu.

He said that Bangladesh had a very good relation with the US, and president Joe Biden, in a message to prime minister Sheikh Hasina conveyed on her assumption of office for the fourth consecutive term in January, expressed his willingness to take the relation to a new height.

In September 2023, the US Department of State announced that it had started imposing visa restrictions on individuals involved in undermining the democratic election process in Bangladesh.

The announcement came at a time when the Election Commission of Bangladesh started making preparations for the January 07 election.

In December 2021, the US imposed sanctions against seven former and serving officials of the RAB and the force itself over allegations of rights abuse.

Dhaka on several occasions called upon the US authorities for the withdrawal of the sanctions.

 

 

 

Abandon Biden

As public anger grows over Israel’s assault on the Palestinian people, US government officials and mainstream media are desperately trying to control the narrative.

Speaking about the student protests in New York, CNN anchor Kasie Hunt said late last month: “Some pretty stunning images coming to us overnight … We also are just learning at this hour that banners have been hung from the hall. They read ‘Hind’s Hall’ and ‘Intifada’. Hind is a reference to a woman who was killed in Gaza. Intifada, of course, a reference to uprising, violent struggles the Palestinians has had over the years against Israel.”

Where does one even begin? Someone purporting to be a journalist apparently won’t even pretend to make an effort to check on a story that went around the world, when a five-year-old Palestinian girl, Hind Rajab, called out from a besieged car where several family members had just been killed. 

As the young girl waited for help to arrive, the two Palestinian Red Crescent medics coming to her aid were also killed by Israeli fire. Hind’s last words to emergency service workers over the phone, before a volley of bullets was heard, were: “The tank is next to us. We are in the car and next to the tank.”

CNN later tweeted saying that Hunt “misspoke and corrected herself on the show immediately after”.

As for intifada, the iconic images of the First Intifada – launched in December 1987 after an Israeli vehicle hit and killed four Palestinians in Gaza’s Jabalia refugee camp – were those of boys and young men armed with rocks and slingshots, facing down Israeli tanks, snipers and bulldozers. 

The Second Intifada, which began in September 2000, was accompanied by another iconic image: that of a father, Jamal al-Durrah, clutching his 12-year-old son in an attempt to shield him from Israeli gunfire. The boy was hit and died soon afterwards.

More than 10,000 children were wounded during the Second Intifada, and nearly 5,000 Palestinians of all ages were killed. Durrah has lost more family members since Israel declared war on Gaza last October. 

Apparently “violence” is only something committed against Israel, while Palestinians mostly “die” rather than being “killed”, according to the vagaries of western mainstream media syntax. 

On that same CNN segment, New Yorker journalist Evan Osnos told Hunt, “There was an interesting moment last week. You were beginning to see university administrators come to an idea, a principle. You saw the president of Princeton say the goal should be the maximum expression without intimidation or obstruction … This is something else, because students, Jewish students on campus at Columbia, are going to wake up this morning and say this does not satisfy that standard.” 

Even though many campus protesters are themselves Jewish, these comments suggest that “Jewish students” are only those to whom harm is caused by pro-Palestinian demonstrators – not those who are outraged by Zionist manipulation and the instrumentalization of their very identity and history in order to carry out a genocide.

This is not even to mention the anger and disappointment that many people feel at seeing university presidents and government officials calling on fully armed police to protect the policies of a foreign government, rather than the rights of US citizens.

Much depends on whether Israel can be stopped. It is the US that holds almost all the leverage

Such grotesque twisting of reality does not take place in a vacuum, but rather infects every nook and cranny of US propaganda and mainstream rhetoric, imagery, culture and institutional norms, as more and more aspects of “public life” face a relentless assault by corporate and governmental power. 

The irony is that as this has taken place, and as the truly ignominious Antisemitism Awareness Act has been passed by the US House of Representatives to put another nail in the coffin of the First Amendment, more Americans than ever are aware of the atrocities being committed against Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. 

Perhaps more importantly, they understand that these atrocities are paid for by US tax dollars, and fully supported by a political class that has given up any pretence of representing its constituents.

The desperate attempt to expand the definition of “antisemitism” in the US and Europe, while imposing new legal codes to prevent scrutiny of Israel’s actions, is a last-ditch effort by western powers and their representatives to maintain control over the narrative. But as they have abandoned their constituencies, their constituencies are abandoning them.

As the sitting US president mumbles a warning for Israel not to invade Haifa (instead of Rafah), or goes on about an uncle who was allegedly eaten by cannibals during the Second World War, an increasing portion of the US ruling class – from university presidents to mainstream journalists – find themselves in the position that Joe Biden was in as a candidate: hunkered down in their bunkers, as public contempt rises.

This disappearance of almost any stable reference point in the public sphere is truly a precarious moment in the life of the nation, and seems like a harbinger of some kind of dystopian totalitarianism – many aspects of which are already present. 

While all state and corporate power remains focused on further fragmenting and demonizing the populace, keeping everyone at each other’s throats and inventing new classes of victims, we can only hope that some glimmer of human commonality will finally emerge, before this century is plunged into a catastrophic spiral of killing and destruction like that of the previous century. 

Much depends on whether Israel can be stopped. It is the US that holds almost all the leverage, and this is where more pressure must be placed. 

Courtesy: Information Clearing House

Where does US spend most of foreign aid?

Debates over US aid to Israel and Ukraine have dominated Washington this year, raising questions about its economic and military support to various allies and whether the nation spends too much support abroad.

Opposition within the GOP to foreign aid has been building, with Republicans arguing the US needs to spend more on border security. The debate is likely to color this year’s presidential race, and the reelection of former President Trump and his America First campaign could raise questions about funding for some partners. 

All figures come from State Department spending in fiscal 2023, with the addition of foreign aid appropriations for Israel and Ukraine last month.

Ukraine

Congress allocated US$61 billion for Ukraine in a foreign aid package signed late last month, following months of political fighting over whether to continue backing the country against a Russian invasion.

The funding nearly doubles what the US has invested in Ukraine since its war began in early 2022, bringing the spending total on the conflict to about US$137 billion between military and economic aid, according to the Kiel Institute.

Nearly all the military spending in the new aid package will be spent on domestic arms manufacturers, resupplying stockpiles sent to Ukraine to fight Russia. It also includes about US$8 billion for economic development and recovery in the country.

The spending deal has split the GOP House majority and nearly led to the ouster of Speaker Mike Johnson, after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and two other GOP members cited the aid package as the last straw in filing a motion to vacate the Speakership. Johnson survived the vote with the support of Democrats.

The Russia-Ukraine war has dragged on for months, with Ukrainian leaders complaining of dwindling supplies as American arms shipments from a December 2022 aid package ran out.

“For months, while MAGA Republicans were blocking aid, Ukraine’s been running out of artillery shells and ammunition,” Biden said when he signed the new aid package last month. “Meanwhile, Putin’s friends are keeping him well supplied.”

The new US$61 billion expenditure is on top of about US$17 billion allocated in 2022 that was spent last year.

Israel

Israel has been the largest recipient of US foreign aid since World War II. The country has accepted more than US$300 billion since 1946, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, with more than US$220 billion of the figure in military aid.

Long considered the closest ally of United States in the Middle East, Congress has allocated between US$3 billion to US$4 billion per year to Israel consistently since the 1970s for its defense. Nearly the entire sum is provided through a State Department program allowing Israel to purchase US-manufactured arms and munitions for no cost.

That trend was bucked late last month, as the long-awaited foreign aid package included about US$15 billion in military aid for Israel amid its war with Hamas in Gaza. The package is the largest single-year allocation of aid for Israel in at least 50 years, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

“We will always make sure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself against Iran and the terrorists it supports,” Biden said when he signed the aid package.

President Biden withheld an arms shipment to Israel last week, part of a pressure campaign urging Israel to not invade the city of Rafah in southern Gaza.

Biden said the US will halt future arms shipments if Israel enters the city, which Israeli leaders said Thursday it will likely do with or without US backing.

Jordan

Jordan is the third-largest recipient of US foreign aid, according to a State Department and USAID tracker of spending. About half of the funds allocated for the country in 2023 were for military aid.

That spending has already come in handy in the Israel-Hamas war, as Jordan joined the United States in defending Israel against a wave of Iranian drone and missile strikes last month. The unprecedented attack on Israel was completely shut down by the combined defenses of the three countries.

Jordan also assisted the US in airdrops of humanitarian aid into Gaza amid the conflict in March. 

Egypt

Foreign spending in Egypt has come under additional scrutiny in the last year after the indictment of Sen. Bob Menendez. Menendez, who stepped down as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee during the investigation, is accused of accepting hundreds of thousands in bribes from interests in Egypt.

After the indictment, Sen. Ben Cardin, who became foreign relations chair when Menendez stepped down, held back US$235 million bound for Egypt, criticizing the country’s dogged record on human rights and press freedom.

“Congress has been clear, through the law, that the government of Egypt’s record on a range of critical human rights issues, good governance, and the rule of law must improve if our bilateral relationship is to be sustained,” Cardin said in October last year.

Rep. Gregory Meeks the top Democrat on the equivalent House committee, made a similar request weeks earlier.

The controversy comes as Egypt plays a central role in the Israel-Hamas war. Egyptian diplomats have acted as intermediaries between Israel, the US and Hamas, and Cairo played host to cease-fire negotiations last week.

Ethiopia

Allocations to Ethiopia are nearly entirely humanitarian aid, as regions of the country struggle with a deep famine and civil unrest. The northern region of Tigray fell into an ethnic conflict in 2022, with rebel and government forces facing off as thousands starved.

USAID resumed food aid to the region in December, five months after it took the extraordinary step of halting its nationwide program over a massive corruption scheme by local officials.

The rare combination of droughts, conflict and other factors disrupting food supplies has made Ethiopia one of the largest recipients of US humanitarian aid. About one-sixth of Ethiopians received food aid before discovery of the food theft early last year.

Nigeria

Nigeria foreign aid spending is focused on health care and food access. The US spent about a quarter billion dollars on stemming the spread of HIV and AIDS in the country in 2023, according to USAID, as well as another US$130 million on other health needs.

The country also has areas where food is in critical need, sparking another quarter billion in spending for food access and other expenditures filed by the State Department under “emergency response.”

Most of the support is funneled through non-government organizations and charities operating in the country.

Somalia

Almost the entirety of funds allocated for Somalia is under emergency designation for food access as the country continues to struggle after decades of civil unrest.

About US$700 million of the expenditures are in partnership with the United Nations, which has had a constant presence in the country for decades amid a brewing civil war with breakaway Somaliland. Just more than US$100 million is set to fund UN peacekeeping missions in the country.

Kenya

In Kenya, US humanitarian assistance is spread between health, food access and economic development. The largest expenditure is in partnership with the World Food Program in the region, while the government also invested significant sums into fighting the spread of HIV and AIDS and supporting local agriculture.

 Courtesy: The Hill

 

 

UNGA upgrades Palestinian statehood status

According to Reuters, the United Nations General Assembly voted 143-9 to upgrade the Palestinian's status as a non-member observer state, granting it all but voting rights with regard to all activities related to its plenum.

Argentina, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Micronesia, Nauru, Papa New Guinea, Palau, and the United States opposed the resolution.

Among those countries that supported the text were many European Union members, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, France Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain.

Australia also supported the resolution, while Canada, Great Britain, and Ukraine abstained.

There are already some 143 countries that recognize Palestine as a state. 

The UNGA vote, which is mostly symbolic, is viewed as an international referendum in support of unilateral Palestinian statehood.

Many Western and European countries have believed that full Palestinian statehood recognition and Palestinian UN membership should come at the end of a final status agreement that tends to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In light of Hamas’s invasion of southern Israel on October 07, 2023 that sparked the Gaza War, a number of Western countries have reconsidered their position.

Israel immediately attacked the decision, as a prize for terrorism, given that it comes in the aftermath of Hamas’s October 07 attack, which sparked the Gaza war.

It also warned that such a step would harm negotiation for the release of the remaining 132 hostages held by Hamas and other terror groups in Gaza.

“The message that the UN is sending to our suffering region: violence pays off,” the Foreign Ministry stated.

“The decision to upgrade the status of Palestinians in the UN is a prize for Hamas terrorists after they committed the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust and perpetrated the most heinous sexual crimes the world has seen,” it stated. 

“The decision also provides a tailwind to Hamas amid negotiations for the release of the 132 hostages and humanitarian relief, further complicating the prospects for a deal,” Israel’s Foreign Ministry stated.

“Israel seeks peace, and peace will only be achieved through direct negotiation between the parties,” the Foreign Ministry said, as it thanked those countries that opposed the resolution, explaining that they stood “on the right side of history and morality.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz posted on X that, “The political theater of the United Nations made an artificial, distorted and disconnected decision.”

"We want peace, we want freedom," Palestinian UN Ambassador Riyad Mansour told the assembly before the vote. "A yes vote is a vote for Palestinian existence, it is not against any state. ... It is an investment in peace."

"Voting yes is the right thing to do," he said in remarks that drew applause.

Under the founding UN Charter, membership is open to "peace-loving states" that accept the obligations in that document and are able and willing to carry them out.

"As long as so many of you are 'Jew-hating,' you don't really care that the Palestinians are not 'peace-loving'," UN Ambassador Gilad Erdan, who spoke after Mansour, told his fellow diplomats. He accused the assembly of shredding the UN Charter - as he used a small shredder to destroy a copy of the Charter while at the lectern.

"Shame on you," Erdan said.

Deputy US Ambassador to the UN, Robert Wood told the General Assembly after the vote that unilateral measures at the UN and on the ground will not advance a two-state solution.

"Our vote does not reflect opposition to Palestinian statehood; we have been very clear that we support it and seek to advance it meaningfully. Instead, it is an acknowledgment that statehood will only come from a process that involves direct negotiations between the parties," he said.

The resolution affirmed that “Palestine is qualified for membership in the United Nations in accordance with article 4 of the Charter and should therefore be admitted to membership in the United Nations.”

The resolution affirmed “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine.”

It called on the UN Security Council to grant the Palestinians membership in the UN. The approval of the 15-member UNSC is a necessary state for UN membership.

The Palestinians with the help of the United Arab Emirates, which authored Friday’s resolution, turned the UNGA after the United States used its veto power in the UNSC to block Palestinain UN membership.

None of the UN member states have veto power in the UNGA where the Palestinians have an automatic majority.

In 2012 the UNGA granted the Palestinians all the rights of a non-member observer state, in a vote that was approved 138-9. At the time Argentina supported the measure, while Canada opposed it.

 

 

 

Iranian nuclear policy

The recent escalation in tensions between Israel and Iran has sparked concerns about a potential shift in Tehran’s strategy toward full weaponization of its nuclear program.

On April 14, in retaliation for an Israeli strike on the Iranian consulate in Syria on April 01 that killed seven Iranians, including Quds Force Gen. Mohammad Reza Zahedi, Iran launched over 300 drones and ballistic missiles against Israel, in its first ever direct attack on the country. Given Israel's reportedly sizable, undeclared nuclear arsenal, analysts have interpreted this move as a sign that Iran intends on becoming a declared nuclear power.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) defines the threshold for creating an atomic bomb as approximately 42 kg of uranium enriched up to a purity of 60%. The latest IAEA report indicates that Iran possesses 121 kg of uranium enriched to this level — enough for nearly three bombs.

Despite Iran's claim that it is not seeking to develop nuclear weapons, it remains the only country enriching uranium at this level without a confirmed nuclear weapons program.

Maintaining its status as a threshold nuclear power is likely to be Iran's chosen strategy under the current circumstances. This is in line with the country’s new proactive and preemptive grand strategy, as compared to its previous approach of strategic patience.

While Iran previously refrained from directly retaliating against Israel for its alleged covert operations, including assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists and operatives of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), it has decided to adopt a new stance. In the words of Hossein Salami, the commander-in-chief of the IRGC, “Henceforth if Israel attacks our interests, assets, figures, and citizens anywhere, it will be met with a counterattack from within the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

The failure of the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and Israel’s alleged covert activities in Iran in recent years have led Tehran to abandon its policy of strategic patience, no longer willing to fight a shadow war by relying on its regional non-state allies.

Recent incidents, such as Iran’s mid-January missile strike on Pakistan in response to a Jaish al-Adl terrorist attack on the port city of Chabahar and its mid-April drone and missile strike on Israel, reflect a change in Iran's stance and a new willingness to take more assertive measures. According to a post on the social media platform X by Mohammad Jamshidi, President Ebrahim Raisi’s deputy chief of staff, "Iran's era of strategic patience is over."

However, contrary to many analysts’ fears, Iran is aware of the benefits of remaining a latent nuclear power, rather than becoming an openly declared one. As the Iranian authorities see things, possessing threshold nuclear capabilities will not only deter large-scale military attacks but also provide greater leverage in negotiations with the United States and other adversaries. In addition, it could reinvigorate the possibility of regional de-escalation and improve bilateral relations with important neighbors, processes that have been underway since March 2023, following the China-brokered rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Iranian officials clearly believe that the acquisition of nuclear weapons is not necessary to deter a direct attack by Israel, as its ability to launch a large-scale assault on Iran without US support is limited by geopolitical constraints. Both the US and Iran have been highly reluctant to engage in a direct, large-scale conflict since the October 07, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israeli soil, which sparked a spiraling escalation in the region. Since October 07, Tehran and Washington have managed to handle regional tensions relatively successfully.

Following Iran's retaliatory strike on Israel, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian assured the US that Iran had no intention of targeting American bases in the region, and Washington reiterated its stance of non-participation in Israel’s offensive operations against Iran.

From Iran's perspective, Israel's attack on an air base in Isfahan on April 19 was a clear attempt at sabotage. According to Iranian media, this incident, similar to a previous operation reportedly carried out by the Israelis in January 2023, involved small drones believed to have originated from within Iranian territory.

Iranian officials assert that their air defense system successfully intercepted and destroyed the drones mid-flight.

In response to perceived threats from the US and Israel in the region, Iran has employed a combination of internal and external balancing strategies that has effectively safeguarded its security thus far. In terms of internal balancing, Iran relies on enrichment and reprocessing facilities like other latent nuclear states, such as Japan. 

Nuclear latency refers to states with the potential ability to assemble a nuclear arsenal in a relatively short period of time in the event of an existential threat.

By maintaining the ability to rapidly build nuclear weapons without actually doing so, a policy known as the “Japan Option,” Iran remains in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In addition, Iran also relies on its conventional military strength and the exploitation of strategic geopolitical assets. In terms of external balancing, Tehran has built a network of partners and allies across the Middle East who share the common goal of countering US and Israeli hegemony. Iranian policymakers view these internal and external components as interconnected, creating a stable equilibrium to safeguard Iran’s security and interests.

Iran's defense doctrine is based on the concept of active deterrence, whereby a predetermined countermeasure is carried out if deterrence alone fails, thus reinforcing deterrence of further actions by belligerent actors. In this regard, the recent tit-for-tat exchange of missile strikes between Iran and Israel does not signify a major shift away from this doctrine and toward nuclear armament, but rather signals a new stage in an ongoing active deterrence approach.

Israel's emphasis on keeping the scope of conflict limited and the American commitment to non-involvement in military engagements with Iran indicate that the doctrine has been effective in deterring broader military action against Iran thus far.

As a threshold nuclear power, Iran maintains strategic ambiguity around its nuclear capabilities and can use this as a political bargaining chip. According to the IAEA, from June 2023 on, Iran reduced the rate at which it was enriching uranium (up to 60%) for a few months, before reversing course in November 2023 and increasing the rate of production of enriched uranium (up to 60%) to 9 kg per month. The most recent report from the IAEA indicates that while Iran has been enriching uranium at the same rate since the beginning of 2024, it also downblended about 31.8 kg of its 60% enriched uranium stockpile, reducing its total reserves by 6.8 kg.

These fluctuations in the production and reserves of enriched uranium suggest that clandestine negotiations and agreements between Iran and the United States may have been taking place in recent months. Despite the ongoing war in Gaza, Iran managed to export approximately 1.56 million barrels of oil per day in the first three months of 2024, the greatest volume since late 2018.

While Iran has been able to master various methods of circumventing sanctions during this period, it seems that the Biden administration is reluctant to enforce strict secondary sanction measures that would further impede Iranian oil sales.

While the war in Gaza has provided Iran with new opportunities to affect regional power dynamics, being a threshold nuclear power does not impose extra costs on it. Rather, it provides Tehran with significant leverage if external pressures increase.

As such, Iran's nuclear capabilities serve as both a deterrent and a bargaining tool. Currently, Tehran views the United States and Israel as its primary external threats. Consequently, it shapes its regional security strategies with these two nuclear powers in mind.

As a component of this approach, Tehran endeavors to reduce threat perceptions among its Arab neighbors by implementing a neighborhood policy and initiating confidence-building measures, such as expanding bilateral diplomatic relations.

Iran seeks to continue strengthening its relations with its neighbors, break out of its political isolation, and, to some extent, address its lagging economic development. Its economy, hindered by sanctions, needs to be revived, and in this context, Tehran remains acutely aware of the material and relative costs of declaring itself a nuclear power. The suspicions of analysts, predicting a surge in Tehran’s enriched uranium production, may be unmerited given the many benefits that Iran could reap from remaining a threshold power.

Nevertheless, there is a real prospect that Iran could become a nuclear power — a move that would have dire implications — and this is more likely to occur if or when Iran perceives a threat to its security that cannot be adequately managed by its existing use of active deterrence.

Were the US and Israel to jointly carry out a significant military strike targeting Iran's key nuclear and military installations, this could render Tehran’s current deterrence strategy unviable, ineffective, and unsustainable.

On April 18, Gen. Ahmad Haqtalab, commander of the Nuclear Centers Protection and Security Corps, stated that if Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran may seriously reassess its nuclear strategy.

There are several steps key regional players could take that would ensure this does not happen:

First and foremost, resuming diplomatic negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program and establishing clear rules for preventing its weaponization, in return for a reduction in the scale and impact of economic sanctions, would benefit all stakeholders.

Second, as an additional step, encouraging neighboring countries, particularly Gulf Cooperation Council member states, to develop constructive diplomatic and economic relations with Iran would discourage Tehran from pursuing further uranium enrichment, disincentivize engagement in more small-scale military confrontations, and build on Iran's tentative commitment to assume the role of a responsible regional actor.

Finally, resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as distant as that might seem right now in the midst of war, would be a crucial step toward mitigating the risk of escalating tensions between Israel and Iran as well as alleviating the heated security crisis that currently plagues the region.

Courtesy: Middle East Institute

 

 

US Indo-Pacific foreign security policy

According to Nikkei Asia, an emerging quadrilateral group, between the United States, Japan, Australia and the Philippines, has become the core of Washington's foreign security policy in the Indo-Pacific, quickly overtaking the Quad in priority.

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin held a series of meetings in Hawaii with his counterparts from the three countries last Thursday to set an "ambitious course" for peace, stability and deterrence in the Indo-Pacific. The four-way alliance has reportedly been nicknamed the "Squad" by Pentagon officials.

The four nations have held maritime military drills in April and are expected to hold more later this year.

Ashley Tellis, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the Quad, a gathering of the US, Japan, India and Australia, has "an appearance of slippage" due to scheduling problems caused by the elections in India, an upcoming one in the U.S., and the wars in Europe and the Middle East.

But Tellis said these developments have put the role of the Quad in perspective.

"Where balancing China is concerned, the Quad is only one arrow among many in the US quiver," he said. "It has its greatest value in peacetime.

"In militarized crises and conflict with China, the minilaterals like AUKUS and the 'Squad', and most importantly, the US-Japan alliance will prove to be far more important than the Quad," he said.

"That is not to denigrate the Quad. It is simply underscoring a strategic fact of life," the former special assistant to President George W. Bush added.

Dhruva Jaishankar, executive director of the Observer Research Foundation America, said the newfound attention on the Squad grouping comes at a time when China has fired water cannons at Philippine supply ships in the South China Sea to prevent delivery of construction materials to the BRP Sierra Madre, a World War II-era ship grounded on the Second Thomas Shoal to bolster Manila's sovereignty.

"That's really where China's applying the greatest pressure at this time, even more than Taiwan, and it's really a test of the US alliance," Jaishankar said.

China's Foreign Ministry spokesperson has previously said the water cannon firings were a response to the ships intruding "without China's permission" and a "serious infringement" on Chinese sovereignty

New Delhi had hoped to convene a Quad summit earlier in the year, to coincide with a possible visit by US President Joe Biden visit to India in January, but the US leader was unable to make it citing a tight schedule.

India also explored a Quad summit before the Indian elections that began on April 19, according to Jaishankar. That too was thwarted by Biden's March 07 State of the Union address and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishdia's state-level visit to the US on April 10.

"Clearly the triangle of the US, Japan and Australia is far more important," said Kent Calder, director of the Edwin O. Reischauer Center for East Asian Studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, adding that "a series of strategic triangles (including the U.S., Japan and South Korea, and the US, Japan and Philippines) are really the core of US foreign policy now."

The professor noted that all of these strategic triangles have clear functional purposes. The Biden administration is "too busy for more talk shops," he said. "The Quad under current circumstances does have that problem."

But Lisa Curtis, director of the Indo-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, said the Squad is not a "replacement" for the Quad and should rather be seen as a supplement.

"India is an important part of the US Indo-Pacific strategy. It's a critical part," she said.

"In the event that there's any kind of conflict or crisis, either in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea, India will play a critical role in keeping an eye on the Indian Ocean region and the Malacca Strait," she said.

The difference between the Quad and the Squad is the presence of the word "deterrence." Despite its formal name of Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, the Quad has stayed away from security issues.

Joint statements issued after the past three Quad leaders summits have included references of "peace" and "stability" of the region but has never spoken about deterrence.

This is out of consideration for India, who has had a tradition of non-alignment, more recently known as strategic autonomy.

 

Russian oil exports growing despite sanctions

Russian oil export revenues surged to US$17.2 billion in March 2024, driven by higher global oil prices and increased crude export volumes, according to the April ‘Russian Oil Tracker’ by KSE Institute.

Despite robust US Treasury sanctions targeting the shadow fleet, Russia continues to expand it by incorporating new tankers, allowing for stable exports and further evasion of oil price cap.

Russian seaborne oil exports rose by 4% in March, driven by a 12% increase in crude oil shipment to more than 400,000 barrels per day, while exports of oil products declined by 6%. Notably, India saw a 3% increase in Russian crude imports to 1,445,000 barrels per day, maintaining its position as the top importer of Russian crude oil. Meanwhile, Turkey has been meeting around two-thirds of its oil demand through Russian oil products imports, with total imports exceeding 800,000 barrels per day since November 2023.

However, only 36% of Russian oil exports were shipped by IG-insured tankers. For other shipments, Russia utilized its shadow fleet. It was responsible for exports of 2.8 million barrels per day of crude and 1.1 million barrel per day of oil products in March.

Specifically, 223 loaded non-IG-insured tankers left Russian ports, with 2 engaged in STS transfers in March 2024. With 85% of these tankers aged over 15 years, the risk of oil spills at sea is heightened—a potential catastrophe for which Russia would likely refuse to pay.

The US Treasury’s strategy of designating individual vessels effectively removes shadow tankers from regular commercial service. As of April 12, 2024, out of 41 sanctioned vessels, 37 were unloaded and not scheduled for further voyages, while 3 were completing their current voyages in line with the OFAC authorization.

One vessel provides coastal shuttle services violating OFAC’s sanctions but only within the Black Sea. On April 04, OFAC also sanctioned Oceanlink Maritime Dmcc and its 13 tankers for its ties with Iran but 7 of these 13 tankers also shipped Russian crude without IG P&I insurance.

Russia managed to expand its shadow tanker fleet, adding 35 new tankers to replace 41 tankers added to OFAC’s SDN list since December 2023. These tankers, all over 15 years old, are managed outside the EU/G7. Nine of them were directly involved in loading Iranian oil in Iran or through STS operations in 2021-2023, as per Kpler.

Russia also continues to evade shadow fleet sanctions by transferring sanctioned tankers to new entities. For instance, when four UAE-registered shipping companies, sanctioned by the UK, passed tankers to other Emirati firms, they continued commercial operations under new management. Similarly, Stream Ship Management Fzco became the top shipper of Russian crude oil after acquiring tankers previously managed by Oil Tankers Scf Mgmt Fzc, sanctioned by the OFAC.

UAE, Chinese and Greek ship managers have played a leading role in transporting Russian crude. In March 2024, eight of the top ten shippers of Russian crude were registered in the UAE or China.

As for Russian oil products exports, Greek companies dominated the top shippers, although Modern Gemi Isletmeciligi As (Turkey) and Oil Tankers Scf Mgmt Fzco (UAE) led the list in March.

KSE Institute projects Russian oil revenues to reach US$175 billion and US$152 billion in 2024 and 2025 under the base case with current oil price caps and stronger sanctions enforcement. However, if sanctions enforcement is weak, Russian oil revenues could increase, reaching US$206 billion in 2024 and US$195 billion in 2025.

The Q4 2023 data suggest that problems with price cap implementation and enforcement are much bigger than previously expected. To ensure that sanctions continue to constrain Russia’s ability to wage its war of aggression on Ukraine—and that their credibility is maintained—additional steps urgently need to be taken. Below, we outline three critical measures that can quickly and effectively address Russian effort to evade sanctions on its oil exports.

1. G7/EU countries should ensure that their authorities have sufficient proof of compliance with the price cap, including by: a) leveraging the involvement of G7/EU financial institutions in the Russian oil trade and their knowledge of key transaction details such as prices; b) requiring attestations to be provided by reputable entities defined via transparent criteria and subject to sanctions in the case of violations or their facilitation; and/or c) stepping-up of documentary evidence requirements for G7/EU service providers under the current system (including original sales contracts, etc.).

2. EU coastal states should leverage geographical “choke points” to limit Russia’s use of a “shadow fleet” of tankers by requiring proper spill insurance for vessels’ passage through their territorial waters, including in the Baltic Sea and Mediterranean. This would force Russia to rely once again on G7/EU services for a substantial share of its exports and also help address environmental risks that have emerged due to the increasing use of old and under-insured tankers. For this purpose, a system to allow for timely and efficient verification of insurance information should be established.

3. Price cap coalition countries should step up penalties on entities that violate the price cap. For G7/EU companies, this should include tougher monetary penalties and expanded lockout periods. For third-country actors, price cap coalition countries should impose “direct” sanctions (e.g., SDN listing in the United States or use of the European Union’s anti-circumvention tool established in the 11th package) and consider the application of extraterritorial (“secondary”) sanctions, leveraging the continued critical importance of its financial system for internationally operating businesses.

 

Iranian drones fascinate many countries

Military analysts and experts in the West have invariably emphasized that Iranian drones have proven their effectiveness in real battlefields and, as a result, have been met with great interest from many countries.

The military analytical platform “Breaking Defense,” in a recent report, evaluated one of the global consequences of the missile and drone Operation True Promise and stated that despite the extensive cooperation of several countries alongside Israel with Tehran’s launched weapons, the global interest in Iranian drones is not diminishing, and analysts say there is a highly enthusiastic market worldwide for accessing and purchasing relatively cheap and efficient Iranian drones.

The report’s author added that perhaps Israel and its allies were able to deal with the large number of 300 drones and missiles that Iran launched in its unprecedented attack on Israel, but according to analysts, this has not deterred potential customers of Tehran’s unmanned aerial vehicles.

Fabian Heinz, a defense and military researcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, believes that most countries, interested in Iranian drones, want to use them against powerful enemies such as the United States and Israel. 

For these countries, the advanced capabilities of enemies such as the United States in tracking these weapons are not so concerning. Iranian offensive drones have proven their effectiveness well.

Samuel Bendett, an artificial intelligence and unmanned systems expert at the CNA Institute in Washington, also stated that Israel’s opposition will not have an impact on Iran’s sales market, especially to countries seeking to adopt a politically and militarily independent approach from the West.

The report, with details of the number and types of drones and missiles used by Iran, claimed that Iran launched 170 Shahed 131 and 136 drones, along with over 30 cruise missiles and more than 120 ballistic missiles towards targets in Israel. 

According to the analysis, in recent years, the Shahed drone family has attracted widespread attention worldwide due to successful use in several operational scenarios, with the most prominent display being in Ukraine.

Jean-Marc Rickli, the head of global risk and resilience at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP), also claimed to Breaking Defense that Ukraine provided a powerful showcase for the Shahed drones, even if these drones failed in the attack on Israel, they proved that they impose a significant cost on the adversary.

He also stated that the use of expensive missiles to destroy these inexpensive drones incurs a high cost, and more importantly, it eliminates the defender’s capabilities. In the case of Israel, the interception of drones costed more than the drones themselves.

He also pointed out that the calculation has made Iranian drones attractive to many international buyers, adding that the potential market for Iran includes countries that are sanctioned by the West or have no fear of sanctions and are not willing to accept Western conditions when selling weapons.

According to this report, interest in purchasing Iranian drones has increased even more after extensive debates and denials about Russia’s use of these aircraft against Ukraine. 

Several months later, a senior Iranian official announced that 22 countries have expressed interest in buying Iranian-made drones. Yoav Gallant, Israel’s Defense Minister, also claimed in February that 50 countries are negotiating with Tehran to purchase missiles and drones from the country.

Even an analyst from FDD said, “Iranian drones are now present in operational theaters on four continents: Asia, Africa, Europe, and South America.”

The report also mentioned Iran’s competitors in the drone market and added that analysts consider Iranian drones a cost-effective solution. Despite China leading in drone exports, experts say that Iran goes beyond Beijing and has few competitors in its niche market.

It was also emphasized that Iran has proven efficiency in high-altitude, combat, and suicide drones. While there are indeed some companies in this market, but Iran does stand out.

According to the abovementioned analysis, many experts were taken aback when they first encountered reports of Russia’s dependence on Iranian drones.

Last year, Brigadier General Talaei-Nick, the Deputy Defense Minister, said that there are some European countries willing to purchase Iranian drones, pointing to the requests sent to Iran for its drones. 

The general said that some locally-made defense products are for sale, adding that in case Iran is sure that drones would not be used inappropriately, the country is ready to export some of its drones, considering the domestic needs and the capacity of the production. 

On purchasing weapons, he said domestic products are prioritized, but in cases when foreign supplies are needed to meet the needs, especially in the field of air combat, the country will move according to its needs. 

The general said the type of equipment that is needed should be evaluated in comparison with its domestic ones and similar ones in other countries.

Moreover, he said, it should be confirmed in terms of price and quality by authorities and that buying weapons from abroad is a long-term process. 

General Talaei Nik also pointed to the training process which is needed for special types of weapons, where the foreign parties’ cooperation is also needed.  

The deputy defense minister added that financial provision and signing contracts must be done within a predetermined process, which take place within the framework of legal and international considerations.

The Defense Ministry official also said “exchanges with Russia” are still going on, noting that none of the “previously agreed exchanges” with Russia have been canceled.  

 

Indian spice manufacturers under scrutiny

Two of India's packaged spice manufacturers are under regulatory scrutiny in several countries after their products were allegedly found to contain carcinogenic elements, barely a year after cough syrups made in the South Asian nation were linked to the deaths of over 140 children in Africa.

Countries like Australia, New Zealand and the United States are weighing investigations into the packaged spices made by the companies after Hong Kong authorities raised a red flag over their quality.

This isn’t the first time that the two — among the largest companies in India — have faced these kinds of issues, with the US Food and Drug Administration ordering a recall of Everest spice mixes in 2023 and some MDH products in 2019, both due to salmonella contamination.

The Centre for Food Safety (CFS) in Hong Kong said in a statement on April 05, 2024 that it found ethylene oxide (ETO), a pesticide that can cause cancer if consumed in large amounts, in three types of packaged spices manufactured by MDH and one made by Everest. The products were taken off the shelves and recalled, the CFS said.

Taking its cue from the Hong Kong authorities, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) a couple of weeks later recalled the Everest Fish Curry Masala product, saying in a statement that consumers who had purchased it were advised not to consume it.

The SFA also said, “As the implicated products in Hong Kong were imported into Singapore, the SFA has directed the importer to recall the products.” The agency clarified that although there is no immediate risk to consumption of food contaminated with low levels of ethylene oxide, long-term exposure may lead to health issues.

India’s Spice Board, a government agency that oversees spice exports, said that the limit for ETO varies between countries, from 0.02 milligram per kilogram of spices in places like the UK and Norway to 7 milligram per kilogram in Canada and the US.

Pesticides are widely used in agriculture in India, often leaving traces in food products. According to Indian government estimates, the cultivated area where chemical pesticide is used grew 33.4% from the fiscal year ending March 2019 to fiscal 2023, reaching 108,216 hectares. That was about seven times the area cultivated with biopesticides in 2023.

“We tend to look critically at the end product, but even more rigor is needed at the level of the ingredients,” said Devangshu Dutta, CEO at consultancy firm Third Eyesight, referring to the use of pesticides in cultivation. “Otherwise, we will end up kind of catching the product at the last point of control, which is not enough.”

Hong Kong and Singapore did not disclose the amount of ETO content in the recalled products. MDH and Everest had not responded to requests for comment by the time of publication.

Authorities elsewhere have also taken note of the allegations. “Food Standards Australia New Zealand is working with our international counterparts to understand the issue with federal, state and territory food enforcement agencies to determine if further action is required in Australia, e.g., a food recall,” the agency told Nikkei Asia in an email statement on Wednesday.

The regulatory scrutiny in the US, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore, raises questions over an export market worth about US$700 million, research firm Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) said in a report on Wednesday.

“Swift investigations and the publication of findings are essential to re-establish global trust in Indian spices,” GTRI said, adding that the “lack of clear communication from government agencies is disappointing.”

Indian food has been under scrutiny in Europe as well. The European Commission Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed estimates that since the beginning of 2023, Indian food products were deemed to pose serious risks in 166 instances. These included nine cases of ethylene oxide found in food supplements and spices in countries including Sweden, Greece and Italy.

The recalls come at a time when New Delhi is rolling out incentives to support local manufacturers and exporters in transforming India into a US$5 trillion economy. India is the world’s largest exporter of spices with shipments worth US$3.9 billion in 2023, followed by Vietnam and Mexico, according to data provider Tendata. Those figures give India a market share of 37.2%, with Vietnam at 28.1% and Mexico at 9.6%.

Poor food quality in India stems from a general lack of awareness about food safety and insufficient resources to track ingredients, among other reasons, said US-based food and beverage consultancy AIB International in a report in October.

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India found 16,582 samples unsafe in the fiscal year 2022, the latest such data available. That was a threefold jump from the previous year.

“Most of the food and beverage manufacturers in India are focused on reducing costs to make their product affordable to the public,” the report said. “As a result, many cannot prioritize food safety as a pillar of their business because it could prevent them from meeting their profit margins.”

“Food manufacturing and processing facilities can lack the resources to maintain proper hygiene,” it noted, adding that food-borne illnesses in India is estimated to top 100 million every year.

MENA: New proxy war ground for US and China

Tensions between the United States and China are expanding beyond the Asia-Pacific region. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is likely to be one of many venues in what might be a new Cold War between Washington and Beijing.

We can imagine how Washington and Beijing’s respective global outlooks and ability to project (soft and hard) power could affect their future relations with the MENA region.

How MENA countries deal with each other and the role they play in the emerging global energy and economy transitions could influence how the two superpowers engage with the region in ways as interesting and important as what the superpowers are able to do themselves. On the MENA side of the equation, two critical dimensions are likely to shape their role in the future US-China competition in the region:

Intraregional politics

The first is how regional countries relate to each other with functional and practical economic and political integration, or sustained dysfunction and instability. Prior to the current war in Gaza, there was a trend toward de-escalation, stabilization, and integration.

Whenever that momentum might be regained, under the “functional and practical” route, we could imagine MENA nations looking in new ways at the lessons of pan-regional intergovernmental organizations.

The region could explore policies and mechanisms that emulate the practical benefits afforded to member states of other regional blocs like the European Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Such ideas could first lower trade barriers, then foster closer economic and commercial ties across the region.

Similarly, the thinking behind the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe could influence MENA governments’ approach to their citizens’ human rights and each other’s domestic affairs.

The functional and practical path would represent a MENA equipped with deliberative, consultative decision-making processes to act with agency, putting its own interests before the dictates of the US-Chinese competition.

The alternative path is easy to define, MENA governments continue to support various armed groups in proxy wars, and use that environment to ignore human rights, enabling outside players to exploit that dysfunction.

Levers of the future economy

The fossil fuel resources of Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates ‑ energy-rich club might soon include Egypt and Israel ‑ are likely to remain MENA’s main sources of leverage vis-à-vis Washington and Beijing — at least for the next couple of decades. Given the desire of two superpowers to secure the region’s oil and gas for themselves and their allies, or deny them to adversaries, US and Chinese companies will remain powerhouses in regional markets.

MENA is poised to influence the future global stage, and gain agency in the US-China competition over the region, by leveraging its energy and financial power in different ways in the future.

As the world turns to renewable energy, the region’s petrostates are simultaneously ramping up economic diversification into tech sectors, while also leveraging their wealth to finance climate-friendly energy projects and other green economy endeavors in their neighborhood and around the world.

The new frontier for the region’s resource- and capital-rich countries will be fostering innovation and science/technology/ideas hubs for the post-carbon economy that humanity intends to build in the 21st century.

Beside eventually waning hydrocarbons and ascending green energy, new logistical/transportation/energy networks have proliferated in the region and are likely to further increase its geopolitical and commercial significance.

Be it through long-established routes, such as the Suez Canal, or new and proposed ones, such as the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, India-Middle East Corridor, and the Turkish-Iraqi-Emirati-Qatari Development Road, MENA is going to be sitting at the center of global trade networks. Many of the region’s seaports and airports will also play an expanded role in international affairs.

United States suspends work on Gaza pier

The US military said on Friday it has temporarily paused the offshore construction of a maritime pier because of weather conditions and instead would continue building it at the Israeli port of Ashdod.

The maritime pier, once built, will be placed off the coast of Gaza in a bid to speed the flow of humanitarian aid into the enclave.

"Forecasted high winds and high sea swells caused unsafe conditions for soldiers working on the surface of the partially constructed pier," the US military said in a statement.

"The partially built pier and military vessels involved in its construction have moved to the Port of Ashdod, where assembly will continue," it added.

Earlier this week, the Pentagon said about 50% of the pier had been constructed.

Israel has sought to demonstrate it is not blocking aid to Gaza, especially since President Joe Biden issued a stark warning to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying Washington’s policy could shift if Israel fails to take steps to address civilian harm, humanitarian suffering, and the safety of aid workers.

US. officials and aid groups say some progress has been made but warn it is insufficient, amid stark warnings of imminent famine among Gaza's 2.3 million people.

 

US threatens ICC over Israeli arrest warrants

In another sign United States allowing Israel to violate international law, Washington stands accused of threatening a UN court from issuing arrest warrants against the Israeli leaders.

Senior Republican officials say President Biden’s administration backs their stance toward the International Criminal Court (ICC) if the body goes ahead with its plan to issue arrest warrants against Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 

Speaking to reporters, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson says there is support among Democrats in the White House for the ICC to withdraw its position amid reports the UN Court is set to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu as well as other high-ranking officials including War Minister Yoav Gallant and military chief of staff Herzi Halevi for war crimes. 

In a direct threat to the ICC, Johnson underlined that “they’d better not do that … I think that it would make us as a nation respond in kind to the ICC”. 
“I think a group of senators and House members who would move expeditiously and we might just turn the table on the ICC. They better be careful,” the Republican leader warned. 
According to Johnson, who spoke to Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Tuesday, the Biden administration totally agrees.  

Blinken “confirmed that the position of the White House is our position … they are calling for the ICC to stand down,” Johnson told reporters. 

According to Axios, Congress has informed the ICC that any arrest warrants against Israeli leaders will be met with US retaliation with legislation to that effect already in the works. 

In a statement, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Michael McCaul, echoed those warnings from his party leadership.

The Israeli occupation regime does not recognize the authority of the ICC, but issuing warrants would mean that the 124 countries that have signed up to the body, including some of Tel Aviv’s closest Western allies, would be obliged to arrest Israeli officials if they enter their territory.

Many have called out the US hypocrisy in its response to war crimes investigations against the Israelis, whose war on Gaza has so far led to the murder of around 35,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children. Using starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza is another Israeli war crime that reports indicate the ICC is pursuing the arrest warrants for. 

Last year, Biden welcomed an ICC decision to issue an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying it was justified over what the US president said was Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Russia says the warrant against Putin is a meaningless campaign by the West to damage Russia’s reputation and denies war crimes during its military actions against the US and NATO-backed Ukrainian army. 

“This is evidence of the stratification of consciousness,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in a post on social media in which she hinted that Israel is a satellite of the United States. 

“On the one hand, the ICC judges are under US sanctions; on the other hand, Washington fully supported, if not stimulated, the issuance of ICC warrants against the Russian leadership; on the third, the American political system does not recognize the legitimacy of this structure in relation to itself and its satellites.” Zakharova pointed out. 

The Russian diplomat was responding to White House Press Secretary Karin Jean-Pierre who stated, “The US authorities believe that the investigation of the International Criminal Court into Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip, as well as the issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli high-ranking officials in this regard, goes beyond the jurisdiction of the court.”

ICC arrest warrants would be one of the most severe diplomatic setbacks for the Israeli occupation regime and its political and military leadership since the start of the war on Gaza.

Tel Aviv is already facing a genocide case, brought by South Africa, at the International Court of Justice as well as widespread accusations of indiscriminately carpet-bombing civilian infrastructure in Gaza and causing famine by preventing aid supplies from entering the enclave. 

Experts have highlighted that they do not believe the prospect of any ICC action would derail negotiations for a ceasefire in Gaza, saying such reports emerging in the US are part of wider tactics being deployed by Washington and Tel Aviv to delay the warrants being issued. 

Israeli media say Netanyahu is worried about the ICC issuing an arrest warrant against him, as reports indicate the US is lobbying its Western allies to pile pressure on the top UN Court. 

 

Understanding Middle East grand bargain

The Biden administration and Saudi Arabia are finalizing an agreement for United States security guarantees and civilian nuclear assistance, even as an Israel-Saudi normalization deal envisioned as part of a Middle East “grand bargain” remains elusive, reports Reuters.

A working draft lays out principles and proposals aimed at putting back on track a US-led effort to reshape the volatile region that was derailed by Hamas’ October 07, 2023 attack on Israel and the outbreak of war in Gaza.

It appears to be a long-shot strategy that faces numerous obstacles, not least the uncertainty over how the Gaza conflict will unfold.

The US and Saudi negotiators have, for now, prioritized a bilateral security accord that would then be part of a wider package presented to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who would have to decide whether to make concessions to secure historic ties with Riyadh.

“We’re very close to reaching an agreement” on the US-Saudi portion of the package, US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said on Thursday, predicting that details could be ironed out “in very short order.”

That part of the plan is likely to call for formal US guarantees to defend the kingdom as well as Saudi access to more advanced US weaponry in return for halting Chinese arms purchases and restricting Beijing’s investment in the country.

The US-Saudi security accord is also expected to involve sharing emerging technologies with Riyadh, including artificial intelligence.

The terms are expected to be finalized within weeks.

The conditions that Netanyahu will face to join a broader deal are expected to include winding down the war in Gaza and agreeing on a pathway to Palestinian statehood, both of which Netanyahu has steadfastly resisted.

US officials hope Netanyahu will not want to pass up the historic opportunity to open relations with Saudi Arabia, guardian of Islam’s holiest sites, but are mindful of the domestic political pressures he is under, including keeping Israel’s most right-wing government ever from collapsing.

A broader pact giving the world's biggest oil exporter US military protection together with normalization with Israel would unite two long-time foes and bind Riyadh to Washington at a time when China is making inroads in the region.

A normalization deal would also bolster Israel's defenses against arch-foe Iran and give US President Joe Biden a diplomatic victory ahead of the November 05, 2024 presidential election.

Overhanging these efforts is Netanyahu’s threat to launch a military offensive in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, where more than a million Palestinians are sheltering, despite US entreaties to refrain from an operation that could mean further heavy civilian casualties.