US Veterans Demand Termination of Weapons Sales to Israel

 In a letter to the Inspector General of the US State Department, a national veterans’ organization has demanded the State Department terminate weapons shipments to Israel and called on the Inspector General to investigate alleged criminal acts by senior Biden administration officials in violation of US law, including ratified treaties, which are the supreme law of the land. 

Josh Paul, former State Department senior official who resigned over weapons shipments to Israel said, “The Secretary and all relevant officials under his purview should take this letter from Veterans for Peace (VFP) with the utmost seriousness. It is a stark reminder of the importance of abiding by the laws and policies that relate to arms transfers.” 

Mike Ferner, VFP National Director said, “Just as any good soldier can recognize when they are given an unlawful order, we believe some State Department staff are horrified at the orders they’re given and will decide to uphold the law, find the courage to speak out and demand an end to the carnage.

VFP enthusiastically supports Josh Paul for what he did and we believe the public does, too. The IDF has killed over 30,000 Palestinians and is utterly destroying Gaza. These actions amount to genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and VFP wants them investigated.” 

“Unless no one in the entire US State Department has seen the news in the last four months, they have to be aware of Israel’s illegal activity. But just in case, our letter to the Inspector General spells it out in chapter and verse. We believe the State Department – from the Secretary down to every staff person working on arms transfers to Israel – is in criminal violation of U.S. statutes regarding how U.S. weaponry can be used. There’s no ‘Israel exception’ that makes it okay for U.S. weapons to be used in genocide even if it’s labeled self-defense,” Ferner concluded. 

The letter from Veterans For Peace alleges violations by the US government and its officials of: 

• The Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, which prohibits US weapons transfers when it’s likely they will be used by Israel to commit genocide; crimes against humanity; and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, including attacks intentionally directed against civilian objects or civilians protected or other serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law, including serious acts of gender-based violence or serious acts of violence against children. Dozens of authoritative complaints and referrals made by hospital administrators in Gaza, as well as by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Palestine Authority, South Africa, Turkey, Medicins san Frontieres, UNRWA, UNICEF, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Norwegian Refugee Council and the World Food Program, have confirmed that there is an ongoing human rights and humanitarian disaster due to Israel’s cutoff of water and electricity, deliberate destruction of sewage infrastructure and delaying of aid shipments by Israeli forces. 

• The Foreign Assistance Act, which forbids the provision of assistance to a government which “engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” 

• Arms Export Control Act, which says countries that receive US military aid can only use weapons for legitimate self-defense and internal security. Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza goes way beyond self-defense and internal security. 

• The US War Crimes Act, which forbids grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, including willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and unlawful deportation or transfer, perpetrated by the Israeli Occupying Forces. 

• The Leahy Law, which prohibits the US Government from using funds for assistance to units of foreign security forces where there is credible information implicating that unit in the commission of gross violations of human rights. 

• The Genocide Convention Implementation Act, which was enacted to implement U.S. obligations under the Genocide Convention, provides for criminal penalties for individuals who commit or incite others to commit genocide. 

Human rights attorney, Terry Lodge, who drafted the VFP letter, pointed out what he called, “The State Department’s double standard to determine war criminality,” citing a December 6, 2023, determination by Secretary Blinken, “that the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) of Sudan had ‘committed crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.’ As horrible as the crimes of the RSF may be, they pale compared to what Israel is doing in Gaza.” 

Veterans For Peace has over 100 chapters in the US and since 1985 has exposed the true costs of war and militarism. Its goal is to abolish war as an instrument of national policy. 

 

 

US duplicity and Arab cowardice facilitating genocide in Gaza

President Biden, looking somber, keeps urging Israel to avoid civilian deaths and to use targeted strikes on Hamas. Yet he keeps supplying Israel with 2,000 pound bunker buster bombs that are designed to kill indiscriminately and over a wide area. 

He reels against nuclear proliferation and vows to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet the United States will not even acknowledge the fact that Israel possesses over 200 nukes, let alone endorse a longstanding Arab and Iranian proposal to declare the region a nuclear-free zone, simply to facilitate Israel to threaten its neighbors of risk of a nuclear war. 

The United State says it wants an end to hostilities and civilian deaths, largely those of women and children in the Gaza war that is not a war because what we have is an army of well-equipped soldiers massacring defenseless women and children. Yet at the United Nations Security Council, the US has exercised vetoed three resolutions demanding an immediate ceasefire.

The world recognizes that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank is illegal and the US says these settlements should not be expanded, yet it is overlooking proliferation of settlements.

Lately, at the International Court of Justice, the US rushed to Israel’s defense—urging the 15-judge panel not to call for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied Palestinian territory. The American State Department lawyer in support of Israel argued that the solution was not an Israeli withdrawal but that a sovereign Palestinian state living safely and securely alongside Israel would bring about lasting peace, repeating longstanding US platitudes that Netanyahu and two of his cabinet ministers have said will never be allowed by Israel.

The US espouses these words in public in support of a Palestinian state, yet does nothing to make it a reality. 

The US officials say that they have limited power over Netanyahu and Israel. Why doesn’t Biden announce: 1) US will no longer support Israeli intransigence at the United Nations, 2) US will suspend all financial and military aid to Israel (amounting to around US$300 billion over the years), and US will no longer sell arms to Israel?

Netanyahu will do as he is told. If Netanyahu does not do as told by the US and if Israel then loses US backing, Israelis would feel so naked and vulnerable that they would demand a change of government, it is that simple.

Regrettably, no US president dares taking such a stand because of the power of the Jewish lobby. It’s time for the US citizens to wake up and demand their government treat Israel as an ally but not as the 51st state.

It will not be wrong to say that the US foreign policy toward the Middle East is in large part subservient to Israeli demands and the Jewish lobby.

Palestinians have also received little or no effective backing from their Arab and Muslim brethren. Most Arab and Muslim countries have supported South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and others have voiced their anger at Israel’s attack on Gaza, but there is much more that they could do if they had a little courage and compassion in the face of the massacre of innocent civilians, largely women and children. 

If Arabs and Muslims want to force a change in the US policies and create a Palestinian state forthwith, they should: 1) recall their ambassadors to Washington (and to Tel Aviv for those having relations), 2) expel all US military personnel (bases) from their territories, 3) follow up with both primary and secondary economic sanctions on Israel, and 4) bring cases at the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Israeli leaders and American and European heads of state for complicity in Israeli war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Cognizant of the fact that Israel and the US are not members of the ICC, enforcement of the court verdicts is difficult, still a conviction would be a black mark that no one would want.

Some Arab countries would be wise to consider these steps sooner rather than later as they may face growing domestic demands for action, while may lead to unrest.

Courtesy: Tehran Times

 

Would Biden like to be remembered "an enabler of genocide by Israel"

There is a growing consensus that Joe Biden, President of United States needs to take back US policy from the Israel lobby and stop backing Israel’s extremist and utterly illegal policies. Israeli leaders have shown not the slightest compunction in killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians, displacing 2 million Gazans, and calling for ethnic cleansing.

The International Court of Justice has determined that Israel may well be committing genocide, and the ICJ could make a definitive determination of genocide in the next year or two. Biden would enter history as an enabler of genocide, yet he still has the chance to be the US president who prevented genocide.

Biden needs to take back US policy from the Israel lobby. The US should stop backing Israel’s extremist and utterly illegal policies. Nor should

The US should not spend any more funds on Israel unless and until Israel lives within international law, including the Genocide Convention, and 21st century ethics.

Biden should side with the UN Security Council in calling for an immediate ceasefire and indeed in calling for an immediate move to the two-state solution, including recognition of Palestine as the 194th UN member state, a move that is more than a decade overdue since Palestine requested UN membership in 2011.

The cabinet of Prime Minister Netanyahu is filled with religious extremists who believe that Israel’s brutality in Gaza is at God’s command. According to the Book of Joshua in the Hebrew Bible, dated by scholars to the 7th century BC, God promised the land to the Jewish people and instructed them to destroy the other nations living in the Promised Land.

This text is used by extreme nationalists in Israel today, including by many of the 700,000 or so Israeli settlers living in occupied Palestinian lands in violation of international law. Netanyahu pursues the religious ideology of 7th century BC in the 21st century.

Of course, the vast majority of the world today, including the vast majority of Americans, is certainly not in line with Israel’s religious zealots. The world is far more interested in the 1948 Genocide Convention than in the genocides supposedly ordained by God in the Book of Joshua.

They don’t accept the Biblical idea that Israel should kill or expel the people of Palestine from their own land.

The two-state solution is the declared policy of the world community, as enshrined by the UN Security Council, and of the US government.

President Joe Biden is therefore caught between the powerful Israel Lobby and the opinion of American voters and of the world community.

Given the power of the Israel lobby, and the sums it expends in campaign contributions, Biden is trying to have it both ways: supporting Israel but not endorsing Israel’s extremism.

Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken hope to entice the Arab countries into yet another open-ended peace process with the two-state solution as the distant goal that is never reached.

Israeli hardliners would of course block every step of the way. Biden knows all of this but wants the fig leaf of a peace process.

Biden also hoped until recently that Saudi Arabia could be lured into normalizing relations with Israel in return for F-35 fighter jets, access to nuclear technology, and a vague commitment to an eventual two-state solution... someday, somehow.

The Saudis will have none of it. They made this clear in a declaration on February 06, stating, The Kingdom calls for the lifting of the siege on the people in Gaza; the evacuation of civilian casualties; the commitment to international laws and norms and international humanitarian law, and for moving the peace process forward in accordance with the resolutions of the Security Council and the United Nations, and the Arab Peace Initiative, which aims to find a just and comprehensive solution and establish an independent Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as capital.

Domestically, Biden confronts AIPAC (the innocuously named American Israel Public Affairs Committee), the lead organization of the Israel lobby. AIPAC’s long-running success is to turn millions of dollars of campaign contributions into billions of dollars of US aid to Israel, an amazingly high return.

Currently, AIPAC aims to turn around US$100 million of campaign funding for the November election into a US$16 billion supplemental aid package for Israel.

So far, Biden is going along with AIPAC, even as he loses younger voters. In an Economist/YouGov poll of January 21-23, 49% of those aged 19-29 held that Israel is committing a genocide against the Palestinian civilians. Only 22% said that in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, their sympathies are with Israel, versus 30% with Palestine, and the remaining 48% “about equal” or unsure. Only 21% agreed with increasing military aid to Israel. Israel has utterly alienated younger Americans.

While Biden has called for peace based on the two-state solution and a reduction of violence in Gaza, Netanyahu has brazenly brushed Biden aside, provoking Biden to call Netanyahu an asshole on several occasions.

Yet it is Netanyahu, not Biden, who still calls the shots in Washington. While Biden and Blinken wring their hands at Israel’s extreme violence, Netanyahu gets the US bombs and even Biden’s full backing for the US$16 billion with no US red lines.

To see the absurdity—and tragedy—of the situation, consider Blinken’s statement in Tel Aviv on February 07.

Rather than putting any limits on Israel’s violence, made possible by the US, Blinken declared that “it will be up to Israelis to decide what they want to do, when they want to do it, how they want to do it. No one’s going to make those decisions for them. All that we can do is to show what the possibilities are, what the options are, what the future could be, and compare it to the alternative. And the alternative right now looks like an endless cycle of violence and destruction and despair.”

Lately, the US used its veto power to kill the Algerian draft resolution in the UN Security Council calling for an immediate cease-fire, with US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield calling the effort to pass the measure "wishful" and "irresponsible."

Biden has put forward a weak alternative, calling for a ceasefire “as soon as practicable,” whatever that means. In practice, it would also surely mean that Israel would simply declare a cease-fire to be “impracticable.”

 

 

Pakistan Election Results, USIP Perspective

Days after Pakistan’s February 08 general election, the Election Commission of Pakistan released the official results confirming a major political upset. Contrary to what most political pundits and observers had predicted, independents aligned with former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) won the most seats at the national level, followed by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM). No party won an absolute majority needed to form a government on its own, says a report released by the United States Institute of Peace (USIP).

The resultant uncertainty means the United States may have to contend with a government that is more focused on navigating internal politics and less so on addressing strategic challenges.

On the one hand, the most likely scenario appears to be a coalition government that may struggle to muster the political strength to push through much-needed economic reforms and take on serious governance and security challenges.

On the other hand, several contenders have raised allegations of vote tampering that will call into question the credibility of a future government.

PTI-aligned candidates in particular claim that the delays in the final announcement of results are evidence of irregularities. Even before the election, it was clear that the electoral playing field was being tilted against the PTI.

The US State Department has noted allegations of interference in the electoral process and called for a full investigation. In its preliminary report, Pakistan’s polling watchdog, Free and Fair Election Network, noted that there was transparency at the polling stations, but it was compromised at the vote counting and tabulation stage.

Despite not winning the most seats, the PML-N is now trying to cobble together a coalition government with the PPP and MQM — as these parties together have a near majority of seats, which is required to form a government.

It has also nominated former Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif — Nawaz Sharif’s brother — to lead the coalition as the new prime minister.

For its part, the PTI has announced intent to form a government at the center as well as in the provinces of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, but it is unclear who it will ally with to get the majority required to form a government.

It is more likely that PTI-aligned candidates will sit in the opposition in the national assembly, as the party has made clear it will not ally with either the PML-N or PPP.

The victory of PTI-backed candidates defies the expectations of political pundits in Pakistan. It was widely anticipated that the PML-N would win and the PTI would lose the election.

At the heart of this projection was the state of the relationship between Khan and Pakistan’s powerful military establishment, which was seen to be backing the PML-N’s return to power and blocking Khan and his PTI.

Khan fell out with the military when his government was deposed in a vote of no confidence in 2022, which he charged was a regime-change operation orchestrated by the military with the United States.

His party has been in the line of fire since May 09, 2023, when its supporters attacked military establishments across the country. Khan himself has been in prison since last year due to several cases charging him with graft and improper handling of classified information, which meant he was unable to campaign for his party in the election.

Perhaps most significantly, leading up to the election, the PTI was also denied its election symbol (a cricket bat) by the Pakistani Supreme Court, which was widely seen as part of a broader campaign to tilt the electoral playing field against the party.

The fact that despite all these measures, PTI-backed candidates won such a large share is a remarkable outcome, making the 2024 election one of the most significant elections in contemporary Pakistani history.

One way to read the vote is that the Pakistani people have rejected the two traditional, dynastic parties — the PML-N and PPP — and embraced Khan’s aspirational, populist political platform.

Another way to read the outcome is that it is also a rejection of the military establishment’s role in politics, in particular its opposition to the PTI and the clampdown against the party since last year.

The results also point to Pakistanis’ discontent with the country’s overall trajectory and the electoral process being a solution to the challenges facing the country.

According to Gallup, Pakistanis are deeply pessimistic about the country’s economic future and they also question the fairness of the electoral process — before the election, seven in 10 Pakistanis said they lacked confidence in the honesty of the elections.

 

Billions for War, little for people without food

Following the passage of a US$95 billion foreign aid package that includes funding for Israel's relentless assault on Gaza, economists and policy experts this week are expressing alarm over the failure of the US Congress to ensure a federal program for low-income parents and their babies — a gap that could leave 2 million children and parents without sufficient food.

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) has never turned away eligible families in its 50-year history, but analysts say that with Congress deadlocked over whether to fully fund the program, states may soon be forced to place up to 2 million families on waiting lists—jeopardizing access to this highly effective program during an important window for child development," the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in December last year.

The program, which has been linked to a decrease in infant and maternal mortality in the past five decades, is currently being funded by a short-term continuing resolution (CR) that Congress passed in January to keep the government running until early March.

While lawmakers have not agreed on funding for WIC, which is estimated to cost US$6.3 billion in 2024 and faces a US$1 billion shortfall, the Senate on Tuesday did pass the US$95 billion foreign aid package, including US$14.1 billion for Israel.

Israel's bombardment of Gaza has killed more than 28,000 people since October, including more than 12,000 children.

The Senate's 70-29 bipartisan vote in favor of the package, wrot defense analyst William Hartung of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, "lays bare the skewed priorities of the federal government."

"Despite deep divisions, it is possible to get bipartisan support for a package that mostly involves funding weapons exports," Hartung wrote at Forbes on Wednesday.

"Don't expect any such emergency measure to address record levels of homelessness, or aid the 1 in 6 American children living in poverty, or accelerate investments in curbing the climate crisis. In the view of the administration and a majority of members of Congress, some emergencies count more than others."

At the Institute for Policy Studies, National Priorities Project director Lindsay Koshgarian pointed to WIC as a prime example of the kind of program the federal government should be prioritizing over military aid for Israel, which has garnered growing condemnation from US allies for its indiscriminate attacks on civilians.

"There's huge discrepancies in where the resources are going," Koshgarian told Al Jazeera on Wednesday. "It's an incredibly important program; there are many families that have depended on it. US$1 billion to make up the shortfall would be easy to come up with."

Last week, Democrats on the US House Education and Workforce Committee warned congressional leaders that they must ensure full funding for WIC, which "currently serves over half of all infants born in the country and continues to be a lifesaving nutrition intervention program that minimizes avoidable health and developmental issues for low-income, nutritionally at-risk women, infants, and children."

"To prevent any disruption to a program that is crucial to supporting new parents and young children, it is vital that WIC is fully funded and continues to align with projected participation and food costs," wrote the lawmakers.

The 19th reported last month that state WIC agencies are currently spending money "assuming the needed funds will eventually be appropriated."

"By early March," wrote journalist Amanda Becker, "the fiscal year will already be half over, so there will be a shorter window of time to make up any budget shortfall, potentially leading to more people being waitlisted en masse than if the shortfall was spread across a full fiscal year."

At Forbes, Hartung called on the federal government to "put less emphasis on war planning and military buildups and more on reassurance and dialogue designed to set clear rules of the road and avoid a conflict."

"If peace in the Middle East is truly a goal of this administration," he wrote, "a radical shift in priorities is urgently needed."

Courtesy: Common Dreams

Pakistan: Instability coming down the road

Pakistan’s elections held on February 08, were meant to bring stability to the country after almost two years of turmoil but the outcome of the polls has deepened political divisions. It will also bring more instability to a nuclear-armed, 240-million strong country already shaky at best in a critically important geostrategic region.

In the months leading up to the long-awaited elections, the judiciary and the military pursued a dual track strategy: ensure that the highly popular former prime minister, Imran Khan, is never able to run for political office again and reinvigorate the political fortunes of Nawaz Sharif, the three-time former prime minister and leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz).

Following his loss of power in a parliamentary vote of no confidence in April 2022, Khan was relentlessly pursued by the judiciary which eventually handed him three sentences for corruption, leaking state secrets and an illegal marriage, for a total of 24 years. He was barred from politics and sent to gaol. His Pakistan Justice Movement (PTI) was disbanded, its electoral symbol (the cricket bat) outlawed, and its members banned from running as PTI members.

Nawaz Sharif—a convicted corrupt politician who’s had an ambivalent relationship with the army for 40 years, was brought back from a four-year self-exile in London as an alternative to Khan. Soon after Nawaz’s return to Pakistan the corruption charges he faced were dropped and his life ban from politics was lifted.

The path was now clear for his smooth return to power. However, what was meant to be a walk in the park for Nawaz and the PML(N) turned out very differently on election day. The millions of pro-Imran Khan supporters were not interested in singing off the score sheet handed over to them.

Even with all the measures taken to ensure there was no level playing field, and the ballot stuffing at a number of polling stations, the PML(N), was only able to win the second largest number of seats (75).

The former PTI members—running as independents—won the largest number of seats, 93 of the 266 up for grabs. The independents’ total seats could increase as they are contesting the result of over a dozen others they claim have been stolen from them. Nevertheless, Nawaz declared victory, and will try—with great difficulty, to form a coalition government with the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) of the late Benazir Bhutto. The only bond between the PML(N) and the PPP is that their hatred of each other is slightly less than their hatred of the PTI.

International reaction to these elections, including from the US, the UK and the EU, was negative, with several countries calling for investigations into the allegations of vote-tempering and pre-poll obstructions. The Australian government also made it clear that that it was concerned that ‘the Pakistani people were restricted in their choice, since not all political parties were allowed to contest these elections’.

Notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary, much of it posted on social media platforms even though mobile internet connections were restricted, the Chief of Army Staff, General Asim Munir, commended the Electoral Commission for running such a successful election and stressed the significance of free and unhindered participation by Pakistani people in exercising their right to vote.

Similarly, the caretaker prime minister, Anwaarul Haq Kakar, believed that the ‘nation had accepted the results’ and the country needed to move on. Moreover, he brushed aside international criticism of the elections as ‘not that big a deal’.

Despite the compromised nature of these polls, a PML(N)-led coalition government is the most likely—but not certain—outcome of the elections. According to the latest reports, it would be led by Shehbaz Sharif, Nawaz’s younger brother who was prime minister after Khan was ousted in April 2022.

The real power will still be held behind the scenes by Nawaz Sharif. Given the fragility of the coalition, which will include smaller parties and non-PTI-leaning independents, this will be a weak government with little legitimacy. This is unfortunate given that whoever is prime minister will have to make some particularly difficult decisions on the economy, handle adroitly the country’s foreign relations, and manage a growing terrorist threat.

Pakistan is an economic mess, with 40% of the population living under the poverty line, an inflation rate that has hit 30%, a rupee whose value has halved in 10 years, and barely enough foreign exchange to cover the cost of imports for a month or so.

The country avoided economic meltdown in August 2023 by securing a standby arrangement of US$3 billion with the IMF. However, this bailout runs out in March and a new one—the 24th in Pakistan’s history—will need to be negotiated.

The IMF will undoubtedly demand that the government implement more austerity measures, including continuing to reduce subsidies on essential commodities. Imposing draconian economic measures on an already struggling population will not be easy, particularly given Nawaz’s lack of popular support. We can expect serious social unrest down the road.

A Shehbaz-led government will also have to deal with the growing terrorist threat, mainly but not solely from the Afghanistan-based Pakistan Taliban (TTP), which has continued to increase since the Taliban took over in neighbouring Afghanistan in August 2021. Pakistan has repeatedly demanded that the Taliban government of Afghanistan cease to support the TTP. But the Taliban isn’t about to turn on the TTP, an organisation with which it has deep ideological, operational, historical and tribal links. Kabul also knows that the Pakistani military doesn’t want to escalate this issue by pursuing the TTP unto Afghan territory. Moreover, given Pakistan’s poor fiscal position, it cannot afford another expensive military operation. Accordingly, Pakistan-Afghan relations will probably continue to be frozen, and the scourge of terrorism to fester.

This will not be well received by the leaders in Beijing who persistently press Pakistan to do more against the terrorists roaming the countryside regularly killing Chinese workers and officials working on the US$60 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).  Pakistan already has some 10,000 security personnel dedicated solely to the protection of Chinese interests in Pakistan. Still, relations with China will continue on an even keel or even deepen. It was after all under Nawaz’s third stint (2013-2018), that CPEC started.

Pakistanis can expect Indo-Pakistan relations to possibly improve. The personal dynamics between Nawaz and Indian PM Narendra Modi have been good in the past. Nawaz attended Modi’s 2014 inauguration and Modi visited Nawaz in Lahore in December 2015—the first visit by an Indian leader in more than a decade. But while Nawaz would probably be interested in improving relations with Delhi, it was the perception that he was warming up too much to the Indians when he was in power which critically contributed to the military orchestrating his downfall in 2017. Shehbaz, under the guidance of Nawaz, is unlikely to make the same mistake.

Despite Washington’s public criticism of Pakistan’s seriously flawed election, the Biden administration is committed to ‘strengthening its security cooperation’ with Islamabad regardless as to who eventually becomes prime minister. Pakistan continues to be a valuable regional partner, being in a unique position to monitor developments in Afghanistan.

Finally, whilst Washington may have had issues with the election process, it will absolutely not miss Imran Khan, who repeatedly accused the US of having been instrumental, with the help of Pakistan’s military, in his downfall in April 2022.

US Secretary of State meeting with General Asim Munir—the man who effectively runs Pakistan, in Washington only a few weeks before the elections only reinforced this common perception in Pakistan. However, given Munir’s massive miscalculation on the elections, his days may well be numbered.

How long the next prime minister will last in office is anyone’s guess, but given that no prime minister has ever completed their term in Pakistan’s 75-year history, it is suspect the odds are poor that Shehbaz Sharif will break that tradition.

Courtesy: The Strategist

 

Mega donors of Biden Reelection Campaign

Reportedly, Joe Biden enjoys a deep groundswell of support from Jewish-Democratic benefactors, with giants in the worlds of Hollywood, Silicon Valley and Wall Street making up a significant portion of the US president’s fundraising as he begins his reelection bid in earnest.

Joe Biden’s reelection bid has some tough sledding ahead if the majority of polls that have emerged in recent months are to be believed. His fundraising efforts tell another story, though, with his reelection campaign already raking in significant donations – many coming from longtime Jewish Democratic mega donors.

An analysis of campaign finance disclosures showing contributions to Biden’s campaign and pro-Biden PACs and super PACs for 2023 illustrates a deep groundswell of support from Jewish-Democratic benefactors. They make up a significant portion of the president’s fundraising as he begins his reelection bid in earnest.

The donors in question – many of whom are in the finance industry, with others connected to Hollywood and Silicon Valley – vary in their prioritization of Israel as a campaign issue, as well as their respective involvements in local Jewish communities and philanthropies.

Their steadfast and deep-pocketed support for Biden indicates how the Democratic Party has generations-deep support within the American-Jewish community.

Polls have continuously shown that Jewish voters vastly prefer Biden over Donald Trump, with Israel rarely being among voters’ top priorities.

Despite this, American Jews are among the few groups who have stuck with Biden amid plummeting poll numbers (many of which stem from his approach to Israel, which centrist Democrats deem a threshold issue).

Haim Saban is perhaps the key pro-Israel mega donor for Biden, significantly overlapping between both the president’s reelection bid and AIPAC’s United Democracy Project super PAC.

He has given over US$936,000 to Biden, after donating US$ one million to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s super PAC.

While federal political action committees have strict limits on the amounts they can contribute, a super PAC is allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to campaign independently for candidates for federal office.

Saban has long been one of the most important donors and fundraisers for the Democrats, generating millions of dollars for the party over the years. He has also made significant financial investments in pro-Israel organizations such as AIPAC and Friends of the Israel Defense Forces.

Saban also collaborated with late Republican mega donor Sheldon Adelson on the Israeli American Council, which was founded to organize Israeli expats living in the United States. He told The New Yorker in 2010 that he was “a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.”

Joining Saban as an overlapping mega donor is casino magnate Neil Bluhm. He has already given more than US$1.4 million this cycle to the Biden super PAC, on top of US$200,000 to United Democracy Project. His daughter Leslie, a social entrepreneur who sits on the AmeriCorps board of directors following an appointment from Biden in 2021, has given over US$554,000.

 

 

What after China recognizes Taliban Government in Afghanistan?

On 30 January, 2024, President Xi Jinping provided further evidence that China formally recognizes the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. China’s recognition of the Taliban is its latest and most outrageous slap to the face of the so called democracies, led by United States, who have not recognized Taliban government as yet.

The opponents of Afghanistan have immediately termed this a dangerous international precedent and a morally moribund approach to international relations which puts selfish resource security concerns firmly ahead of human rights and global wellbeing as China’s primary philosophical approach to international affairs.

They say the event is representative of the fundamental reason strategic competition with China is so important. When distilled to its purist form, it is a protracted attritional duel between liberal democracy and authoritarian socialism that is quickly devolving into a slap fight.

It is alleged that prior to the Taliban’s resurgence, China maintained a cooperative relationship with the Afghan government, which included security collaboration against Uyghur militants.

They also say, following the Taliban’s takeover, China initiated engagement with the new regime, aiming to prevent terrorism from affecting its regional interests and to secure its investments, including those related to the Belt and Road Initiative.

The ethical dimensions of China’s interactions with the Taliban are seemingly complex, even on the surface. On one hand, China’s engagement is driven by security concerns and economic interests, particularly in mining and infrastructure. On the other hand, the Taliban’s lack of international recognition and domestic legitimacy raises questions about the long-term viability of these agreements.

China’s promise of economic and development support to the Taliban, in exchange for security assurances, reflects a strategic approach that prioritizes resource stability and the suppression of Uyghur militancy.

This is consistent with the broader narrative that China’s rise should not be feared, rather it should be welcomed as a blessing for global development and prosperity. In this regard, China’s policy towards Afghanistan could be described as clear and consistent with its approach to any country, emphasising non-interference and respect for sovereignty.

Critics of Taliban say, the practical aspects of its engagement with the Taliban present a moral quandary that is an affront to the global norms for free societies. The Taliban’s abuses of human rights are well recorded. Their suppression of women and girls, assault on freedom of speech, extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and torture neatly reflect the same accusations levelled against China.

They say, it makes sense that China has added the Taliban to its collection of thugs, villains, and reprobates which are considered its closest allies.

President Xi receiving the credentials of the Taliban Ambassador to Beijing could, perhaps, be perceived as an arcane diplomatic tradition. The reality, however, is that in doing so the Chinese government has provided tacit recognition of the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan.

This has dreadful implications for the women, children, resistance fighters, and civil society activists who have all been brave enough to stay or unable to leave and who should all be afforded the same freedoms as me. It also sets the preconditions for the Chinese to pull levers of influence to broaden official recognition; levers established through debt dependencies that compromise the sovereign decision-making capacity of beholden nations. It is an anathema to how democracies want to act domestically and internationally.

There is an additional, not-so-hidden subtext at this stage of the slap fight between liberal democracy and autocratic socialism. China has taken a clumsy swing at the face of every country that tried and failed to bring sustainable democracy to Afghanistan for 20 years, and who dramatically left in ignominy just over two years ago. Sadly, it has landed as a low blow that could have dangerous consequences.

 

 

US targets Iran-backed militia official in Iraq

The US said Wednesday it killed a senior commander in Iraq with the Iranian-backed militia group Kata’ib Hezbollah who was involved in planning attacks on American troops.

The commander was killed during a strike that took place around 9:30 pm local time, according to US Central Command (CENTCOM).

“The United States will continue to take necessary action to protect our people,” CENTCOM said in a statement. “We will not hesitate to hold responsible all those who threaten our forces’ safety.”

CENTCOM said there were no civilian casualties or collateral damage from the strike.

The strike hit a car in a busy section of eastern Baghdad, killing the commander and two other Kataib Hezbollah officials, according to The Associated Press.

Pro-Iranian statements on Telegram and on state-run media channels named the slain commander as Abu Bakr al-Saadi, a high-ranking Kata'ib Hezbollah official.

The strike is the latest US military action against Iranian-backed militia groups, and the first attack in Iraq since Washington hit more than 85 targets last week across Iraq and Syria in response to attacks that killed three American troops in Jordan in late January, which the Biden administration said was carried out by Iranian proxies.

Last week’s strikes, conducted by B-1 bomber planes, targeted Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, an umbrella group of Iranian-backed militia groups. While the US action was meant to deter more aggression, the Iranian proxies have continued attacking American and allied bases in the region. 

The US officially blamed the Islamic Resistance in Iraq for the deadly attack in Jordan. But the Pentagon also suggested Kata'ib Hezbollah may have been behind the attack, with deputy press secretary Sabrina Singh saying the attack had the footprints of the militia group.

After the Jordan attack, Kata'ib Hezbollah said it was suspending military operations against American forces in Iraq, to avoid embarrassment to the Iraqi government.

The US has continued to carry out strikes in Iraq despite repeated condemnation from the Iraqi government, which is engaged in ongoing talks with Washington on the future of the American military presence in the country.

 

Saudi Arabia: No Israel ties without recognition of independent Palestinian state

Saudi Arabia has clearly communicated to the United States that it will not establish diplomatic relations with Israel without substantial progress on the Palestinian issue.

The Kingdom is demanding the recognition of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Additionally, it has called for an end to Israeli aggression in the Gaza Strip and insists on the withdrawal of all Israeli occupation forces from the area as prerequisites for any future diplomatic engagement with Israel.

A statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs highlights that Saudi Arabia's position on the Palestinian issue is steadfast, emphasizing the necessity for the Palestinian people to obtain their legitimate rights.

This stance is particularly relevant in light of ongoing discussions between Saudi Arabia and the US concerning the Arab-Israeli peace process, further underscored by recent comments from the spokesperson for the US National Security Council.

This declaration is a pivotal moment in Middle Eastern politics, signifying Saudi Arabia's firm commitment to the Palestinian cause and setting clear conditions for any normalization of relations with Israel.

The Kingdom underscored that resolving the Palestinian issue is central to achieving lasting peace and stability in the region.

Saudi Arabia has also reaffirmed its appeal to the international community, especially urging the permanent member states of the Security Council that have not yet recognized the Palestinian state, to promptly do so.

The Kingdom advocates for the swift recognition of the Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as its capital, aiming to empower the Palestinian people to attain their legitimate rights and to ensure a comprehensive and just peace for all.

Covert Regime Change: An Integral Part of US Foreign Policy

A little deeper peep into the history shows that a principal instrument of US foreign policy is covert regime change. Under this an action is taken by the US government to bring down the government of the target country.

The key to covert operations of course is that these are secret and deniable by the US government. Even when the evidence comes to light, the US government rejects the authenticity of the evidence and the mainstream media generally ignore the story because it contradicts the official narrative.

The editors of mainstream outlets don’t want to peddle in conspiracy theories, or are simply happy to be the mouthpieces for officialdom; they give the US government a very wide berth for actual regime change conspiracies.

Covert regime change by the US is shockingly a routine. One authoritative study by Boston University professor Lindsay O’Rourke counts 64 covert regime change operations by the US during the Cold War (1947 and 1989), and in fact the number was far larger because she chose to count repeated attempts within one country as a single extended episode.

US regime change operations have remained frequent, such as when President Barrack Obama tasked the CIA (Operation Timber Sycamore) with overthrowing Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. That covert operation remained secret until several years after the operation, and even then, was hardly covered by the mainstream media.

The great mantra of US foreign policy, and the activating principle of the CIA, is that a foreign leader is either with us or against us. Leaders who try to be neutral amongst the great powers are at dire risk of losing their positions, or even their lives, at US instigation, since the US does not accept neutrality.

Leaders seeking neutrality dating back to Patrice Lumumba (Zaire), Norodom Sihanouk (Cambodia), Viktor Yanukovych (Ukraine), and many others, have been toppled with the not so hidden hand of the US government.

Democracy in Pakistan on Rough Terrain

Pakistan has survived many odds but the recent phenomenon of growing extremism, sectarian killing, elimination of political opponents and even the killing of doctors and academicians seems part of the grand agenda to plunge the country deep into anarchy. If the road to democracy leads from here, then it is quite a rough terrain.

Among the South Asian countries, Pakistan has the second largest population after India. Both the countries got independence from the British Raj with a difference of one day in August 1947. While India has earned the distinction of becoming a secular state and one of the largest democracies of the world, Pakistan has spent most of its time under autocratic rule, both military and civilian.

The younger generation often wants to know the reasons for the continuity of democratic rule in India and Pakistan staying under military rule for a very long time.

They also wish to understand the logic behind the ‘Charter of Democracy’ (CoD) that was signed between two of Pakistan’s largest political parties, PPP and PML-N.

There exist two opposite opinions about the CoD: first, it is an understanding reached between two political parties to avoid yet another military rule. Second, under the prevailing geo-political situation, the superpowers wish to keep the reins in the hands of elected representatives rather than supporting any military rule.

Some cynics say that political parties have learnt a lesson from the assassination of three elected Prime Ministers i.e. Liaquat Ali Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto.

They also believe that PPP and PML-N now regret lack of understanding among themselves which led to dismissal of the governments of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. Nawaz Sharif has earned the distinction of being elected prime minister for the third time after the assassination of the charismatic leader, Benazir Bhutto.

Analysts watching geopolitics stringently believe that superpowers install and topple regimes around the world to pursue their foreign policy agenda and Pakistan is no exception.

The most talked about personalities are Anwar Sadat of Egypt, Benigno Aquino of the Philippines, Saddam Hussain of Iraq and General Zia ul Haq of Pakistan. All these political leaders were assassinated once the missions assigned to them were accomplished.

To this list, names of Indra Gandhi, prime minister of India and two Prime Ministers of Bangladesh, Sheikh Mujeeb ur Rehman and Zia ur Rehman could also be added. Sri Lanka has also been a victim of this tyranny.

While it is almost impossible to analyze Pakistan’s history spread over more than seven decades, one point is very clear – that the three military rulers were installed by the superpowers to maintain their hegemony in the region.

The rule of General Mohammad Ayub Khan (1958 to 1969) was facilitated because of the cold war. At that time Pakistan was made part of the South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), US-led defense pacts against communism.

After the fall of Dacca, Pakistan had no option but to pull itself out of SEATO during the regime of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and CENTO died its natural death in 1979.

At one time, the USSR was highly annoyed and wanted to attack Pakistan because US spy planes were using an airbase located near Peshawar to snoop over the Soviet Union.

The second military regime of Zia ul Haq (1977 to 1988) was support by the US in the name of averting a Soviet attack on Afghanistan, termed an attempt by the USSR to get access to warm waters. The Afghan war, spread over nearly a decade, was fought from Pakistan’s GHQ and religious parties were given money to prepare the breed of Mujahedeen, now often referred to as the Taliban.

Once the decision was made to pull out the US-led troops in the belief that the USSR had been defeated, the entire military junta of the time became redundant. Zia ul Haq and his close generals died when their plane was blown up.

The killers were so desperate that one of the youngest and most outstanding ambassadors of the US and a Brigadier General also died as they were travelling with Zia ul Haq and other generals on the plane.

It is often said that General Pervez Musharraf took over after a failed attempt of the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif to get rid of him by not allowing his plane to land in Pakistan. But some cynics say Nawaz Sharif provided an opportunity to the military to topple his government.

The superpowers may not have liked Pervez Musharraf initially but he became their darling after he decided to become a partner in the US war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

Pervez Musharraf got ‘red carpet’ receptions in the US and other western capitals for being their frontline partner in ‘war against terrorism’. He was kept in power till the decision was made to withdraw the majority of NATO troops from Afghanistan by 2014.

To give legitimacy to his rule, general elections were held in Pakistan. His exit from power looked a little strange to those who are not familiar with ‘conspiracy theories’. Some critics say he had also become redundant like Zia ul Haq.

The formation of an elected government under Pervez Musharraf was a replica of the elected government led by Mohammad Khan Junejo, which was termed a ‘legitimization of the Zia regime’ but an unceremonious dismissal of the Junejo government opened the Pandora’s Box.

Pakistan’s joining hands with the US during the Zia era to repel the USSR and fighting a proxy war in Afghanistan gave various ‘gifts’ to the country. These included – religious extremism, drugs and arms.

The presently prevailing precarious law and order situation in Pakistan can be termed as a combination of these stated elements. The democracy as prevalent today is also a hostage of these elements.

Some political analysts say that during the latter part of his regime and prior to the general elections, Pervez Musharraf was advised by the superpowers to join hands with Benazir Bhutto to ensure continuity of democratic rule in the country as this could also prolong his rule.

Prior to her landing in Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto was told to join hands with Pervez Musharraf. But serious differences emerged between Benazir Bhutto and Pervez Musharraf. She was later assassinated and her widower Asif Ali Zardari replaced Pervez Musharraf as the President of Pakistan.

It looked like a reenactment of the assassination of Benigno Aquino in the Philippines and his widow Cory Aquino becoming president of the country.
Though, the inference is highly sordid but the fact is that politicians in Pakistan know it very well that if they wish to come to power, they have to pursue the agenda of superpowers.

It is often an elected or autocratic government but it remains in power due to the external support that includes financial assistance from multilateral donors like IMF, World Bank and Asian Development Bank or arms supplied in the name of ‘maintaining minimum deterrence level’ against Pakistan’s enemies.

 

US attacks targets in Iraq and Syria

Ever since we started posting these blogs in 2012, it has been highlighted that the United States initiates proxy wars, mainly to sell its arms. After the commencement of killing of Gazans by Israel, also supported by the Biden administration, the US hegemony in the Middle East seems to be ending, but the super power remains adamant at keeping its military complexes operating at full capacities.

It was anticipated that sooner than later the US, in the name of retaliations, would start attacking sites in Iraq and Syria, alleging that these belong to Iran-supported militants.

On February 01, we had posted a blog titled, “Are United States and Iran already at war?” Today, Reuters has reported that the US military launched airstrikes on Friday in Iraq and Syria against more than 85 targets, spanning seven locations, four in Syria and three in Iraq, in retaliation for last weekend's attack in Jordan that killed three US troops.

The strikes targeted the Quds Force - the foreign espionage and paramilitary arm of the IRGC that heavily influences its allied militia across the Middle East, from Lebanon to Iraq and Yemen to Syria.

US Lieutenant General Douglas Sims, the director of the Joint Staff, said the attacks appeared to be successful, triggering large secondary explosions as the bombs hit militant weaponry, though it was not clear if any militants were killed.

The strikes, which included the use of long-range B-1 bombers flown from the US, are the first in a multi-tiered response by President Joe Biden's administration, and more US military operations are expected in the coming days.

While the US strikes did not target sites inside Iran, they signal a further escalation of the conflict in the Middle East from Israel's more than three-month-old war with Hamas in Gaza.

The US military said in a statement that the strikes hit targets including command and control centers, rockets, missiles and drone storage facilities, as well as logistics and munition supply chain facilities.

Syrian state media said on Friday that an American aggression on sites in its desert areas and at the Syrian-Iraqi border resulted in a number of casualties and injuries.

The Iraqi military said the strikes were in the Iraqi border area and warned they could ignite instability in the region.

"These airstrikes constitute a violation of Iraqi sovereignty, undermine the efforts of the Iraqi government, and pose a threat that could lead Iraq and the region into dire consequences," Iraqi military spokesman Yahya Rasool said in a statement.

The United States has assessed that the drone that killed the three soldiers and wounded more than 40 other people was made by Iran.

"Our response began today. It will continue at times and places of our choosing," Biden said in a statement. Earlier on Friday, Biden and Pentagon leaders had attended the Dover Air Force Base in Delaware as the remains of the three soldiers were returned.

Pentagon said it does not want war with Iran and does not believe Tehran wants war either, even as Republican pressure has increased on Biden to deal a blow directly.

The top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker, criticized Biden for failing to impose a high enough cost on Iran, and taking too long to respond.

Before the retaliatory strikes on Friday, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi said that Iran would not start a war but would respond strongly to anyone who tried to bully it.

White House national security spokesman John Kirby said the Biden administration had not communicated with Iran since the Jordan attack.

Baghdad and Washington, meanwhile, have agreed to set up a committee to start talks on the future of the US-led military coalition in Iraq, with the aim of setting a timetable for a phased withdrawal of troops and the end of the US-led coalition against Islamic State.

 

 

 

 

 

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

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.

 

 

 

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.