Will Iran replace Pakistan in Afghan transit trade?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

India expresses interest in investing US$20 billion in Iran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US foreign policy to be driven by love for Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What after pushing Iran out of oil market?

Many analysts believe that the decision of US President, Donald Trump to end the exemptions regarding buying Iranian crude oil is a double-edged sword. On one hand, he doesn’t want oil prices to go up and on the other hand he is adamant at pushing Iran out of oil market. It appears that like past; this time too, the US would succeed in luring Saudi Arabia to exploit the situation to its benefit. It is also believed that stringent sanctions on Iran can take both Saudi Arabia and the oil market into the unchartered waters. To read details click http://www.pakistaneconomist.com/2019/04/29/what-after-pushing-iran-out-of-oil-market/

United States adamant at imposing war on Iran

According to a Reuters report, Chief of US Central Command, General Kenneth McKenzie has said that the United States would deploy the necessary resources to counter any dangerous actions by Iran.

“We’re gonna continue to reach out to our partners and friends in the region to ensure that we make common cause against the threat of Iran,” said McKenzie currently on an official visit to the Gulf region.

“I believe we’ll have the resources necessary to deter Iran from taking actions that will be dangerous. We will be able to respond effectively,” warned McKenzie.

Tensions between Tehran and Washington have risen since the Trump administration last year withdrew from an international nuclear deal with Iran and began ratcheting up sanctions.

Earlier this month, the United States blacklisted Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards.

Washington has also demanded buyers of Iranian oil to stop purchases by May or face sanctions, ending six months of waivers which allowed Iran’s eight biggest buyers, most of them in Asia, to continue importing limited volumes.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and some senior military commanders have threatened to disrupt oil shipments from Gulf countries if Washington tries to strangle Tehran oil exports.

McKenzie also said he was confident that the U.S. is going to have “a long term presence in Iraq, focused on the counter-terror mission.”

On withdrawal of troops, McKenzie also said a reduction of US troops in Syria would be done cautiously. “On the long term, we’re gonna reduce our forces in Syria, we recognize that, that’s the guidance in which we are operating. That will be something that we will look at very carefully as we go forward,” the general said.

President Donald Trump had ordered withdrawal of the US troops Syria in December after claiming they (US troops) had defeated Islamic State militants in Syria. In February, a senior administration official said the United States will leave about 400 US troops split between two different regions of Syria.

Iran terms 1980 Tabas Desert operation 'historic US failure'

On 25th April, Iran marked 39th anniversary of a failed US military operation to free its embassy staff held in Tehran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
The military operation on April 25, 1980, had proved a fiasco for Washington, at that time Jimmy Carter was president of the United States. Iran commemorates the event every year as a symbol of the failure of US plots against the Islamic Republic.

A sandstorm hit and brought down the group of US military aircrafts in the Tabas Desert, killing eight American servicemen and resulting in the failure of the mission. Inspections showed a helicopter crashed into a C-130 Hercules transport plane as five other choppers were stranded in the storm. The units involved in the operation were from the US Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps.

President Rouhani pointed to Washington’s repeated failures against Iran over the past four decades, saying the historic US failure in Tabas was a divine miracle. He also said, “The Tabas incident was a great miracle from God which led to the failure of the Americans’ complicated military plot”.

“Every day over the last 40 years, the U.S. officials have been hatching a new plot against the Iranian people, but they have always failed and will fail again,” he stressed.

During the takeover of the embassy, documents were discovered that proved some of the American embassy staff had been working with US intelligence agencies, meaning they were spies. Some 52 Americans were held in Tehran for 444 days, but later released unharmed.

US likely to face ultimate defeat in Venezuela

Over the years, many of US analysts, politicians, academicians and media pundits have been predicting the imminent fall, overthrow, defeat and replacement of the Venezuelan government. They have been proven wrong on almost all the counts. In fact, most of the US induced regime change efforts have strengthened the support for the Chavez – Maduro government.

A more recent example is the proclamation of the US President that his country was prepared to invade Venezuela. His threat aroused massive popular resistance in defense of national independence, even among discontented sections of t population. Analysts say Venezuela has become the whirlpool of a global struggle which pits the imperial aspirations of Washington against an embattled Venezuela intent on defending its own. A question being asked, why Washington has failed?

The US assault on Venezuela’s state and society includes:

(a)  A military coup in 2002

(b)  A lockout by the executives of the Venezuelan oil company

(c)  The exercise of US political pressure via clients and allies in Europe, South and North America

(d)  Escalating economic sanctions between 2013 – 2019

(e)  Street violence during 2013 – 2019

(f)  Sabotage of the entire electrical system between 2017 -2019

(g)  Hoarding of goods via corporations and distributors from 2014 – 2019

(h)  Subversion of military and civilian institutions 2002 – 2019

(i)  Regional alliances to expel Venezuelan membership from regional organizations

(j)  Economic sanctions accompanied by the seizure of over $10 billion dollars of assets

(k)  Sanctions on the banking system

(l)   US direct intervention including selection and appointment of opposition leaders and ‘dummy’ representatives overseas.

In brief, the US has been engaged for two decades to bring down the Venezuelan government. It combines economic, military, social and media warfare. The US strategy has reduced living standards, undermined economic activity, increased poverty, forced immigration and surged crimes. Despite that the sole surviving super power has failed to dislodge the government and impose a client regime.

Despite the two decades of pressure by the world’s biggest imperial power, which led to the highest rate of inflation and despite the illegal seizure of billions of dollars of Venezuelan assets, the people remain loyal to their government. The reasons are clear and forthright.

The Venezuelan majority has a history of poverty, marginalization and repression, including the bloody massacre of thousands of protestors in 1989. Millions lived in shanty towns, excluded from higher education and health facilities. The US provided arms and advisers to buttress the politicians who now form the greater part of the US opposition to President Maduro. The US- oligarch alliance extracted billions of dollars from contracts from the oil industry.

The second reason for the defeat of the US is the long-term large-scale military support of the Chavez-Maduro governments. Former President Chavez instilled a powerful sense of nationalist loyalty among the military which resists and opposes US efforts to subvert the soldiers.

The Venezuelans government defeated the US-backed coups and lockouts, these victories encouraged the belief that the popular government could resist and defeat the US-oligarch opposition. Victories strengthened confidence in the will of the people.

The cumulative socio-economic benefits consolidate support for the Venezuelan leadership despite the hardships the US induced in recent times. The mass of the people have gained a new life and have a lot to lose if the US- oligarchy return to power. A successful US coup will likely massacre tens of thousands of popular supporters of the government. The bourgeoisie will take its revenge for those who have ruled and benefited at the expense of the rich.

The Venezuelan government retained mass electoral support because of the deep socio-economic changes that entrenched mass support in contrast to the center-left regimes in Argentina, Brazil and Ecuador which won three elections but were defeated by their right-wing opponents, including electoral partners, with a downturn in the economy, and the flight of middle-class voters and parties.

Venezuela linkages with allies in Russia, China and Cuba provided ‘life jackets’ of economic and military support in the face of US interventions, something the center- left governments failed to pursue. Venezuela built regional alliances with nearly half of South America, weakening US attempts to form a regional or US invasion force.

Legitimacy of US acts against Venezuela

The US has undertaken various steps for bringing regime change in Venezuela. As usual, it has been joined by some member countries of European Union. Though, the super power has failed in achieving its objective, people of Venezuela are bearing extreme distress. Does the civilized world have the slightest realization that the US actions to execute regime change in Venezuela are illegal?

In January, Juan Guaidó declared himself interim president, in a strategy orchestrated by the US to seize power from President Nicolás Maduro. In March, Guaidó announced that Operation Freedom, an organization established to overthrow the Maduro government, would take certain tactical actions beginning in April. The plan anticipated that the Venezuelan military will turn against Maduro.

This strategy was detailed in a regime change manual prepared by the US Global Development Lab, a branch of the US Agency for International Development (USAID). The manual advocated the creation of rapid expeditionary development teams to partner with the CIA and US Special Forces to conduct a mix of offensive, defensive, and stability operations in extremis conditions.

Guaidó is funded by USAID’s sister organization, the National Endowment for Democracy, which is notorious for meddling in other countries and putting a good face on the CIA’s dirty business. The US generally opts for low-intensity conflict over full-scale wars. The low-intensity conflict involves four tools of regime change: sanctions or economic warfare; propaganda or information warfare; covert and proxy war; and aerial bombardment. In Venezuela, the US has used the first and second, with the third and fourth now on the table since the first two have created chaos but so far not toppled the government.

The sanctions imposed by the Trump administration in January had an immediate, very harsh impact on Venezuela’s economy, and on the general population, which depends on the export revenue from oil for essential imports including medicine, food, medical equipment, and other life-saving necessities. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Human Rights Watch issued a report documenting food and medicine shortages and sharp increases in disease throughout Venezuela. They characterize the situation as a humanitarian emergency and recommend a full-scale response by the United Nations Secretary General.

 The US misuse of humanitarian assistance as a cover for smuggling weapons and other non humanitarian items also has a long history in Latin American countries, Alfred De Zayas, former UN special rapporteur in Venezuela, said in an interview with AntiDiplomatico. De Zayas called out the United States for its hypocritical policy: “It is not possible to be a major cause of the economic crisis — having imposed … sanctions, financial blockades and economic war — and then mutating into a good Samaritan.”

The US is adamant at increasing the suffering of the Venezuelan people, in hopes they will rise up against Maduro. Similar approach was used by the Eisenhower administration after the 1959 Cuban Revolution. It was based on a State Department memo that proposed a line of action that makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and the overthrow of the Fidel Castro government. The US economic blockade against Cuba continues to hurt the people but they have not overthrown their government.

Venezuela has asked for and received assistance from the United Nations, Russia, China, Turkey, India and Cuba, De Zayas reported that was humanitarian and offered in good faith and without strings attached. US aid is the fruit of the poison tree.

On April 3, Sen. Marco Rubio, who has helped lead the charge for regime change in Venezuela, introduced a bill in the Senate aimed at getting approval of US$400 million assistance for Venezuela and take steps to facilitate regime change. It would assessed the declining cohesion inside the Venezuelan military and security forces and the Maduro regime, and described the factors that would accelerate the decision making of individuals to break with the Maduro regime and recognize Guaidó as interim president of Venezuela.

At the end of March, the Russian government sent 100 troops to Venezuela. Russia’s Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said, “Russian specialists … arrived in accordance with the clauses of a bilateral agreement on technical-military cooperation.”

In early April, Russia announced plans to install a training facility for military helicopters in Venezuela. The Trump administration is rattling its sabers at Russia. US National Security Adviser John Bolton warned that the US considers the presence of military forces from outside the Western Hemisphere a direct threat to international peace and security in the region. Russia, however, denies that its military presence in Venezuela poses a military threat. “The Russian side did not violate anything: neither the international agreements nor Venezuelan laws,” according to Zakharova.

Venezuelan Foreign Affairs Minister Jorge Arreaza cited the hypocrisy of U.S. policy. He said “Such cynicism that a country with more than 800 military bases around the world, much of them in Latin America, and a growing military budget of more than US$700 billion, intends to interfere with the military-technical cooperation program between Russia and Venezuela.”

In late March, the US House of Representatives approved a bill called the “Russian-Venezuelan Threat Mitigation Act” to gauge Russia’s influence in Venezuela. It aimed to devise a strategy to counter threats from Russian-Venezuelan cooperation. The bill also required assessment of national security risks posed by potential Russian acquisition of CITGO’s United States energy infrastructure holdings.

To conclude the UN Charter prohibits the use or threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another nation. The Charter of the Organization of American States forbids any country from intervening in the external affairs of another nation. And the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the right to self-determination.

US declares Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran "Terrorist Organization"

On 8^th April 2019, the US declared Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) of Iran, a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The IRGC is Iran’s most powerful military and security organization as well as a key economic player. "This unprecedented step, led by the Department of State, recognizes the reality that Iran is not only a State Sponsor of Terrorism, but that the IRGC actively participates in, finances, and promotes terrorism as a tool of statecraft," said the US President Donald Trump.

The IRGC was created after the 1979 revolution to enforce Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s concept of an Islamic state. The Guards played a crucial role not only in crushing early opposition to Khomeini’s vision, but also in repelling Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in 1980. Since then, the Guards have functioned as both the primary internal and external security force. 

This declaration represents the latest escalation of the US administration’s "maximum pressure" campaign targeting Iran’s malign activities. The IRGC was already designated under US Treasury counter-proliferation authorities (EO 13382) in 2007, and then again for human rights abuses ‑ along with the Basij Resistance Force and the Law Enforcement Forces ‑ under EO 13553 in 2011.  

Iran responded to this action by saying, “The major effect of this designation is to make it extraordinarily difficult for the US to bring Iran back into the global community of nations and global financial system at any point in the future if political circumstances merit such a climb down.” Iranian officials also do not view this latest development as a precursor to a military conflict between Iran and the US. 

Detaining additional US citizens, testing missiles, or renewing harassment of US vessels in the Gulf are low-risk options that Iran could pursue in response to the IRGC designation.

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) responded to the State Department’s designation of the IRGC by designating the US government as a state sponsor of terrorism and US Central Command (CENTCOM) and all its forces as a terrorist organization. President Hassan Rouhani threatened to restart Iran’s nuclear program in a speech marking the National Day of Nuclear Technology. 

Iranian newspapers spanning the country’s political spectrum reacted to the US State Department’s designation of the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization with a mix of outrage, bombast, and expressions of solidarity with the IRGC.  

International reaction to the IRGC designation has been mixed. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanked President Donald Trump for the move in a pair of tweets in English and Hebrew. Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi said that his country tried to dissuade the US from proceeding with the designation. 

Eight Years of Corrosive Lies about Syria

The western media, under the clutches of Zionists, is never tired of promoting United States as the biggest democracy and peacekeeper on this planet. The bitter reality is opposite and only displayed in social media, which is often not liked by those at the top of helm of affairs even in the United States. The most recent evidences are ongoing turmoil being created in Venezuela and the failed efforts to topple the incumbent government in Syria of the United States.  

The hallmark of the US administration is telling lies and spreading disinformation with such a frequency that often a person with average wit is misled and start believing in lies. It may be said that the US spy agencies tell lies the way authoritarians do to demonstrate and expand their power. Three of the most glaring examples of blatant lies of spy agencies are presence of OBL in Afghanistan, manufacturing of WMD by Iraq and nuclear program of Iran. All this could be best understood if one just has a cursory look at eight years of corrosive lies of the US administration about Syrian war.

Let us begin with a story published in the Wall Street Journal about Syria telling that the United States may leave 1,000 troops in that country after all. If one can recall, the US president had announced a complete withdrawal of troops from Syria months ago. Then, weeks later the White House announced that a small force of 200 would stay behind. Now, the Journal was reporting that it would actually be 1,000. A few hours later the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the original plan remained unchanged.

Reviewing three assertions routinely made about Syria by pundits, politicians, and policymakers show complete hypocrisy: 1) Syria shows the perils of U.S. non-intervention; 2) We’re only in Syria to fight ISIS and 3) U.S. withdrawal from Syria would mean handing a victory to Vladimir Putin. All of the above statements have become conventional wisdom. The same people sometimes repeat more than one of them, but they are entirely irreconcilable with one another.

If withdrawing from Syria means handing a victory to Vladimir Putin, then the US is doing something other than fighting ISIS there, something that certainly can’t be described as non-intervention.

CIA began the US mission in the Syrian Civil War years before ISIS came into being, and a full year before President Barak Obama began talking up his red lines and proposing a congressional vote to authorize intervention in Syria.

The world was told that the US was arming moderate rebels, but these moderate rebels fought side by side Al Nusra fighters who were often known to be using weapons brought in by the CIA or the Department of Defense to fight this war in which the US was not intervening. The US also funded a group called Nour al-Din al-Zenki, until its members showed up on YouTube beheading a child, at which point the moderate label no longer quite fit.

Apparently the Congress refused to authorize US military intervention in Syria, which was already ongoing. Did the intervention stopped? No, it continued under the 2001 AUMF that authorized the president to make war on al-Qaeda. The US is now using the legal authority to hunt and destroy al-Qaeda to fund and arm al-Qaeda’s allies on the ground in Syria.

United States gets ready to open a new military base in Oman

According to a Reuters report, the United States secured a strategic port deal with Oman that will allow the US military better access to the Gulf region and reduce the need to send ships through the Strait of Hormuz, a maritime choke point off Iran. The U.S. embassy in Oman said in a statement that the agreement governed U.S. access to facilities and ports in Duqm as well as in Salalah and reaffirms the commitment of both the countries to promoting mutual security goals.

The accord is viewed through an economic prism by Oman, which wants to develop Duqm while preserving its Switzerland-like neutral role in Middle Eastern politics and diplomacy. As the US concerns grow about Iran’s expanding missile programs that has improved in recent years, despite sanctions and diplomatic pressure by the US.

The deal was significant by improving access to ports that connect to a network of roads to the broader region, giving the US military great resiliency in a crisis. The US used to operate on the assumption that it could just steam into the Gulf. However the quality and quantity of Iranian weapons raises concerns.

According to the report, Tehran has in the past threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, a major oil shipping route at the mouth of the Gulf. These threats were in retaliation for any hostile US action, including attempts to halt Iranian oil exports through sanctions. Still, the agreement is expected to expand US military options in the region in case of any eventuality.

Duqm is ideal port for large ships. It is big enough to turn around an aircraft carrier. The port itself is very important and the geostrategic location is very attractive, being outside the Strait of Hormuz.

For Oman, the deal will further advance its efforts to transform Duqm, once just a fishing village 550 km south of Muscat capital, into a key Middle East industrial and port center, as its diversifies its economy beyond oil and gas exports. The deal will also strengthen US position in the region.

United States wants global oil industry to support its foreign policy agenda

According to a Reuters news, U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo has urged the global oil industry to work with President Trump administration to promote U.S. foreign policy interests, especially in Asia and in Europe and to punish the “bad actors” on the world stage. He was addressing the participants of a conference in Houston, where U.S. oil and gas executives, energy luminaries and officials of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) gather annually to discuss global energy development.

Pompeo said, “Washington would use all its economic tools to help deal with the situation in Venezuela, which is mired in a years-long economic crisis and where socialist President Nicolas Maduro is maintaining power despite being disavowed by the US and about 50 other countries”.

The US has imposed harsh sanctions in the past several months on two major world oil producers, Venezuela and Iran. Washington re-imposed oil sanctions on Iran to curb its nuclear, missile and regional activities. “We’re committed to bringing Iranian crude oil exports to zero as quickly as market conditions will permit,” said Pompeo.

He went on to the extent of saying, “We need to roll up our sleeves and compete – by facilitating investment, encouraging partners to buy from us, and by punishing bad actors.” He also declared, “U.S. oil and gas export boom had given the country the ability to meet energy demand.”

Referring to a natural gas pipeline expansion from Russia to Central Europe, Pompeo warned, “We don’t want our European allies hooked on Russian gas through the NordStream II project, any more than we ourselves want to be dependent on Venezuelan oil supplies.”

Pompeo also met with top oil executives for about an hour to try to persuade energy companies to help the administration’s efforts to boost crude exports to Asia and to support its policy of isolating Iran. The US seems adamant at making significant progress on a Middle East security alliance over the next few months. The alliance is an attempt to form a US-backed bloc of Sunni Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait as a bulwark against Shi’ite Iranian influence in the Middle East.

Pompeo criticized China for “blocking energy development in the South China Sea through coercive means,” which he said prevents Southeast Asian countries from accessing more than US$2.5 trillion in recoverable energy reserves.

Pompeo also termed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine an attempt to gain access to the country’s oil and gas reserves.

“UK should freeze arms sales to Israel”, demands Jeremy Corbyn

UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn renewed his call for a British arms embargo against Israel after a United Nations Human Rights Council commission of inquiry said that IDF has likely committed war crimes on the Gaza border.

“The UK government must unequivocally condemn the killings and freeze arms sales to Israel,” Corbyn tweeted on Friday. Last year, the Labour Party approved a motion that called for an arms ban to Israel.

The 22-page report investigated the death of 189 Palestinians by the IDF during the Hamas-led weekly Great March of Return protests which have taken place along the Gaza border.

The UNHRC report was authored by a three-person commission of inquiry, which plans to submit a full report prior to a March 18 debate on the matter at the UNHRC’s 40th session in Geneva.

The report focused primarily on Israeli and not Hamas violence, and concluded that the protests were peaceful. It warned that the International Criminal Court could prosecute Israeli leaders and soldiers.

Last year, the UNHRC passed a resolution which called on all UN member states to halt the sale of any arms to Israel that could be used to violate international human rights law. United States special envoy Jason Greenblatt attacked the UNHRC report on Gaza in a series of tweets.

“This [commission of inquiry] report is another manifestation of the UNHRC’s clear bias against Israel, which remains the only country that the Council dedicates an entire standing agenda item to targeting. When will the HRC speak the truth?” he wrote.

Hamas behaved with reckless irresponsibility [and] disregard for human life when it incited violent (not ‘civilian’) protests, breaches [and] attacks at the Gaza fence-line,” Greenblatt wrote. “Hamas is directly responsible for the miserable situation of the people of Gaza.”

Israel has rejected the report and holds that the protests are violent riots led by Hamas members.

During those riots, Palestinians in Gaza have thrown stones and Molotov cocktails at soldiers. The protesters have attempted to breach the border fence and have placed explosive devices by the fence. Palestinians in Gaza have also launched incendiary devices into Israel, burning thousands of dunams of fields and forests.

Republican lawmakers in the US also spoke out against the report and in support of Israel’s right to self-defense.

Congressman Lee Zeldin, a ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and co-chair of the House Republican Israel Caucus, was among those who issued a statement on the matter.

“This one-sided, highly biased and woefully inaccurate report fails to take into account key facts; most evidently, Hamas’s provocation and orchestration of this violence, its purposeful destabilization of order along the border and its continued incursions into Israel’s sovereign soil, including the launching of over 10,000 rockets and mortars on Israeli towns and villages, and the dozens of tunnels, enabling their death squads, since the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza,” Zeldin wrote.