Exit of US troops from Bagram: Symbolic and strategic victory for Taliban

“The closure of Bagram Airbase is a major symbolic and strategic victory for Taliban,” said Bill Roggio, senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

 “If Taliban is able to take control of the base, it will serve as anti-US propaganda fodder for years to come,” said Roggio who is also editor of the foundation’s Long War Journal.

It would also be a military windfall.

The departure of US troops is rife with symbolism. Not least, it’s the second time that an invader of Afghanistan has come and gone through Bagram.

The Soviet Union built the airfield in the 1950s. When it invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to back a communist government, it turned it into its main base from which it would defend its occupation of the country. For 10 years, the Soviets fought the US-backed mujahedeen, dubbed freedom fighters by President Ronald Reagan, who saw them as a front-line force in one of the last Cold War battles.

The Soviet Union negotiated its withdrawal in 1989. Three years later, the pro-Moscow government collapsed, and the mujahedeen took power, only to turn their weapons on each other and kill thousands of civilians. That turmoil brought to power the Taliban who overran Kabul in 1996.

When the US and NATO captured Bagram in 2001, they found it in ruins, a collection of crumbling buildings, gouged by rockets and shells, most of its perimeter fence wrecked. It had been abandoned after being battered in the battles between the Taliban and rival mujahedeen warlords fleeing to their northern enclaves.

After dislodging the Taliban from Kabul, the US-led coalition began working with their warlord allies to rebuild Bagram, first with temporary structures that then turned permanent. Its growth was explosive, eventually swallowing up roughly 30 square miles.

For nearly 20 years, Bagram Airfield was the heart of military power of United States in Afghanistan, a sprawling mini-city behind fences and blast walls just an hour’s drive north of Kabul. Initially, it was a symbol of the US drive to avenge the 9/11 attacks, then of its struggle for a way through the ensuing war with the Taliban.

In just a matter of days, the last US soldiers will depart Bagram. They are leaving what probably everyone connected to the base, whether American or Afghan, considers a mixed legacy.

“Bagram grew into such a massive military installation that, as with few other bases in Afghanistan and even Iraq, it came to symbolize and epitomize the phrase ‘mission creep’,” said Andrew Watkins, Afghanistan senior analyst for the Brussels-based International Crisis Group.

US Central Command said last week that it’s well past 50% done packing up Bagram, and the rest is going fast. US officials have said the entire pullout of the troops will most likely be completely finished by 4th July 2021. The Afghan military will then take over Bagram as part of its continuing fight against the Taliban — and against what many in the country fear will be a new eruption of chaos.

The enormous base has two runways. The most recent, at 12,000 feet long, was built in 2006 at a cost of $96 million. There are 110 revetments, which are basically parking spots for aircraft, protected by blast walls. GlobalSecurity, a security think tank, says Bagram includes three large hangars, a control tower and numerous support buildings. The base has a 50-bed hospital with a trauma bay, three operating theaters and a modern dental clinic. There are also fitness centers and fast food restaurants. Another section houses a prison, notorious and feared among Afghans.

Jonathan Schroden, of the US-based research and analysis organization CNA, estimates that well over 100,000 people spent significant time at Bagram over the past two decades. “Bagram formed a foundation for the wartime experience of a large fraction of US military members and contractors who served in Afghanistan,” said Schroden, director of CNA’s Center for Stability and Development.

For Afghans in Bagram district, a region of more than 100 villages supported by orchards and farming fields, the base has been a major supplier of employment. The US withdrawal affects nearly every household, said Darwaish Raufi, District Governor.

The Americans have been giving the Afghan military some weaponry and other material. Anything that they are not taking, they are either destroying or selling to scrap dealers around Bagram. US officials say they must ensure nothing usable can ever fall into Taliban hands.

Last week, the U.S. Central Command said it had junked 14,790 pieces of equipment and sent 763 C-17 aircraft loaded with material out of Afghanistan. Bagram villagers say they hear explosions from inside the base, apparently the Americans destroying buildings and material.

 “There’s something sadly symbolic about how the US has gone about leaving Bagram. The decision to take so much away and destroy so much of what is left speaks to the US urgency to get out quickly,” said Michael Kugelman, deputy director of the Asia Program at the US-based Wilson Center.

“It’s not the kindest parting gift for Afghans, including those taking over the base,” he said.

Inevitably, comparisons to the former Soviet Union have arisen.

Retired Afghan Gen. Saifullah Safi, who worked alongside US forces at Bagram, said the Soviets left all their equipment when they withdrew. They “didn’t take much with them, just the vehicles they needed to transport their soldiers back to Russia,” he said.

The prison in the base was handed over to the Afghans in 2012, and they will continue to operate it. In the early years of the war, for many Afghans, Bagram became synonymous with fear, next only to Guantanamo Bay. Parents would threaten their crying children with the prison.

In the early years of the invasion, Afghans often disappeared for months without any reports of their whereabouts until the International Red Committee of the Red Cross located them in Bagram. Some returned home with tales of torture.

“When someone mentions even the word Bagram I hear the screams of pain from the prison,” said Zabihullah, who spent six years in Bagram, accused of belonging to the faction of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a warlord designated a terrorist by the US. At the time of his arrest it was an offense to belong to Hekmatyar’s party.

Zabihullah, who goes by one name, was released in 2020, four years after President Ashraf Ghani signed a peace deal with Hekmatyar.

Roggio says the status of the prison is a “major concern,” noting that many of its prisoners are known Taliban leaders or members of militant groups, including al-Qaida and the Islamic State group. It’s believed about 7,000 prisoners are still in the prison.

“If the base falls and the prison is overrun, these detainees can bolster the ranks of these terror groups,” Roggio said.

Britain selling weapons to human rights abusers

Reportedly, Britain has sold arms and military equipment to two-thirds of countries slammed for their dire record on human rights and civil liberties.

Between 2011 and 2020, Britain licensed £16.8 billion of arms to 39 countries castigated by Freedom House, a US government-funded human rights group, for their poor record on political and human rights, according to British daily newspaper The Guardian.

The London-based Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) also found that during the same period, £11.8 billion of arms had been authorized by the British government to countries on the Foreign Office’s own list of repressive regimes.

The British Department for International Trade has also identified nine countries, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Egypt, as “core markets” for arms exports. The countries have been widely criticized for human rights abuses.

“Right now, British-made weapons are playing a devastating role in Yemen and around the world. The arms sales that are being pushed today could be used in atrocities and abuses for years to come,” said Andrew Smith of the CAAT.

“Wherever there is oppression and conflict there will always be arms companies trying to profit from it, and complicit governments helping them to do so,” Smith said.

Saudi Arabia and its regional allies, emboldened by Western powers’ weapons and support, launched a deadly military campaign against Yemen in March 2015 to reinstall the former Riyadh-friendly Yemeni President Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi.

The war – which they claimed would last only a few weeks but is still ongoing – has led to the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians, including women and children, and destroyed much of Yemen’s infrastructure.

Throughout the campaign, the British government kept up arms sales to Saudi Arabia despite widespread reports that the weapons are being used against civilians.

Britain has sold combat aircraft, helicopters, drones, grenades, bombs and missiles to Riyadh, with most weapons licensed via the opaque and secretive Open License system.

According to Sarah Waldron of the CAAT, “British-made weapons have been central to a bombardment that has destroyed schools, hospitals and homes and created the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.”

“Many of these sales are going to despots, dictatorships and human rights abusing regimes. They haven’t happened by accident. None of these arms sales would have been possible without the direct support of Boris Johnson and his colleagues,” Smith added.

Back in February, Oxfam, an international charity organization, warned that British arms sales to Saudi Arabia could prolong the war in Yemen.

The UK is “ramping up its support for the brutal Saudi-led war by increasing arms sales and refueling equipment that facilitate airstrikes,” said Sam Nadel, head of policy and advocacy at Oxfam.

Mounting protests against Mahmoud Abbas

According to AP, thousands of Palestinians have taken to the streets in recent days to protest against President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, whose security forces and supporters have violently dispersed them.

The demonstrations were sparked by the death of an outspoken critic of the PA in the custody of security forces last week, but the grievances run much deeper. Abbas’ popularity plunged after he called off the first elections in 15 years in April and was sidelined by the Gaza war in May. The PA has long been seen as rife with corruption and intolerant of dissent.

The Palestinian Authority is one of the last manifestations of the peace process, which has been dormant for more than a decade, and is seen by Israel, the United States and the European Union as a key partner in promoting stability.

The PA was established in the 1990s through interim peace agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, which still represents the cause internationally. It was seen as a state-in-waiting and was granted limited autonomy in parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Israel and the PLO held several rounds of peace talks throughout the 1990s and 2000s. The Palestinians, negotiating from a position of weakness, sought an independent state in east Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, territories Israel seized in the 1967 war. They were never able to reach an agreement, and there have been no substantive talks since 2009.

The Islamic militant group Hamas seized power in Gaza in 2007, a year after winning a landslide victory in Palestinian elections. That confined Abbas’ authority to parts of the West Bank. Several attempts at Palestinian reconciliation over the years have failed.

While the PA has ministries, security forces and the trappings of a state, its authority is limited to major population centers that amount to around 40% of the West Bank. Israel has overarching authority and controls access to the PA-run territories, which Palestinians routinely compare to the Black-ruled Bantustans established by apartheid South Africa.

The increasingly authoritarian PA is dominated by Abbas’ secular Fatah party, which is led by a small circle of men in their 60s and 70s. The 85-year-old Abbas, whose four-year presidential term expired in 2009, leads the PA, the PLO and Fatah.

The PA leadership, which enjoys special privileges for cooperating with Israel, is widely seen by the Palestinians as corrupt and self-serving. Its policy of coordinating security with Israel to go after Hamas and other mutual foes is extremely unpopular. Protesters at the Al-Aqsa mosque on Friday accused the PA of being collaborators, a charge that amounts to treason.

Last week, security forces raided a home in the occupied West Bank to arrest Nizar Banat, who had repeatedly criticized the PA in online posts. His family says they beat him with batons before dragging him away. The PA says it has launched an investigation into his death, which ignited the latest protests.

Banat was a candidate in the parliamentary elections that Abbas called off in April when it looked like his fractured Fatah would suffer an embarrassing defeat to Hamas. During the Gaza war that erupted shortly thereafter, Hamas was widely seen as fighting for Palestinian rights and defending Jerusalem while the PA did nothing.

Despite his unpopularity, Abbas can count on the support of powerful friends, with Israel, the United States and Western donors deeply invested in the PA’s survival. The PA also pays the salaries of tens of thousands of Palestinian civil servants who would otherwise struggle to find work.

By administering major population centers, the PA reduces the financial and security burden of Israel’s 54-year military occupation of the West Bank. It also helps preserve the idea of an eventual two-state solution, even as Israel expands Jewish settlements and consolidates its control over the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

The EU has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the PA over the years, and the US and other nations have trained and equipped its security forces. The Biden administration has said it hopes to strengthen the PA and work with it to rebuild Gaza — where it has no power.

Israel, the US and the EU all prefer the unelected PA to Hamas — which they consider a terrorist group — or to the chaos that could ensue from the PA’s collapse. They are committed to working with the PA to manage the conflict and reduce tensions until some future time when the peace process can be revived.

But after weeks of unrest in Jerusalem, a war in Gaza and now street violence in the West Bank, that approach seems increasingly fraught.

Takeaways from meeting between Israeli Foreign Minister and US Secretary of State

Israel and the United States should not air their disagreements publicly but instead should discuss them directly, Foreign Minister Yair Lapid said Sunday at the start of a meeting with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Rome.

“Israel has some serious reservations about the Iran nuclear deal being put together in Vienna,” he said. “We believe the way to discuss those disagreements is through direct and professional conversations, not in press conferences.”

Jerusalem and Washington share the same goals, and disagreements between them are about how to achieve them, Lapid said.

Lapid also thanked Blinken for US support for normalization between Israel and Arab states.

“I look forward to working with you to widen the circle of peace in our region,” he said. “That is the best way to bring stability and prosperity to the Middle East.”

Other issues Lapid on the agenda for his meeting with Blinken were: strengthening our ability to defend ourselves, working to minimize conflict between us and the Palestinians, while making life better for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Blinken agreed with Lapid that the US-Israel relationship is “based... on a set of shared values and shared interests.” US President Joe Biden “feels very, very strongly about... a deep, enduring, abiding commitment on the part of the United States to Israel’s security,” he said.

Blinken put the reconstruction of Gaza at the top of the agenda for his meeting with Lapid.

“The work, I hope, can be done to, as you say, offer a more hopeful future for everyone, Palestinians and Israelis alike, with equal measures of opportunity and dignity,” he said, repeating a phrase Biden administration officials used throughout Operation Guardian of the Walls last month.

Blinken used the phrase “the Abraham Accords” – contrary to criticism of the Biden administration that it had refused to use the Trump-era branding – and said they “strongly support this, and hopefully there’ll be other participants.”

Blinken said, “I think we’ve also discovered, or perhaps rediscovered, that as important as they are, as vital as they are, they are not a substitute for engaging on the issues between Israelis and Palestinians that need to be resolved.”

Is FATAF being used by global powers to pressurize Pakistan?

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) announced on Friday that Pakistan had largely complied with 26 of the 27 items on the action plan agreed to in June 2018, but the country will continue to remain on the ‘increased monitoring list’ even after it addresses the sole remaining item.

The global financial watchdog slapped a new list of six action items on Pakistan which it said were identified by its regional partner, the Asia Pacific Group (APG), in 2019.

FATA President Dr. Marcus Pleyer said that for Pakistan to be delisted, it will have to largely address all items on the new action plan in addition to the only remaining item on the original plan.

The FATF decision to keep Pakistan on its grey list, in spite of this country’s substantial progress on the original action plan, has disappointed many. The over whelming perception is that FATF is being used by global powers as a political tool to put pressure on countries like Pakistan.

There are examples where the global watchdog delisted other jurisdictions under its enhanced monitoring even though they had done far less than Islamabad to tighten their controls over flows of illicit money.

The FATF President has said clearly that the country will remain on the list as long as it does not address the single remaining action (related to the investigation and prosecution of senior leaders and commanders of UN-designated terror groups) as well as the items on a parallel action plan handed out by the watchdog’s regional partner, the Asia Pacific Group, in 2019.

A number of senior journalists, politicians and activists expressed surprise on the FATF decision and also raised doubts on the integrity of the financial watchdog.

Senior journalist Mubashir Zaidi questioned what the point of keeping Pakistan on the ‘grey list’ was when it had already implemented 26 of the 27 action plan items given by the FATF.

Jamaat-i-Islami Central Vice President Mian Aslam sniffed a global conspiracy behind the FATF decision and asked the Pakistan to not surrender its freedom.

Analyst Jan Achakzai also condemned the decision of the FATF, calling the body a “tool weaponized against Pakistan”.

Senior journalist Zarrar Khuhro also cast doubt on the FATF’s integrity, saying it was "a tool of geopolitical pressure".

The official Twitter account of former President Pervez Musharraf said FATF was being used to blackmail Pakistan.

Another user said the FATF’s credibility was on the line for ignoring Pakistan’s commitment and compliance with the task force targets.

Pakistan has been on the FATF’s grey list for deficiencies in its counter-terror financing and anti-money laundering regimes since June 2018.

Until the last assessment, Pakistan was found deficient in acting against organizations allegedly linked to terror groups listed by the UN Security Council, prosecuting and convicting banned individuals and tackling smuggling of narcotics and precious stones.

British-Russian Naval Confrontation

A Minister said that Britain was prepared to sail naval vessels through disputed waters near Crimea again, a day after a confrontation between a British warship and Russian forces in the Black Sea.

Environment Secretary George Eustice disputed claims from Moscow that Russian warplanes dropped bombs and a patrol boat fired warning shots at a British destroyer it claims entered into its territorial waters in the Black Sea.

"This is a very normal thing," Eustice told Sky News. "It's quite common, actually, what was actually going on is the Russians were doing a gunnery exercise and given prior notice of that, they often do in that area. So I think it's important that we don't get carried away."

Russia said HMS Defender went three kilometers inside its territory off Cape Fiolent in Crimea, just before noon on Wednesday. A nation's territorial waters extend 12 nautical miles from its coastline; any foreign warship going past that limit would need permission of the country to do so, with a few exceptions.

Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine after a military intervention in the region in 2014. The international community opposed that annexation, and still considers Crimea as Ukrainian territory.

Eustice insisted the vessel was making a legal passage under international law to Georgia via Ukraine. Asked if the UK would sail through disputed Ukrainian waters again, he replied: "Yes ... because we never accepted the annexation of Crimea."

On Thursday, Kremlin officials accused the UK of a "deliberate, planned provocation" and said it had the right to "bomb on target" when foreign ships violate its sea borders.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on a conference call with journalists that Russia is "obviously concerned about such actions of the British ship."

"What can we do? We can appeal to common sense, demand respect for international law. If this does not help, we can bomb not only in the direction, but also on target, if our colleagues do not understand," Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said, according to Russian state media TASS.

On Thursday, British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab described Moscow's version of Wednesday's incident as "predictably inaccurate," saying "no shots were fired at HMS Defender."

A BBC reporter on the ship said he witnessed Russian warplanes and naval vessels buzzing the destroyer during the flare-up on Wednesday.

Shortly after the British ship crossed the territorial boundary, an Su-24M attack jet dropped bombs and a coastal patrol ship fired warning shots in front of the British destroyer, the Russian Defense Ministry said in a report.

The UK Defense Ministry had previously denied Moscow's accusation, saying that its ship was making a legal and innocent passage.

The UK ambassador to Moscow was due to visit the Russian Foreign Ministry Thursday after being summoned over the incident, spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on state TV. On Wednesday, Zakharova accused the UK of spreading lies about the incident.

"So, who's lying: the British Defense Ministry, the British BBC reporter or the British Embassy in Moscow? There is an answer. This time -- the British Defense Ministry and the British Embassy ... London has lost its manners. I advise the British partners to knock if they want to 'peacefully enter' next time," Zakharova wrote on Telegram.

Biden-Ghani meeting

Afghan President, Ashraf Ghani wrapped up two days of meetings with lawmakers and administration officials on Friday, capped with a visit to the White House to meet with President Joe Biden.

At the meeting, Biden pledged the United States would remain committed to Afghanistan with political and economic support even as the US military withdraws from the country.

“The senseless violence has to stop, but it’s going to be very difficult,” Biden said.

“But we’re going to stick with you, and we’re going to do our best to see to it you have the tools you need.”

Earlier in the day, Ghani held a meeting with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin at the Pentagon.

At that meeting, Ghani brushed off concerns that his government could fall as soon as six months after US troops depart.

“There have been many such predictions and they have all proven, turned out, false,” Ghani said when reporters asked about the US intelligence assessment.

Ghani also refuted the idea that the United States is walking around from his country is “The false narrative of abandonment is just false,” Ghani said.

At the White House, he also compared his country to pre-Civil War America, saying Afghanistan is in an “1861 moment, like President Lincoln, rallying to the defense of the republic, determined that the republic is defended.

“It's a choice of values, the values of an exclusionary system or an inclusionary system,” Ghani continued.

“We are determined to have unity, coherence, national sense of sacrifice and will not spare anything," Ghani insisted

 

USS Ronald Reagan to Cover Withdrawal of Troops From Afghanistan

United States Navy’s Japan-based carrier strike group is now operating in the North Arabian Sea to support withdrawal of the US troops from Afghanistan. 

USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76), guided-missile cruiser USS Shiloh (CG-67) and guided-missile destroyer USS Halsey (DDG-97) crossed into US 5th Fleet from 7th Fleet on Friday.

While in the US 5th Fleet area of operations, the Ronald Reagan CSG will operate and train alongside regional and coalition partners and provide airpower to protect US and coalition forces as they conduct drawdown operations from Afghanistan.

Reagan will take the place of USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) and its escorts that have been operating in the Middle East since April this year to provide air cover for the withdrawal. Ike is expected to soon begin its journey to its Norfolk, Va., homeport following its second deployment within a year.

Reagan had just completed high-end drills on Thursday with the Indian Navy ahead of entering 5th Fleet.

The Reagan move is the first time the US Japan-based carrier has been routed to the Middle East since the former USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Reagan’s move to the Middle East has raised new questions at how present the Navy will need to be in the region versus the stated goal of the Biden administration to focus resources on the Pacific and competition with China.

Aside from brief gaps, a US carrier has been on station on a small patch of ocean in the North Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Oman continuously since May 2019 at the request of US Central Command Commander Gen. Kenneth McKenzie.

For the Navy, a major outcome of the ongoing Pentagon-led global force posture review will be how carrier strike groups are apportioned across the global combatant commands.

Oman urges Israel to create Palestinian State

Omani Foreign Minister told his Israeli counterpart he hopes Israel's new government will take concrete steps towards creating an independent Palestinian state, with east Jerusalem as its capital, reported Omani state media said on Thursday.

Oman's Badr al-Busaidi spoke by phone to Israel's Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, according to ONA, the state news agency of Oman, which has a longstanding policy of neutrality in the turbulent region and often acts as a mediator.

In February this year, Busaidi said Oman was satisfied with its current relationship with Israel, even after fellow Gulf States the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain normalized ties with Israel last year under US-brokered accords.

Lapid will travel to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) next week in the first official visit by an Israeli minister to the Gulf state since they established diplomatic relations. He will inaugurate the Israeli Embassy in Abu Dhabi and the Consulate General of Israel in Dubai.

Israel and Oman enjoy bilateral relations. In line with the Arab League position in relation to Israel, Oman does not officially recognize the state of Israel and took part in the boycott of Israel during much of the 20th century.

It may be recalled that in 1994, the two countries established unofficial trade relations, which were discontinued in 2000. In 1994, then-Prime Minister of Israel Yitzhak Rabin visited Oman, where he was greeted by Sultan of Oman; Qaboos bin Said al Said in Muscat.

Among other things, the two sides discussed issues such as sharing water and how to improve water supplies.

In 1995, a few days after Rabin was assassinated, then-acting Prime Minister Shimon Peres hosted Omani foreign minister Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah in Jerusalem.

In January 1996, Israel and Oman signed an agreement on the reciprocal opening of trade representative offices.

In 2018, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu led a delegation to Oman and met with Sultan Qaboos and other senior Omani officials.

In February 2019, Omani foreign minister, Yusuf bin Alawi, said that Oman will not normalize its relations with Israel until a sovereign Palestinian state has been established.

Settlement reached over ship stuck in Suez Canal

Reportedly, the owner and insurers of the mega container ship that blocked the Suez Canal for six days in March 2021 and disrupted global shipping have reached a settlement with the Egyptian authorities.

The insurer's statement did not specify the amount, but said that once the settlement is formalized, the ship ‑ Ever Given ‑ after nearly three months of haggling, finger-pointing and court hearings - would finally complete its journey through the canal.

"Following extensive discussions with the Suez Canal Authority's negotiating committee over the past few weeks, an agreement in principle between the parties has been reached," said a statement from the insurer UK P & I Club. "Together with the owner and the ship's other insurers, we are now working with the SCA to finalize a signed settlement agreement as soon as possible."

Since the ship was freed in a huge salvage effort, about six days after running aground across the Suez, the canal authority had been locked in an often acrimonious stand-off with the ship's owner and operators over what the authority said it was owed for the incident.

The authority had sought up to US$ one billion in compensation, a figure that included the cost of tugboats, dredgers and crews hired to salvage the ship as well as the loss of revenue while the canal was blocked.

Under the standard terms that shipping companies are required to accept before traversing the Suez Canal, ships are liable for all costs or losses they cause in the canal.

Still, the authority never provided a detailed breakdown of how it had arrived at such a large amount.

The sum does not cover the disruption to worldwide shipping, including delayed cargo and costs to other shipping lines, which experts have said could ultimately soar into the hundreds of millions.

Physically, at least, the Ever Given was long ago declared fit to move on. But until compensation is paid, the ship and its crew will remain impounded in the Great Bitter Lake, a natural body of water that connects the section of the canal where the ship was stuck to the next segment, according to SCA Chairman, Osama Rabie.

An Egyptian court had ordered the ship held until the financial claims were settled, a move that drew protests from the Ever Given's Japanese owner, Shoei Kisen Kaisha.

For more than three months, they faced off in an Egyptian commercial court and in the local press.

The Egyptians insisted that the captain - who, under SCA rules, bore ultimate responsibility for commanding the ship despite the presence of Suez pilots who directed steering and speed - was to blame.

Whatever were the Ever Given's objections, the canal having a reputation for demanding large liability sums from ship-owners, enjoyed a strong hand in the negotiations.

The months of negotiations left the ship's crew of 25 Indian seafarers stuck in the middle, unable to leave the Ever Given until the bargaining ends, but for a few cases in which the Egyptian authorities granted crew members' requests to leave after their contracts ended or for family reasons.

India-US begin joint drills in Indian Ocean

According to Hindustan Times, Indian Air Force and Navy on Wednesday kicked off two-day drills with the US Navy in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) amid China’s attempts to expand its presence in the strategic region. The exercise will also involve the US Navy’s Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group (CSG).

The IAF takes part in the exercise with its Jaguar fighters, Sukhoi-30 MKIs, Phalcon AWACS (airborne warning and control system) aircraft, Netra AEW&C (airborne early warning and control) aircraft, and Il-78 mid-air refuellers. The US Navy’s air assets will include F-18 jets and E-2C Hawkeye AEW&C aircraft, the officials said.

Indian warships INS Kochi and Teg along with P-8I submarine hunter planes and MiG-29K aircraft are also taking part in the exercise.

The exercise comes a week after Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh called for an open and inclusive order in the Indo-Pacific region, including the South China Sea, with respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries. Singh reiterated New Delhi’s support to freedom of navigation, over-flight and unimpeded commerce for all in international waters in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

IAF spokesperson Wing Commander Ashish Moghe said the IAF has extensive experience in maritime operations in the IOR. “This has been consolidated over the years by the conduct of exercises from the country’s island territories…This engagement with the US CSG offers one more opportunity to undertake joint operations in the maritime domain with a friendly foreign power.”

He said the exercise will focus on multiple areas including enhancing aspects of interoperability, nuances of international integrated maritime search and rescue operations, and exchange of best practices in the maritime airpower domain.

The navy said in a statement that the Indian warships along with aircraft from the Indian Navy and IAF will be engaged in joint multi-domain operations with the CSG comprising Nimitz-class aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan, Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Halsey and Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Shiloh. “High tempo operations during the exercise will include advanced air defence exercises, cross-deck helicopter operations, and anti-submarine exercises. The participating forces will endeavour to hone their war-fighting skills and enhance their interoperability as an integrated force to promote peace, security, and stability in the maritime domain.”

The Indian Navy is carrying out round-the-clock surveillance in the IOR, which, it believes, China will inevitably try to enter in its quest to become a global power, just as it has laid claim to large portions of the disputed South China Sea.

Prospects of US joining JCPOA getting bleaker

According to an AP report, Biden administration officials are insisting that the election of a hard-liner as Iran’s president won’t affect reviving the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran. But, there are signs that prospects of concluding a deal are getting bleaker.

Optimism that a deal was imminent faded as the talks ended on Sunday without tangible indications of significant progress. On Monday, in his first public comments since the vote, incoming Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi rejected a key Biden goal of expanding on the nuclear deal if negotiators are able to salvage the old one.

Raisi is likely to raise the Iran’s demands for sanctions relief in return for Iranian compliance with the deal, as he himself is already subject to US human rights penalties.

“I don’t envy the Biden team,” said Karim Sadjapour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who has advised multiple US administrations on Iran. “I think the administration now has a heightened sense of urgency to revise the deal before Raisi and a new hard-line team is inaugurated.”

President Joe Biden and his team have made the US return to the deal one of their top foreign policy priorities. The deal was one of President Barack Obama’s signature achievements; one that aides now serving in the Biden administration had helped negotiate and that Donald Trump repudiated and tried to dismantle as president.

Despite Raisi’s impending presidency, Biden administration officials insist prospects for reaching an agreement are unaltered. They argue that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who signed off the 2015 deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), will make the final decision, regardless of who is president.

“The president’s view and our view is that the decision leader is the supreme leader,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday. “That was the case before the election; it’s the case today; it will be the case probably moving forward.”

“Iran will have, we expect, the same supreme leader in August as it will have today, as it had before the elections, as it had in 2015 when the JCPOA was consummated for the first time,” State Department spokesman Ned Price said.

But hopes for substantial progress fizzled last week ahead of the Iranian election amid a flurry of speculation about the impact of the vote on the indirect talks between Iran and the US in Vienna. Diplomats and others familiar with the talks had thought the last round, the sixth, could produce at least a tangible result even if it fell short of a full deal.

Now, that round has ended and a seventh round has yet to be scheduled as Raisi, Iran’s conservative judiciary chief, brandished an absolute rejection of anything more than Iran’s bare minimum compliance with the 2015 agreement in exchange for a lifting all of US sanctions.

In his public comments Monday, Raisi brushed aside US calls for Iran to agree to follow-on discussions on expanding the initial nuclear deal to include its ballistic missile program and its support for regional groups that the US designates terrorist organizations.

“It’s nonnegotiable,” Raisi said’

Iran experts agree it will be a tough, if not impossible, for Biden to get Iran to go beyond the nuclear agreement.

“I’m very skeptical that once we’ve lifted the sanctions to get them to return they’ll feel any incentive to come back and negotiate more concessions,” Sadjapour said. “And, if we coerce them with sanctions to come back to the table, they’ll argue that we’ve abrogated our end of the nuclear deal again.”

Critics of the nuclear deal maintain that the administration has already given away too much in exchange for too little by signaling its desire to repudiate Trump’s repudiation of the nuclear deal. And, they say that even if Iran agrees to some sort of additional talks, the pledge will be meaningless.

“It was pretty obvious that the Iranians were never going to negotiate in good faith beyond the JCPOA,” said Rich Goldberg, a Trump administration National Security Council official who has espoused a hard line on Iran.

“But now, even if the administration gets some sort of face-saving language from the Iranians about future talks, Raisi has already said they’re not interested. The jig is up,” he said. “You can’t come back to a skeptical Congress, allies and deal opponents and say the promise means anything it means when Raisi has already said it doesn’t.”

But administration officials are adamant that as good as the nuclear deal is, it is insufficient and must be improved on.

“We do see a return to compliance as necessary but insufficient, but we also do see a return to compliance as enabling us to take on those other issues diplomatically,” Price said, adding that the point had been made clear to the Iranians “in no uncertain terms.”

An additional complication is that Raisi will become the first serving Iranian president sanctioned by the US government even before entering office, in part over his time as the head of Iran’s internationally criticized judiciary — a situation that could complicate state visits and speeches at international forums such as the United Nations.

Psaki and Price both said that the US will continue to hold Raisi accountable for human rights violations for which he was sanctioned by the Trump administration.

Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal in 2018 and set about a “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran that included re-instating all the sanctions eased under the agreement along with adding a host of new ones.

Israel’s warning to United States or declaration of war against Iran

IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Aviv Kohavi warned the United States officials against rejoining the Iranian nuclear deal. He is visiting Washington to discuss the threat posed by Tehran’s nuclear program.

“The Chief of the General Staff emphasized the shortcomings of the current nuclear agreement, which will allow Iran to make significant progress related to centrifuges as well as to substantially enhance the amount and quality of enriched matter over the next few years, also emphasizing the lack of supervision in terms of nuclear proliferation,” the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit said in a statement.

Israel’s top military officer explained the threat created by returning to the original nuclear agreement and emphasized that all measures should be taken to prevent Iran from achieving military nuclear capabilities.

Kohavi is in Washington on a four-day visit and is holding meetings with Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, Head of the US Central Command Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, and Head of the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) Gen. Richard Clark.

In light of the close alliance between Israel and the United States, it is rare for a chief of staff to make public remarks about political issues or to criticize the foreign policies of allies.

But Kohavi has made it clear that he views the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as dangerous, saying in January that he has directed the IDF to prepare fresh operational plans to strike Iran in order to stop its nuclear program if necessary.

“Iran can decide that it wants to advance to a bomb, either covertly or in a provocative way. In light of this basic analysis, I have ordered the IDF to prepare a number of operational plans, in addition to the existing ones. We are studying these plans and we will develop them over the next year,” Kohavi said in a speech at the Institute for National Security Studies think tank’s annual conference.

 “The government will of course be the one to decide if they should be used. But these plans must be on the table, in existence and trained for,” he added.

During his trip, which is his first as Israel’s top military officer, he is meeting with his American counterparts to discuss common security challenges in the region, including issues related to the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear project, Tehran’s attempt to entrench itself in the Middle East, Hezbollah’s attempts to strengthen itself and the consequences of the Lebanese terror group’s precision missile project.

The leaders also discussed the challenges and related responses in the Palestinian arena, focusing on the Gaza Strip. Kohavi also presented the military’s main takeaways from Operation Guardian of the Walls.

His visit to Washington that was scheduled to take place in April was postponed due to the fighting with Hamas and other groups in the Gaza Strip. 

Bennett defeats first motions of no-confidence

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett on Monday successfully defeated the opposition’s first motions of no-confidence by votes of 60-49 and 59-50. Former Likud minister Ophir Akunis introduced the motions, calling the new government illegitimate because its ruling party, Yamina, has only six loyal MKs.

The government’s liaison to the Knesset, Ze’ev Elkin (New Hope), responded that opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu had offered a rotation as prime minister to Bennett and to New Hope leader Gideon Sa’ar, indicating that it was legitimate for Netanyahu.

By contrast, Netanyahu did not offer such a rotation to anyone else in Likud, despite his own party winning 30 seats, indicating that it was not legitimate for the former prime minister, he said.

“I understand your frustration with losing power, which was unnecessary because Likud could have formed a government if Netanyahu would have agreed to stand aside,” Elkin told former Likud ministers.

In response, Shas leader Arye Deri said at Sa’ar’s request, Netanyahu had agreed to key Likud figures becoming prime minister, including MKs Yariv Levin, Yuval Steinitz and Avi Dichter, and Netanyahu agreed to obtain the approval of the Likud central committee, but Bennett did not agree.

“The cat is out of the bag,” he said. “Naftali Bennett torpedoed it.”

Religious Services Minister Matan Kahana (Yamina) responded: “That is a lie.”

Elkin accused Netanyahu of spending the Likud’s funds to pay protesters to come to his home late at night and frighten his five-year-old daughter.

“In your eyes, whatever serves you is always legitimate, and what removes you from power is always illegitimate,” he told Netanyahu.

Netanyahu responded to his former close confidant sarcastically by saying, “Everyone knows how much the previous speaker cares about the state and how much he takes care of himself.”

The new “government is dangerous, and that is why we will topple it faster than people think,” he said.

Another test of the government is set to take place next week when votes will be held on extending an ordinance that prevents family reunification of Palestinians and Arab-Israelis.

Religious Zionist Party leader Bezalel Smotrich on Monday said his party would not be voting with the coalition to extend the ordinance.

“We won’t be the ones plugging holes for this coalition or those who save it from itself,” he said.

The coalition needs the support of right-wing opposition MKs to pass the ordinance because it is opposed by the Ra’am (United Arab List) Party, as well as Regional Cooperation Minister Esawi Frej and Mossi Raz of Meretz.

Bennett was set to join a meeting of Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked (Yamina) and Ra’am head Mansour Abbas late Monday in an effort to solve the problem.

At a Likud faction meeting on Monday, it was decided that Likud MKs would vote against the law preventing the unification of Palestinian families.