Is China getting ahead of United States in weapons technology?

The stunned silence that descended on Washington after the Financial Times recently reported that China had successfully tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic glider shows how dangerously inept the US policy establishment has become at preempting China's technological breakthroughs.

Predictions about China overtaking the United States often use existing technological processes as their yardstick. Yet, they overlook another increasingly likely scenario that China has successfully applied entirely new substance materials to these technologies, bringing unprecedented breakthroughs in performance.

Beijing is currently experimenting with radically different substances in three key strategic domains -- nuclear weapons, semiconductors and energy.

Breakthroughs here will break American dominance and radically alter the power balance between the two superpowers. The US must both check its blind spots for more incoming "Sputnik moments” from China and engage in more disruptive research of its own if it is to stay ahead.

Somewhere in the Gobi desert, the world's first new thorium-powered nuclear reactor in over half a century is starting up. The uranium-233 isotope it aims to produce could take China's rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal to a whole new level.

China is building on Cold War-era research by the Manhattan Project team at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee in the U.S. Though the U.S. later abandoned uranium-233 in favor of the naturally occurring uranium-235, declassified documents from 1966 show researchers at the time judged uranium-233 to have superior functions to other materials, but only if kept chemically pure.

Thanks to the co-presence of the element protactinium in the uranium-233 they generate, thorium reactors were believed to be "proliferation resistant" for many years. Yet, a variety of reprocessing methods that separate the protactinium isotopes from the rest of the nuclear fuel have been developed in recent decades, clearing a pathway for its use as a high-performance weapons-grade material.

Uranium-233 emits stronger radiation than other isotopes, producing 15% more neutrons per thermal fission than either uranium-235 or plutonium-239. It also has a lower critical mass, meaning more weapons can be made from less material.

This could enable Beijing to not just scale up the number of weapons in its arsenal but potentially increase each missile's destructive power, and, having the second-largest reserves of thorium in the world, the surplus of nuclear energy could drive China's conventional platforms, including nuclear-powered warships and drones.

Advances in silicon chips will reach their physical limits by 2025, as dictated by Moore's Law. This seems like a bad thing for China, which still trails semiconductor leaders Taiwan, South Korea and the US by two wafer generations.

Yet China is gearing up for what its leaders call the post Moore's Law-era -- the dawn of carbon-based chips. A recent paper published in the journal Science by Peking University researchers claimed that they had tested carbon nanotubes up to three times faster and four times more energy-efficient than silicon chips. Beijing has allocated a high priority to this field of research. It is now part of the scientific innovation strategy for China's fourth five year plan.

Revolutionizing chip material could also bust through China's biggest bottleneck further downstream – chip making itself. Due to US export sanctions, China lacks the lithography machines to make cutting-edge chips. Yet, a state-directed 02 Special Project to develop an integrated domestic lithography machine supply chain is making progress.

If these machines are designed to manufacture carbon-based chips, such dual innovations could create the technological foundation for a whole new foundry ecosystem that would all belong to China. Its chipmakers could leapfrog incumbents and China would dominate the strategic information and communications technology hardware of the future.

Though currently the world's biggest energy importer, China is positioned to become the largest energy exporter if it can pull off its moonshot project to mine Helium-3 on the moon.

Already, over a dozen Chinese institutes are working to extract Helium-3 from moon rock samples from last year's Chang'e 5 mission. The isotope holds more energy than Earth-based minerals with just 40 tons capable of powering the entire US for a whole year. It is estimated there are at least a million tons of Helium-3 on the moon.

Though, one US company is planning a mining expedition to the moon in the early 2030s, China is already streaming ahead with a permanent mega-base on the moon to be built by around the same time. The US Central Intelligence Agency space analysts warn that breakthrough dominance in this powerful and carbon clean resource would make China the 21st century's energy powerhouse.

If China achieves dominance in any of these three domains, it will likely displace the US as a global hegemon. There are two key ways the US can work to prevent this.

Firstly, the US intelligence agencies must better track China's disruptive research, map out potential pathways for leapfrog maneuvers and take action to preempt and prevent technological breakthroughs.

Secondly, the US must take advantage of the lead it currently has and take on unconventional experiments that are yet another step beyond what China itself is doing.

Voices on Capitol Hill calling for the US government to utilize its leftover uranium-233 reserves show that some lawmakers are taking notice. Yet, it is not nearly enough. Drawing on innovations from yesteryear may buy Washington some time, but if delayed rear-guard actions are all it can muster to counter Beijing's multipronged leapfrog, the result of this great power competition is a foregone conclusion.

Israel mounts pressure on United States not to join JOCPA

US Defense Secretary, Lloyd Austin met with his Israeli counterpart on Thursday to discuss concerns over Iran and ways to prevent the country from obtaining a nuclear weapon, the Pentagon confirmed. 

During the meeting at the Pentagon with Israeli Defense Minister Benjamin Gantz, Austin “confirmed US resolve to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” the Defense Department (DOD) said in a statement.

Austin and Gantz also “discussed shared concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear provocations, support for terrorism, and missile program” and “reiterated US commitment to Israel’s security and qualitative military edge,” according to the statement.

While the DOD confirmed the meeting, a spokesman declined to address a Reuters report that said the two defense leaders would also touch on possible Iran-focused military exercises.

“I know there’s interest in a certain Reuters report,” Pentagon press secretary John Kirby told reporters on Thursday prior to the meeting. 

“I will tell you this, we routinely conduct exercises and training with our Israeli counterparts and I have nothing to announce to or speak to or point to or speculate about today.”

Kirby would only say that Austin and Gantz would discuss Iran and its continued destabilizing activities.

Gantz had tweeted Wednesday to say he and Austin would “discuss possible modes of action to ensure the cessation of Iran's attempt to enter the nuclear sphere and broaden its activity in the region.”

Reuters reported that the two defense chiefs were expected to talk about possible military exercises meant to prepare for a worst-case scenario to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities should the United States and Iran not be able to revive a 2015 nuclear deal abandoned by then-President Trump.

 A senior US official told Reuters that on October 25 Pentagon leaders briefed White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan on military options available to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon.

The two meetings come as indirect talks on restarting a nuclear deal with Tehran have hit a snag, with very little progress being made during negotiations in Vienna.

Iran has already restarted production of enriching uranium, amassing a small stockpile of the material of at least 60% purity. Uranium needs to be enriched to 90% purity for nuclear weapons development.

Further signaling that the Biden administration is preparing for possible fallout, the US is considering sending a delegation to the United Arab Emirates, a close trading partner of Iran, to discuss possible economic sanctions, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

Iran, meanwhile, has denied it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons and only wants to master the technology.

Nuclear negotiations were expected to resume on Thursday, and the US special envoy for Iran, Robert Malley, is set to join them over the weekend.

 

US Department of Justice announces forfeiture of Iranian missiles and oil

The US Department of Justice (DoJ) confirmed in an announcement on Wednesday that it has successfully forfeited approximately 1.1 million barrels of oil and hundreds of missiles seized by the US Navy from several Iranian vessels in the Arabian Sea late in 2019 and early 2020. 

These represent the largest-ever US forfeitures of Iranian fuel and weapons. Forfeiture of property – penalizing the owner for wrongdoing – allows the US government to take possession of and sell it.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is alleged to have orchestrated the shipments, is designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the DoJ, which allowed for the seizures and forfeitures. 

“The actions of the United States in these two cases strike a resounding blow to the Government of Iran and to the criminal networks supporting Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps,” said Assistant Attorney-General Matthew G. Olsen of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. “The Department of Justice will continue to use all available tools to combat the threats posed by terrorist organizations and all those who seek to harm the United States and its allies.”

The two weapons caches of eight surface-to-air missiles, 171 anti-tank missiles and thermal optics – as well as components for naval surface-to-surface cruise missiles, anti-ship cruise missiles, drones, and other missiles – were alleged by the DoJ to have belonged to the IRGC and were destined for Houthi militants in Yemen. The two flagless vessels, dhow sailboats, were raided on November 25, 2019, and February 9, 2020.

The DOJ announcement contains contradictions about the number of different types of missiles seized, in the opening sentence of the press release listing 171 surface-to-air missiles and eight anti-tank missiles.

“The illegal transfer of Iranian-made weapons poses a significant and immediate threat to our national security,” according to Kelly P. Mayo, Director of the Defense Department's Defense Criminal Investigative Service. “The judgment announced today is an important step in our efforts to identify, disrupt and bring to justice those who imperil resources vital to our safety.”

Around July 2020, petroleum seizures of approximately 1.1 million barrels of petroleum products from four foreign-flagged vessels were also conducted in the vicinity of the Arabian Sea. The shipments were allegedly destined for Venezuela aboard the Liberia-flagged Bella, Bering, Pandi and Luna.

The US government sold the confiscated petroleum products for over US$26 million, with part of the sales being directed to the US Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund, which compensates the US citizens who have been victims of international terrorism.

“These two cases demonstrate that not only can we disrupt the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ ability to finance its operations through petroleum sales, but we can also thwart its ability to use the proceeds of such sales to arm its terrorist proxies and export terrorism abroad,” said US Attorney Matthew M. Graves for the District of Columbia.

“Given our expertise and special statutory authority, the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia is uniquely positioned to support its law enforcement partners in such terrorism cases," he said. "We are deeply committed to this mission.”

The surface-to-air missiles were Iranian-made Type 358, which according to Jane's were previously unknown until these seizures. According to court documents filed in August, all 171 anti-tank missiles were the Iranian-made Dehlaviehs. According to the Islamic Republic News Agency, they were indigenously produced and first introduced into service in the Iranian Army in 2015. The Ten Rayan Roshd Afzar RU60G thermal weapons optics is also Iranian-produced. 

The US has imposed sanctions on oil exports of both Iran and Venezuela. Tehran has made several attempts to transfer oil to the country in South America's northern region. US sanctions on Iran are a key element of the negotiations for the Iranian nuclear deal that the Biden administration is attempting to reimplement.

 

Bangladesh oceangoing ships now at record high

According to a report by The Daily Star, Bangladesh now has a fleet of 80 oceangoing vessels, a record high since the country’s independence. 

Till October 2019, there were only 43 Bangladeshi flagged oceangoing vessels and it almost doubled in the last two years at a time when most business sectors were badly hit by the pandemic.

Some policy support from the government as well as a global price fall of second-hand ships in the early stages of the pandemic encouraged local entrepreneurs to make investments and seize the opportunity.

Several leading industrialists and commodity importers went on to buy their own ships to reduce transport costs. A total of 37 vessels got permanent or provisional registration in the last two years till November this year which is the highest in the span of such periods, according to Mercantile Marine Department (MMD).

In 2020, a total of 14 vessels got permanent registration whereas a total of 18 vessels got permanent and provisional registration till date this year, according to data from the MMD.

The National Board of Revenue (NBR) has eased age rules for ships to make it easy to qualify for VAT exemptions during imports and also cut advance income tax. The NBR brought down the advance income tax (AIT) on vessel imports to one percent for fiscal 2021-22 from 2 percent in fiscal 2020-21. It also relaxed restrictions, allowing sale of vessels of over 5,000 deadweight tonnage (DWT) after three years. Previously they had to be kept for five years.

Chittagong Chamber of Commerce and Industry President Mahbubul Alam said it was really a positive sign for the country’s economy. The country’s imports and exports are mostly depended on foreign vessels and the local businesses have to spend huge foreign exchange annually as freight charges for foreign trade, he said. If the number of Bangladeshi flagged vessel increases, the local vessel owners can tap into a good amount of the foreign trade, he added.

Bangladesh Ocean Going Ship Owners’ Association President Azam Chowdhury said the growing number of registrations was for some local industrialists and commodity importers purchasing vessels to reduce cargo transport costs. Besides, government policy supports like the VAT and AIT exemptions also encouraged entrepreneurs to go for making investments in the sector, he said.

Echoing the same, Meherul Karim, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the country’s largest ocean-going vessel owning company, SR Shipping, said many companies wanted to take opportunity of the price drop of second-hand, medium sized Supramax vessels in the wake of the pandemic last year.

Most of the Bangladeshi-flagged bulk carriers, which have all been bought, are Supramax vessels of 50,000 DWT to 60,000 DWT and these are 15 years to 20 years old, he said.

Previously price of such vessels ranged between US$10 million and US$12 million, which came down to US$6 million to US$7 million last year, said Karim, adding that his company bought two ships in 2020. SR Shipping currently own 23 oceangoing vessels.

Overall, the 80 oceangoing vessels are owned by 15 Bangladeshi companies. Most are bulk carriers, while there are oil tankers and six container vessels.

Karnaphuli Limited, country’s lone container vessel owning company, purchased six container vessels since June last year. The group last month also placed an order with a Chinese shipbuilder to construct four new container vessels.

Karnaphuli Limited Director Hamdan Hossain Chowdhury told The Daily Star that the government has created the right enabling environment and this has facilitated unprecedented expansion of the country’s merchant fleet. “We are a maritime nation and this sector has good potential,” he said.

Currently 3,000 Bangladeshi mariners are employed in these 80 Bangladeshi-flagged vessels. MMD Principal Officer Captain Giashuddin Ahamd said they brought ease to their services such as that on issuance of registration certificates and also directly sat with vessel owners to provide encouragement.

Russia warns United States to stay away from Ukraine

Russia is seeking a legally binding pledge that NATO will stop expanding east, including to Ukraine. If the United States refuses, is war next?

Either the US and NATO provide us with "legal guarantees" that Ukraine will never join NATO or become a base for weapons that can threaten Russia — or we will go in and guarantee it ourselves.

This is the message Russian President Vladimir Putin is sending, backed by the 100,000 troops Russia has amassed on Ukraine's borders.

At the Kremlin last week, Putin drew his red line:

"The threat on our western borders is ... rising, as we have said multiple times. ... In our dialogue with the United States and its allies, we will insist on developing concrete agreements prohibiting any further eastward expansion of NATO and the placement there of weapons systems in the immediate vicinity of Russian territory."

That comes close to an ultimatum and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg backhanded the President of Russia for issuing it:

"It's only Ukraine and 30 NATO allies that decide when Ukraine is ready to join NATO. ... Russia has no veto, Russia has no say, and Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence trying to control their neighbors."

Yet, great powers have always established spheres of influence. Chinese President Xi Jinping claims virtually the entire South China Sea that is bordered by half a dozen nations. For 200 years, the United States has declared a Monroe Doctrine that puts the hemisphere off-limits to new colonization.

Moreover, Putin wants to speak to the real decider of the question as to whether Ukraine joins NATO or receives weapons that can threaten Russia. And the decider is not Jens Stoltenberg but President Joe Biden.

In the missile crisis of 60 years ago, the US, with its "quarantine" of Cuba and strategic and tactical superiority in the Caribbean, forced Nikita Khrushchev to pull his intermediate-range ballistic missiles, which could reach Washington, off of Fidel Castro's island.

If it did not do so, Moscow was led to understand, we would use our air and naval supremacy to destroy his missiles and send in the Marines to finish the job.

Accepting a counteroffer for the US withdrawal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey, Khrushchev complied with President John F. Kennedy's demand. Russia's missiles came out. And Kennedy was seen as having won a Cold War victory.

When the Warsaw Pact collapsed and the USSR came apart three decades ago, Russia withdrew all of its military forces from Central and Eastern Europe. Moscow believed it had an agreed-upon understanding with the Americans.

Under the deal, the two Germanys were reunited. Russian troops were removed from East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania and there was no NATO expansion into Eastern Europe.

If the US made that commitment, it was a promise broken. For, within 20 years, NATO had brought every Warsaw Pact nation into the alliance along with the former Soviet republics of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

Neocons and Republican hawks such as the late John McCain sought to bring Ukraine and two other ex-Soviet republics, Georgia and Moldova, into NATO.

Ukraine is not going to be a member of NATO or a military ally and partner of the United States, nor a base for weapons that can strike Russia in minutes. For Russia that crosses a red line, if NATO proceeds with arming Ukraine for conflict with Russia, it reserves the right to act first.

In Ukraine and in Georgia, as was evident in the 2008 war, Russia had the tactical and strategic superiority it had in 1962 in Cuba. Moreover, while Ukraine is vital to Russia, it has never been vital to us.

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt recognized Joseph Stalin's USSR in 1933, Moscow was engaged in the forced collectivization of the farms of Ukraine, which had caused a famine and the deaths of millions. United States did nothing to stop it.

During the Cold War, the US never insisted on the independence of Ukraine. Though, it celebrated when the Baltic States and Ukraine broke free of Moscow, it never regarded their independence as vital interest, and the super power should be willing to go to war.

A US war with Russia over Ukraine would be a disaster for all three nations. Nor could the US indefinitely guarantee the independence of a country 5,000 miles away that shares not only a lengthy border with Russia but also a history, language, religion, ethnicity and culture.

Will Russia invade Ukraine?

Fears of Russia launching an offensive against Ukraine have raised tensions between Moscow and the West. Russia’s massing of troops near Ukraine is fueling fears that Russian President Vladimir Putin may once again invade the former Soviet state.

President, Joe Biden is emphasizing diplomacy to cool tensions and avoid a military confrontation, while the US is a key supplier of arms to Ukraine.

Reported intelligence is raising alarm that Putin is amassing more than 100,000 troops along Ukraine’s border and preparing for an invasion in early 2022 — raising the stakes over a planned call between Biden and Putin. Here are five things to know about the emerging crisis: 

1-       Could be more serious than 2014 invasion

Experts warn Russia’s military buildup on the border of Ukraine is posing a more serious threat than its previous invasion and annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014 and its ongoing support for pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country, called the Donbas. 

"Russia is not signaling a repeat of its 2014 operations on the Donbas, in fact they are signaling this current situation could be larger and more overt,” said Dara Massicot, a senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation. 

“I am concerned about the impact of Russian air and missile strikes conducting rapid punitive strikes on Ukrainian military facilities or other important locations — in many cases from Russian territory or Russian proxy-controlled territory in eastern Ukraine,” Massicot said. 

Putin has issued a demand that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) not expand eastward nor deploy weapons systems that are viewed as threatening Russia, the Associated Press reported.

Russia’s posturing and more heated rhetoric is aimed at forcefully testing the Biden administration’s resolve to support Ukraine in the face of aggression, said retired Lt.-Gen. Ben Hodges, who served as US Army Europe Commander until 2017.

“I think the Kremlin is testing how high a priority that is and what we’re willing to do to protect and respect Ukrainian sovereignty,” he said in an interview with C-SPAN on Sunday. 

2-       Biden is upping the diplomatic consequences

The Biden administration has raised the possibility of action against Russia including economic measures and increasing the delivery of lethal defenses for Ukraine.  

“We’ve been very clear that there would be serious, serious consequences,” if Ukraine invades Russia, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in an interview Sunday with a Swedish television network. 

“We’re looking, for example, at economic measures that would have a very high impact and things that we have refrained from doing in the past when we’ve had profound differences with Russia,” he added. 

Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville said at the Reagan National Defense Forum on Saturday that deterrence should be a “whole-of-government” effort.

“The way you deter is you impose some type of cost — to make sure the cost is worth more than the benefit,” McConville said. “Making sure people understand you just can't go into another sovereign country and conduct malign activities without having some type of cost.” 

3-       Yet US troops maintaining readiness 

A senior administration official hinted on Monday that an invasion would result in US troops being deployed in the region, noting that the 2014 invasion was followed by the US sending additional forces to NATO's eastern flank.

“I think you could anticipate that in the event of an invasion, the need to reinforce the confidence and reassurance of our NATO allies and our eastern flank allies would be real and the United States would be prepared to provide that kind of reassurance," the official said.  

But Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby told reporters that there’s “still space and time for diplomacy and leadership,” echoing comments Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin made at the Reagan forum. 

Angela Stent, director of Georgetown University’s Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies, suggested that Russia could launch a limited incursion to retake the Donbas “quite soon”, but would likely hold back from launching a major offensive on the capitol of Kyiv.

“In Russia, this conflict is not popular. … People don’t want to see Russian soldiers coming back in body bags," she said.

4-       Part of Russia’s broader destabilizing behavior

Along with Russia’s amassing tens of thousands of troops on the border with Ukraine, US officials have also denounced Moscow’s support of Belarus’s illegitimate President Alexander Lukashenko and his alleged efforts to spark an immigrant crisis in Europe. 

This is on top of worries that Russia may use its position as a key supplier of energy to Europe — in particular for the cold winter months — as leverage to extract concessions from the West. 

“What we’re seeing in Belarus on the borders of three countries, the really outrageous use of migrants as a political weapon — well, that can sow chaos and instability and at the same time the mounting pressure against Ukraine, and yes, energy too, especially heading into the winter.  I think these things are joined,” Blinken said in an interview with Reuters on Friday. 

Minsk said last week that it would conduct joint military drills with Russia near Ukraine’s borders in response to new military deployments to the west and south of Belarus, Reuters reported. 

"We see troop formations around our state borders... We can only be concerned by the militarization of our neighboring countries, which is why [we] are forced to plan measures in response,” Belarus’s Defense Minister Viktor Khrenin said Monday, according to the outlet. 

On top of this, Russia controls large deliveries of energy to Europe and there are fears Putin could hold delivery hostage — during critical winter months — in an effort to extract concessions from the West. 

5-       Ukraine's security a rare area of bipartisan support 

Ukraine is a key US ally and Kyiv’s shift away from Russia and towards the West is viewed as both a symbolic and strategic advantage, bolstering the protection of neighboring NATO-allied countries and as a key economic partner connecting Europe and Eurasia. 

This has made support for Ukraine’s security an area of bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. 

Sen. Chris Murphy chair of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia, and Counterterrorism, told CNN’s "State of the Union" on Sunday that he hopes Biden’s meeting with Putin can “bear fruit,” but warned of a strong US response if Kyiv is threatened. 

“But let me say this — If Russia does decide to move further, it would be a mistake of historic proportions for Moscow,” Murphy said. “Ukraine can become the next Afghanistan for Russia if it chooses to move further, and it’s up to us in the Congress that we are going to be diplomatic, political and military partners with Ukraine.”

Sen. Joni Ernst also sounded the alarm during a panel at the Reagan National Defense Forum. 

“This is a moment in time where we need to show leadership and we need to push back and say to Putin, you can't do this,” Ernst told the forum. “We need to show that [if] you do this there are going to be repercussions.”

  

Bennett seems adamant at embarrassing Biden

The news from the Middle East is that negotiators in Vienna are going on to restart the Iran deal, but Israel is doing all it can to end the talks. Israeli Prime Minister is telling United States for an immediate cessation of talks. 

Israeli Defense Minister will travel to Washington this week to appeal to the Biden administration that there may be a point when we will have no choice but to act.

The Israelis and their many rightwing friends in the US are demanding Biden must maintain crippling sanctions on Iran and keep threatening war. Israel is free to attack Iran in Syria. And Israel will bomb Iran if it deems it has crossed a nuclear threshold– which is always just six months from now, forever. While anonymous Israeli officials tell pliable Israeli reporters that Tony Blinken is the biggest leftist in the Biden administration and he is stoking tensions between the US and Israel.

In August, Biden welcomed Bennett at the White House and announced that they were close friends, and Israel’s friends in the US rejoiced in the fact that Israel was a bipartisan cause again, because the divisive Netanyahu was gone, and Democrats and a rightwing Prime Minister were on the same page.

One tenet of that close bond is that if there are any disagreements, they will be aired privately. Bennett has now violated that understanding. He is trying to embarrass Biden publicly, and tell the United States what to do with Iran. Just as Netanyahu embarrassed Biden very publicly and went to the Congress to try to undermine the Iran deal in 2015.

On that occasion, Barack Obama made perhaps the bravest statement of his presidency, saying, “As president of the United States, it would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with a dear friend and ally.”

American leaders need to follow Obama’s example. They should stop taking dictate from Israel. It is in US interest to restore the Iran deal, and also to get Israel to stop stealing Palestinian land. Both of which aims are completely counter to the new Israeli government. It loves having a global cold war with Iran to keep the world’s attention off apartheid.

The superpower should have its way with Israel too; but no, Israel is a spoiled brat that issues ultimatums. The reason it gets away with this behavior is obvious. There is a powerful Israel lobby inside the United States (though the US mainstream press claims it might not exist), and the lobby has one overriding purpose, to make sure there is no daylight between the US political establishment and Israel.

The power of the lobby is the reason that Netanyahu once told a hot mic that the US is a thing that can be easily moved. The power of the lobby is why Trump trashed the Iran deal in 2018, to keep the support of his biggest backer, Sheldon Adelson. The power of the lobby is the reason progressive Congressperson Jamaal Bowman goes and meets with a rightwing Israeli prime minister, and sells out Palestinian human rights organizations, out of fear he will lose his seat in Congress if he doesn’t defer to Israel.

It is really a pity, and a moral horror too, that the US leaders can’t tell Israel to stay away. But there are countless well-funded organizations, telling these politicians to stand up and grin for the unwavering special relationship between the United States and Israel. Donald Trump threatened the American consensus by trying to politicize it, and say the Democratic left was going off the reservation. But then former members of AIPAC promptly started a new branch of the lobby, the Democratic Majority for Israel, to close rank in the Democratic Party. And Nancy Pelosi banished the left by saying that the Capitol would crumble and fall before the US abandoned its support for Israel, so please ignore the leftwing critics in her party.

Now Joe Biden is reluctant to take on the lobby because the midterms are looming; and Tony Blinken has to cater to Israeli prime minister, even when he is insulting him. The clear message from Vienna is that the Iran deal will not be restored because Biden is refusing to lift the sanctions that Donald Trump reimposed on Iran. Obama’s point man Ben Rhodes says it’s all about the lobby.

Biden is afraid to politicize the issue. He knows that Adelson’s widow is conducting the same sweepstakes her late husband did: to see which Republican candidate for president will be the most pro-Israel. He knows that AIPAC is all over the Democratic Party.

The special relationship with Israel should be politicized. It helped get us into the Iraq war, with catastrophic consequences for many nations, and is now endangering war with Iran. It has granted endless immunity to apartheid, with desperate consequences for the Palestinian people.

Fifteen years ago, Walt and Mearsheimer called out the lobby’s influence in a landmark book on American foreign policy, and as Mearsheimer said often, “We just Israel to be treated like a normal country.”

But that book can still only be read in brown wrappers in Washington, and the intrusion in our politics by Israel and its friends just keeps getting deeper. Twenty-seven states adopt legislation that would limit free speech rights by penalizing those who boycott Israel. A Georgia lawmaker confesses that the Israeli government “asked me” to introduce one of those bills. A dozen attorneys-general seek divestment from Unilever because one of its brands, Ben & Jerry’s, doesn’t want to be foster the persecution of Palestinians by selling ice cream in occupied territory.

A Republican congressman who voted against Iron Dome says AIPAC’s effort to turn him out of office is “foreign interference in our elections.” The University of North Carolina clamps down on a teacher who wants to tell the true history of Palestine after the Israeli consulate and a Democratic congressperson pressure school officials. “[I]t is strange that the Israeli consulate general was granted an audience,” the instructor says. “If this was a class on Hungary or Australia, would the university have permitted the attempted interference of a foreign government? The fact that this meeting happened at all is clearly a threat to academic freedom.”

The American people want distance. Polling shows that they are overwhelmingly for an evenhanded approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict, that young people are moving to the Palestinian side, and that Democratic voters are for sanctions on Israel over its settlement behavior.

It is time that our mainstream press surveys all the damage and takes on the corruption in our political process. It’s time our leaders stop worrying about what the lobby and Israeli officials want and channel Obama’s question of 2015. What is the US interest?

Iran’s Natanz nuclear facilities hit for third time since July 2020

A question is getting louder; did Mossad or someone just try to sabotage Iran’s nuclear facilities at Natanz for the third time since July 2020? Natanz was hit by physical explosive sabotage in July 2020 and again in April this past year.

Reports were still hazy, but as of Saturday night, the narratives varied from Iran undertook a preplanned air defense drill unrelated to sabotage, to it shot down an attack drone thwarting a sabotage attempt. Electricity and Internet were down for some unspecified part of Natanz, which could mean a sabotage attempt succeeded, but the Islamic Republic is still trying to cover it up.

Reportedly, July 2020 attack was more successful and destroyed the vast majority of an above-ground nuclear site. April attack destroyed centrifuges and a variety of utilities of a newer underground site, but only fully delayed Iran’s advanced centrifuge progress for about four months, while causing some longer-term slowdowns.

Curiously, the April attack took place near the start of Vienna nuclear negotiations. If this event was an attack, it would have taken place at the end of a new first week of nuclear negotiations.

Both in July 2020 and this past April, Iran initially tried to deny there was an attack or deny its success until The Jerusalem Post reported that the attacks were successful and had caused severe damage.

Following the Post’s and other media reports, Tehran was forced to acknowledge that its nuclear sites had been hit, and badly.

It later accused the Mossad of both hits, so Tehran’s initial denials should be taken with a grain of salt.

Another nuclear site, Karaj, was hit this past June, days after Ebrahim Raisi was elected Iran’s new president.

This could be a second message to Raisi that his attempt to push the envelope with increasing nuclear violations as well as taking maximalist positions in Vienna could leave him vulnerable, even if much of the West is intimidated by him.

Or maybe this time Iran’s air defenses improved and thwarted an attack.

Then again, for the first time in four such similar events, maybe it was just a pre-planned air-defense drill.

Satellite footage made it impossible for Tehran to cover up the damage in both Natanz attacks, but strangely, satellite footage was slower in coming with Karaj, when Raisi had taken power and the Biden administration was seeking a return to talks.

It will be interesting to see what satellite footage shows this time.

Pakistan to host OIC foreign ministers’ meeting to avert human crisis in Afghanistan

Foreign Minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi on Saturday said Pakistan would host a session of Council of Foreign Ministers of Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on December 19. It will focus on highlighting the need for urgent assistance and mobilization of resources to avert a humanitarian crisis and economic collapse in Afghanistan.

“If we don’t pay timely attention, half of Afghanistan’s population or 22.8 million people can face food shortage and 3.2 millio children may face malnutrition. This is the magnitude which we and the world should understand,” Qureshi said while talking to the media in Lahore.

Considering the gravity of the situation, he said Pakistan made an effort and moved ahead to host the international event while realizing that, if not addressed timely, the situation would have dire consequences for "Afghanistan, its neighbors as well as the whole region".

Qureshi stressed that Afghanistan could face economic collapse if its frozen assets were not released to cope with the burgeoning needs.

He also pointed out that such a session of the OIC FMs on the Afghanistan situation would be held after 41 years with the first held in 1980. The foreign minister added that besides the foreign ministers of the OIC countries, Pakistan had also invited the special representatives of P-5 countries including the United States, China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom.

Invitations were also extended to the European Union's high representative on foreign affairs and international organizations such as the World Bank and relevant United Nations agencies which could assist in the whole process.

Important countries such as Germany, Japan, Canada and Australia would be invited as well with the objective of "evolving an international consensus".

Qureshi said that Pakistan also wanted to invite a high-level delegation of Afghanistan to interact with the visiting dignitaries and apprise them of the latest on-ground situation.

He noted that senior officials of the respective countries would be meeting prior to the session and officials of the OIC Secretariat would be arriving earlier around Dec 1 to oversee the preparations.

Qureshi said the idea of holding the session on Afghanistan emerged during the meeting between Prime Minister Imran Khan and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Riyadh on the sideline of the Green Summit in October.

As Afghanistan was a founding OIC member, he said it was discussed that the Ummah should make efforts to steer it out of the difficult situation. Qureshi thanked Saudi Minister of Foreign Affairs Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud for taking a "keen interest" to achieve consensus on the issue.

Qureshi stressed that abandoning Afghanistan would be a "historic blunder and the world should learn from the past instead of repeating the same mistake".

“If timely attention is not paid, a new crisis can emerge which would bring in instability. This instability will beget mass exodus of refugees. We are already hosting 3m Afghan refugees and it will be difficult to host anymore. The countries like Iran, Tajikistan, and other bordering countries are also similarly concerned,” he said.

The foreign minister also told the media he would meet the EU high representative and EU parliamentarians in Brussels on Dec 7 to apprise them on Afghanistan's situation.

Qureshi said after the withdrawal of troops and the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan, India had launched a campaign to sanction Pakistan by blaming it for the Afghan situation. "However, due to its effective foreign policy, Pakistan thwarted all such Indian designs," the foreign minister added.

He said the international community had been convinced in the wake of Pakistan's diplomatic outreach that engagement with Afghanistan was in everyone’s interest as delegates had started visiting the country.

The foreign minister added that in collaboration with China, a platform of six neighboring countries was also formed to discuss the situation and explore opportunities after the revival of peace in Afghanistan.

Qureshi also highlighted that Pakistan was already assisting Afghans by dispatching medicines, 50,000 tons of wheat and other relief items. He added that India was also allowed to transport wheat through Pakistan.

Indian agriculture to face investment crunch

Repeal of agriculture laws in India aimed at deregulating produce markets will starve its vast farm sector of much-needed private investment and saddle the government with budget-sapping subsidies for years.

Late last year, the government headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi introduced three laws meant to open up agriculture markets to companies and attract private investment, triggering India's longest-running protest by farmers who said the reforms would allow corporations to exploit them.

With an eye on a critical election in populous Uttar Pradesh state early next year, Modi agreed to rescind the laws in November, hoping to smooth relations with the powerful farm lobby which sustains nearly half the country's 1.3 billion people and accounts for about 15% of the US$2.7 trillion economy.

But by shelving the most ambitious overhaul in decades, Modi's backtracking now seemingly rules out much-needed upgrades of the creaky post-harvest supply chain to cut wastage, spur crop diversification, and boost farmers' incomes.

"This is not good for agriculture, this is not good for India," said Gautam Chikermane, a senior economist and vice president at New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation.

"All incentives to shift towards a more efficient, market-linked system (in agriculture) have been smothered."

The u-turn does allay farmers' fears of losing the minimum price system for basic crops, which growers say guarantees India's grain self-sufficiency.

"It appears the government realized that there's merit in the farmers' argument that opening up the sector would make them vulnerable to large companies, hammer commodities prices and hit farmers' income," said Devinder Sharma, a farm policy expert who has supported the growers' movement.

But the grueling year-long standoff also means no political party will attempt any similar reforms for at least a quarter-century, Chikermane said.

And, in the absence of private investment, "inefficiencies in the system will continue to deliver wastage and food will continue to rot," he warned.

India ranks 101 out of 116 countries on the Global Hunger Index, with malnutrition accounting for 68% of child deaths.

Yet it wastes around 67 million tons of food every year, worth about US$12.25 billion - nearly five times that of most large economies - according to various studies.

Inadequate cold-chain storage, shortages of refrigerated trucks and insufficient food processing facilities are the main causes of waste.

The farm laws promised to allow private traders, retailers and food processors to buy directly from farmers, bypassing more than 7,000 government-regulated wholesale markets where middlemen's commissions and market fees add to consumer costs.

Ending the rule that food must flow through the approved markets would have encouraged private participation in the supply chain, giving both Indian and global companies incentives to invest in the sector, traders and economists said.

"The agriculture laws would have removed the biggest impediment to large-scale purchases of farm goods by big corporations," said Harish Galipelli, Director at ILA Commodities India, which trades farm goods. "And that would have encouraged corporations to bring investment to revamp and modernize the whole food supply chain."

Galipelli's firm will now have to re-evaluate its plans.

"We have had plans to scale up our business," said Galipelli. "We would have expanded had the laws stayed."

Other firms specializing in warehousing, food processing and trading are also expected to review their expansion strategies, he said.

Poor post-harvest handling of produce also causes prices of perishables to yo-yo in India. Only three months ago, farmers dumped tomatoes on the road as prices crashed, but now consumers are paying a steep 100 rupees (US$1.34) a kilogram.

The laws would have helped the $34 billion food processing sector grow exponentially, according to the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), an industry group.

Demand for fruits and vegetables would have gone up. And that would have cut surplus rice and wheat output, slicing bulging stocks of the staples worth billions of dollars in state warehouses, economists said.

"Crop diversification would also have helped rein in subsidy spending and narrow the fiscal deficit," said Sandip Das, a New Delhi-based researcher and farm policy analyst.

Food Corporation of India (FCI), the state crop procurement agency, racked up a record US$51.83 billion in debt by last fiscal year, alarming policymakers and inflating the country's food subsidy bill to a record US$70.16 billion in the year to March 2021.

However, while the federal government now has limited scope for change, local authorities "can opt for reforms provided they have the political will to do so," said Bidisha Ganguly, an economist at CII.

Similarly, venture capital-funded startups have also expressed interest in India's agriculture sector.

"Agritech, if it is allowed to take root, has the potential to enable a better handshake of farmers and consumers through their technological platforms," Chikermane said.

Lithuania seeks EU help against China

Lithuania’s dispute with China escalated after local media reported that goods from some of its companies were barred from entering Chinese ports. Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis described the move as ‘unannounced sanctions’ and said Lithuania will seek assistance from the European Commission to solve the issue. 

It is “unprecedented when one EU member state is being partially sanctioned,” he said.

Local media reported that some of the Baltic nation’s forestry and furniture goods are being held up at ports after Lithuania was deleted from China’s electronic customs declarations system early this month. Lithuania hasn’t received any official comment on the matter from China.

The European Commission said it’s in contact with Lithuania and the EU’s delegation in Beijing to verify the information.

“We’ve been informed that Lithuanian shipments are not being cleared through Chinese customs and import applications are being rejected,” said Nabila Massrali, a Commission spokesperson.

Less than 1% of Lithuania’s exports go to China and the decision should have “no fundamental impact” on its economy, Finance Minister Gintare Skaiste said.

Tensions between China and Lithuania have been escalating since Taiwan opened a representative office in the Baltic nation’s capital last month, something Beijing deems disrespectful to Chinese sovereignty.

China recalled its ambassador and downgraded ties with Lithuania to the level of charge d’affaires. Lithuania says it respects the “one-China” principle.

China has officially downgraded its diplomatic ties with Lithuania after the Baltic state allowed Taiwan to open a de facto embassy in Vilnius.

China’s foreign ministry said in a statement that Lithuania had ignored China’s “solemn stance” and the basic norms of international relations in allowing Taiwan to set up its representative office.

China views self-ruled and democratically governed Taiwan as its own territory with no right to the trappings of a state and had earlier expelled the Lithuanian ambassador in protest against the growing ties between Vilnius and Taipei.

The move “undermined China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and grossly interfered in China’s internal affairs”, creating a “bad precedent internationally”, the ministry statement said, adding relations would be downgraded to the level of charge d’affaires, a rung below ambassador.

“We urge the Lithuanian side to correct its mistakes immediately and not to underestimate the Chinese people’s firm determination and staunch resolve to defend national sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

No matter what Taiwan does, it cannot change the fact that it is part of China, the ministry added.

Lithuania’s foreign ministry said it “regrets” China’s decision.

“Lithuania reaffirms its adherence to the ‘One China’ policy, but at the same time has the right to expand cooperation with Taiwan,” the ministry said in a statement.

The Taiwanese Representative Office in Lithuania opened on Thursday.

Other Taiwan offices in Europe and the United States use the name of the city Taipei, avoiding a reference to the island itself, something that has further angered Beijing.

Taiwan says it is an independent country called the Republic of China, its official name, and that the People’s Republic of China has never ruled it and has no right to speak for it.

Taiwan has been heartened by growing international support for it, especially from the US and some of its allies, in the face of China’s military and diplomatic pressure.

Washington has offered Vilnius support to withstand Chinese pressure, and Lithuania will sign a US$600 million export credit agreement with the US Export-Import Bank this week.

 

Iran presents draft proposals on sanctions removal

Iran's chief negotiator in the Vienna talks announced on Thursday that two draft texts containing Iran's proposals on sanctions removal and nuclear restrictions have been presented to the parties to the 2015 nuclear agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

"Logically, the other side should now examine these documents in order to get ready to enter into serious talks with Iran on the texts," Ali Bagheri Kani told Iranian media in the Austrian capital.

He voiced hope that the JCPOA parties will be able to review Iran's drafts and reach their conclusions about them "in the shortest time possible."

Bagheri also warned about efforts by non-parties to the agreement to derail current diplomatic work to revive the deal.

Earlier in the day, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett urged an "immediate halt to negotiations" with Iran and "the implementation of tough steps by the world powers" against Iran in a phone call with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Bennett's office said in a press release.

Israeli media had reported that the Israeli government has been contacting US and European officials over the past two weeks to provide its alleged intelligence that Iran would be taking steps to enrich uranium at a weapons-grade degree of purity.

Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), dismissed on Wednesday the claim that Iran would be enriching uranium at a 90-percent degree of purity, noting that the IAEA is the only monitoring institution with a presence at Iranian nuclear sites.

"There is no 90-percent enrichment at the moment in Iran. You have enrichment at five percent, you have enrichment at 20 percent, you have enrichment of 60 percent ... but we don't have any information about 90-percent enrichment," Grossi said in an interview with French state TV.

In his remarks to the press on Thursday, Bagheri said he warned his JCPOA counterparts on Wednesday about "the outlook and approach of actors outside the talks to negatively affect the negotiation process."

The current round of JCPOA talks resumed this week in Vienna after a nearly six-month pause, about three months after the current Iranian government took office in late August.

Representatives from Iran and the P4+1 group, namely Britain, China, France, Russia plus Germany, as well as the European Union, are seeking an agreement on the way to remove US sanctions on Iran, in exchange for the re-imposition of restrictions and enhanced international monitoring on Iran's nuclear program. 

 

Role of United States in Russia-Ukraine conflict

Joe Biden, President of the United States, said on Friday that his national security team is putting together a set of initiatives to make it very, very difficult for Russian President, Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine amid rising tensions on the border between both countries.

“I have been in constant contact with our allies in Europe, with the Ukrainians. My secretary of State, national security adviser have been engaged extensively and what I am doing is putting together what I believe will be the most comprehensive and meaningful set of initiatives to make it very, very difficult for Mr. Putin to go ahead and do what people are worried he may do,” Biden told reporters Friday when asked about the situation.

“That’s in play right now,” he added.

Biden did not elaborate on the initiatives his administration is working to craft. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Thursday threatened coordinated sanctions on Russia if it does not reverse its military buildup on the border with Ukraine.

White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki later told reporters that the administration is engaged in consultations with European allies and with Congress to make sure that we are prepared should Putin invade Ukraine.

“There is a range of tools at our disposal,” Psaki said, noting specifically that economic sanctions are an option, though she underscored that actions would be coordinated with allies and with Congress. 

Psaki also indicated that additional security assistance to Ukraine was under consideration, but declined to further elaborate. 

“Ukraine is in no way posing a threat to Russia, or seeking a confrontation that would justify a Russian military intervention. The only threat is that of renewed Russian aggression toward Ukraine,” Blinken said at a press conference in Stockholm.

Russia has amassed some 90,000 troops on the border with Ukraine, leading to fears about Moscow preparing to invade the country.

Biden and Putin are expected to speak sometime in the near future, though the White House has not given a specific timeline for the call. The two leaders held their first in-person meeting in Geneva over the summer.

“We have been engaged on the possibility of that,” Psaki said, noting the White House would release more details if the call happens. 

Israel making attempts to derail JCPOA revival process

The United States and Iran on Monday held their seventh round of indirect talks as part of efforts to return to the 2015 nuclear deal. The talks came more than five months after the countries' last discussion in Vienna.

The Biden administration is stressing that diplomacy with Iran is the last, best chance to box in their nuclear ambitions and prevent Tehran from building a weapon of mass destruction.

Officials have played down reports that they are considering an interim deal with Iran, or talks outside the parameters of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the formal name for the 2015 deal.

“Our objective has not changed, it remains a mutual return to full compliance with the JCPOA, this is the best available option to restrict Iran’s nuclear program and provide a platform to address Iran’s destabilizing conduct,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Monday.

“We're working with our European partners in lockstep, and of course we are going to continue to press for the diplomatic approach.” 

Enrique Mora, the European Union’s lead negotiator on the nuclear talks, said he felt “extremely positive” at the conclusion of the first round of discussions on Monday. 

“There is clearly a will on all the delegations to listen to the Iranian positions brought by the new team. And there is clearly a will for the Iranian delegation to engage in serious work and bring JCPOA back to life,” Mora said. “So I feel positive that we can be doing important things for the next weeks to come.” 

Former President Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018. President Biden, in contrast, has said he is intent on reviving the JCPOA.

A State Department spokesperson told The Hill that there were no updates following the conclusion of the discussions on Monday but said, “If Iran returns to Vienna ready to focus on the handful of unresolved issues from the sixth round, we can quickly reach and implement an understanding on mutual return. Otherwise, we are risking crisis.”

Republicans and Israel remain firmly opposed to the deal, saying it fails to stop Iran from ever achieving a nuclear weapon and does not address its other destabilizing activity in the region.

“Iran deserves no rewards, no bargain deals and no sanctions relief in return for their brutality,” Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said in a statement on Monday. “I call upon our allies around the world: Do not give in to Iran's nuclear blackmail.”

State Department deputy spokesperson Jalina Porter on Monday said the administration would not comment on the report, but said “enrichment to 90 percent, obviously, would be a provocative act.”

There’s also concern over Iran’s blocking inspectors with the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from key nuclear facilities, in particular in the city of Karaj where Iran has reportedly begun producing centrifuges used to enrich uranium. 

IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi raised concerns last week with the IAEA’s 35-country board of governors that Iran’s obstruction of nuclear inspections risks its ability to return to the JCPOA. 

Elisa Ewers, adjunct senior fellow with the Center for a New American Security’s Middle East Security program, said in a statement that Iran's return to Vienna is a signal it takes the IAEA warning seriously. 

“This suggests Iranian efforts to avoid increased pressure and buy time,” she said. “...This denial of monitoring access has been one of Iran’s more concerning steps in recent months.”

Iranian officials say they will only return to the JCPOA if the US lifts all of the estimated 1,500 sanctions imposed after Trump withdrew from the deal, and ensures that successive presidents cannot tear up the agreement with a change of administrations. 

“The United States still fails to properly understand the fact that there is no way to return to the JCPOA without verifiable and effective lifting of all sanctions imposed on the Iranian nation after the US departure,” Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said in a statement Monday. 

While the Biden administration has said it is prepared to lift sanctions that are “inconsistent” with the deal, many of the Trump-era sanctions targeted Iranian institutions, entities and people under other authorities related to counterterrorism and human rights. 

Iran also arrived in Vienna with a new negotiating team in place, under the leadership of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, the conservative, hard-liner elected in August, who is under US sanctions for human rights abuses.

Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow focused on Iran at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the Islamic Republic has arrived in Vienna from a position of strength, with a new administration that has demonstrated increased willingness to greatly exceed the limits of the JCPOA.

“This situation of greater nuclear capability and less nuclear monitoring is designed to force Washington into providing upfront and direct sanctions relief,” Taleblu said. 

“The team at the helm today in Iran are ultra-hardliners who are more comfortable with escalation and their assessment that they can outlive any potential ‘Plan-B’ pressure track by the Biden administration. All of this will impact Iran's negotiating strategy making any agreement less likely and less valuable than before. After all, Iran's nuclear program in 2021 cannot be addressed by a deal that was deficient by the standards of 2015 or 2013.”

Ewers, of CNAS, said given Iran’s maximalist demands and its new team in place, expectations are low for what can be achieved in the first session. 

“A good outcome would be a quick resurrection of the work that was done between April and June, where some progress was made on hashing out what a mutual return to compliance would look like,” she continued. “But this would require the new Iranian delegation to be ready to deal. That’s increasingly doubtful.”

Supporters of the JCPOA are raising concern the deal remains the best course of action for both the US and Iran, with sanctions relief shown to be a key incentive for Iran to adhere to the strict limits and intrusive inspections outlined in the deal, while also avoiding a dangerous military confrontation, even as the Biden administration has shown greater coordination with Israel and Gulf nations. 

"Close cooperation with US allies in the region to put pressure on Iran won't produce a fundamentally different result than what the Trump administration attempted and produced the worst of all words: an Iranian nuclear program that is now closer to nuclear weapons than ever and an Iran that is more aggressive in the region and more repressive at home,” said Ali Vaez, Iran project director and senior adviser to the president for the International Crisis Group. 

“Plan B options range from unattractive to ugly. That's why both sides need more flexibility to save Plan A, which remains the least costly option for both sides.” 

Israeli military readying Plan B to counter Iran

After a five-month pause in talks between the United States and Iran is set to resume on Monday, with the other parties to the nuclear deal mediating in hope of reestablishing an agreement to curb the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions.

The defense establishment does not see a war breaking out with Iran or its proxies, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, but the IDF has been keeping an eye on the North and on the South. It held large-scale exercises in the North in October and November, and there are plans to hold 50% more drills next year than in 2020, and 30% more than in 2021.

The increased exercises set for 2022 follows years of stagnation, and will be the largest training operation in five years, especially for reserve forces. Following the signing of the Abraham Accords, the IDF has also begun conducting drills with Gulf Arab states.

In a subtle message to Iran, Israel took part in a multilateral maritime security drill in the Red Sea with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and US Naval Forces Central Command’s (NAVCENT).

The drill in early November was the first of its kind, and showed what kind of naval coalition Israel might join should there be military action against Iran.

“It is exciting to see US forces training with regional partners to enhance our collective maritime security capabilities,” V-Adm. Brad Cooper, Commander of NAVCENT, US 5th Fleet and Combined Maritime Forces said. “Maritime collaboration helps safeguard freedom of navigation and the free flow of trade, which are essential to regional security and stability.”

There are also hints of an aerial coalition that could come together. Israeli jets recently escorted a B-1B strategic heavy bomber and KC-10 re-fuelers on their way to the Gulf. Jets from Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia also escorted those planes while flying through their respective airspace.

Israel’s Blue Flag air drills, which become more popular as the years go on, also provide a clue as to what other countries could fly alongside Israel when push comes to shove.

This year’s Blue Flag saw aircraft from Germany (six Eurofighters), Italy (five F-35 jets and five G550 planes), Britain (six Eurofighters), France (four Raphale jets), India (five Mirage jets), Greece (four F-16 jets), and the US (six F-16 CJ jets) take part.

During the drill, forces practiced aerial battle as well as surface-to-air battle scenarios, advanced surface-to-air missiles combat outlines in enemy territory, and more.

The exercise focused on “broadening and enhancing the operational capabilities of the participating forces,” with a focus on air-to-air and air-to-ground attacks, as well as evading ground-based air defense systems “and various operational scenarios in enemy territory,” the army said at the time of the drill.

While Israel has never joined a regional military coalition, Marom Division commander Col. Aviran Lerer told The Jerusalem Post that there could be a time that Jerusalem might be part of such a partnership.

Lerer, who spoke to The Post after a two-week drill with 500 troops from NAVCENT’s 51/5th Marine Expeditionary Brigade, said that the IDF has to be ready to fight with other troops.

The drill, he said, was to strengthen ties with Israel’s main ally and the Marines who “are a significant force in the US military with whom we have a lot of shared interests. The United States always fights as a coalition, and it could be that will be part of a future coalition. We, as an army, have to do everything we can to be ready for a future conflict; we see the Americans as a strategic ally, and there could be a time when we will work and fight together.”

While Israel’s diplomats are working around the clock to influence the United States, the UK and France on the Iran talks, Defense Minister Benny Gantz said that the “best-case scenario” would be a deal that not only focuses on uranium enrichment but also on Tehran’s ballistic missile program and its regional hostility.

“Concerning Iran, we must influence our partners and have ongoing discussion with them,” Gantz said. “Our other obligation is to build a military force, which is an important issue by itself. I ordered the military to improve its force build-up, in parallel to our discussions with our strategic partners.”

Has the US crossed red line warning on Taiwan?

The Biden administration has announced its intention to walk over China’s red line warning on Taiwan. The move by the United States has been termed a reckless provocative step that dares an inevitable military response from Beijing.

If that happens then all bets are off for a full-scale military confrontation between the United States, its allies, and China.

Australia and Britain are explicitly committed to a military alliance with the United States in the Asia-Pacific through the recently formed AUKUS pact. Russia will be obliged to defend China.

The date in question is December 9-10 when the Biden administration plays host to a “Summit of Democracies”. The State Department announced a list of “participants” that include 110 countries. China and Russia are not invited, among other excluded nations.

Most provocatively, the separatist Chinese territory of Taiwan is invited to attend the video conference. The US is careful to refer to Taiwan as a “participant” not as a “nation”. Nevertheless, this semantically device aside, the invitation is a blatant violation of China’s sovereign claim of authority over Taiwan.

China’s claim to Taiwan as being a part of its integral territory is recognized by the United Nations and, at least in theory, by the United States with its One China Policy since 1979.

The island of Taiwan has existed as a self-governing territory since China’s civil war ended in 1949 with communist victory. The nationalist opponents fled to Taiwan. China retains the right to reunite Taiwan under governance from the mainland. Beijing has warned it will do so by military force if Taiwan ever declares independence.

Washington maintains a position of “strategic ambiguity” whereby it acknowledges a One China Policy while also simultaneously offering US commitments to help Taiwan with military defence.

Since Joe Biden took the White House in January, his administration has taken this ambiguity to dangerous levels. At one point, Biden has overstepped policy by explicitly stating the US would defend Taiwan in the event of a confrontation with China.

At a teleconference summit on November 16, China’s President Xi Jinping admonished US policy on Taiwan as “playing with fire”. Xi drew a red line that Washington must desist from inciting separatist ambitions of the Taiwanese government.

The announcement this week of the “Summit of Democracies” and specifically the invitation of Taiwan while excluding China is about as bold as it can get by the Biden administration in undermining China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. That it comes only days after a verbal commitment from Biden to Xi that the US adheres to One China Policy and is not seeking Taiwan’s independence makes the provocation all the more contemptuous.

Biden’s ratcheting up of tensions with China is not out of the blue. For more than a decade, successive administrations under Obama, Trump and now Biden have been targeting Beijing as its top national security threat. Washington continually accuses China of aggression in the Asia-Pacific which is an inversion of reality. Taiwan has become a spearhead for Washington to antagonize China with. Under this administration, arms sales to Taiwan have increased as well as US naval and air force maneuvers in the Taiwan Strait under the cynical pretext of “freedom of navigation operations”.

President Biden has made “democracy versus authoritarianism” a theme of his White House. Calling a summit of 110 participating countries for the summit on December 9-10 is an arrogant attempt to demarcate the world into a false dichotomy whereby presumed virtuous nations are under the benign leadership of the United States.

China has slammed the summit as an artificial polarization of nations into so-called allies and enemies in what is a throwback to the Cold War decades. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said this divisive manipulation of international relations is simply a ploy by the United States to exert its hegemonic ambitions.

China says it is not up to the United States to define what democracy is and what is not. Beijing asserts that “democracy belongs to all humanity”. It’s not just about holding cycles of elections. In the case of the United States, its “democracy” is dominated by two parties bankrolled by Wall Street capitalists and plutocrats. Its record on poverty, inequality, racism and warmongering is plentiful to roundly negate pretentious claims of “democracy”.

In any case, back in August when the Biden administration first announced its plans for a “democracy summit” Beijing warned Washington not to use the forum to incite Taiwanese tensions. If the US persisted, China said it would order military planes and warships to Taiwan.

There is an unmistakable sense that China has had it with US provocations. The mainland has been making military preparations for a showdown over Taiwan. This insane move by Washington to call a “summit of democracies” – how bitterly ironic – could well be the final act of American treachery. War is on the cards and we just got a date.

Oil prices take a nose dive

Oil prices experienced one of their worst trading days in recent memory on Friday, plunging across the board by more than 10% on fears that a new COVID-19 variant discovered in Southern Africa might dampen economic growth and trigger another demand slump.

Following the spectacular failure of the SPR release, which instead of depressing prices ratcheted them up higher, renewed COVID-19 concerns have now brought about President Biden’s objective.

OPEC+ might still have a say in this, with the group's December 02 meeting, potentially resulting in a reduction in production targets for 2022. 

Despite repeated talks with the US government, China has pushed back against President Biden’s calls to “do more” and stated it would coordinate its own releases of strategic stocks according to its needs, cooling down the enthusiasm of market bears.

OPEC expects a release of oil stocks by majors consumers to significantly increase a global glut in the next few months, an OPEC source said, just over a week before a meeting to decide immediate output policy.

The outlook might complicate decision-making for the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and allies, a grouping known as OPEC+, although several sources said there has been no discussion yet on pausing planned production increases.

OPEC's Economic Commission Board (ECB), a panel of experts that advises ministers, met this week ahead of the OPEC+ ministerial meeting on December 02. The ECB expects the oil release to swell a surplus in the oil market by 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd). OPEC has warned in recent days of the expected supply excess in remaining days of 2021.

It expects a 400,000 bpd surplus in December 2021, expanding to 2.3 million bpd in January 2022 and 3.7 million bpd in February if consumer nations go ahead with the release, the source said.

On Tuesday, US President Joe Biden's administration said it would release 50 million barrels of oil from strategic reserves in coordination with smaller releases from Britain, China, India, South Korea and Japan, to try to cool prices after OPEC+ ignored calls to pump more.

Biden was frustrated after OPEC+ shrugged off his repeated requests to pump more oil. Retail US gasoline prices are up more than 60% in the last year, the fastest rate of increase since 2000.

Goldman Sachs estimated the total size of the release at 70 million or 80 million barrels, less than one day's worth of global consumption, describing it as a "a drop in the ocean".

OPEC+ has been increasing output targets by 400,000 bpd every month since August, saying those volumes were sufficient because of the expected oil market surplus next year.

Some market analysts, including JP Morgan, have suggested OPEC could slow down output increases after the release of stocks by major consumers.

OPEC+ has not yet started any discussions on a planned output hike in January 2022 and Iraq's oil minister said on Thursday OPEC+ should stick to its existing plan.