Can Pakistan play a role in defusing Saudi-Iran conflict?

The Arab League and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) emergency summits called by Saudi Arabia are to be held on Thursday, a day before the long-scheduled OIC summit. It is not yet clear how many countries will take part in the emergency gatherings, but Qatar which has been boycotted by a Saudi-led alliance has been invited to attend the GCC meeting.

Riyadh cut diplomatic ties with Tehran in 2016 after protesters stormed Saudi diplomatic missions in Iran following its execution of a prominent Shia cleric. The OIC summit will address "current issues in the Muslim world" and "recent developments in a number of OIC member states", the official agenda states. Saudi Arabia and its allies have repeatedly accused Iran of interfering in the affairs of other countries, including Bahrain, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, by supporting and arming fighters.

Qatar has grown closer to Iran, while Kuwait has expressed concern over Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. Oman, which has good ties with both Iran and the United States, has said it and other parties "seek to calm tensions" between the two countries. Ahead of the summits, Iran's top diplomats have been touring the region, including Iraq, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar. Iran, which shares a border with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Turkey, also has good relations with Ankara and Islamabad.

I am obliged to refer to an Editorial  published in one of Pakistan’s leading English newspaper and Dawn on 26th May 2019 that needs to be read by all Pakistanis very carefully and dispassionately. I have often asserted that Pakistan’s neighbors are turning hostile because the successive governments have been following the US foreign policy agenda, without taking into account the deprecations.

Dawn has rightly highlighted the need for serious deliberations because of the threat of a catastrophic conflict between the US and Iran looming larger over the region. It is encouraging that the incumbent government appears to be making a considerable diplomatic effort to defuse simmering tensions between the two countries.

On last Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif concluded his two-day trip to Pakistan with an encouraging message from Pakistan’s civil and military leadership — that maximum restraint must be exercised in the prevailing situation as any conflict in an already volatile region could threat global peace and stability. Zarif expressed his satisfaction with Pakistan’s view that US pressure on Iran was unjustified. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi also emphasized the need for a resolution of the crisis through dialogue.

It is evident from Zarif’s comments as well as Prime Minister Imran Khan’s earlier visit to Tehran that the incumbent government is making an effort to avoid taking sides. It is by no means an easy situation, given Pakistan’s relationship with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), both have been generous in extending monetary support to Pakistan. The situation becomes even more difficult to handle, when there is internal and external pressure.

In 2015, parliament’s decision against sending troops to support the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen was a brave step but the current scenario could test the limits of that position. Pakistan’s relationship with Saudi Arabia runs deep. The countries also enjoy strategic and military cooperation. If the warm reception and vows of solidarity during the Saudi crown prince’s February visit are anything to go by, it will not be easy to stay neutral in the face of a request for support from Riyadh.

In this situation, the guiding principle should be to resist any external pressure in the best interest of the country as well as the region. Pakistan has successfully avoided supporting any side during Iran-Iraq war and the ongoing Yemen conflict. Therefore, Pakistan must remain steadfast in protecting its own interests, while making the best efforts to resolve the conflict between the two Muslim countries.

Islamabad should use whatever little influence it has on Iran to demonstrate that it (Iran) is not directly involved in the Yemeni conflict. Or, if the OIC countries push for a strong anti-Iran stance, Pakistan must articulate its position in a way that is not offensive, while pointing out that the ultimate beneficiary of a war would be Israel. A diplomatic approach would involve a proactive move to counsel its warring allies and make note of positive statements coming from Washington or Tehran.

With strained relationships with two of its immediate but hostile neighbors, India and Afghanistan, Pakistan cannot afford another war in the region. If US-Iran conflict breaks into war, it could put Pakistan’s security into serious jeopardy.

Sheldon Adelson: Jackpot for Israel

A bet on Donald Trump for president may have seemed risky two years ago, but for billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the payout has been spectacular. Adelson (85-year old) and his wife Miriam gave around US$82 million to Republicans and candidate Trump in 2016, and within two years his two major asks were met: moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and withdrawing of US from Iran nuclear deal.

This was accomplished in consultation with Adelson comprador John Bolton, who in December 2016 promised members of the American Friends of Beit El that Trump would not only move the embassy by declaring Jerusalem the true capital of Israel, but he would not oppose any Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank territories. Adelson is also credited with opening the door for Bolton’s appointment to national security adviser in March

Adelson has enjoyed a direct line to Trump, speaking with him in person and on the phone at least once a month. Most recently, he was able to convince the president to cut off US aid to Palestinian refugees living in crowded, dirty, and unrelentingly hopeless refugee camps outside Israel. Around the same time, Trump withdrew US$25 million in assistance from impoverished East Jerusalem hospitals that also serve Palestinian cancer patients allowed in from the West Bank and Gaza for treatment.

Of course, Adelson’s pro Zionist agenda, which includes expanding the settlements as far as they can go most recently, is pouring his money into a huge new Israeli medical university on one of those settlements, in sync with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud party. It’s been a great year for all involved.

For the first time in recent presidential history, there is no pretense of peace with the Arabs. Trump’s endorsement of a two-state solution at the recent United Nations General Assembly in September may have appeared hopeful, but it was as lame as it was patronizing. “I like two state solutions,” Trump offered spontaneously, posing for smiling photographs with Netanyahu. “That’s what I think works best. That’s my feeling.”

For someone who supposedly has a “peace plan” but hasn’t announced it after two years in office, his “feelings” are as worthless as poker chips outside a casino. Maybe that’s why Bibi didn’t offer much of a response. After declaring he would consider Trump’s non-existent plan “with a keen and open mind,” Netanyahu reiterated that any Palestinian state endorsed by Israel will be an unarmed one, not really a state at all.

Not long after Adelson, Netanyahu also encouraged Trump to stop all funding (an estimated US$300 million allocated in 2018) from a UN agency tasked since 1950 with providing aid for Palestinian refugees, Trump abruptly closed the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) offices in Washington, the only diplomatic conduit between the US and the Palestinian National Authority. The reason given was “PLO leadership has condemned a US peace plan they have not yet seen and refused to engage with the US government with respect to peace efforts and otherwise.”

Trump’s point man for the peace plan is none other than his son-in-law Jared Kushner, whose family has generously supported the aforementioned Beit El settlement and is old friends with Netanyahu. Kushner was the primary agitator behind yanking the refugee funding, calling the aid entitlement program and withholding of it a punishment for Palestinian leaders who vilify the administration.

More cynically, reports indicate he is merely helping Israel end right of return for Palestinians and their kin displaced during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Similarly, the embassy move was designed to take the contested issue of Jerusalem off the table. Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s government just passed a nation-state law that declares Israel a Jewish state, one that affirms Jewish settlements and the right to self-determination for Israeli Jews only, codifying, in essence, that 1.8 million Arabs living there are second-class citizens. This loads the dice before the games even begin.

Only people like Kushner and Adelson, who at a net worth of US$42.5 billion is the 16th richest man on the planet, would see withholding food, education, and healthcare as way of disappearing a problem to gain leverage in future negotiations. Only Trump would consider that the art of the deal.

Western Media is Key to Syria Deception

In the past, I have often termed western media ‘dishonest’. Today, I refer to an elaborate work of Jonathan Cook, lately published by "Information Clearing House" to substantiate my assertion. He has referred to the claim recently made by al-Qaeda-linked fighters that they were targeted with chemical weapons by the Syrian government in Idlib province – their final holdout in Syria.

It is known to all that the US and other western governments enthusiastically picked up such claims, which lack credibility.  This particular news also lacked authenticity because no evidence has yet been produced to confirm the jihadists’ claims. Syrian government is poised to defeat these al-Qaeda groups without resort to chemical weapons – and without provoking the predictable ire (yet again) of the west.

Public has all the reason to doubt the credibility of this statement at a time they have learnt that the last supposed major chemical attack – which took place in April 2018 and was, as ever, blamed by all western sources on Syria’s president, Bashar Assad – was a false-flag operation by those very al-Qaeda groups now claiming the Syrian government has attacked them once again.

Most astounding in this week’s coverage of the claims made by al-Qaeda groups is the fact that the western media continues to refuse to learn any lessons, develop any critical distance from the sources it relies on, even as those sources have repeatedly deceived it.

This was true after the failure to find WMD in Iraq, and it is now even truer after the international community’s monitoring body on chemical weapons, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), was exposed this month as deeply dishonest.

It is bad enough that warmongering governments and their expert institutions deceive and lie. But it is even worse that the corporate media is addicted to such content to promote its importance. The conviction that the western media is dishonest is getting stronger with each passing day.

US Warmongering on Iran Showing Cracks

According to reports, Exxon was forced to withdraw some 80 staff from Iraq’s oil-rich Basra over ostensible Iranian threats to US interests in the fallout from Washington’s attempt to provoke Tehran.

Now the acting US Defense Secretary is saying, vaguely, that the threat of attacks by Iran has been “put on hold” thanks to US counter measures, while Trump has wavered back and forth about his intentions, based on criticism coming from the Democratic camp.

The dishonest western media continue to say that Saudis are lobbying for a war and Yemen’s Houthis are happy to oblige, claiming to have launched an armed drone at the Najran airport in Saudi Arabia. The tinted media also say that it is not the first time Houthis have targeted this airport, which is right on the Saudi-Yemen border and is an easy target.
In the meantime, Iraqi are furious on Exxon’s evacuation of staff, calling it “unacceptable and unwarranted”. Iraqi also claim that the southern part of their country is peaceful and secure and other oil companies (Lukoil, BP, Eni) have made no similar move and also have not expressed any intent.

Reasonably, Iraq is worried about the false message being sent to the investors and the market in general.

Iraq also says that 19th May 2019 rocket attack aiming Green Zone has served to ratchet up tensions further. The attack was being headlined in the media as “near the US Embassy in Baghdad”. This headline is grabbing ploy because the attack occurred a mile away from the embassy, suggesting that the embassy was clearly not the target.

The only significance of the attack was that it was the first in the Green Zone in some 8 months, but there were no casualties, and authorities know little about the nature of the attack, other than that the rocket was fired from an open field and may have been fired from Eastern Baghdad, where there are known Iranian militias.

Overtures and Confrontations between United States and Iran

I am an ardent reader of the proceedings of ‘United States Institute of Peace’, particularly on Iran. Today, I am referring to a few snapshots of its recent release on Iran. 

I want my readers to read the briefs but also keep two points in minds: 1) since Islamic revolution in Iran, US has emerged as its worst enemy and 2) every failed attempt to ‘change the regime in Iran’ adds to US frustration and desperation.

Keeping Iran under ‘stringent economic sanctions’ has not weakened it, on the contrary, Iran has emerged the biggest resistance in the creation of ‘US hegemony in the Arabian Peninsula’.

According to United States Institute of Peace, “Half of American adults expect the US to go to war with Iran “within the next few years.”  In a survey conducted by Reuters of a representative sample of 1,007 adults were asked a series of questions from May 17-20 amid heightened tensions between Washington and Tehran. Some 53 percent of adults considered Iran a “serious” or “imminent” threat. But only 12 percent said US forces should conduct a preemptive attack on Iranian military interests.” 

Since the 1979 revolution, Washington and Tehran have gyrated between hostile actions and diplomatic overtures. Relations have never recovered from the seizure of the US Embassy and 52 diplomats. The US attempted military action to end the drama but eventually turned to diplomacy. Since then, the Islamic Republic has been linked, directly or indirectly, to the deaths of hundreds of Americans, while the US has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Iranians. Yet both countries have also dabbled in bold outreach, with mixed results.  

Lately, Acting US Defense Secretary, Patrick Shanahan has reiterated that the US does not want to go to war with Iran. On May 21, he told reporters that recent US moves have deterred attacks on US interests in the Middle East. “Our biggest focus at this point is to prevent Iranian miscalculation,” he said.

US lawmakers have been divided over what to do next to deal with the escalating tensions between the US and Iran. The split is largely along partisan lines. Democrats voiced concern that the Trump administration was leading the US into a new Middle East war. Republicans largely denied that the administration sought war with Iran but emphasized that the US would respond forcefully if its forces in the Middle East were attacked.  

A peep into recent history indicates President Trump’s election produced dramatic change in US policy in 2017. The US withdrew from the nuclear deal with Iran and the word’s major powers in May 2018. The Trump administration has been following a “maximum pressure campaign” to press Iran to change its policies and negotiate a more comprehensive deal.

Since taking office, Trump has taken an increasingly aggressive posture toward Iran. The tone was set less than two weeks into Trump’s presidency when then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn responded to an Iranian missile test. “The Obama Administration failed to respond adequately to Tehran’s malign actions—including weapons transfers, support for terrorism, and other violations of international norms,” he said. “As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice.” 

The recent attacks on ships near a UAE port provided the US an opportunity to accumulate its troops, naval ships and aircrafts closer to Iran to warn of a preemptive attack. Though, both Washington and Tehran have been saying ‘we do not want a war’, it is feared that any adventurous move by any of the proxies could ignite a spark enough to break a war between two mind sets, Zionist and Islamisit.

Exempting Iranian Chabahar Port from US economic sanctions

It seems certain that the United States will not impose any sanctions on movement of Afghan transit goods through Iranian port Chabahar. This exemption will be aimed at consolidating Afghan-Indian economic relations.

The port has been constructed with the Indian assistance to boost trade between one of the largest regional economies, India, and landlocked and war ridden Afghanistan.

The exemption will be aimed at facilitating Afghanistan in reducing its dependence on Pakistan. If a contrary decision is made, it will increase the transit costs of Indian commodities and put further restrictions on Afghan merchants.

Some analysts believe reveal that imposing sanctions on Iran as the most secured and less expensive access route for Afghanistan implies imposing sanctions on Afghanistan as well.

As far as the India is concerned, the significant point is that the India’s commodities to be transit to Afghanistan are not extensive and voluminous enough to rationalize marine and road transportation expenses and to create a significant growth in India’s balance of trade.

Indian analysts are of the view that bearing in mind the trade volume of Afghanistan, Russia and Central Asian countries which altogether are more than 16 million tons and the insignificant share of Afghanistan, it could be concluded that without making possible the transportation of all India’s merchandise to above mentioned countries through Chabahar Port, the exemption of this port will not make any noticeable change in India’s trade.

Therefore, Chabahar Port’s exemption will only be a competitive advantage for India, if all Indian merchandise toward Afghanistan, Russia and Central Asian countries could be transported through Chabahar Port without any restriction in banking and insurance transactions.

The noteworthy point about Afghanistan is that the exemption of Chabahar Port will only be fruitful, if there is no restriction on entering and leaving Chabahar Port for vessels carrying Afghanistan’s merchandise; as well as commercial transactions of cargo owners, merchants and shipping lines, particularly banking transactions are done without limitation.

Pakistan grants oil exploration license to Kuwaiti firm

The Government of Pakistan (GoP) has granted the license for exploration of oil in the Makhad block to a subsidiary of Kuwait Foreign Petroleum Exploration Company.

According to the details, the GoP has executed an Exploration License (EL) as well as a Petroleum Concession Agreement (PCA) signed by Petroleum Division Secretary Mian Asad Hayauddin and Qazi Mohammad Saleem Siddiqui, Director General, Petroleum Concessions, and CEO of Kuwait Foreign Petroleum Exploration Company (KUFPEC) at a ceremony also attended by Federal Minister for Petroleum, Omar Ayub Khan.

On the occasion, the Petroleum Minister said that "the execution of PCA and EL will attract foreign investment in the petroleum sector and bridge the demand and supply gap in the energy sector."

Khan further said that the efforts will bear fruit in future years in the form of hydrocarbon reserves.

The Makhad block, is situated in Attock, Mianwali and Chakwal in Punjab as well as Kohat in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. It is said to be spread over 1,562.92 square kilometers.

Kufpec will invest at least US$9.8 million in the block. Apart from the minimum firm work commitment, the company is also obligated to spend a minimum of US$30,000 per year in Makhad block on social welfare schemes.

Israel’s role in Iran-United States conflict

The worst happening in the Arabian Peninsula is a war being waged by the Trump administration on Iran.  The financial terrorism and economic sabotage already inflicted on Iran by the US can also be termed acts of war. Truly, it does not get any more serious than this colossal foreign policy fiasco. Once again, Israel has successfully hijacked the US Military, State Department and Intelligence Community to wage an unprovoked war on a sovereign state in the Middle East. It may not be wrong to say that this war-in-the-making is the culmination of a covert plan to advance the Greater Israel project. The logic is as follows:

This is illegal, reckless and catastrophic war because such misguided warmongering is aimed at triggering the World War III. The global crime syndicate known as the International Banking Cartel, which runs the perpetual war economy across the planet, knows that the end is very near for them.  The entire Global Economic and Financial System is teetering on the precipice of a total and final collapse.  Their only way out is war, Third World War to establish a totalitarian One World Government.

Iran has become the lynchpin in this insane scheme to plunge the world community of nations into chaos.  This is precisely why President Trump was ordered by his Zionist masters to form his stone-cold war cabinet of Bolton, Pompeo, Pence, Haspel, Abrams and Shanahan.  Each chronic warmonger was hand-picked by Israel to develop and implement the war plans necessary to conquer Iran.

About eight months back MEK supporters tell them they will overthrow Iran’s regime and celebrate in Tehran with Bolton himself present. One also has to look at the rapidly evolving events in the Mideast, especially in the regions surrounding Iran. It has been quite clear ever since Trump first declared his candidacy in June of 2015 that war against Iran was the very centerpiece of his foreign policy.  Every major foreign affairs decision has been made toward that end, including the intentionally failed military coup against Venezuela.

Even Trump’s decision to continue the war in Afghanistan was made in order to maintain that strategic location which shares a long border with Iran.  The US occupation of Syria also remains firmly in place despite several promises to withdraw all troops because of the planned war with Iran; so is the large U.S. military presence in Iraq contrary to that nation’s wishes.

Now the whole world is seeing just how much premeditation and stealth have gone into this ‘American war’ against Iran fought on strictly behalf of Israel.  Zionists have been planning this armed conflict for decades, and they know it must not fail.

These warmongers know that there’s a tried and tested way to start any regional war, especially one that needs to capture the full support of the American people.  They will raise a false flag of terrorist attack on American assets somewhere in the world that is inordinately vicious and provocative.  If not that, they will secretly stage a surprise attack on the US Navy in the Mideast which will immediately be blamed on Iran.  There’s also the distinct possibility of a false attack on Saudi Arabian oil tankers.

The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty provides the best example of how Israel might be used to stage this false flag operation. Netanyahu has already proven to be an arch enemy of the United States as demonstrated by his own words and he will do whatever it takes to deceive the U.S citizenry into supporting another odious war to advance the Greater Israel project.

Can European Union resist United States pressure to join war against Iran?

With bitter memories of the catastrophic war in Iraq, European Union (EU) members seem united in opposing the United States’ effort to provoke Iran into a shooting war. However, flat refusal to Washington appears a difficult decision for the EU members. Initially, Britain expressed that there was no enhanced threat from Iran in Iraq and Syria, but expected to change its opinion under the US pressure.

While Europeans were reluctant to confront Washington directly, Britain officially agreed with the Americans and Germany and the Netherlands suspended their troop training in Iraq. Germany subsequently said it was planning to resume the training exercises.

“Every single European government believes that the increased threat we’re seeing from Iran now is a reaction to the United States leaving the Iran nuclear agreement and trying to force Iranian capitulation on other issues,” said Kori Schake, a former Pentagon official who is now deputy director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “They believe that the U.S. is the provocateur and they worry that the U.S. is reacting so stridently to predictable Iranian actions in order to provide a pretext for a U.S. attack on Iran,” Ms. Schake said.

“It is different from the debate preceding 2003 Iraq war, which split Europe in two,” said Tomas Valasek, the director of Carnegie Europe and a former Slovak ambassador to NATO. “This is a case of all European governments saying to Washington that this is insane, we shouldn’t be here, and it’s your fault that we’re actually talking of war.”

The Europeans are trapped between Trump and Tehran, trying to keep decent relations with Washington while committed to supporting the 2015 Iran nuclear deal that Trump mocked and then abandoned. Senior European government officials say they believe that Trump does not want a major war in the Middle East, but they also believe that Bolton does. They often cite a New York Times opinion article by Bolton in 2015, when he said “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.”

European officials are puzzled by Trump’s insistence that he simply wants to force Iran into new negotiations. Ms. Schake has rightly raised two question: “Why, would Tehran concede or even value any deal done with the president who just abandoned a nuclear deal so painfully negotiated with the last American president? “Why would they trust us now after Trump pulled the plug on the last thing they negotiated with Washington?”

The public position of European officials has been “maximum restraint,” that is opposite to Washington’s stated policy of “maximum pressure” on Tehran, including economic sanctions designed to block its international trade, especially in oil, on which the economy depends.

Foreign ministers, including Britain’s Jeremy Hunt and Germany’s Heiko Maas — have spoken about the dangers of escalation and accidental war. “We are very worried about the risk of a conflict happening by accident with an escalation that is unintended,” said Hunt.

Maas told German legislators that putting intense pressure on Iran added to the risk of an unintended escalation. “What has happened in recent days — acts of sabotage against ships or pipelines — are indications that these dangers are concrete and real,” he said, referring to reports that four oil vessels were recently attacked.

“The Iranians may have walked into a Washington hard-liner trap,” said Jeremy Shapiro, a former senior State Department official who is now research director for the European Council on Foreign Relations. “Iran as usual is sending messages and going up the escalator ladder one-eighth of a step at a time, through proxies,” he said. “They’re following the script. Iranian and US hard-liners have a toxic interaction and feed off each other.”

In the first gulf war, in 1990-91, the United States led a broad multinational coalition; in the second, in 2003, the European “coalition of the willing” was essentially reduced to Britain and Poland. Part of Europe’s skepticism is rooted in that 2003 war, when there were charges of fake or exaggerated intelligence, which continue to haunt the reputations of then-loyal European leaders, such as former Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and former President Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland.

“Every European politician who supported George W. Bush was taken out and effectively executed,” Shapiro said. “Even in the UK, no way there can be a repeat of that. If the US policy is in force, there will be no European support.”

But the Trump administration — which has already strained relations with Europe badly through unilateral moves over trade, climate change and relations with Israel and Russia, let alone Iran — probably doesn’t much care what the Europeans think.

 US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo came to Brussels and spoke to European foreign ministers about Iran and American assessments of enhanced threat. For internal administration debates, European may agree to tactical support or face a bitter choice, “Either you are with us or against us.”

Will Iran replace Pakistan in Afghan transit trade?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

India expresses interest in investing US$20 billion in Iran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US foreign policy to be driven by love for Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What after pushing Iran out of oil market?

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

United States adamant at imposing war on Iran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iran terms 1980 Tabas Desert operation 'historic US failure'

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

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

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

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

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

US likely to face ultimate defeat in Venezuela

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

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

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

(a)  A military coup in 2002

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

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

(d)  Escalating economic sanctions between 2013 – 2019

(e)  Street violence during 2013 – 2019

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

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

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

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

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

(k)  Sanctions on the banking system

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legitimacy of US acts against Venezuela

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eight Years of Corrosive Lies about Syria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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