Can Trump initiate a war against Iran now?

Recently there were some reports about US President Donald Trump considering taking military action against Iran during his remaining few days at the White House.

According to a report by New York Times, “President Trump asked senior advisers in an Oval Office meeting whether he had options to take action against Iran’s main nuclear site in the coming weeks.

A range of senior advisers discouraged the president from moving ahead with a military strike. The advisers — including Vice President Mike Pence; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Christopher C. Miller, the acting defense secretary; and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — warned that a strike against Iran’s facilities could easily escalate into a broader conflict in the last weeks of Trump’s presidency.”

While New York Times says Trump was the initiator of this plan, some other sources say the plan was initiated by other officials of the White House but Trump was not interested in it. 

Regarding the psychological warfare orchestrated against Iran, some points and possibilities should not be neglected. These include:

On the eve of the martyrdom of Lt. General Qasim Soleimani, assassinated in Iraq, the US administration was worried about possible Iran’s revenge and actions against the US interests in the region. Therefore, the recent US psychological war can be interpreted as a part of the White House’s efforts to create a balance of horror to prevent Iran’s possible measures against the US interests.

A question also arise, why has Trump revealed its plan if he really intended to pave the way for military action against Iran or its regional allies? Why didn’t he attack Iran or its allies before or after the assassination of Lt. Gen. Soleimani?

Trump’s possible move can also be considered as part of his efforts to increase the costs of his removal from power for his opponents and rival Biden and also to satisfy his rightist supporters.

Final point to ponder, it should not be forgotten that making such a dangerous decision that can lead to an all-out regional war cannot be made by Trump himself. Such a decision needs confirmation of both US Republicans and Democrats.

Any media report to introduce Trump as the only responsible for a possible attack on Iran aims to reduce the consequences of such a dangerous possible measure and limit Iran’s response.

US recent moves to reduce the number of its troops in Iraq and the region can be interpreted as the White House's tactic to decrease its possible fatalities and losses.

 

Can US$23 billion sale of arms to United Arab Emirates be stopped?

According to a Reuters report, three US senators said Wednesday that they would introduce legislation seeking to halt the Trump administration’s effort to sell more than US$23 billion of drones and other weapons systems to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), setting up a showdown with the president just weeks before he is due to leave office.

Democratic Senators Bob Menendez and Chris Murphy and Republican Senator Rand Paul will introduce four separate resolutions of disapproval of President Donald Trump’s plan to sell more than US$23 billion worth of Reaper drones, F-35 fighter aircraft and air-to-air missiles and other munitions to the UAE.

The huge sale could alter the balance of power in the Middle East, and members of Congress have scrape the administration’s attempt to rush it through, having sent a formal notice to Congress only last week.

Many lawmakers are concerned that the UAE would use the weapons in attacks that would harm civilians in Yemen, whose civil war is considered one of the world’s worst humanitarian disasters.

When the deal was announced, Amnesty International warned that the weapons would be used for “attacks that violate international humanitarian law and kill, as well as injure thousands of Yemeni civilians.”

While the resolutions bring attention to lawmakers’ questions about the massive sales, and could delay them, they are unlikely to stop them.

US law covering major arms deals lets senators force votes on resolutions of disapproval. However, to go into effect the resolutions must pass the Republican-led Senate, which rarely breaks from Trump. They also must pass the Democratic-led House of Representatives and survive Trump vetoes.

Incoming President, Joe Biden could ultimately stop them for reasons of national security, making a prediction on the final outcome difficult.

The senators said the Trump administration, seeking to rush the sale as it brokered a peace deal between the UAE and Israel, circumvented the normal review process. They said State and the Pentagon failed to respond to their inquiries.

Weaponry involved includes the world’s most advanced fighter jet, more than 14,000 bombs and munitions and the second-largest sale of U.S. drones to a single country.

The Senate Foreign Relations and House of Representatives Foreign Affairs committees have the right to review and attempt to block weapons sales.

Past measures to block arms sales over concerns about Yemeni casualties passed the House and Senate with bipartisan support, but failed to get enough Republican backing to override Trump’s vetoes.

Lawmakers have also expressed concern about whether the UAE sales would violate a longstanding agreement with Israel that any US weapons sold in the Middle East would not impair its “quantitative military edge” over neighboring states.

Menendez is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and in line to become chairman next year if Democrats take control of the Senate in Georgia runoff elections in January.

 

Finally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calls US President-elect Joe Biden

Finally, Israeli President Reuven Rivlin and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called US President-elect Joe Biden on Tuesday, a week and a half after his victory in the presidential election. Netanyahu and Biden spoke for more than 20 minutes, and the Prime Minister’s Office said the conversation was warm. “The special relationship between the US and Israel is a fundamental part of Israel’s security and policy,” Netanyahu said.

Biden in turn thanked Netanyahu for congratulating him on his election win, according to his office, noting that he expects to work closely with Netanyahu in the future. Biden told Netanyahu he is deeply committed to the State of Israel and its security, according to the Prime Minister’s Office.

The two agreed to meet soon to discuss matters on the agenda and the need to strengthen the alliance between the US and Israel. The Prime Minister’s Office statement called Biden president-elect, which Netanyahu had previously not done.

Rivlin congratulated Biden on his election, saying he has “no doubt that under your leadership, the United States is committed to Israel’s security and success.” US-Israel “friendship is based on values that are beyond partisan politics,” Rivlin said. Biden thanked Rivlin for his congratulations and stated that he looks forward to working with Israel.

Rivlin touted the friendship between the two countries on three levels: First, that the US has no stronger ally than Israel; second, the great friendship between the Israeli and American people; and third, that “the president of the United States of America has no greater friend than the president of the State of Israel, as we have proven over the years.”

Rivlin also said he hoped Biden would work to build on the recently signed Abraham Accords and facilitate ties between Israel and more countries in the region. In addition, Rivlin invited Biden to Jerusalem and sent his regards to Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.

The statement about Netanyahu’s call came out 27 minutes after Rivlin’s office sent its statement. The Prime Minister’s Office said it was scheduled in advance and not in reaction to the president calling. A spokesman for Netanyahu was unaware of the timing and said Biden did not mention speaking to Rivlin first. The President’s Residence did not respond to inquiries about the timing of the call.

The delay of a week and a half in calling Biden, when other world leaders did so much sooner – and the 12-hour delay in Netanyahu releasing a congratulatory message after news outlets called Biden’s victory on November 7 – fueled speculation that the prime minister was trying to avoid angering President Donald Trump.

In his message to the cabinet the morning after, Netanyahu said, “I have a personal, long and warm connection with Joe Biden for nearly 40 years, and I know him to be a great friend of the State of Israel.” But he again stopped short of using the term president-elect.

At a press conference on Monday, Netanyahu would only say that Biden is “supposed to be appointed the next president.” Asked who won the US election by Galei Israel Radio on Tuesday, Netanyahu said: “Why do I have to express an opinion? They have their processes, their Electoral College.” “I will cooperate with the US administration, but stand up for our security,” he later said.

Iranian refining and downstream industries flourishing despite sanctions

Persian Gulf Star Refinery (PGSR) located in Iran’s southern province of Hormozgan is the first of its kind. It is based on gas condensate feedstock received from the South Pars gas field which Iran shares with Qatar in the Persian Gulf. As the largest processing facility for gas condensate in West Asia, PGSR has made Iran an exporter of gasoline.

This refinery has increased Iran’s gasoline production to 110 million liters per day, while the country’s consumption is 74 million liters. PGSR has not only made Iran self sufficient in gasoline production, but enabled it to export surplus output. The products exported by the refinery during the first half of the current Iranian calendar year were 120 percent higher than the products exported during the same period last year.

Pars Oil and Gas Company (POGC), responsible for developing South Pars gas field, delivered about 60 million barrels of gas condensate to PGSR during the first half of the current year. PGSR receives 375,000 barrels of condensate daily from South Pars gas field as the feedstock.

Historically, Iran has remained a net importer of gasoline in recent decades and restriction on sale of gasoline was used as one of the tools to pressurize the country. Those sanctions were lifted with the implementation of JCPOA (Iran’s nuclear deal with the world powers, known as Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), concerns about their return led to construction of PGSR to be pursued more rapidly and in different phases. In January 2019, when the third phase of the refinery was inaugurated, Iran was able not only to eliminate the need to import gasoline but also to export surplus gasoline and bring more income to the country.

 According to Secretary General of Iran’s Oil Refining Industry Companies Association (ORICA) the country’s oil refining capacity has increased to two million barrels per day. The activities of the refineries, in addition to meeting the domestic need, have led to the export of surplus products, which plays a significant role in combating the sanctions.

The Secretary General of ORICA went on to say that in addition to the main products, 32 other special products are produced in the refineries, which are allocated on priority to domestic petrochemical industries.

He highlighted the role of refineries as 32,000 people are directly employed in this sector and now all refineries are run by domestic experts and not a single foreign engineer is employed in this industry.

In the recent past, the quality of domestically produced fuel was not comparable to international standards, but over the last four years the quality of local gasoline has improved so much that ordinary gasoline has replaced super gasoline. It is also worth noting that the country's refineries are operating at optimum capacity utilization.

Lately, Iran’s Karoon Petrochemical Company (KPC) has unveiled two new products that are going to save the country US$27 million. The production lines of two new grades of MTDI and KMT-10 were officially launched with the aim of meeting the needs of downstream sectors and completing the value chain of the country’s petrochemical sector.

KMT-10 is produced by pre-polymerization of methyl phenyl isocyanate and by the formation of urethane groups. With the production of this new product, the petrochemical industry will practically eliminate the need to import similar grades which have been previously imported from China, Japan, South Korea, and Germany. This strategic product has wide applications in the automotive, office, and home appliances industries.

MTDI products include Aradur 830 CH, Aradur 850 CH, and Aradur 2963 CH. Karoon Petrochemical Company has introduced this product in order to meet the needs of downstream producers of paint, resin, and polyurethane and in order to complete the value chain of petrochemical products.

The petrochemical industry is playing a crucial role in Iran's non-oil economy, the second-largest foreign exchange earner after crude oil. Petrochemical exports already make up nearly 33 percent of the country’s non-oil exports.

Head of Iran’s National Petrochemical Company (NPC) Behzad Mohammadi said the country’s petrochemical products basket would be further diversified. The official noted that major development plans were underway for diversifying the country’s petrochemical output considering the wide range of feedstock available.

Does Netanyahu consider Biden victory a blow to his plans?

Reportedly, till Thursday evening, Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has not called President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden. This is despite Biden having been announced the winner and receiving phone calls from the leaders of France, Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom and Ireland.

It may sound a bit odd that the leader of Israel – the country that claims to have an intimate and unparalleled special relationship with the United States – did not make that call. Some experts term this a fear. Not a fear that the call with Biden will not go well, but rather concern over the retribution Netanyahu could face from Trump, who still has some days left in office.

With Netanyahu likely on the verge of another election of his own in the coming weeks, the last thing he needs is to upset Trump. If the president can fire his secretary of defense on Twitter – “Mark Esper has been terminated” – imagine what he can write about an Israeli politician whom he feels is no longer loyal.

Netanyahu had waited 12 hours on Saturday night before tweeting congratulations to Biden, and when he finally did, refrained from calling him “president-elect” even though that was exactly what he called Trump in a similar tweet he put out four years ago.

This is all understandable, Netanyahu genuinely wanted to see Trump win the election, and Biden’s victory came as a blow to his plans. It takes time to readjust. In addition, there are more than two months left to Trump’s term, and there are issues that still need to be managed, like Iran, an urgent challenge underscored by the visit to Israel this week of Elliott Abrams, the administration’s point man on the Islamic Republic.

At some point, Netanyahu will have to hold that conversation with Biden, and will need to begin to acknowledge that the administration is changing. It will be complicated. Not because Biden is not pro-Israel – his track record over five decades in government proves he is – but rather because Israelis have forgotten what a non-Trump president looks like.

Whether it was Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama, every president opposed settlement activity and actively pushed for a two-state solution. Some focused on it more, others less. Bush, a republican like Trump, is remembered as a great friend of Israel, even in right-wing circles. Did these people forget the Annapolis Conference, the Roadmap for peace, the letters he sent Ariel Sharon making a distinction between settlement blocs and the rest of the settlements?

The point is that opposition to settlements has always been US policy. The change came with Trump, the most unconventional of presidents, who took an alternative position on a complicated conflict. He was the anomaly, not the new normal.

The problem is that Netanyahu is unable to accept new reality. He got used to the breaking down of norms and the shattering of traditionally accepted policies. He believed that Trump and Trumpism were here to stay. He should have prepared himself and the people that at some point it would end, and the Israeli-US dynamic would go back to the way it was beforehand. This is why in Israel there seems to be actual grieving over news that Trump has lost the election. People are in denial.

Another catalyst for this change is that the settler camp of 2020 is politically stronger than it was in 2008 or 2012. Netanyahu, whose political future is uncertain, needs their votes more than ever before, which means that he will have to stand strong against attempts to undermine the legitimacy of settlements or stop their construction.

What makes this even more complicated is that Israel appears on the verge of an election. This is due to Netanyahu’s continued refusal to pass a state budget for 2021, even though that is what the country so desperately needs.

Netanyahu will have to decide: does he prefer a new election while a new administration is taking office in Washington, or does he give in to Gantz, pass a budget, lose his opportunity in March to withdraw from the rotation agreement, and leave his fate up to the judicial system?

Donald Trump did a lot for Israel; can Joe Biden do the same?

US President-elect, Joe Biden had brandished his pro-Israel credentials at a Christmas party in December 1981 that he and his wife, threw in their Delaware, home for members of the Delaware press corps.

Biden was no strangers, he has been interviewed many times that year, including after Israel’s surprise attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor. Biden, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was disturbed that Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acted without giving the US advance warning.

That evening Biden proclaimed: “I’m Israel’s best Catholic friend.” After he has been elected America’s 46th president many Israelis believe it is his turn to prove this with deeds, not just words. He has a tough act to follow. In Jerusalem, there is anxiety that Biden administration will be indistinguishable from what a third term for President Barack Obama would have resembled. 

While most American Jews voted for Obama, he had a fragile relationship with the pro-Israel community. His Iran nuclear deal alarmed Israelis, who are unified view that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel. Obama outraged right-wing Israelis with the cold shoulder he turned to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and exerted heavy pressure on Israel to make sacrifices for peace with the Palestinians. Biden’s campaign trail announcements have aroused similar anxieties, with plans to reenter the Iran deal and prioritize Israeli-Palestinian peace, which no US President has been able to broker because neither side seems to want it. 

Israelis are enthused over the recent diplomatic breakthroughs with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Sudan. They were hoping Saudi Arabia would be the next domino to topple, but that’s looking remote, especially if Biden chooses to soothe tensions with Iran and reassess the US-Saudi relationship. If Biden tries to roll back the process not accepting Trump’s “deal of the century,” this may deter other Arab nations from reaching agreements with Israel, hindering hopes for a broader, regional peace.  

Israelis believe that Biden and Obama are two different people. The chemistry that two leaders form or fail to form is a critical element in how relations between two nations will progress. Biden is not the slightest bit aloof or professorial, as Obama was often accused of being. He’s earned the moniker of “Uncle Joe.” The chatty style we saw from him in debates and on the campaign trail — including his gaffes — is vintage Joe Biden. 

Netanyahu doesn’t need an introduction to the president-elect. The Israeli leader opened a recent Cabinet meeting in Jerusalem by noting his “long and warm personal connection with Joe Biden for nearly 40 years … as a great friend of the State of Israel.”

Obama and Netanyahu had never developed such chemistry, one is not really sure Netanyahu had that with Trump, either. Netanyahu has a lot of boastfulness, but always appeared off-balance in Trump’s presence. Netanyahu may prefer Trump’s peace plan, but Netanyahu’s cautious nature stood in sharp contrast with Trump’s unpredictable streak. Netanyahu has more years ahead of him politically than Biden does. There were rumous during the campaign that Biden would be only a one-term president, or that health issues might force him to step down sooner. His debate performance put many of those rumors to rest, but Netanyahu, as he approaches his 12th consecutive year as prime minister, has never stood on shakier ground. 

Netanyahu’s trial in a Jerusalem District Court on breach of trust and fraud charges will be in full swing just as Biden takes the oath of office in January and will be a major distraction. Even before the next calendar year starts, the Knesset faces a 23rd December deadline to pass a budget. Failure to do so means new elections. Recent polls show the right-wing Yamina party led by Naftali Bennett gaining popularity means Israel’s next government could swing sharply to the right, obstructing any plans that Biden has to prioritize the Israeli-Palestinian track.

During his long US Senate career, and as vice president, Biden has dealt with every Israeli prime minister from Golda Meir to Netanyahu and understands Israel’s security concerns better than any other American leader. Israeli leaders appreciate that about Biden, but at the same time many express strong hope that the Biden administration will not drive in reverse in the Middle East now that the Trump peace process policies have been vindicated. 

 

---

Joe Biden to face a tough task in bridging the divides

Shireen Tahmaasb Hunter, a professor of political science at Georgetown University, says Joe Biden will face a “tough task in bridging the divides" in the American society, noting that "economic, cultural, and racial divisions in America have widened." “Republicans have kept the Senate, which would make the task of affecting economic and other changes more difficult,” Hunter tells the Tehran Times.

Following are the excerpts from the interview:

It seems that the November 3 election has turned into a controversial issue. Why does this election call into question whether America can preserve its democracy?

Every time an election is close, as is the case with the 2020 elections, the likelihood of controversy increases. In such an election, every single vote count and a few votes can determine the fate of the preserve its democracy elections. This is why Biden wants all votes counted, and Trump, where he is ahead, wants counting to stop. So far, the Supreme Court has not expressed any judgment on this matter.

How do you read Trump's behavior when he questions the vote-counting process? Is he an exception in America's history?

Trump's personal behavior is certainly an aberration. However, some of his policies, like a desire to put American interests ahead of internationalist goals, prevent America's trading partners from taking advantage of it. His nationalistic discourse is not aberrations and reflects deeper trends.

Regardless of who will win the election, how will the US heal the rifts in which the society has been divided into two opposite groups?

Clearly, in recent years, economic, cultural, and racial divisions in America have widened. However, the perception of such a divide is stronger than its reality. The media generally focuses on the extremists in each camp and ignores the moderates. Nevertheless, Biden faces a tough task in bridging these divides. Republicans have kept the Senate, which would make the task of affecting economic and other changes more difficult. However, it also seems that both parties' extreme wings have realized that they need to make some concessions. Therefore, there might be a chance to reach a middle ground on many issues. Also, Biden is a professional politician with long experience as a senator and would be better able to reach compromises with the Republicans.

Do you agree that the Supreme Court has an outsized role in elections because it has become politicized? Is there any guarantee that the members of the Supreme Court be unbiased?

The president nominates and does not appoint Supreme Court judges. Their appointment requires Senate's approval. As to being political, everything in life, to some degree, is political because people compete for power and privilege. There is no guarantee that judges would vote in a non-partisan spirit. Burt judges, too, must keep their own reputation in mind and contend with public opinion. They cannot vote in ways that go completely against evidence. Such behavior would discredit them.

It seems that the president in the American political structure has vast authority that may tempt him to exploit the power to serve his interests. The president nominates Supreme Court members, which has a key role in the elections in controversial cases. What is your comment?

The president has great constitutional powers. However, many of his/her decisions must be approved by Congress. There is the risk of abuse, but not to the extent of threatening democracy. Many of the comments made in this regard in the media derive from partisan politics. Nevertheless, democracy needs vigilance. Trump's defeat shows that, at least for now, Americans reject any abuse of presidential powers.

Don't you think that the electoral system is threatening democracy in the United States as there have been candidates who have won popular votes but lost in the Electoral College?

The Electoral College was established so that states with smaller populations could also have a role in deciding who should be president. Otherwise, always states like New York, California, Texas, and Florida would determine elections' results. Given demographic and economic disparities among states, the Electoral College is a balancing mechanism. For instance, without the Electoral College, rural areas and small towns would have no say in deciding elections' results. There is a difference between democracy and majority rule.