Back Sea Brewing Conflict

Many experts from United States find the whole swath of territory in Eastern Europe, near Russia, very far away and hard to conceptualize. This part of the world involves a number of countries, small and large that is generally neither the most frequently discussed in the US news nor frequented by the US tourists.

To make sense of much of this remote region, it can be helpful to take a perspective that centers on the Black Sea and views that body of water as the key point of reference for much of the region. Doing so not only helps clarify what Russia is up to in its neighborhood, but also shines a spotlight on Chinese activity.

The Black Sea region is best viewed as having three big anchors—Ukraine to the north, Turkey to the south, Russia to the northeast. Then there are three countries on either side of the region—Romania, Bulgaria and Moldova on the left or west, Georgia and Armenia and Azerbaijan to the east.

Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria are NATO allies; the US and NATO’s other twenty-six members (making for a grand total of thirty) are sworn to their defense through a mutual-defense treaty. And even though Ukraine is not a NATO ally, the United States did promise (along with Russia) back in 1994 to help protect its security—which is why the Russian aggression against Ukraine since 2014 has been so concerning.

None of this is to say that the US needs to prepare for war against China, or Russia for that matter, in the Black Sea region. The Black Sea is far from the Chinese coasts; the main military concerns are with China in the western Pacific region.

Moreover, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, told a group of people at the Brookings Institution on 2nd December 2020, the US is in a period of great-power competition but it is not in a period of conflict, and the goal should be to keep things that way while competing effectively against Russian and Chinese influence.

Indeed, as with many parts of the world, China does not pose a direct military threat, rather it challenges the US interests in the realms of economics, technology, and espionage. To be specific:

- China is offering loans, through its Belt and Road Initiative, to many countries along a vast periphery and perimeter. This includes the Black Sea. But buyer must be cognizant that China’s money comes with strings. The US needs to help regional countries understand this and so that they can accept any loans with their eyes wide open.

- China’s software and hardware are optimized for intrusive monitoring of the population, Black Sea inhabitants will be monitored if and when they accept Chinese technology, even from private firms, in realms like 5G. China’s civil-commercial-military-intelligence “fusion law” formalizes this; Beijing isn’t even pretending to do otherwise.

- China is actively trying to buy into sectors that have huge security implications. A prime example is the manufacturer Motorsich in Ukraine, which builds high-quality engines for helicopters and aircraft. A struggling Ukrainian economy may make such assets relatively easy pickings for a purportedly friendly but also devious foreign investor

- In general, Chinese infrastructure comes with long-term controlling interests

- Default on Chinese loans results in Chinese ownership of assets—and the default is a distinct possibility when big projects are foisted upon unsuspecting countries with weak economies and a lack of transparency in their investment decisions.

The US can do a lot to help in ways that are already showing promise in other regions around the world. Malaysia and Pakistan, for example, have figured out that they can say no to massive Chinese projects that would bring them little in the way of jobs (since China brings along most of its own workers for Belt and Road projects) and much in the way of debt. A central database that tracks such Chinese efforts, and helps countries do the calculus of pros and cons for each proposed investment before signing any contracts, can go a long way towards defeating such practices.

The US needs to be a part of the leadership in this region. The EU and NATO are important, to complement our diplomacy with both those organizations, the incoming Biden administration should recognize the Black Sea as a region of importance, requiring a focus on diplomacy and economic engagement.

The good news is that war does not have to be the future for the Black Sea. Military support is important, but it is just one of our tools for engagement in this vital region. To avoid bad news, the US must engage effectively, be patient, and sustain its efforts, when it chooses to do. It is time to choose.

Iran Pakistan Opening New Border Crossing

The spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran unveiled opening of the second border crossing with Pakistan. In a statement released on Friday, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Saeed Khatibzadeh said the second official border crossing between Iran and Pakistan is being inaugurated on Saturday, 19^th December 2020.

During a recent visit to Islamabad, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and his Pakistani counterpart agreed on the opening of Rimdan-Gabad border crossing between the two countries, the negotiations over which had been already held, the spokesperson added. 

“Accordingly and under the arrangements made between the officials of the two countries and the organizations in charge, the Rimdan-Gabad border crossing will be inaugurated by the relevant high-ranking officials of the countries in the (Iranian) province of Sistan and Baluchistan as the second official border crossing between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,” he noted. 

The opening of the new border crossing would raise the economic and trade exchanges between Iran and Pakistan, Khatibzadeh stated, adding, “Creation of this border crossing between the two friendly and neighbouring states and the recent inauguration of Khaf-Herat railroad demonstrate that the Islamic Republic of Iran attaches special significance to interaction and cooperation with its neighbours and considers close cooperation with the neighbouring countries as the way for the West Asia region’s progress and excellence.”

 

Need for a regional alliance inclusive of Iran and Turkey

Lately, a controversy started after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan recited epic poems that sparked widespread outrage in Iran, with many Iranian officials strongly rejecting any territorial claims against Iran.

However, the dispute was settled when Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu called his Iranian counterpart Javad Zarif on Saturday evening to assure him that his country respects the Islamic Republic of Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Turkey and Iran are two major neighbors with a rich history and deep ties who have lived in peace for nearly 400 years. Cooperation and mutual respect have always been a top priority.

Turkey and Iran are two major countries with solid-state traditions, and two neighbors who have lived in peace for nearly 400 years since the Treaty of Qasr-e Shirin (Zuhab) was signed in 1639.

Although, there have been disputes between these two states through the course of history, cooperation and mutual respect have always been a top priority.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan attended the ceremonies of Nagorno-Karabakh’s liberation from the occupation of Armenia, which had been backed by Western imperialism.

During his speech in the ceremonies, he proposed a six-country platform for the issues in the Caucasus, which Turkey, Iran, Russia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and even Armenia.

Unfortunately, instead of paying attention to this proposal to unite West Asia, firestorms were blown over a poem that Erdogan read during his speech, and the important point sadly got ignored.

There is need to understand very well that the possible winners of the cooperation between Turkey and Iran, would not only be these two countries but also entire West Asia. In case of a dispute between the two countries the beneficiaries will be the United States and Israel.

Turkey, as a neighbor, respects Iran’s territorial integrity and national sovereignty and has never pursued a policy that targets to disrupt the Iranian territorial integrity, in its entire history. On the contrary, Ankara has mostly pursued a policy that prioritizes the internal stability of Iran.

On the issue of the nuclear deal, the Turkish government, together with the Brazilian government, played as a mediator that protected Iranian interests in the international arena and tried to put an end to the imperialist approach towards Iran.

Turkey has continued its trade activities with Iran despite all international pressures and embargoes, an indication of the goodwill and the willingness of Turkey to cooperate.

Turkey, which has been fighting against the American puppet PKK terrorist organization for nearly four decades, is pursuing a policy against any movements that want to partition and weaken the countries of the region, as part of the imperialist plans.

Unfortunately, there are some groups in Turkey that are not comfortable with the cooperation between Turkey and Iran, just like similar groups in Iran. These groups consist of Atlantic supporters, and/or those who look at the world from a sectarian point of view. The way to neutralize these groups would be through even deeper cooperation between Ankara and Tehran.

The good relations between the two countries and the unchanging border for 400 years are the clear signs that the Turkish government and the Turkish nation do not have the slightest problem with the territorial integrity of Iran.

Any misunderstanding between the two countries makes it much easier for the United States, Israel and their sectarian puppets to infiltrate and cause friction between Ankara and Tehran. It is not a secret that Israel wants Ankara-Tehran relations to collapse.

There is need to understand the statement from the Turkish presidential spokesman Omer Celik saying "let us not make our enemies happy". Turkey believes that the Iranian officials know that the winners of a possible dispute with Turkey would be the United States and Israel.

Some groups in the region had been hoping for the election of Joe Biden instead of Trump before the elections. Especially some opposition parties in Turkey have welcomed Biden's election win. Some articles, praised Biden's election victory, in connection with the nuclear deal with Iran.

It was only the methodology that changed with Obama, Trump and Biden administrations, but the final goal of the US imperialism would still be to rule over West Asia by destabilizing the area. Those who hope the United States will change policy fail to understand the US foreign policy.

President Erdogan's proposal for a six-country platform in Baku can be considered in this context.

The imperialist siege in the Eastern Mediterranean has been growing and Israel, which now has the support of the West, wants to gather the Arab countries under the name of "normalization", and put them into an anti-Turkey and anti-Iran camp.

The nations of West Asia can frustrate this unholy alliance of the imperialist powers with their own alliance. Turkey and Iran are the main dynamics of a possible regional alliance, along with Russia.

If these countries are united against the US imperialism the region from the Caucasus to the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East (West Asia) can be stabilized. Otherwise, some radical nationalist and sectarian perspectives will make it easier for imperialism to rule over the region.

Arab recognition of Israel to redefine the Middle East

Many countries have established diplomatic relations with Israel in quick succession. The decision to establish diplomatic relations by itself cannot create alliance. In case of the Arab world, the matter is different. Within each country, there are factions that are hostile to Israel. Any regime that opens relations with Israel will have to face this reality. Each state that has recognized Israel has broken a barrier. Among many Arabs, it is a violation of a fundamental principle.

Morocco established diplomatic relations with Israel, soon after three other Arab countries – the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Sudan – normalized ties. In Morocco’s case, part of the deal was US recognition of Morocco’s claim to Western Sahara, just as it had agreed to remove Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism.

This process, which began with the UAE, is rooted partly in the US Middle Eastern policy that has played an important role in implicitly endorsing the process and occasionally adding a sweetener. The US also made it clear that it was withdrawing its forces from the region and reducing its commitments. That left the region without the power that held it together.

Public hostility among nations in the region, and especially with Israel, is possible as the US has served as coordinator and bridge. These countries could and did work together, but only through secret contacts and US coordination. Without the United States, each state was left to either go it alone or form meaningful relations on the whole. The US policy forced the countries of the region to face a reality they had tried to hide

This sounds like the usual US mantra, “They needed each other because the Sunni Arab world had enemies, none more dangerous to their interests than Iran. The Arabs framed their policy on the assumption that the United States would guarantee their interests, and even their existence, against an Iranian threat.

That remains possible, but what the United States has done, create uncertainty. Iran cannot be sure of what the United States would do under any particular circumstances, neither can the Arabs. Each has to prepare itself for a situation, minus United States, rather than simply an American reaction.

At the same time, the Iranians have a weakened position. One of their strategies was to play off Arab states against Israel, the United States or each other. They could also take advantage of conflicts that periodically flared up between fragmented Arab states. Now Iran has less room to maneuver, while the Arabs find themselves needing to negotiate with neighbors rather than offload risk and responsibility to the United States.

The decision to establish diplomatic relations by itself would not normally create an alliance. The US and China have diplomatic relations, but they are not allies. But in the case of the Arab world, the matter is different. Within each country, there are factions that are hostile to Israel. Any regime that opens relations with Israel must face this reality.

The threat here is internal and each state that has recognized Israel has broken a barrier. In the US and Israel, this is a welcome break. Among many Arabs, it is a violation of what has been a fundamental principle.

Saudi Arabia, wary of the intense feelings on such matters in a significant sector of society, has not taken the step of recognizing Israel, even though it has cooperated with Israel for quite a while. Given the politics of the region, recognition may as well be an alliance. There is little to lose and much to gain for Arab states that have recognized Israel.

The implicit alliance leaves Iran in an extremely difficult position. The Arab world was hostile in many ways before. Now it is organized around Israeli power, making Israel even more dangerous to it. In addition to ruinous sanctions, internal political tension and the potential threat of the United States, it now faces the possibility not only of Arab hostility but of Arab alignment with Israel. In many ways, this is the worst-case scenario for Iran, and the intelligence services arrayed against it will do all they can to encourage the internal opposition.

Iran’s counter is a serious one. The recognition process leaves the Palestinians isolated from their former allies. Iran can portray itself reasonably as the only champion of the Palestinians and the only true enemy of Israel.

The Arab states have regarded Palestine as a side issue for a long time, but the same is not always true for their citizens. Iran’s move is to adopt the Palestinian cause as its own, and speak to the Arab public in terms of the betrayal of the Palestinians and capitulation to Israel.

It is not clear that any Arab regime will be forced to change policy or be overthrown. It is not clear that Iran’s formal isolation will cause regime change, but what is clear is that if Iran undertakes military action of any sort against states that have recognized Israel, Israel will be free and even welcomed, to undertake disproportionate retaliation. Any Iranian allies in the region, such as those in Syria or Iraq, would face the same.

What this move has done is to vastly widen the circumstances under which Israel can attack Iran without facing condemnation in the Arab world. The balance of power has shifted dramatically in the region since the 1970s, when it was Israel facing unified hostility.

Now it is Iran that faces hostility. How unified it will be remains to be seen. Unity is rare in the Arab world, but the risks to Arab regimes of both participating in and destabilizing the emerging structure would be too big a stake. Many things could go wrong, but it is a profound redefinition of the Middle East.

Trade will be the toughest test for Biden’s foreign policy

Joe Biden campaigned to restore America’s standing in the world by repairing ties with the US allies, create greater domestic equity through improvements in the Affordable Care Act and aggressive efforts to advance the interests of women and minorities, and accelerate US efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.

Biden can’t accomplish these massive programs without big deficits or taxes, which a Republican Senate is not likely to permit. He could pay his campaign debts with surgical improvements to the ACA funded by dedicated levies, and coax Republican cooperation by offering torts reform and bending to wherever ideas the GOP may have about improving competition. He also needs more aggressive enforcement from Justice Department Civil Rights Division and Departments of Labor and Education.

Internationally, Biden must reckon with a China that will soon have a larger economy, has an impressive navy, is flexing its muscles in the South China Sea and Straights of Taiwan, and suppressing democracy in Hong Kong. At best we are in a stalemate and at worst, we could be pulled into a ruinous confrontation that establishes China as the pre-eminent power in the Pacific.

France and Germany combined are as populous as and about four times richer than Russia. Clearly the Europeans can afford to entirely provide for their own defense. The Europeans will be told, albeit more politely, to do much more for themselves, because America’s resources are needed in the Pacific.

China’s economy is at once complex—a state-orchestrated market system, similar to  that of Germany and Japan in the 1930s—and simple—a free rider in the international trading system created principally by the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The WTO permitted China to accomplish export-led growth and create an economic and military juggernaut that is now bent on reshaping the entire global system to serve the values and vision of the Chinese Communist Party.

The WTO system was designed to link together democratic market economies and assist developing countries by establishing rules that promote trade based on comparative advantage. The agreements very much look as if they were written by economists to create work for lawyers.

Beyond reducing tariffs and quotas—quite effectively but for agriculture and textiles—the WTO agreements lay out general rules for product standards, customs administration, subsidies, intellectual property regimes and other instruments of domestic policy that clever bureaucrats can manipulate for mercantilist purposes. It leaves to dispute settlement panels and an Appellate Body to elaborate their situational meaning.

The rules are general, because technology and the ways governments can subvert open trade are constantly evolving. A de facto common law system has emerged, which when it works well, provides predictable limits on the protectionist pressures special interests can bring to bear on domestic politicians.

China’s economic system is too inconsistent with Western market economies for the WTO to accommodate. It has run circles around WTO dispute settlement and does most whatever it likes. It targets Western industries by closing its markets, forces foreign investors to transfer technology to gain market access, and subsidizes exports. It has accomplished dominant positions, for example, in solar panels and 5G technology.

The Obama and Trump administrations responded by refusing to approve judges to the Appellate Body and that crippled dispute settlement. The Europeans, Chinese and others countered  the US policy by creating a contingent arbitration mechanism outside the WTO to review dispute settlement panel findings.

China should not be in the WTO, but the Europeans want to deal with Beijing there. China has grown too large for the United States to confront without allies, and the Europeans want tangible gestures that show Trump era abuse of America First is over. President Donald Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs are on the table but the Europeans have quite a laundry list of issues.

Ambassador Robert Lighthizer proposed replacing the Appellate Body with bilateral arbitration that would not set precedents—but without precedents, the WTO system is rudderless and subject to the whims of the biggest player—soon to be China.

The Biden administration could approve the appointment of new appellate judges but condition that on an American exception for dispute settlement with China.

That would permit the United States to impose remedies it deemed necessary to counter China’s aggressive protectionism and force the Europeans and other advanced industrialized countries to consider the same. China needs trade to prosper. Excluding China from WTO dispute settlement would force it to take multilateral negotiations more seriously or face increasing isolation.

Israeli Iron Dome intercepts cruise missiles for first time

The Israel Missile Defense Organization (IMDO) has successfully completed a series of live-fire intercept tests of the Iron Dome and David’s Sling weapon systems against threat-representative cruise and ballistic missiles. It is the first time the Iron Dome system intercepted a cruise missile. The tests demonstrated an interoperable capability of the different interception system.

The IMDO is a division of the Defense Ministry. The tests were conducted in cooperation with the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA).

Rafael Advanced Systems led the tests via a testing site in Central Israel, with the participation of the IAF and the Navy.

The successful series is a critical milestone in the augmentation of Israel’s operational capabilities in defending itself against current and future threats, the Defense Ministry said in a press release.

The series tested the capabilities of a new and advanced version of David’s Sling and included a number of scenarios simulating future threats. The results of these tests will enable IMDO and industry engineers to evaluate and upgrade the system’s capabilities.

The IMDO and Rafael also successfully demonstrated the capabilities of the Iron Dome in intercepting a variety of threats, including UAVs and cruise missiles, the Defense Ministry said. Moreover, it demonstrated the interoperability of the multilayered air-defense mechanism (Arrow missile, David’s Sling and Iron Dome), helping ensure that these systems will be able to intercept different threats simultaneously during a conflict.

“For the first time, [the test] assessed the combined interception capabilities of the multilayered air-defense system of the State of Israel,” Defense Minister Benny Gantz said. “This is one of the most advanced air-defense mechanisms in the world, and it protects the state from threats near and far.”

“The systems in this multilayered mechanism provide Israel with a top-tier strategic capability, enabling us to operate effectively in every scenario,” he said.

Brig-General (Retired) Pini Yungman, Executive Vice President and head of Rafael’s Air and Missile Defense Division said, “The capability that was demonstrated in this series of tests ensures the security of the State of Israel and its ability to contend with current and future threats. When the different systems in the multilayered mechanism are combined, they may face a variety of simultaneous threats and defend the citizens of the State of Israel.”

Representatives of the MDA and Israeli defense industries, as well as IAF soldiers, participated in the tests.

Rafael is the prime contractor for the development of David’s Sling, in cooperation with the American company Raytheon. IAI’s Elta Systems developed the MMR radar, and Elbit Systems developed the Golden Almond BMC.

“I would also like to thank our partners in the US Department of Defense, US Missile Defense Agency, US government and US Congress, which supports the State of Israel in the development of these systems and aids us in ensuring Israel’s security and operational superiority,” Gantz said.

What could be likely fate of Abraham Accords in Biden era?

Biden is in favor of the Abraham Accords, but they have strings attached that make his administration uncomfortable. There are expectations that the strings attached to the Abraham Accords will not be cut by the Biden administration. The US has a clear system of continuity, especially when it comes to diplomatic positions. The world has seen this with Israel over the decades. Biden may have drastically different view on foreign policy than Trump, but he is likely to make certain compromises.

Over the last few days, two countries ‑ Morocco and Bhutan – have established relations with Israel. It seems more normalizations will come in the coming weeks before US President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20.

US Vice President Mike Pence is going to Israel and may announce that some other countries have forged diplomatic ties with Israel. It’s yet unclear which these countries are, but Saudi Arabia is not likely to be one of them. The Kingdom is expected to wait and see how things go with Biden administration before making any move.

Broadly, Biden favors the Abraham Accords, which have led to ties between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco. He and his foreign policy advisers have said positive things about them. Still they likely to seek normalizations come in conjunction with progress in the peace process with Palestinians.

Biden administration may not pursue diplomatic ties for Israel and Arab countries with the same zeal as US President Donald Trump, but it would be unlikely to create any obstacles. Let no one forget these normalizations have strings attached that could be uncomfortable for the Biden administration.

Many senior Emirati figures, along with high-level Israeli and American officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have said that the sale of F-35 fighter jets to the UAE was not part of the negotiations leading to the Abraham Accords.

That sale just squeaked by a Senate bill aiming to block it, but whether it will be completed before Trump leaves office is unclear. Biden could oppose the sale because many Democrats in the Senate are concerned about UAE’s involvement in the wars in Yemen and Libya.

Sudan is keen in getting off the US list of state sponsors of terrorism, seeks debt forgiveness and aid after Omar al-Bashir was overthrown last year. The US insisted that diplomatic relations with Israel be part of the deal and Sudan pushed for “legal peace,” by which Khartoum will pay over US$300 million to victims of terror, and no further lawsuits can be brought against the country for its past support for terrorism.

This, too, faced obstacles in Congress, though supporting Sudan’s nascent democracy has bipartisan support. Senators Robert Menendez and Chuck Schumer seeking to carve out an exception for victims of the 9/11 attacks, among others, to sue Sudan, which harbored Osama bin Laden and hosted Al Qaeda training camps in the 1990s.

Sudanese officials have told US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that they will not move forward with ties with Israel if the bill granting Khartoum immunity from future lawsuits does not pass by the end of 2020.

In the meantime, an Israeli economic delegation has already been to Sudan, and Israel has been lobbying Congress to pass the legal immunity bill, without taking a position on 9/11 victims. Sudan may not stop the normalization process, because Israel can help the East African country in Washington.

Democrats do not generally oppose the “legal peace” for Sudan, even though details must still be worked out, and Biden has not said anything to indicate he would block it. Yet the matter is unlikely to be at the top of his agenda if it is not done by 20th January 2021, and those delays could be a strain on the new Sudan-Israel ties.

Morocco is perhaps the most controversial move of all three. The US became the first country to recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. The Trump administration’s message was that decades of attempts at negotiations between Morocco and the leadership of the Sahrawi, the non-Moroccan people living in the region, have gone nowhere and autonomy under Morocco’s king is the way to move forward.

This has serious implications when it comes to international law that can radiate outward to Judea and Samaria, Crimea and beyond – as different as those land disputes may be – and the Trump administration has boxed Biden into a change of policy.