Joe Biden team dominated by Jews

US President Joe Biden has appointed a strong and experienced team, among them half of Jews, one wonders if there has ever been a more Jewish US administration. Here are the 15 Jews who comprise Biden’s team. It is believed that a vigorous American presence in world affairs, spearheaded by the Jewish team, is in Israel’s long-term interest, more than an ‘America first’ which makes the US largely irrelevant in global affairs.

• Antony Blinken, Secretary of State, is a veteran career diplomat. His stepfather, Samuel Pisar, was the only Holocaust survivor of some 900 children in his Polish school. He was rescued after fleeing from a Nazi death march and finding refuge in a US armed corps tank – an episode Blinken recounted movingly when Biden introduced him.

• David Cohen, Deputy CIA Director returns to this role after filling it from 2015 to 2017. Cohen is the son of a prominent Boston Jewish physician.

• Janet Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury is the first woman to fill this role; previously, she headed the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. A 2016 Trump attack ad featured three Jews, including Yellen, and reflected anti-Semitic tropes. She is a renowned labor economist. 

• Merrick Garland, Attorney-General was blocked from becoming a Supreme Court Justice by then-Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, in the last year of the Obama presidency. After being nominated Garland spoke of his grandparents, who fled antisemitism in Europe and moved to the US.

• Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence was deputy director of the CIA under Obama, the first woman to hold this job. Her mother was a well-known Jewish painter, Adrian Rappin (Rappaport) and Haines identifies with Israel; she visited Israel with her non-Jewish father. 

• Ron Klain, Chief of Staff was also Biden’s chief of staff in his vice presidential days. Klain speaks of his childhood synagogue in Indianapolis, where he learned multiple Torah portions for his bar mitzvah, and of his commitment to raising Jewish children. 

• Eric Lander, Director, Office of Science & Technology Policy is a leading geneticist. His position has been elevated to Cabinet level. Lander has spoken of being the subject of antisemitic criticism by James Watson, discoverer of the DNA double helix. 

• Rachel Levine, Deputy Secretary, Health and Human Services grew up in a Conservative Jewish home in Massachusetts. She is the first open transgender person to be nominated for a position requiring Senate confirmation.

• Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security was the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security under Obama. He was born in Cuba, to a Cuban Jewish father and Romanian Jewish mother who survived the Shoah. He has worked closely with Jewish groups in the past. 

• Anne Neuberger, Director of Cybersecurity, National Security Agency is an Orthodox Jew, from Brooklyn, educated through college in Orthodox schools. She helped establish the US Cyber Command and led security efforts in the 2018 midterm elections. Her grandparents are Holocaust survivors and her parents were among the passengers on the Air France flight in 1976, kidnapped to Uganda and rescued in Israel’s Entebbe operation. She founded Sister to Sister, an NGO that serves single mothers across the US.

• Wendy Sherman, Deputy Secretary of State was born in Maryland to a Jewish family. Her father served in the Marines. She is the first woman to be appointed Deputy Secretary of State. A career diplomat, she was the lead negotiator for the controversial Iran nuclear deal. 

• Jeff Zients, COVID-19 Coordinator was born in Washington, DC, and was raised in Kensington, Maryland. His family is Jewish. From 2014 through 2017 he was the director of the National Economic Council. He will fill the crucial role of directing and coordinating efforts to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic.

• Rochelle Walensky, Director, Center for Disease Control and her husband are members of Temple Emanuel, in Newton, Massachusetts, a prominent Conservative synagogue. She is an expert on AIDS and HIV and served as Chief of Infectious Diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital, and professor at Harvard Medical School.

• Jared Bernstein, member, Council of Economic Advisors was the chief economist and economic adviser to Biden under Obama. 

• Douglas Emhoff is husband of US Vice President Kamala Harris. He is the first-ever husband of a US Vice President to enjoy a key position. He was born in Brooklyn, son of Jewish parents Barbara and Michael Emhoff. He grew up in New Jersey. He is an entertainment lawyer and teaches at Georgetown University Law Center.

 

 

Can appointment of Timothy Lenderking bring peace in Yemen?

On 4th February 2021, the Biden administration announced the appointment of Timothy Lenderking as the US special envoy to Yemen. In a televised speech, President Joe Biden said that by appointing Lenderking, the US is stepping up its diplomatic efforts to end the war in Yemen and by extension the humanitarian catastrophe the war has created. “This war has to end,” Biden said. 

“To underscore our commitment, we are ending all American support for offensive operations in the war on Yemen, including relevant arms sales,” he added. Two days later, the administration revoked the designation of the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO), citing humanitarian concerns.

While Lenderking’s appointment is a much-needed step, the “end the Yemen war” discourse championed by Western policy analysts, diplomats, and peace advocates is highly problematic and disconnected from the reality on the ground. Since 2014, successive UN special envoys for Yemen have tried to broker a political settlement between the Hadi government and the Houthis to end the conflict and resume the political transition process that was thwarted when Houthi forces allied with former President Ali Abdullah Saleh and captured Sanaa in September 2014. This effort is commonly known as the “peace process” and is widely supported by the international community, including the permanent members of the UN Security Council and the European Union.

The urgency to reach a political settlement is largely driven by the desire to address the dire humanitarian situation in Yemen. The war has made the country the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. However, neither halting arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition nor reaching a power-sharing agreement between the Hadi government and the Houthis will end Yemen’s war or mitigate the humanitarian crisis. Yemen's conflict is multilayered and far too complex to be solved with a rushed political agreement. A political settlement under the current circumstances might be a quick win for American and Western diplomacy, but it will most likely reinforce the current power dynamics and lock Yemen into a cycle of perpetual war, bringing 30 million Yemenis closer to famine and pushing the country farther away from peace.

While the Biden administration can successfully put pressure on the Saudi-led coalition and the Yemeni government, it does not have the same leverage on the Houthis, who currently have the upper hand militarily. A political settlement risks tipping the military balance in favor of the Houthis, who have failed to demonstrate any commitment to cease-fires in the past.

The Biden administration appears to have revoked the FTO designation unconditionally in the hope that the Houthis will reciprocate and engage in negotiations in good faith. As former USAID official Dave Harden argues, the Houthis will perceive this rescission as a sign of American weakness. The move created widespread anger among Yemenis, who interpreted it as the Biden administration giving the Houthis a green light to continue their violence against civilians. The very next day after Biden’s decision to revoke the FTO designation, the Houthis mobilized their forces and launched a renewed offensive to seize the oil-rich city of Marib as well as cross-border drone attacks against Saudi Arabia.

In recent years, Yemen has paid the price for well-intentioned international interventions in the name of peace that have not only failed but also backfired. In 2011, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Initiative resulted in a power-sharing deal between former President Saleh and his opponents and outlined a plan for a political transition process. Focused primarily on the power struggle among the political elite while neglecting the long-standing grievances of ordinary Yemenis, the deal granted former President Saleh immunity, which effectively allowed him to remain in control of most of the armed forces. Saleh then allied with the Houthis and overthrew the government in September 2014, dragging the country into a devastating civil war.

Moving forward, the Biden administration should be cautious and assess the unintended consequences of using diplomacy to force a political negotiation process that fails to consider Yemen’s complex domestic dynamics and the reality on the ground. The Houthis are an ideologically-driven group that claims a divine right to rule as descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, defying the basic principles of democracy. They have built a police state that rules Yemenis through systematic repression. As part of Iran’s “Axis of Resistance,” they have a jihadist agenda that poses a threat not only to Yemen, but to the entire region. Their threat must not be taken lightly.

In order to address the Yemen problem, the Biden administration should first embrace the complexity of the conflict and develop a Yemen policy that reflects it. The administration has to come to terms with the fact that conditions might not be ripe to end the conflict, much less bring about peace. While it can hold the Saudi-led coalition accountable for their role in mismanaging the war and for the civilian casualties their intervention has caused, it is not the responsibility of the United States to solve the conflict. Second, rather than using its political capital to push through a shaky deal that will likely be counterproductive, the US administration should work with the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General to Yemen Martin Griffiths to mitigate the impact of the conflict on civilians by easing access to humanitarian aid and opening airports, seaports, and key roads to cities. Third, it should work with Saudi Arabia to stabilize the Yemeni currency, support the local economy, and strengthen governance and security where possible.

Israel appoints Haliva to express readiness for war against Iran

In what might be a signal toward Iran, Israel has appointed Major General Aharon Haliva on Thursday to be the next head of IDF Intelligence. Haliva is currently the head of the IDF’s Operations Directorate, which is in charge of overseeing and coordinating the IDF’s readiness for war.

Some see this move – at a time when tensions between Israel and Iran are high, as a sign that the IDF wants an experienced, well-informed officer heading the Intelligence Directorate.

Haliva was previously commander of the Paratroopers Brigade and the IDF Training Base 1 officers’ school.

His appointment is part of a round of new assignments in the IDF General Staff:

Brig.-Gen. Eliezer Toledano, currently OC of the Gaza Division, will become OC of the Southern Command. He previously served as military secretary for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Brig.-Gen. David Sa’ar Salama, currently head of Navy staff, will become head of the Navy. He previously served as an officer in the Shayetet 13 elite unit, and OC of the Haifa Navy Base.

Maj.-Gen. Yehudah Fuchs, currently the IDF military attaché in the United States, was appointed OC of the IDF Central Command. He previously served as OC of the Gaza division and commander of the Nahal Brigade.

Brig.-Gen. Oded Besiok, currently head of the Planning Division in the IDF Planning Directorate, will become head of the IDF’s Operations Directorate.

Maj.-Gen. Tamir Yadai, currently head of Central Command, will become commander of the Ground Forces. He previously served as OC of the Home Front Command and commander of the Golani Brigade.

 

Exploring likely solutions to break nuclear stalemate with Iran

The Politico magazine has proposed three solutions to the US President, Joe Biden to break the deadlock to restore the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. The article is written by founder and CEO of the Bourse and Bazaar Foundation Esfandyar Batmanghelidj and policy fellow at the European Leadership Network (ELN) Sahil Shah. Following is the text of the article: 

Joe Biden has promised for months to reverse Donald Trump’s policy on Iran, saying Trump pulled out “recklessly” from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—the Iran nuclear deal—and that the rest of Trump’s approach was a “dangerous failure.”

The issue is becoming only more urgent. Three reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency this week highlight dangerous, albeit reversible, advances in Iran’s nuclear program. Iran will continue to roll back its implementation of the deal if it does not see economic benefits of the agreement restored.

But it’s far from obvious how to restart nuclear talks in the current environment, never mind revive the full deal. In his first press conference as US Secretary of State last month, Antony Blinken declared that “if Iran comes back into full compliance with its obligations under the JCPOA, the US will do the same thing.” However, Iranian officials have publicly questioned why they should be the first to move when the US is the country that left. Iran contends that notwithstanding its moves to increase its capabilities and uranium stockpile, it remains in full compliance with the deal, interpreting paragraph 36 of the agreement to mean that Iran can “cease performing its commitments” should another party do the same.

In the current political context, Iranian rejection of Blinken’s proposal is understandable. The Trump administration eroded American diplomatic credibility, not only on the Iran nuclear deal, but across a wide range of international agreements. Even those Iranian leaders who remain strongly in favor of the nuclear deal are concerned that the Biden administration will lack the political will to provide Iran the full range of sanctions relief it was promised. Conservatives in Tehran continue to mock deal supporters for being naive.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani once stated that the JCPOA would either persist as a “win-win” agreement for all parties or end up as a “lose-lose.” As the US looks toward reviving it, it’s important to remember that Iran’s experience of sanctions relief following implementation of the JCPOA was disappointing. Lifting sanctions proved complex, and Iran’s economy had been thoroughly stigmatized. The Obama administration struggled to deliver Iran the economic benefits it had promised. In a nod to this bitter experience, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei recently stated that “getting sanctions lifted has failed” and that Iran should instead seek to “nullify” sanctions pressure.

But if Iran stands pat, the US is unlikely to be the first to restore its own commitments under the deal. Moving first would go a long way to restoring American credibility with European allies and the wider international community and would be consistent with Biden’s vow to restore multilateral diplomacy. But any such move will worry some US allies and members of Congress about the Biden administration's willingness to drive a tough bargain with Iran, both on its current nuclear program and on future regional security issues such as ballistic missiles.

With neither Washington nor Tehran aiming to be the first to come back into full compliance with the deal, Biden needs to find a way to do something artful and difficult: Get both sides to restore compliance at the same time. This approach may be the most palatable option, but it will require significant technical discussions between the two sides. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has indicated Iran would be open to such an approach, stating that it may be possible to “choreograph” the mutual restoration of commitments with the Biden administration.

“Even those Iranian leaders who remain strongly in favor of the nuclear deal are concerned that the Biden administration will lack the political will to provide Iran the full range of sanctions relief it was promised.”

But Biden must open the door for these direct talks. His first step must be significant enough to restore belief in the original “win-win” logic of the deal and offer Iranian officials a credible rationale for engagement with the US. At the same time, it may be limited enough to keep the US outside of the deal, offering him political cover with critics and underscoring the necessity for Iran to also take reciprocal steps.

Taking this kind of first step could, in its way, be a signal of strength for Biden: He’d be showing domestic opponents of the JCPOA that he will not be bullied into compromising his Iran policy. The fight over the appointment of Robert Malley as Iran envoy showed that hawks will “play dirty” to undermine the credibility of Biden’s outreach to Iran. Biden ought to nip this kind of cynical politics in the bud.

If Biden goes this route, officials in the US, Europe, and Iran are currently deliberating what a reasonable first move could be. Our conversations with officials suggest that there is awareness that breaking out of the political deadlock may require Biden to be bold. He has a few options.

First, the Biden administration could restore temporary waivers that enable Iran to sell oil, while US sanctions remain in place. Iran’s oil production and exports are rising faster than projected despite the COVID-19 crisis and US sanctions. This trend has reduced the perceived urgency of restoring the nuclear deal among key political stakeholders in Tehran who may gain more power after the upcoming Iranian presidential election. The Biden administration’s efforts to re-enter the JCPOA would be best served by making already increasing oil sales once again subject to the “win-win” logic of the nuclear deal. Iran’s earnings from these oil sales would be accrued in escrow accounts and subject to strict oversight as per the waiver terms. Revenues would be used by Iran for sanctions-exempt trade with the country in which the funds are held. Such a step would serve to remove a key piece of tension with US allies such as South Korea, Japan, and India whose energy security has been impacted by US sanctions on Iran.

Second, the Biden administration could support Iran’s loan request for funds from the International Monetary Fund. Iran’s request has languished despite the IMF’s technical assessment that Iran qualifies for financial support to address the balance of payments crisis created by the pandemic. Iran has indicated it is ready for these funds to be disbursed to its accounts outside of the country to be used for paying for sanctions-exempt imports. The funds would not flow directly into Iranian government coffers, but rather be used to address trade deficits. The Biden administration should grant this loan as part of its commitment to address the humanitarian impact of sanctions and a wider push to encourage the IMF to use its full financial capacities to address the ongoing economic crisis brought on by the pandemic.

Finally, a third option could be easing Iran’s access to its existing foreign exchange reserves. Presently, Iran has free and ready access to an estimated 10 percent of its reserves, a circumstance that has placed extraordinary pressure on Iran’s currency and generated high levels of inflation that harm ordinary Iranians. Iran has been engaged in fraught negotiations with numerous countries to try and get access to frozen assets, who continue to look to the US Treasury Department for the final say. The Biden administration could give these countries, including allies Germany and South Korea, the approvals and guidance necessary to enable both central and commercial banks to readily execute payments on behalf of Iranian account holders. As with the oil waivers and IMF loan, these payments can be restricted to sanctions-exempt trade, a key outcome of which would be lower rates of inflation.

Should Biden take any of these three steps, Iran can be expected to cease ramping up its nuclear program. Neither country would be fully implementing its commitments under the JCPOA, but an opportunity will have been created for new talks in the spirit of “win-win” diplomacy. There is no guarantee that these talks, and the complicated choreography of JCPOA restoration, will succeed. But Biden needs to give himself a shot. After the last four years, timid gestures will fail to do that. It’s time to be bold.

 

Iran inducts new boats for ensuring security of ships passing through Persian Gulf

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has inducted new, mostly small but faster boats, for the security of ships passing through the Persian Gulf. The boats were displayed at Bandar Abbas, Iran. 

Reportedly, the boats are equipped with multiple rockets, light anti-ship missiles and lightweight torpedoes. The boats received include a design from the UK called ‘bladerunner’ that has been repurposed by Iran. There is also a Taedong-B, North Korean submersible boat. North Korea and Iran have cooperated in the past on missile technology. There are also C-14 “China cat” missile boats which Iran has been using for many years.  

Of particular interest is the fact that Iran has now mounted drones on some of the boats. These drones are termed ‘Ababil’. Fars News didn’t mention the drones but video and still images show these mounted atop several vessels. Fars News quoted, “The speedboats are capable of carrying and firing various missiles and rockets and supporting diving operations joined by IRGC Naval Combat Organization in Bandar Abbas. The light, fast and offensive speedboats which were built in the centers affiliated to the IRGC Navy and in cooperation with the Defense Ministry will be ready for missions and operations in Persian Gulf, Sea of Oman and Caspian Sea.” 

Drones were first mounted on Iranian IRGC boats in 2020. According to reports at the time, some 70 Ababil-2 kamikaze drones were put on the IRGC vessels. It is not clear how well they work. However, the addition of the drones is aimed at providing additional security to ships passing through Persian Gulf. However, the US has termed these boats threat for its naval ships present in the region and former US President Donald Trump even threatened to sink IRGC boats.  

Iran drills 117 oil and gas wells in first 10 months of current calendar year

National Iranian Drilling Company (NIDC) has completed drilling of 117 oil and gas wells during the first nine months of the current Iranian calendar year. Managing Director of the company, Abdollah Mousavi said the drilled wells consisted of 27 development wells, one appraisal well, 85 workover wells and four exploratory wells.

The official stated that during this period, 18 wells were drilled 326 days earlier than the schedule and handed over to the applicant company for operation, adding that the early production of the wells, rig clearance, and cost reduction, which are resulted through cooperation between the experts of NIDC and the operating company, is economically viable significantly.

After the US re-imposed sanctions on Iran, indigenizing the know-how for the manufacturing of the parts and equipment applied in different industrial sectors is one of the major strategies that the Islamic Republic has been strongly following up to reach self-reliance and nullify the sanctions.

Oil, gas and petrochemical industries have achieved outstanding performances due to indigenizing of the knowledge for manufacturing many parts and equipment that were previously imported. Among different sectors of the mentioned industries, drilling could be mentioned as a prominent example in this regard.

NIDC managed to indigenize the knowledge for manufacturing 6,000 drilling equipment in collaboration with domestic manufacturers and engineers in the previous Iranian calendar year.

Before this success, the technology for manufacturing the mentioned equipment was in the possession of a handful of foreign companies.

The equipment indigenized by NIDC includes drilling mud pumps, blowout preventers, traction motors, draw-works, drilling fluid recycling systems, mission centrifugal pumps, top drives, and drilling rig slow circulation rate pressure systems.

The company has also managed to indigenize the know-how for manufacturing 242 parts highly-applied in the drilling industry during the first half of the current Iranian calendar year.

In order to indigenize the technology to manufacture these parts, NIDC inked six research deals with domestic universities and knowledge-based companies.

At the beginning of the current Iranian year, NIDC managing director had said that his company’s performance will be more outstanding in this year, which is named the year of surge in production.

The official’s saying has already come true, as his company managed to indigenize the know-how for manufacturing some significant parts, and also in completing the digging operations sooner than the schedule.

NIDC accounts for a major part of drilling exploration as well as appraisal/development wells in Iran. It holds 70 onshore and offshore drilling rigs as well as equipment and facilities for offering integrated technical and engineering services.

Will Biden withdraw US recognition of Israeli sovereignty over Golan?

The Golan Heights will always be part of Israel; Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday after US Secretary of State Antony Blinken walked back the Trump administration’s recognition of the Golan Heights as part of Israel.

“The Golan was and will remain part of Israel,” Netanyahu said while visiting a health clinic in Zarzir, near Nazareth. “With an agreement, without an agreement, we are not coming down from the Golan. It will remain a sovereign part of the State of Israel.”

It may be recalled that Blinken in an interview on CNN on Monday night said “As a practical matter, the control of the Golan in that situation I think remains of real importance to Israel’s security.”

“Legal questions are something else, and over time if the situation were to change in Syria, that’s something we look at, but we are nowhere near that,” he stated.

Blinken added that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government, as well as the presence of militia groups backed by Iran; pose a “significant security threat” to Israel.

US President Joe Biden’s advisers had said previously that he would not withdraw US recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan.

Former US president Donald Trump officially granted US recognition of the Golan as Israeli territory in 2019, a dramatic shift from decades of US policy.

Israel gained control of the Golan Heights from Syria in the 1967 during Six-Day War, and applied its laws to the area in 1981. No country other than the US has recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan.

Right-wing parties running in the Knesset election in March said Blinken’s statement would not deter them from developing the Golan Heights.

New Hope leader Gideon Sa’ar tweeted that Israel, under former Prime Minister Menachem Begin, applied its sovereignty to the Golan Heights 40 years ago.

“The Golan will always be an inseparable part of Israel,” Sa’ar wrote. “A government led by me will strengthen and grow our settlement in the Golan Heights.”

Yamina responded that “the future of our land will be decided by Israel’s actions and not by words.

“An Israeli government led by Naftali Bennett will act to strengthen our hold on the Golan Heights, Samaria, the [Jordan] Valley and Judea and the rest of the land,” the party stated.

The Religious Zionist Party led by MK Bezalel Smotrich used Blinken’s statement as an opportunity to attack New Hope and Yamina for not unequivocally endorsing Netanyahu.

“Whoever thinks that they can put their values aside even at the price of joining a left-wing government will find himself fighting not only for the recognition of the Golan Heights but against towns being evacuated,” the party said.

In the same interview, Blinken reiterated past comments that “if Iran returns to compliance with those obligations in the nuclear agreement, we would do the same thing, and then we would work with our allies and partners to try and build a longer and stronger agreement, and also bring in some of these other issues, like Iran’s missile program, like its destabilizing actions in the region, that need to be addressed as well.”

“The problem we face now,” he said, “is that in recent months, Iran has lifted one restraint after another… And the result is they are closer than they’ve been to having the capacity on short order to produce the solid material for a nuclear weapon.”

Blinken criticized the Trump administration’s decision to leave the Iran deal in 2018.

As for how the Biden White House viewed the previous administration’s efforts to broker peace in the region, Blinken said “We applaud the Abraham Accords.”

“This is an important step forward,” he continued. “Whenever we see Israel and its neighbors normalizing relations, improving relations, that’s good for Israel, it’s good for the other countries in question, it’s good for overall peace and security and I think it offers new prospects to people throughout the region through travel, through trade, through other work that they can do together to actually, materially, improve their lives, and that’s a good thing.”

But he added, “That doesn’t mean that the challenges of the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians go away. They don’t. They’re still there and they’re not going to miraculously disappear. So we need to engage on that, but in the first instance, the parties in question need to engage on that.”

Blinken posited that a final resolution between Israel and the Palestinians and the creation of a Palestinian state will not happen soon, but the Biden administration would try to ensure that neither side took unilateral actions to make peace more challenging.

“Hopefully, we’ll see both sides take steps to create a better environment in which actual negotiations can take place,” he said.

Whether he regards Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Blinken replied: “I do, yes. And, more importantly, we do.”

When pressed, Blinken would not commit whether the Biden administration would recognize a potential Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem, opting instead to say that an issue of this sort should be negotiated by the involved parties.