Is Iran really involved in smuggling of weapons?

Those aware of the modus operandi of US intelligence agencies know very well that they first create hype against a country or regime by releasing concocted stories with regular intervals and then based on these stories these countries are attacked. Three of the most recent victims are Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. 

Since 1979 Iran has remained under economic sanction, alleged for supporting rebel groups in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. To further malign Iran, now stories of weapon confiscation by the US Navy.

According to a report from 2015 to May 2021, the United States and its allies have intercepted at least seven shipments of weapons allegedly originating from Iran and headed to Yemen. The vessels were either wooden boats or fishing vessels. Their cargoes varied in size and lethality. Some boats were carrying small arms, such as machine guns and AK-47 assault rifles. Others carried anti-tank and surface-to-air missiles or components for anti-ship and land attack cruise missiles.

The following is a rundown of seizures, beginning with the most recent:

2021

In May 2021, USS Monterey interdicted a dhow in the northern Arabian Sea with a large cache of weapons, including dozens of Russian anti-tank missiles, thousands of Chinese-made assault rifles, and hundreds of machine guns, sniper rifles and rocket-propelled grenades. The source and destination of the weapons were under investigation, the US Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain said in a statement. US naval and coast guard personnel removed the cargo from the dhow and questioned the crew before releasing them.

2020

On 28th June, US Navy and partner forces interdicted a boat off the coast of Yemen. The vessel was carrying 200 RPGs, more than 1,700 AK rifles, 21 surface-to-air and land-attack missiles, several anti-tank missiles, and other advanced weapons and missiles.

Earlier on 9th February, USS Normandy interdicted the Al Qanas, a dhow in the Arabian Sea manned by Yemeni nationals. The vessel was carrying 150 anti-tank missiles, three surface-to-air missiles, night vision scopes and drone components. US naval personnel interrogated the dhow’s crew before handing them over to the Yemeni Coast Guard.The Justice Department later connected the dhow to Qods Force. A UN panel of experts also concluded that the anti-tank missiles were most likely manufactured in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

2019

On 25th November, USS Forrest Sherman interdicted the Al Raheeb, a dhow crewed by Yemeni nationals in the northern Arabia Sea. The boat was carrying 21 anti-tank missiles, five surface-to-air missiles, components for land-attack and anti-ship cruise missiles, thermal optical sights, blasting caps and drone components, according to a Justice Department filing. The missiles were “the most sophisticated weapons seized by the US Navy to date during the Yemen conflict,” U.S. Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook said on 25th December 2019. The Justice Department later connected the Al Raheeb to the Qods Force. A UN panel of experts concluded that the Al Raheeb carried Iranian made anti-tank missiles.

2016

On 28th March, USS Sirocco interdicted a dhow in the Arabian Sea headed for Yemen. The vessel was carrying 1,500 AK-47s, 200 RPG launchers and 21 .50 caliber machine guns, aid US Navy in a statement. The weapons were taken into US custody, while the crew was permitted to depart. The U.S. Navy said the weapons originated from Iran and were likely bound for Houthi insurgents in Yemen.

Earlier on 20th March, FS Provence, a French destroyer, interdicted a dhow in the northern Indian Ocean. The dhow was carrying several hundred AK47 assault rifles, machine guns and anti-tank weapons, according to the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF), a US-led coalition of 34 nations that operates in the Rea Sea, Gulf of Aden and Gulf of Oman. The taskforce initially said that the weapons were destined for Somalia, but the US Navy later assessed that the weapons originated from Iran and were destined for Yemen.

On 28th February, HMAS Darwin, an Australian warship, interdicted an fishing vessel more than 170 miles off the coast of Oman. The crew searched the vessel and discovered 1,989 AK-47 assault rifles, 100 rocket propelled grenade launchers, 49 PKM general purpose machine guns, 39 PKM spare barrels and 20 60mm mortar tubes, the CMF reported. A CMF taskforce initially said that the fishing vessel was headed toward Somalia, but the US Navy later assessed that the weapons originated from Iran and destined for Yemen. 

2015

On 30th September, the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen interdicted an Iranian fishing boat in the Arabian Sea about 150 miles off the coast of Oman. The vessel was carrying 18 anti-tank missiles, 54 anti-tank shells, 15 shell battery kits, four firing guidance systems and five binocular batteries destined to the Houthi militias in Yemen, the coalition reported. 

Should Bangladesh join QUAD or not?

Ever since I have created this blog site in 2012, one of my observations is that super powers in a bid to establish their hegemony in a region follow different polices. The sole objective remains making weaker countries subservient. 

First these countries are lured, in case the objective is not achieved super powers go the extent of creating internal turmoil and then demand regime change. 

It is known to all and sundry that United States and China are witnessing growing hostility in South China Sea area. Following cold war era policy, United States creates proxies. The strategy paid off in the Middle East and now it is being replicated in South China Seas. To achieve its motive, United States has joined hands with Australia, India, and Japan. Now efforts are being made to include Bangladesh in the alliance. It was expected that persuading Bangladesh would be easy because India has been godfathering since independence. It also appears that China would also use its strategic tools to keep Bangladesh under its influence.

Lately, Chinese ambassador to Bangladesh Li Jiming said Bangladesh’s relations with China will be ‘substantially damaged’ if Bangladesh joins the US-led initiative, Quad. China considers Quad — a strategic alliance of the US, Japan, India and Australia — as a minor group with anti-China motives.

Bangladesh Foreign Minister A K Abdul Momen was prompt in responding and said that China has crossed the line while talking about Quad. Momen said Bangladesh is yet to take any decision regarding Quad. Besides, Bangladesh is fully sovereign and will take the decision which is good for the country.

Momen said we set our foreign policy. Any country can express its opinions. But we’ll decide our course of action based on the fundamental principle we follow for the welfare of our country.

The minister further said generally China does not interfere in the affairs of other countries. I never heard them talking so aggressively to anyone. This is a matter of regret that another country is trying to dictate what we should or should not do. We’ll do whatever is beneficial for the country.

The desperation of United States became evident when Ned Price of the US State Department Spokesman said at a briefing “Well have taken note of that statement of the Chinese Ambassador to Bangladesh.” He also said, “We respect Bangladesh’s sovereignty, and we respect Bangladesh’s right to make foreign policy decisions for itself.”

He said the US has an incredibly strong relationship with Bangladesh and both the countries work closely with partners on a range of issues, from economic growth to climate change to humanitarian issues.

“We’ve said this before, the Quad, is an informal, essential, multilateral mechanism that right now conveys – convenes likeminded democracies – the United States, India, Australia, and Japan – to coordinate in the Indo-Pacific, and fundamentally, to push forward our goal of a free and open Indo-Pacific region.

Netanyahu succeeds in achieving his motives

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu virtually lost control of the Knesset in the latest election. It also became evident that he would not only lose premiership, but also face imprisonment in some of the corruption cases. Many doubted his continuation as Prime Minister. 

While all his opponents were busy in preparing plans to stop formation of the government by him, he and his partners turned the table. As the country is facing internal turmoil and attacks from Gaza, he is likely to emerge as the last choice in the prevailing circumstances.

Many may not like it, but his opponents proved too feeble, failed in forming an alliance and end his tenure, he continues to enjoy the premiership. It is also anticipated that many countries which support Israel, despite all its atrocities, would prefer to keep him power. Two of his biggest achievements were reorganization of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and shifting of the US Embassy to newly declared capital. He was also able to delay joining of United States JCOPA.

Firing of barges of rocket from Gaza by Hamas also helped him in proving two of his points: 1) Iran was fighting a proxy war in the region and 2) Muslim Ummah is fragmented and incapable of taking any unified stand against Israel. Muslim countries even failed in calling Israeli Ambassadors in foreign office and handing them over notes of descent. Still, Muslim countries have not been to call a UN or OIC meeting and condemning Israel’s outrageous behavior.

Now there is little talk about indiscriminate firing and shelling by Israel’s law enforcing personnel, but all are condemning Hamas for firing rockets and Iran for supplying these rockets to Hamas. It is also evident that the draft of UN resolution will be very mild or meaningless; it may rather hold Palestinians responsible for the current turmoil.

Fully cognizant of the US might, even the global and regional powers were prompt in recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Some of the Muslim countries which agreed to normalize relations with Israel in return for some paltry favors by the United States may not extend any support to Palestinians. The helplessness of countries like Egypt, Jordan and Syria is evident from the fact that Israel has not only been occupying their lands but also constructing settlements there. Gaza is often termed the biggest open air jail for Palestinians.

Softening Israeli stance or buying time for deadlier attacks

With mounting tension in Jerusalem, postponing the Sheikh Jarrah evictions, temporarily barring Jews from the Temple Mount and diverting the traditional Jerusalem Day march away from both Damascus Gate and the Muslim Quarter in Jerusalem’s Old City have been termed ‘smart acts’ of Israel.

Rockets were still fired on Jerusalem, and then they pounded the South. Riots broke out in the mixed Jewish-Arab cities of Haifa, Ramle and Lod, as well as in Arab cities in the Galilee. Arabs blocked roads in the South, and passing motorists were threatened and pelted with rocks. Playing things smart is making a difference in shaping the narrative and getting legitimacy for action. Israel has struck Gaza harder after Hamas fires rockets on Jerusalem.

It is too early to tell whether this round of fighting in Gaza will be short – two or three days – or a longer more intense military campaign. Hamas, by firing rockets onto Jerusalem, is trying to create a new equation, to set new “ground rules,” whereby whenever there is trouble in Jerusalem, they will get involved: If there is fire in Jerusalem, there will be fire in Gaza, or fire from Gaza onto Jerusalem.

Israel must disabuse Hamas of this notion and convince its leaders that this is not a new line of action worth pursuing; that it is simply not worth their while.

And the only way to do that is to hit Hamas very hard – not cosmetic targets, but strikes that will convince them that they have too much to lose. Otherwise, Hamas will present itself as the guardian of al-Aqsa and fire rockets toward Jerusalem each time there is trouble in the capital – and there often is trouble in the capital.

Another is that someone quickly needs to step up among the Arab-Israeli leaders and condemn the random violence and rioting among Arab-Israelis over the last two days and work to tamp it down, or relations between Israeli Arabs and Jews could be set back two decades to where it was at the outset of the Second Intifada.

It is frustrating that the rioting and violence would kill all the efforts to normalize ties between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Fighting corona pandemic had created a sense of “we are all in this together.”

Mansour Abbas appeared on the scene, gave speeches in Hebrew about coexistence without the usual rhetoric about the evils of Israel and Israeli society, and for the first time ever, an Arab party was seen by much of the public as a legitimate government partner.

Even the Likud of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and parties to his right – Yamina and New Hope – were willing to cooperate with Ra’am. Only the Religious Zionist Party, a party dismissed by many as an extremist, racist party, was opposed – and many saw their opposition as anachronistic.

The recent rioting of Arab-Israelis will likely set all of that back. It will be increasingly difficult for part of the public to see Ra’am, let alone the Joint List – a less conciliatory Arab party – as legitimate coalition partners, especially since they have not come out strongly against the violence and demonstrated that they were trying to stop it.

When Jewish extremists act outrageously, they are widely condemned by the government and the country’s leaders. There is growing realization that an entire community cannot and should not be judged by the actions of a radical and violent minority. But it can be judged by how it responds to those elements within it.

What is causing burning of Jerusalem?

For weeks now, Palestinian protesters and Israeli police have been clashing on a daily basis in and around Jerusalem. Interestingly the city has sites sacred to Jews, Christians and Muslims and the emotional epicenter of the Middle East conflict.

Here's a look at why Jerusalem always seems to be on edge and what set off the latest round of violence. Allow me to say that this year the situation has got real volatile. Since United States has accepted Jerusalem as capital of Israel, the extremist Jews want full control of the city and evict all the Muslims.

Capital of two peoples

Israel views Jerusalem as its "unified, eternal" capital. It had captured east Jerusalem, which includes the Old City, in the 1967 Mideast war, along with the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinians want those territories for their future state, with east Jerusalem serving as their eventual capital. But Israel annexed the eastern part of the city in a move not recognized internationally. The fate of east Jerusalem has been one of the thorniest issues in the peace process.

Israelis were set to mark Jerusalem Day, a national holiday celebrating the annexation. In past years, thousands of Israelis mainly religious nationalists have marched through the Old City, including the densely populated Muslim Quarter, in a display considered provocative by many Palestinians. In recent days, hard-line Israelis have staged other events in east Jerusalem, leading to scattered, violent altercations with Palestinians.

The holy hilltop

Monday's clashes took place in and around the Al-Aqsa mosque in the Old City. The mosque is the third-holiest site in Islam and sits on a sprawling plateau that is also home to the iconic golden Dome of the Rock. Muslims refer to the compound as the Noble Sanctuary.

The walled plateau is also the holiest site for Jews, who refer to it as the Temple Mount, because it was the location of biblical temples.

Neighboring Jordan serves as the custodian of the site, which is operated by an Islamic endowment known as the Waqf. The site is open to tourists during certain times but only Muslims are allowed to pray there. The Western Wall is the holiest site where Jews can pray.

In recent years, groups of religious and nationalist Jews escorted by police have been visiting the compound in greater numbers and holding prayers in defiance of rules established after 1967 by Israel, Jordan and Muslim religious authorities. The Palestinians view the frequent visits and attempted prayers by Jews as a provocation.

Some Israelis say the site should be open to all worshippers. The Palestinians refuse, fearing that Israel will eventually take over the site or partition it. Israeli officials say they have no intention of changing the status quo.

Discriminatory policies

Jews born in east Jerusalem are Israeli citizens, while Palestinians from east Jerusalem are granted a form of permanent residency that can be revoked if they live outside the city for an extended period. They can apply for citizenship, but it's a long and uncertain process and most choose not to because they don't recognize Israeli control.

Israel has built Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem that are home to some 220,000 people. It has severely limited the growth of Palestinian neighborhoods, leading to overcrowding and construction of thousands of homes that are at risk of demolition. The discriminatory policies make Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid.

Threatened evictions

The recent clashes began at the start of Ramadan, when Israeli police placed barriers outside the Old City's Damascus Gate, a popular gathering place after the evening prayers during the holy month when Muslims fast from dawn to dusk. They later removed the barriers, but then protests escalated over the threatened eviction of dozens of Palestinian families from the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah.

The families have been embroiled in a long legal battle with ideological Jewish settlers who seek to acquire property in crowded Palestinian neighborhoods just outside the Old City. Israel portrays it as a private real-estate dispute, but the families' plight has attracted global attention.

Wider unrest

Clashes in Jerusalem, and particularly in Al-Aqsa, often reverberate across the region. The Palestinian militant group Hamas has called for a new intifada. Gaza militants have fired rockets and balloons with incendiary devices attached to them in support of the protesters as an informal cease-fire with Israel has started to fray.

Jordan and other Arab nations that have friendly ties with Israel have condemned its crackdown on the protests, while Israel's arch foe Iran has encouraged Palestinian attacks. The US and the EU have condemned the violence and expressed concern about the evictions.

What is holding back OIC from asking Israel to stop its atrocities?

Pakistani Prime Minister, Imran Khan has condemned Israeli attack on Palestinians outside the Al Aqsa mosque during the holy month of Ramazan and reiterated his call on the international community and the Muslim world to take steps to protect the Palestinians and their legitimate rights.

One of my critics asked this question; even if they convene a meeting and pass a resolution condemning Israeli acts, will it make any difference? I insisted that holding an emergency meeting may prove that Muslim countries are united and support the Palestinians cause.

Having said that I could not resist from saying, “They may show lukewarm response and send low ranking official to attend the meeting, but wording of the resolution will be non-consequential.”

In support of my rational I have the following arguments:

It is no secret that for more than seven decades residents of, Palestine and Kashmir have been bearing the brunt of divided Muslim Ummah. Their miseries have persisted because of the vested interest of those countries, which enjoy the power to convince the global and regional super powers to resolve these long outstanding issues.

Today, I will not talk about Kashmir issue because it does not have common border with countries located in Arabian Peninsula. My heart is bleeding on the apathy of these countries towards killing of their Arab brothers by Israel in the occupied territories. I will not talk about heinous crimes against Palestinians over the last seven decades, but the most recent one, indiscriminate killing of Muslims in Jerusalem on last Friday.

It is known to all and sundry that Jews paid a heavy amount to the then US president, Donald Trump to do two things: 1) recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and 2) relocate the US embassy to newly recognized capital. All the oil rich Arab countries didn’t resist this move. In fact they were advised to normalize relationship with Israel, some have already done this, while others have also accepted but waiting for an opportune time to make the declaration.

Another friend said, “Iran is anti-United States and can be convinced to draft a heavily worded resolution.” I also have my doubts because most of the Arabs believe “Iran is a bigger threat as compared to Israel” and may not even like to invite it.

Many ardent followers of Imran Khan in Pakistan believe that he is capable of leading Muslim Ummah. However, many Arab countries also may not like the idea. Regrettably, some of these countries believe only they have the right to lead Muslim Ummah.

Therefore, I don’t expect any encouraging response from oil-rich Arab countries on holding an emergency meeting of OIC. They may not like making Khan a leader of Muslim Ummah.

Hillary and Condoleezza express concerns over withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan

Two of the former US Secretaries of State, Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice told members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee they're worried about President Biden's plan to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan, with Rice suggesting the US may need to go back. 

The position puts two former Secretaries of State — one from the Obama and other from Bush administrations at odds with one of Biden's most significant foreign policy moves to date.

The new president has vowed to complete the withdrawal by 11th September 2021, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attack. U.S. forces were sent to Afghanistan by Rice's then-boss, former President George W. Bush, to destroy havens used by the attack's organizers.

Clinton and Rice offered their reactions during a members-only Zoom call.

Rice's office did not want to comment on a private briefing. Clinton's spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

"We had Secretaries Clinton and Condi Rice Zoom with the committee," one committee member told. "A little disagreement on Afghanistan, but they both agreed we're going to need to sustain a counterterrorism mission somehow outside of that country."

“Condi Rice was like, you know, we’re probably going to have to go back, amid a potential surge in terrorism,” the member said.

Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Texas), the top Republican on the committee, told "With the potential for an Islamic State, coupled with what they're going to do to our contractors in Yemen and Afghanistan is, sadly, it's going to be tragic there and we all see it coming."

Another member of the committee confirmed both Clinton and Rice raised concerns about the potential fallout from a quick removal of all US troops.

Both also expressed concerns about protecting US diplomats on the ground following the withdrawal and what the move will mean for the global war on terrorism.

Both Rice and Clinton supported military intervention in the Middle East following the attacks on 11th September 2001.

Rice, who was Bush's national security adviser at the time, helped craft the administration's wartime response.

Then Senator Clinton — considered by many as a military hawk — voted in 2002 to give Bush the authority to go to war, a vote she later said she regretted while on the presidential campaign trail.

Clinton also supported surging additional troops to Afghanistan in 2009.