Iran claims arresting Mossad agents with weapons

According to Fars News Agency, Iranian Intelligence Ministry claims arresting a network of Mossad agents and seizing a heavy shipment of weapons and ammunition after they entered Iran through its western border.

The Ministry stated that the Mossad network in the area was hit hard after Iran managed to thwart the alleged sabotage attempts.

The Intelligence Ministry thanked the people of Iran for their constant vigilance and called on all citizens to be more vigilant and aware of suspicious offers, especially on the Internet.

The seized weapons included pistols, grenades and shotguns, according to the Ministry, which added that some of the weapons have been used to provoke clashes during protests.

The Ministry claimed that the alleged agents intended to use the weapons during the ongoing protests taking place throughout Iran in order to carry out assassinations and that Israel attempted to carry out acts of sabotage in various places during the recent presidential elections.

The announcement comes as protests continue across Iran for a third week in light of a severe drought and water crisis in southwestern Iran, and the day after anti-government protests broke out in Tehran.

A video shared on social media showed protesters marching down the streets of the capital on Monday shouting slogans such as “Death to the dictator” and “Neither Gaza nor Lebanon: I will sacrifice my life for Iran.”

Additionally on Tuesday, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced that it had killed two terrorists and captured another in the West Azerbaijan province in northwestern Iran. The IRGC claimed that the three member team planned to carry out sabotage and anti-security measures, according to Fars.

Three additional suspects who intended to protect the terrorists were also arrested, according to the report.

A “considerable amount” of weapons, ammunition and explosives were seized in the arrest, according to Fars.

On Monday, the Judiciary Office in the Fars Province announced that 11 members of a terrorist-takfiri group controlled by leaders located outside of Iran were arrested in the Fars Province.

An additional 25 individuals connected to the group were arrested in other provinces in a coordinated operation, according to the announcement.

“Takfiri” is a term used by Iran and pro-Iranian groups to refer to hard-line, Islamist militants.

The Judiciary Office added that the group had released a number of video clips on the Internet to spread terror and declare their existence. The office did not state what the name of the group was or where exactly its leaders are located.

“The group intended to carry out simultaneous terrorist operations in several provinces of the country which was plotted with the intelligence and financial cooperation of two intelligence services of the European countries and certain regional states but they were thwarted, thanks to the vigilance of judicial officials,” said the head of the Judiciary Office, according to Fars.

US military involvement in Afghanistan was a mistake

Americans are evenly divided on whether the war in Afghanistan was a mistake, as the withdrawal of US troops from the region nears completion. Gallup reported on Monday that 47% of Americans believe US military involvement in Afghanistan was a mistake, while 46% support the mission.

President Joe Biden announced in April that all US troops would be withdrawn from Afghanistan by 11th September 201, the 20th anniversary of the attacks on twin towers, resulting in the longest war in American history.

Earlier this month, Biden moved up the target date for pulling all troops from the region, revealing that the US military mission would end by 31st August.

More than 2,400 US service members have died in Afghanistan, according to Gallup. The war, which has cost the US more than US$2 trillion, has left around 20,000 US troops injured.

The poll, conducted between 6th to 21st July was the second time in history that fewer than half of Americans said US involvement in Afghanistan was not a mistake, according to Gallup.

Support for sending troops into Afghanistan was high in October 2001, shortly after the US sent troops into the country, with 80% of Americans supporting the move, and 18% opposed.

Support for the war increased the next year, with a record-high 93% of Americans saying it was not a mistake to deploy troops to the country.

In 2014, backing for the war slipped. That year was the first time US adults were as likely to say it was a mistake to send troops into Afghanistan as they were to say it was not, Gallup reported.

Of the Americans polled that year, 49% said the US made a mistake sending troops into Afghanistan, while 48% said it was not a mistake.

Support rose again in 2015 and 2019. This year, it is back on par with the results from 2014, according to the polling organization.

As the US withdrawal effort nears the completion concerns are growing about the stability of the Afghan government once American forces vacate the country, particularly as the Taliban continues to make gains in the region.

Gallup polled a random sample of 1,007 adults in all 50 US states and the District of Columbia. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Remove Ashraf Ghani immediately, if peace can be established in Afghanistan without him

According to an Associated Press report, Taliban say there will not be peace in Afghanistan until President Ashraf Ghani is removed and there is a new negotiated government in Kabul.

Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen said the insurgents would end their fighting when a negotiated government that agrees with all sides of the conflict is established in Kabul, and Ghani's government is removed. 

“I want to make it clear that we do not believe in the monopoly of power because any governments who (sought) to monopolize power in Afghanistan in the past were not successful governments,” Shaheen said.

 “So we do not want to repeat that same formula.”

Shaheen dismissed Ghani's right to govern, calling him a warmonger and accusing him of using his speech on Eid-al-Adha to assure an offense against the Taliban.

Shaheen also brought up allegations of widespread fraud regarding Ghani's win. Ghani has said that he will remain in office until new elections determine the next government, which his critics, including the Taliban, say is only a method for him to remain in power. 

Last week, the Executive Officer of the country, Abdullah Abdullah, led a high-level group of representatives to talk with Taliban leaders, according to the AP.

While Shaheen said those talks were good at first, the government’s repeated demands for a cease fire without the removal of Ghani were similar to a Taliban surrender. 

“They don’t want reconciliation, but they want surrendering,” Shaheen said.

Before the Taliban can agree to a cease fire, there must be a new government “acceptable to us and to other Afghans,” he said. Only then will there be no war, according to Shaheen. 

Shaheen said the new government would allow women to work, go to school, participate in politics and walk freely without a male relative. However, they will be required to wear a hijab or headscarf. 

However, many reports from captured Taliban districts dispute this claim, as there are many harsh restrictions imposed on women, including setting fire to schools, according to the AP. 

Shaheen said that the capture of those districts was done through negotiation, not fighting. He said that some Taliban commanders ignored the leadership's orders against repressive and drastic behavior.

“Those districts which have fallen to us and the military forces who have joined us ... were through mediation of the people, through talks,” he told the publication. “They did not fall through fighting. ... It would have been very hard for us to take 194 districts in just eight weeks.”

Is Bennett being trapped by non-state actors?

On last Sunday it appeared that Prime Minister Naftali Bennett had just erased a 54-year policy banning Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount. Had Bennett actually made such a policy change, it likely would have started a religious war between Jews and Muslims, due to vehement opposition to Jewish prayer at the site. 

Domestically it would have collapsed his coalition and set Israel hurtling back into another election cycle.

It’s a move that could have severed Israel’s ties with its neighbor Jordan and complicated relations between Amman and Washington on the eve of US President Joe Biden’s first meeting there with King Abdullah the next day, particularly given that the Hashemite Kingdom has a special custodial relationship to the Temple Mount.

At issue was a line in a tweet sent out by the Prime Minister’s Office in the aftermath of clashes at the Temple Mount, also known to Muslims as al-Haram al-Sharif.

Initially it looked like a simple message, letting the public know that Bennett had spoken “with Public Security Minister Bar Lev and Israel Police Insp.-Gen. Shabtai and thanked them for managing the events on the Temple Mount with responsibility and consideration.”

This could have been termed the most innocuous statement in the world, the Prime Minister’s Office added that this was done “while maintaining freedom of worship for Jews on the Mount.”

The Prime Minister’s Office continued the Twitter thread, stating that Bennett had emphasized that “freedom of worship on the Temple Mount will be fully preserved for Muslims as well, who will soon be marking the fast of the Day of Arafah and the Eid al-Adha.”

Not exactly the type of notice one issues when setting a policy change. Except that a policy – known as the status quo – worked out in the aftermath of the Six Day War in 1967 between Israel and the Wakf Islamic religious trust allows members of all faiths to visit the site, while banning anyone but Muslims from praying there. Jews in particular are expected to pray at the nearby Western Wall.

Bennett backtracked, with his spokesman Matan Sidi clarifying that there was no change to the status quo. Sidi’s words appeared to extinguish potential sparks, but the timing could not have been worse.

US airstrikes in Afghanistan

During this past week, the US military launched several airstrikes in support of Afghan government forces fighting Taliban, including in the strategically important province of Kandahar. It must be kept in mind that at present United States has no airbases in Pakistan or Central Asian countries.

These strikes demonstrate the US intentions to continue supporting Afghan forces with combat aircraft based outside the country, at least until the scheduled conclusion of the US military withdrawal by 31st August 2021.

The US has a variety of combat aircraft based in the Middle East within range of Afghanistan, including warplanes aboard an aircraft carrier in the region and fighters and bombers in the Persian Gulf area.

These are the first known US airstrikes in Afghanistan since Gen. Scott Miller, the top US commander in the country, relinquished his command and left the country. The authority to launch airstrikes against the Taliban has since been in the hands of Gen. Frank McKenzie, the commander of US Central Command, who oversees US military involvement in the greater Middle East.

The United States conducted a total of more than four airstrikes in support of Afghan forces. At least two of the strikes were to destroy military equipment, including an artillery piece and a vehicle that the Taliban had taken from Afghan forces. The Afghans requested those strikes, as well as those targeting Taliban fighting positions, including at least one strike in the southern province of Kandahar.

At a Pentagon news conference Wednesday, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Taliban now control about half of the 419 district centers in Afghanistan, and while they have yet to capture any of the country’s 34 provincial capitals, they are pressuring about half of them. As the Taliban seize more territory, the Afghan security forces are consolidating their positions to protect key population centers, including Kabul, he said.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said that after 31st August the main focus will be on countering threats to the US homeland from extremist groups inside Afghanistan. He added that the administration will provide financial and other kinds of support to Afghan defense forces, even with no combat troops or strike aircraft based there.

 

Can joining Quad help India fight Himalayan war against China?

The ambiguity over officially announcing China as its adversary, the lack of overlap between the geographies or the issues of its members with China, and the military disadvantages before a well-prepared Chinese puts a question mark over Indian inclusion in the Quad.

India has maintained that it perceives the Quad as not aimed against anyone, “denied it is an Asian NATO”, stressed on broader issues from vaccine collaboration, to resilient supply chains, and framed its language that avoids irking China. But the belated adoption of broader goals such as climate change and vaccines in the 12th March Quad Leaders’ Summit, to make it more acceptable to other countries, suggested that the target is Beijing.

Only India and Japan have territorial disputes and are geographically close with China, while the US and Australia’s opposition stems from Great Power contest, China’s socio-political system and policies in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, the South China Sea and Taiwan.

The only tangible dispute Australia has with China was the trade war where the latter’s tariffs cost Australia US$3 billion ‑ themselves in response to Australia backing a global inquiry into the COVID-19 origins in April 2020.

While India’s territorial disputes with China are in the Himalayas, Japan contests the Senkaku Islands (or Diaoyu in Chinese) in the East China Sea. Thus, the lack of a contiguous land or maritime geography with China does not allow a ‘united front’ per se — like Egypt and Sudan against Ethiopia, or Egypt, Greece and Cyprus in the Eastern Mediterranean against Turkey. Moreover, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga on 22nd April refused intervening in a Chinese invasion of Taiwan itself, while clarifying 17th April joint statement with Biden in the Japanese Parliament.

India is not likely to join Quad members to collectively confront China in the South China Sea, as China can be expected to retaliate with severe backlash in Ladakh. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is already limiting the disengagement only to the Pangong Tso, with the standoff becoming a year old.

Beijing initiated the standoff because of India’s rising military dalliance with the US and tacitly joining former US President Donald Trump’s COVID-19-origin charge in early 2020. China perceived it as a threat to its sovereignty and India and US exploiting its vulnerability. Moreover, India’s reconciliatory statements at the beginning of the standoff reflected an unwillingness to go to war.

Giving up the Kailash Range plateau that had stunned the Chinese, has also left India with little military options. Add to it its obsolete military equipment and structure, India can only fight a defensive war. In the South China Sea against the US Navy that is stretched thin, the Chinese have a home advantage.

In the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), the Peoples’ Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) knows it faces the ‘away’ disadvantage and, therefore, will not challenge the Quad or India.

Retired US Navy Admiral Dennis Blair also discredits the ‘String of Pearls’ theory, saying it is “not possible for any navy to encircle a country (like India) with a few ports.” Since international law would permit India to strike regions it faces attacks from, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or Pakistan will not host Chinese military facilities aimed at India.

A China policy independent of the US geopolitical rivalries that objectively addresses Indian issues with Beijing and avoids the destabilization that Washington’s military alliances effect would inspire a positive response from China. Moreover, banking on military alliances against China would harm the current government’s muscular, nationalistic image.

Remembering King Abdullah I of Jordan

The year 2021 marks 70 years of assassination of King Abdullah I of Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. He was assassinated on the Temple Mount, while visiting Jerusalem to meet Israeli officials amid his efforts to reach a settlement with Israel. 

Abdullah was assassinated at the age of 69 as he was exiting al-Aqsa Mosque after Friday prayers with his grandson Hussein.

The assassin, Mustafa Shukri Ashshu, was associated with Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husseini, who sparked riots against Jews in Mandatory Palestine and was close with Adolf Hitler during World War II. Those associated with the Mufti were often termed "bitter enemies" of Abdullah, as the Mufti supported the establishment of a Palestinian state, which Abdullah seemed to have thwarted by annexing the West Bank, according to a Guardian article from the day after the assassination.

A few days before the assassination, Riad al Sohl, the first prime minister of Lebanon, was also assassinated in Jordan. Ali Razmara, Prime Minister of Iran, and Abdul Hamid Zanganeh, former Education Minister of Iran, were also assassinated in the months before Abdullah's assassination. The assassinations were seen as a sign of increasing instability in the region.

Abullah was succeeded by his son Talal, who was forced to abdicate about a year later due to mental illness. Talal was succeeded by Hussein, who ruled until 1999, when he was succeeded by the current king of Jordan, Abdullah II.

King Abdullah I was known for his efforts to reach at least some form of peace with Israel, although he was assassinated 43 years before a peace treaty between the two nations was finally signed.

Abdullah met with Reuven Shiloah, the first Mossad director, and Golda Meir in a number of discussions from 1949 to 1950. The king made extensive efforts to get other Jordanian officials to support reaching a settlement with Israel, but faced intense opposition from both officials and the Jordanian and Palestinian public.

Abdullah had been set to meet with Shiloah and diplomat Moshe Sasson in Jerusalem the day after he was assassinated, according to Avi Shalim, an Israeli-British historian.

In Lion of Jordan, Shalim's biography of Abdullah's grandson, Hussein, Abdullah is quoted as having told Sasson "I want to make peace with Israel not because I have become a Zionist or care for Israel’s welfare but because it is in the interest of my people. I am convinced that if we do not make peace with you, there will be another war, and another war, and another war, and another war, and we shall lose all these wars. Hence it is the supreme interest of the Arab nation to make peace with you"

Elias Sasson, Moshe's father, wrote shortly after Abdullah's assassination: "King Abdullah was the only Arab statesman who showed an understanding for our national renewal, a sincere desire to come to a settlement with us, and a realistic attitude to most of our demands and arguments... We as well as some of the Arabs and foreigners are going to feel for a long time to come his absence, and to regret more than a little his removal from our midst," according to Shalim's biography.

By the time of his assassination, Israeli officials had largely lost hope that Abdullah's efforts would ever lead to an actual peace due to continuing opposition by Arab and Jordanian officials.

At the time of his assassination, a newsreel by the British Pathé News described Abdullah as "the one man who might have brought peace to the Middle East."

Winston Churchill expressed deep regret after hearing of Abdullah's assassination, saying "I deeply regret the murder of this wise and faithful Arab ruler, who never deserted the cause of Britain and held out the hand of reconciliation to Israel," according to The Guardian.