Can Hezbollah be savior of Lebanon?

The Lebanese people, regardless of sect or component, welcomed the decision, and at a time when the Arab Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, have not taken any steps to help the Lebanese people despite their support for Lebanon, Iran became the Lebanese salvation card.

Iran is trying to position itself as a fuel supplier to Lebanon to empower its Lebanese proxy. The goal is to force Lebanon to become dependent on Iran and then all the gas and fuel going to Lebanon will come through Hezbollah, which can then provide it to allies and friends.

Opponents of Hezbollah say that Iran’s goal is to impoverish Lebanon, destroy its middle and upper class, encourage its Sunni and Christian community to emigrate so that Hezbollah can grow in power and that all that will remain is a hollowed-out Lebanese state that is a province within a larger Hezbollahstan that is more powerful than Lebanon.

They also allege that Iran has been doing this for decades, slowly helping Hezbollah swallow Lebanon and create a parallel state and economy. Hezbollah has its own extra-judicial armed forces, a massive illegal armed militia with 150,000 missiles. Hezbollah sends fighters to Syria and conducts Lebanon’s foreign policy. Hezbollah has its own telecommunications network. It is able to control voting for the presidency and premiership. It also has a parallel construction, banking, and even supermarket network. Now it will be the supplier of fuel to Lebanon.

A report by Iran’s Tasnim media, "The Iranian ships, the triangle of resistance that shattered the American hegemony," lays out the Iranian regime's approach. Iran’s media is linked to the government and it parrots the government’s agenda. “Iran's fuel exports to Lebanon to resolve the country's crisis are currently making headlines in the Middle East and Western media,” the report says. It notes that the ships, making their way via the Suez Canal to Lebanon, are a “point of hope for the country.” Nasrallah said the Iranian ships would arrive soon.

 “The important point is that the import of gas from Egypt to Lebanon must be done through the territory of Syria, which is not possible without the consent of the Syrian government, and the United States must obtain the consent of Damascus, which requires the reduction of sanctions against Syria or it is the general abolition of Caesar Law,” says Tasnim.

In essence, Iran now knows that the fuel weapon can be used to force Lebanon to be dependent on Iran and its allies Hezbollah and Syria. Iran wins either way, either through bringing ships of “salvation” to Lebanon or by getting the US to aid the Syrian regime.

Iran suspects that the US wants to prevent the Iranian oil and gas shipments. “The Americans are in a paradoxical situation - on the one hand, they intend to prevent the import of Iranian fuel to Lebanon, and on the other hand, sanctions against Syria will continue,” the report says.

"The Zionist regime, which along with the United States is considered one of the biggest victims of Iran's fuel imports to Lebanon, has preferred to remain silent for the time being and has not even uttered its usual threats against Iranian ships, but the Zionists fear this action can be clearly seen in the media reports and comments of the regime's experts.”

Iran should be monitoring Israel’s reaction closely. The report notes “Israel's silence on the arrival of Iranian fuel ships in Beirut,” and also says the arrival of fuel “will increase Hezbollah's popularity in Lebanon and expand Iran's national influence in Lebanon, which means the failure of all the projects of Washington and Tel Aviv against the Lebanese resistance.”

The fuel weapon is now Iran’s main priority. The goal is to build up Hezbollah. “The success of Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah in rescuing the Lebanese people from the fuel crisis once again introduced him as a savior for all Lebanese and a leader who is working hard to resolve the country's crises, as opposed to the real face of some Lebanese politicians who it became clear to everyone that they were involved in aligning the positions of the West and the United States in the siege of Lebanon and in creating crisis and sedition inside the country,” Tasnim reported.

The point is that Hezbollah should be perceived as “saving” Lebanon while the West is seen as harming Lebanon. Meanwhile, the opposition to Hezbollah in Lebanon is weakened.

This Janus-face use of Hezbollah, where Hezbollah is responsible for Lebanon’s economic collapse and benefits from it by making Lebanon dependent on Iran, is the same model Qatar used with the Taliban in Afghanistan. It empowered the Taliban to take over Afghanistan and also gained credit from the West for “helping” Afghans flee.

Iran alleges that conglomerates in Lebanon include companies that hoard goods and which are controlled by the US. Iran is thus positioning itself as warring with the US economically in the region. Iran has a new deal with China that may be part of the reason it now sees the economy as a frontline. Hezbollah has created a new equation according to which Lebanese could turn to the East to resolve their economic crisis, led by the Islamic Republic of Iran and then Lebanon. It can operate freely in the commercial and economic spheres and gradually get out of American control.

Iran argues that its enemies in Lebanon include Former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri and Lebanese Forces head Samir Geagea. Hezbollah assassinated Hariri’s father, who was also prime minister. Iran accuses Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states of laying “siege” to Lebanon.

A Lebanese delegation went to Syria and asserts that this “unprecedented move shows that the Americans were unwittingly forced to reduce pressure on Damascus and Beirut. During the meeting, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad stressed that he was ready to provide any support to the Lebanese brothers.” Iran wins either way is the narrative.

Iran claims the US made a decision to get Lebanon to bring gas from Egypt to Lebanon through Syria. This paves the way for Hezbollah to redouble its efforts to break the US brutal siege of Lebanon, and this could even affect the border demarcation talks between Lebanon and occupied Palestine, and perhaps even use Iranian companies to extract Lebanese gas and oil.

The border issue likely relates to demarcating water borders off the coast. The move could also pave the way for countries such as Russia, Iran, and China to invest in Lebanon and take the Lebanese economy out of Western control.

Iran argues that this defeat of the US is linked to the defeat of the US in Afghanistan which shattered American hegemony and could be an incentive for other nations in the region to relinquish control by Washington.

Iran sees a tectonic shift in the region. This is big news for Israel because if Iran has successfully engineered an economic war by which Hezbollah and the Syrian regime are empowered, then Iran will likely use this leverage to further entrench itself in Syria and Lebanon in order to threaten Israel.

Iran has shown its cards that it has a long-term economic goal stretching from China via Afghanistan to Iran and then through Iraq to Lebanon. This is the wider impact of the fuel war currently being waged.

Afghan Caretaker Government

Taliban have appointed Mohammad Hasan Akhund, a close aide to the group’s late founder Mullah Omar, as head of Afghanistan’s new caretaker government. The list of cabinet members announced by Chief Spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid on Tuesday was dominated by members of the group’s old guard, with no women included.

Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the head of Taliban’s political office, will be the deputy leader.

 Sirajuddin Haqqani, son of the founder of Haqqani Network, has been named Interior Minister.

Mullah Mohammad Yaqoob, son of Mullah Omar has been named Defence Minister.

Hedayatullah Badri is Finance Minister.

Amir Khan Muttaqi, a Taliban negotiator in Doha, is named Foreign Minister.

“The Islamic Emirate decided to appoint and announce a caretaker cabinet to carry out the necessary government works,” said Mujahid, who named 33 members of “the new Islamic government” and said the remaining posts will be announced after careful deliberation.

Speaking at a news conference in the Afghan capital, Kabul, Mujahid stressed the cabinet was an “acting” government and that the group will “try to take people from other parts of the country”.

Akhund, the acting Prime Minister, is on a United Nations sanctions list. Hailing from Kandahar, Akhund was previously the Foreign Minister and then Deputy Prime Minister during the group’s last stint in power from 1996 to 2001. He is the longtime chief of the Taliban’s powerful decision-making body Rehbari Shura, or leadership council.

Haqqani, the new Interior Minister, is the son of the founder of the Haqqani network, designated as a “terrorist” organization by the United States. He is one of the FBI’s most wanted men.

Reporting from Kabul, Al Jazeera’s Charles Stratford said many of the appointments involved “old faces”.

“It’s also important to say that a lot of these names, the vast majority of them are actually Pashtun and are not taking into consideration, arguably critics would say, the vast great ethnic diversity of this country.”

Commenting on the Taliban’s announcement, Obaidullah Baheer, of the American University of Afghanistan, said it did not do “their cause for international recognition any favours”.

“The amount of time spent wasn’t on discussing or negotiating inclusivity or potential power sharing with other political parties. That time was spent on knowing how to split that pie amongst their own ranks,” Baheer told Al Jazeera from Kabul.

The group had promised an “inclusive” government that represents Afghanistan’s complex ethnic makeup – though women are unlikely to be included at the top levels.

In a statement on Tuesday, Mullah Haibatullah Akhunzada, the Taliban’s supreme leader, said the new government will work towards upholding Shariah law in Afghanistan.

“I assure all the countrymen that the figures will work hard towards upholding Islamic rules and Sharia law in the country,” Akhundzada said.

He told Afghans the new leadership would ensure “lasting peace, prosperity and development”, adding that “people should not try to leave the country”.

“The Islamic Emirate has no problem with anyone,” he said.

“All will take part in strengthening the system and Afghanistan and in this way; we will rebuild our war-torn country.”

In response to Taliban announcement, the United States said it was concerned about the “affiliations and track records” of some of the people named to government.

“We also reiterate our clear expectation that Taliban ensure that Afghan soil is not used to threaten any other countries and allow humanitarian access in support of the Afghan people,” a State Department spokesman said in a statement.

United Nations spokesperson Farhan Haq told reporters in New York that only a “negotiated and inclusive settlement will bring sustainable peace to Afghanistan”.

Countries reluctant to accept Afghan refugees

Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan has triggered tough measures from countries in the region and beyond to stem an expected refugee inflow. Governments from Islamabad to Ankara and Tehran have bolstered border restrictions in anticipation of hundreds of thousands of people fleeing Kabul.

Those actions and similar curbs signaled by Western countries have highlighted an emerging tension between claims of international sympathy for Afghan refugees and the reality on the ground. Governments are worried that refugees could start to pour out and exacerbate political and social problems created by previous influxes.

Caught in the middle of this conundrum are Afghans who have escaped to Iran, in the hope of bringing their family over the border and possibly further afield.

Turkey is "facing an increasingly intensifying Afghan migration wave coming via Iran," President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on the day the Taliban captured Kabul. The rapid seizure came two weeks before the complete withdrawal of US troops from the war-torn country they had been stationed in for nearly 20 years.

Turkey isn't the only nation in the neighborhood trying to avoid refugee inflows. Iran has closed its border with Afghanistan and returned refugees, according to a Tehran newspaper. Pakistan's army claims to have sealed all irregular crossings from Afghanistan, though domestic media have reported increased human trafficking across the border.

Unless Taliban decides to try to stop all Afghans from leaving, the end of the US involvement in Afghanistan is going to create more refugees from a country that already produced millions when it was occupied by the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Any new trickle or flood of refugees will include people who couldn't get on US or other evacuation flights from Kabul, people who fear for their lives, and others desperate because of economic hardships.

The UNHCR has predicted up to 500,000 Afghans could flee this year, leading him to call for borders to remain open and for more countries to share "this humanitarian responsibility" for helping refugees. Iran and Pakistan already host a combined 2.2 million registered Afghans. Iran needs help because of the "critical situation" it faces with the pandemic.

Pakistan, too, will likely end up more with refugees, despite rebuffing US requests to host more. Islamabad -- seen as close to the Taliban -- cites an inability to pay for the upkeep of more refugees on top of the millions.

According to a source in Pakistan's border authority, about 8,000 Afghans crossed into Pakistan on one day alone through Chaman crossing, where Afghans with a visa or a national identity card, or those previously registered with the Pakistani government as refugees, are allowed to cross.

Some countries in the region with interests in Afghanistan have offered limited, and short-term, help. The United Arab Emirates has agreed to temporarily host 5,000 evacuated nationals who will go to third countries, following a request from the US. The UAE, along with Qatar and Saudi Arabia, have called for peace and political stability in Afghanistan.

Another country that's been involved in rebuilding Afghanistan over the past two decades is India, which hosts more than 15,000 Afghan refugees from long ago. As of March 2021, a total of 41,315 refugees and asylum-seekers were registered with the UNHCR India, with Afghans making up the second-largest subgroup, at 37%, behind those from Myanmar, at 54%.

New Delhi has said it would help Afghanistan's minority Hindu and Sikh community members to come to India, and stand by a number of other Afghans "who have been our partners in the promotion of our mutual developmental, educational and people-to-people endeavors," the Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement.

There are concerns that the refugees' temporary stays could become quasi-permanent if other countries don't offer them a new home and they can't go back to Afghanistan.

While saying the European Union cannot abandon people in immediate danger in Afghanistan, Interior Ministers said in a statement last week that the 27-nations in the bloc "stand determined to act jointly to prevent the recurrence of uncontrolled large-scale illegal migration movements faced in the past, by preparing a coordinated and orderly response."

The biggest change in Israel in the past year

The biggest change in Israel in the past year was the departure of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after 12 consecutive years remaining in power. The people who made it happen are Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, they did it as a team. 

There is no doubt that they have had a massive influence on Israel in the past year and the changes are likely to continue.

Bennett and Lapid have a history of getting Netanyahu to do things he doesn’t want to do. Back in 2013, the “brothers,” as they were nicknamed due to Bennett’s penchant for calling everyone that, banded together so that Bennett would get into the coalition, despite Netanyahu not wanting him there, and so the haredi parties would stay out, as Lapid insisted. That coalition was a rocky one – even Bennett and Lapid joked they were downgraded from brothers to cousins – and only lasted a year and a half.

Fast-forward to 2021, when Israel held an unprecedented fourth election in two years. Lapid was in the “Never Netanyahu” camp, and had been since Netanyahu fired him from the Finance Ministry in 2014. Bennett said he was leaving his options open; he didn’t think Netanyahu was disqualified, but he was open to other options if Netanyahu was not able to get majority backing.

Though a majority of the Knesset’s seats went to right-wing and religious parties, Netanyahu, once again, could not cobble together a coalition. Parties that once worked with him refused to do so again for myriad reasons: he was under indictment on multiple charges of corruption; he was beholden to the haredi parties; he had broken one promise too many. The parties that were willing to work with him weren’t all willing to work with each other, like the far-right Religious Zionist Party, which refused to be part of a coalition that was dependent on the Islamist Ra’am Party. Bennett and Netanyahu negotiated, but even if Yamina joined the coalition, the numbers just didn’t add up to 61.

Bennett shifted to talks with his former brother Lapid, head of Yesh Atid, the largest party in the anti-Netanyahu bloc. And since Lapid needed Bennett, as well Ra’am, to form a coalition, they were able to make big demands. In Bennett’s case, it was to be prime minister in a rotation agreement, and to go first. Lapid is due to take his place in mid 2023.

With Netanyahu out of the way, the duo got to the business of leading what they call the “change government.”

In many ways, one can look at this government and the one we had several months ago and sigh, “plus ça change.” The Delta variant has Israel in a state of pandemic deja vu – though the COVID-19 vaccine continues to be highly effective in preventing severe illness – and the prime minister and health minister are still constantly urging Israelis to get jabbed. Though, Lapid and Bennett have decided, unlike Netanyahu, to actually engage with the Biden administration on ways to counter Iran, the mullahs’ regime is still moving forward with its nuclear plan and the West is mostly undeterred from trying to negotiate with them despite their aggression across the Middle East, and there have been mysterious power outages and fires in Iran. The incendiary devices still fly in from Gaza and Hezbollah is still threatening us with its missile stockpiles to the north. The price of housing is on the rise and the cost of food has not gone down, etc.

Bennett and Lapid are undeniably different from what came before them. The most obvious change is, of course, in the name and face at the helm. But there’s also a change in attitude. While it’s true that it takes an incredible amount of hubris for someone who only won seven seats in the last election to even think he could be prime minister, this government is structurally immune to the kind of concentrated power that Netanyahu had cultivated. With such a diverse coalition and such a small party within it, Bennett can’t just do what he wants or amass more and more authority under the Prime Minister’s Office, because if he goes too far, if his policies become too partisan, it will threaten the government’s delicate fabric. The same goes for the ministers of Yesh Atid, Meretz, Labor, New Hope, and Blue and White. So far, Lapid and Bennett have handled this delicate dance with relative aplomb, seeming to be perfectly in sync, whether they are talking about Iran and Hezbollah or the pandemic. They thank one another and give each other – and other ministers – credit, something the previous government lacked, as ministers would anonymously grumble.

The government that Bennett and Lapid are leading has the potential to make changes, for better or for worse, far beyond its spirit of partnership. The Health Ministry received a major, desperately needed budget increase. Necessary reforms in the state-funded rabbinate are on the agenda again, with haredim out of the coalition. Climate change is getting more government attention than ever before. The finance minister has leaned into “nanny state” taxes meant to change individual behaviors.

Taliban complete conquest of Afghanistan by seizing Panjshir control

Taliban completed its military conquest of Afghanistan by taking in control the mountainous province of Panjshir after seven days of heavy fighting. The fall of Panjshir puts the Taliban in full control of the country and eliminates the final vestige of organized resistance to its rule.

Taliban began its assault on Panjshir on 30th August 2021, the day the US military withdrew its last forces from Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul. Taliban seized control of Afghan capital of Kabul and 32 of the country’s 34 provinces on by 16th August, after a three and a half month long offensive that began on 1st May 2021.

After the fall of Kabul, the National Resistance Front, led by former Vice President and National Directorate of Security chief Amrullah Saleh, and Panjshiri warlord Ahmad Massoud, organized inside Panjshir and several neighboring districts in Parwan and Baghlan province. Saleh and Massaoud announced their opposition to the Taliban. Saleh organized thousands of members of the now-defunct Afghan National Defense and Security Forces, including Commandos, Special Forces and other units, and attempted to expand control beyond the Panjshir Valley. However, Saleh’s forays outside of Panjshir may have overextended his forces that would have been better used to defend the province and establish a secure base.

Taliban attacked Panjshir, a mountainous fortress with few entrances and narrow passes, from multiple directions, and was initially repelled by the resistance forces. But they continued assault and were able to punch through the resistance’s defenses at the main pass in the south near the town of Gulbahar, and the pass at Khawak in the east.

Taliban quickly advanced up the narrow road and took control of Bazarak, the provincial capital on 5th September. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, announced on 6th September that Panjshir province “was completely conquered.”

Ahmad Massoud, whose father led the Northern Alliance against Taliban in the 1990s and was assassinated by Al Qaeda just two days prior to 9/11, vowed to continue the fight against the Taliban and called on all Afghans to continue its resistance. Without his base in Panjshir, Massoud’s promise to effectively continue the fight against the Taliban is a difficult proposition. Massoud’s forces may be able to launch guerrilla attacks from the mountains, but its ability to challenge Taliban rule will be limited.

Taliban had nearly all of the advantages in its favor, including numbers, equipment, and the quality of its fighting force. Taliban’s military has been forged in 20 years of war against the US military, NATO, and Afghan forces, while Massoud’s forces were safe in Panjshir and Saleh’s remnants were demoralized during the final Taliban offensive. Taliban was able to mobilize its forces from across Afghanistan, while the resistance’s numbers were limited. Additionally, Taliban was flush with weapons, munitions and gear that it seized from the Afghan military.

The National Resistance Front’s only advantage was terrain, but it was no match for Taliban’s will to take the province and end the final challenge to dominating the country and establishing the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

What is delaying formation of Taliban Government in Afghanistan?

Delays in the formation Taliban Government is linked with the problem of Panjshir, which will be resolved in a couple of days, Mohammad Akbar Agha, a Taliban field commander and now the leader of Afghanistan’s High Council of Salvation, told TASS on Sunday.

"The only problem hampering the formation of a government in Afghanistan is the problem of Panjshir," he said, adding that the new government "will be announced in a couple of days."

The northern province of Panjshir is the only pocket of resistance for Taliban. It is led by Ahmad Massoud, a son of Ahmad Shah Massoud, a once influential leader of Afghanistan’s Tajik community who fought against the Taliban back in the 1990s.

"No doubts that people in the future government should be Afghans. It doesn’t matter for us which ethnic or social group they belong to," he said.

Taliban have postponed formation of the government for the second time after they took control of Afghanistan last month. Taliban spokesperson Zabiullah Mujahid on Saturday said that the announcement about the new government and Cabinet members will now be made next week, without providing the reason behind the postponement.

Taliban were expected to announce the government formation on Friday in Kabul, with the group’s co-founder Mulla Abdul Ghani Baradar as its head. The reports, however, suggest that the insurgents have been struggling to shape an inclusive administration acceptable to the international community.

It is believed that Taliban can form the government at their own but they are now focusing to have an administration in which all parties, groups and sections of the society have proper representation.

Khalil Haqqani, responsible for the security of Kabul, revealed that former Afghanistan’s Prime Minister Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Hashmat Ghani Ahmadzai, brother of ousted Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, will be given representation in the government. Hashmat Ghani had recently indicated that he’ll support a Taliban-led government.

On Friday, US secretary of state Antony Blinken reiterated the expectations from a Taliban-led government, including the formation of an inclusive government, rejecting reprisals and upholding the basic rights of Afghans. The top US diplomat was responding to the reports of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar getting the charge of the new government.

Israeli President meets King Abdullah of Jordan

Reportedly, Israeli President, Isaac Herzog has met King Abdullah at his palace in Amman. The Herzog-Abdullah meeting took place on the sidelines of a trilateral meeting held in Cairo on Thursday between the Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority. 

At present, Israel is trying to mend its frayed relationship with the Hashemite Kingdom.

“Jordan is a very important country. I have immense respect for King Abdullah, a great leader, and a highly significant regional actor,” Herzog said on Saturday after he revealed details of the visit.

It comes amid a slate of high-level meetings about the frozen peace process as well as regional and bilateral relations between Israel and its neighbors.

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett also met with Abdullah in July. Bennett has not spoken publicly about his Jordan trip, but Abdullah has made comments twice that appeared to reference it.

Both Abdullah and Bennett visited United States to meet President Joe Biden in Washington this summer. The Jordanian monarch also had an audience with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow.

Herzog noted that Abdullah had “recently met extremely important leaders, including President Biden, President Putin, President al-Sisi, and Mahmoud Abbas.

“In our meeting, among the things we discussed were the core issues in the dialogue between our states,” Herzog said.

Israeli-Jordan relationship had been in crisis during the latter part of former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s tenure.

Bennett had immediately sought to make overtures to Jordan, with a major water and trade deal.

Herzog said that he spoke with Abdullah about additional steps that could assist Jordan. This included an “agreement to import agricultural produce during the shmita (agricultural sabbatical) year, energy issues, sustainability, and solutions to the climate crisis that we can advance together,” Herzog said.

In discussing the visit, Herzog also spoke of the importance of Israel’s expanding relations in the region.

He referenced the Abraham Accords by which Israel normalized ties with four Arab countries last year: the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan.

“There is a sense in the region of a desire to make progress, a desire to speak. We are currently marking one year since the signing of the Abraham Accords,” Herzog said.

“These accords created an important regional infrastructure. They are highly important agreements, which are transforming our region and the dialogue within it,” explained Herzog.

“I was happy to inaugurate the United Arab Emirates’ embassy in Tel Aviv at the start of my term, and I intend to speak with and meet other heads of state in the region.

“I speak with many leaders from all around the world, almost every day, in full coordination with the Government of Israel. I think that it is very important for the State of Israel’s strategic and diplomatic interests to engage everyone in dialogue,” Herzog said.

His office added that the king had invited Herzog to visit and that the two men had discussed bilateral and regional strategic issues.

The visit was coordinated between Bennett and Foreign Minister Yair Lapid.

It comes in advance of an anticipated meeting between Bennett and Egyptian leaders, although no date has been set for the trip.

Bennett, however, has dismissed the possibility of meeting with Abbas or even speaking with him on the phone. The peace process between Israelis and Palestinians has been frozen since 2014 and conversations between Netanyahu and Abbas were rare.

In an unusual move, Defense Minister Benny Gantz met with Abbas last week to discuss security matters and economic gestures.

Herzog spoke with Abbas after taking office. He told Channel 13 that he thought it was correct to speak with the Palestinians, particularly on the matter of security.

The absence of talks with the Palestinians will not contribute to Israel’s security, Herzog said.

Overall, he told Channel 13, when it comes to dialogue between Israel and Arab leaders there is a window of goodwill that Israel should make use of wisely.