Russia or United States: Who benefits from revival of Iranian nuclear deal?

Russian invasion of Ukraine is throwing into doubt global efforts to revive the nuclear deal with Iran, just as international mediators appeared poised to announce a breakthrough.

Negotiators from the United States, Europe, Russia, China and Iran had largely managed to seal themselves off from outside crises around the globe over nearly a year of talks in Austria.

But international condemnation against Russia and a globally coordinated sanctions regime – now targeting Russian oil exports, its main financial artery – is reverberating through the conference rooms in Vienna.

“The Russia-Ukraine crisis has certainly cast a darker shadow over the talks than it did a few days ago,” said Naysan Rafati, senior analyst on Iran for the International Crisis Group.

Biden administration officials say that Russia has a key stake in reviving the agreement to reduce global risk for another nuclear-armed state, despite Russian President Vladimir Putin waging war against the West.

“Russia, for its own reasons, has chosen to be a participant in these negotiations because it wants to see Iran's ability to get a nuclear weapon constrained,” Victoria Nuland, Undersecretary of State for political affairs, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday.

Nuland said negotiators in Vienna have nearly completed an agreement on a pathway for the US and Iran to return to compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the formal name for the nuclear deal that former President Trump withdrew from in 2018.

But Russian and Iranian officials in recent days have issued statements laying out hard-line demands and casting doubt on the potential of the talks concluding.

Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi said Tuesday that Tehran would not abandon its red lines over rejoining the deal, which are said to include guarantees that would bar any future US presidential administration from withdrawing from the deal, lifting all sanctions and allowing Iran a measure of recourse if United Nations sanctions were reimposed in a so-called snap-back, according to Iran’s semiofficial FARS News agency.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has recently pressed for Russia to have unhindered access to the Iranian market when sanctions are lifted against Tehran, as Moscow is buckling under sanctions imposed over its invasion of Ukraine.

Russia’s ambassador to Iran, Levan Dzhagaryan, reiterated on Wednesday, “The negotiations on the nuclear deal with Iran should take into account the legitimate interests of Russia in the implementation of comprehensive cooperation with Iran.” 

Yet Nuland, in front of lawmakers, said the US would not bow to Russian extortion efforts related to the nuclear deal.

“Russia is trying to up the ante and broaden its demands with regard to the JCPOA and we are not playing let us make a deal,’” she said.

Meanwhile, critics opposed to the nuclear deal in general are expressing fury over Russia potentially benefiting from sanctions relief on Iran.

“Let me get this straight, we're working hand in glove with Vladimir Putin to reach a deal that will help Russia evade sanctions being imposed for its aggression in Ukraine and work with its ally, Iran,” Senator Bill Hagerty, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on the Senate floor on Tuesday.

Senator Bob Menendez, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and an opponent of the deal, said “I am specifically concerned that returning to the JCPOA will benefit Russia economically at a time when the international community is committed to squeezing Moscow.”

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who was the architect of the Trump administration's maximum pressure sanctions campaign on Iran after the US exit from the deal, called it “completely nutty” to both work with the Russians in Vienna and consider lifting terror designations on Iran, “who are trying to kill people all across the world.”

“But the Biden admin is doing both,” said Pompeo, who is considered a potential 2024 Republican presidential candidate.

The Biden administration argues that reviving the Obama-era nuclear deal is the best chance to box in Iran’s nuclear ambitions, with the regime in Tehran having significantly advanced its nuclear stockpile of weapons-grade uranium and infrastructure for building a bomb since it started violating the agreement’s terms in 2019. 

“Nuclear capability of the kind that we don't want to see could come to Iran in a matter of weeks and months if we don't get them back into this agreement,” Nuland said, “That is not good for the planet. And to have both Iran and Russia able to threaten all of us in that way would be catastrophic at this time, not to mention what they might do if they teamed up.”

A restoration of the JCPOA is likely to entail the Biden administration lifting specific sanctions on Iran in exchange for Tehran disposing of its nuclear material stockpiles and opening itself up to intrusive monitoring by international nuclear watchdogs.

Suzanne DiMaggio, an expert on diplomacy with Iran at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the Russians’ most recent demands for access to the Iranian market could be met using legal carve outs, if they are limited to the implementation of a restored JCPOA.

“But if the goal is broader – such as sanction-proofing a range of Russian interactions with Iran beyond the scope of the deal – it will complicate things,” she wrote in an email to The Hill. 

“The implications are still unclear because the Russians haven’t clarified their objectives. The longer they take to spell out their end goals; it appears their intention is to derail the process.”

Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said that reaching an agreement is still possible with Russia’s eleventh-hour demands, but it does require grit and a willingness to delay the deal.

“Make no mistake, Russia is looking to use Iran as a sanctions busting hub to offset Ukraine-related sanctions pressure,” he wrote in an email to The Hill.

“Russia and Iran have often raised last minute demands in negotiations in a bid to get more and offer less. What makes this different is Russia's raging war in Ukraine.”

Both US and European officials have stressed that the indirect talks between the US and Iran over the past 11-months in Vienna are nearing an end, either to revive the JCPOA or allow it to become obsolete.

Iranian officials have refused to engage directly with the Biden administration in objection to Trump’s withdrawal from the deal, a position DiMaggio urged Iran to reverse. 

“The Iranians should seriously consider moving from indirect to direct communications with US negotiators,” she wrote to The Hill. 

“If the talks collapse, there will be efforts to get them back on track, but it will take time and it’s possible that the JCPOA will no longer be the vehicle. In such a case, we shouldn’t expect that either the Biden administration or the Iranians could easily pivot to a new basis for negotiations given rapidly changing circumstances. 

While Moscow’s new demands may kill the talks, there are some signals that the Vienna negotiators could announce an agreement shortly. 

Rafati, of the International Crisis Group, said an agreement reached by Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency over the weekend to resolve an investigation into uranium particles at old yet undeclared sites signaled one step forward on a key sticking point. 

And Iran’s chief negotiator in the nuclear talks, Ali Bagheri Kani, reportedly returned to Vienna on Wednesday after discussions in Tehran with Iranian leaders, a strong signal that specific decisions are being reached.

Russia’s representative in the talks, Mikhail Ulyanov, tweeted on Wednesday that negotiators are at the very last stage of the diplomatic marathon towards restoration of the deal.

 

 

What is going on in negotiations between Russia and Ukraine?

Three days after Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, the details are beginning to emerge. According to people who were privy to details about the meeting, the current situation is that Russia has offered a "final" version of its offer to end the crisis, which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky needs to accept or decline.

The proposal was deemed difficult but not impossible, the sources said. It is worse than what Zelensky would have gotten before the invasion but the gaps between the sides are not great.

Putin ordered his forces to halt – and the command for a ceasefire to be enacted was given – in order to wait for Zelensky's decision, the sources said. 

If Ukraine's President rejects the proposal, French President Emmanuel Macron's assumption that the worst is before us is prone to happen. In that scenario, Putin will order his army to put the pedal to the metal and change the face of Ukraine. 

Zelensky is torn, the sources said. On the one hand, he is enjoying immense popularity and has become the perfect Che Guevara. On the other hand, he knows well what the Argentinean revolutionary and guerrilla leader's end was.

Zelensky can fortify Ukraine's independence but will have to pay a heavy price, the sources said. Assumptions are that he will be forced to give up the contested Donbas region, officially recognize the pro-Russian dissidents in Ukraine, and pledge that Ukraine will not join NATO, shrink his army and declare neutrality. If he declines the proposal, the outcome may be terrible, thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Ukrainians will die and there is a high probability that his country will completely lose its independence.

According to the sources knowledgeable about the content of the talks, Bennett's trip to Moscow was not meant to mediate between the sides and no arbitration proposal was officially offered. Rather, the trip was meant to get a sense of what Putin's position was, what his state of mind was and what his redlines were, and report them to the West. 

The real negotiations, according to the sources, are happening directly between Russia and Ukraine and are much more serious than what the West has been saying. Kyiv has not shared with the West what has been going on in the negotiations since they do not want to damper the worldwide sense of emergency. 

In reality, the Ukrainians know well what Putin's demands are and they know they will have to make a dramatic decision in the coming days.

No one will pressure the Ukrainians, the sources said; the decision is Zelensky's.

One thing is certain, Putin is determined, and the growing complications since the invasion will not deter him. On the contrary, he cannot turn back, so the more the war becomes difficult and casualties mount, the more he will be pressured to show real achievements. 

The impression is that, despite the fact that the predictions of a quick victory over the Ukrainian army have been proven false, Putin is as determined as ever.

Bangladeshi bulker hit by missile in Ukraine port

According to Seatrade Maritime News, the Ukrainian Sea Ports Authority reported that the 38,894 dwt, Banglar Samriddih, at anchor in the Olvia port had been struck by a Russian Navy rocket at 17-25hrs, local time, on March 02.

The port authority said in a Facebook post two tugs were sent to rescue the crew and preliminary reports indicated none of the 29 crew members had been injured. The vessels arrive in the port on February 23 and had been waiting to load.

The 2018 built vessel is owned and managed by Bangladesh Shipping Corp. According to security analysts Dryad Global it is the fourth commercial vessel to be struck by missiles since the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, including the Yasa Jupiter on February 24, and Namura Queen and Millennial Spirit on February 25.

The Ukrainian government said that the Ukrainian-flagged bulk carrier Princess Nicole was approached by Russian warships and made an illogical and sharp change of course while headed to Snake Island, also known as Zmiinyi Island.

The Ukrainian state border guard service also reported that a vessel, Athena, 22nm from Snake Island, reportedly sailing in Russian waters, had been commanded by approaching Russian to allow for inspection. The owner immediately informed the Ukrainian authorities.

UN-body has called an extraordinary session of its council address the impacts on shipping and seafarers of the situation in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.

IMO said the virtual meeting on 10 and 11 March was being held the request of several council members.

Greece’s Shipping and Island Policy Minister, Ioannis Plakiotakis, revealed he personally contacted IMO Secretary general, Kitack Lim to discuss concerns about the safety of seafarers and vessels trapped in Ukraine.

Plakiotakis revealed the effort in a statement on his ministry's website, as reports started coming in that seafarers have been injured during attacks against vessels since Russia invaded Ukraine, on February 24. Since then, commercial ships about to load or unload cargo have become trapped in Ukrainian ports after military authorities shut down the terminals and stopped vessels from leaving.

France, which holds the EU's rotating presidency, is also leading the initiative in calling on IMO to take immediate measures to protect seafarers in the war-torn region. Besides Greece and France, other nations that have joined the call for an IMO meeting include Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Cyprus and Malta.

Plakiotakis noted that countries from outside the EU, such as Australia and the United States, are early supporters of the request.

Some 40 vessels are known to be trapped in the Ukraine with owners and crew facing harrowing times. For owners war insurance costs have soared and at least one seafarer has been killed and others injured in rocket attacks in the area.

Iran devising mechanism for free trade with Pakistan

Consul General of Iran Hamid Raza Ghomi said the Islamic Republic of Iran is devising a mechanism for free trade with Pakistan to strengthen economic relations between the two brotherly Islamic countries.

If the policy based on the mechanism is implemented, the set mutual trade target 5 billion dollars between the two countries could be achieved easily,” said Hamid Raza Ghomi while talking to Sarhad Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCI) President Hasnain Khurshid at the Chamber’s House here on Friday.

SCCI’s other office-bearers and officials of the Iranian Consulate General, including Hossein Maliki, Imtiaz Ali, Dr Fazal Azeem were present on the occasion.

The Iranian diplomat said both countries enjoyed cordial relations owing to common culture and religion. He said the option of barter trade was available to cement the mutual relationship between Iran and Pakistan. The Iranian consul general suggested signing of Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) between the SCCI and Industries and Mines Ministry in Iran for joint initiatives to promote bilateral trade.

Earlier, the SCCI chief emphasized that joint efforts should be made to enlarge mutual trade and economic relations between Pakistan and Iran.

Hasnain Khurshid pointed out that it was getting difficult to achieve mutual trade targets for lack of proper banking channels between the two countries.

 An ambitious 5 billion dollars mutual trade target is being set between Pakistan and Iran, but in the last year, 504million dollars trade was carried out between the two countries, the SCCI chief pointed out.

However, he hoped the constitution mechanism for free trade would lead to the achievement of the afore-stated set Pak-Iran mutual trade target.

He said the exchange of business delegations, joint exhibitions, signing of agreements between chambers and taking benefits from each other’s experiences and launching of joint ventures would cement bilateral trade relations between Pakistan and Iran.

The SCCI chief stressed the need for early completion of the Pak-Iranian Gas pipeline project.

 Ghomi said a delegation led by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly Speaker Mushtaq Ghani would soon visit Iran. He suggested to the SCCI chief to become part of the delegation as that would ensure the representation of the business community.

The Iranian diplomat agreed to the proposals made by the SCCI president and other participants. He said the SCCI should get practical and sign an agreement with the Mashhad Chamber of Iran, assuring his full assistance in this regard at every level.

 

Banning Russian oil and gas: out of the frying pan into the fire

The Biden administration’s willingness to engage with Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iran to impose ban on Russian oil and gas is rattling some lawmakers who say the White House should not be cutting off foreign relations with one dictator in exchange for another to stabilize global energy markets.

Officials said no decision has been made about importing oil from Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, but the conversations underscore the difficult position. White House is trying to punish Russia amid concerns at home about soaring gas prices and the potential of further destabilizing worldwide energy markets.

Mark Green, the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Western Hemisphere subcommittee, on Monday called for the ban on Russian oil to extend to Iranian and Venezuelan supplies.

“The United States should not be directly or indirectly funding Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine by purchasing their oil and gas," Green said. 

"At the same time, it would be outrageous to even consider buying oil from Iran or Venezuela. It's preposterous that the Biden administration is even considering reviving the Iran Nuclear Deal,” he said.

“It’s past time for us to take advantage of abundant natural resources of the United States and become energy independent—and it’s time to cut off tyranny and totalitarianism at the knees around the globe."

The White House has faced questions in recent days about whether, in exchange for banning energy imports from the Kremlin, it would be willing to deal with other governments that have been alleged to have committed crimes against humanity and have abysmal track records on human rights abuses.

“I think it’s important to take each of those engagements separately because there are a range of issues that are important in each of those relationships,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday, the day before President Biden announced he would ban Russian oil imports as further punishment for Russia invading Ukraine.

Psaki said two administration officials — Brett McGurk, coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa, and Amos Hochstein, a State Department special envoy for energy affairs — traveled to Saudi Arabia last month to discuss a range of issues, including the war in Yemen and energy matters.

But relations with Saudi Arabia are a complicated matter given the kingdom’s alleged human rights abuses, particularly the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Biden vowed last year to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for Khashoggi’s murder after the US officials determined Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the killing.

Axios reported this week there were discussions about Biden visiting Saudi Arabia later this year, but Psaki said there are no current plans for the President to travel to the kingdom.

Psaki also acknowledged oil was a part of discussions among the US, allies and Iran as they seek to finalize a deal that would prevent Iran from being able to acquire a nuclear weapon. Should the sides reach a deal, sanctions could be lifted that would allow Iranian oil to flow into global markets, providing another source of supply to replace Russian energy.

Meanwhile, Biden administration officials visited Caracas, in a sign that the United States is at least willing to consider supplanting Russian energy purchases with those from other previously sanctioned countries.

The dialogue with officials from Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro's government could also be part of a diplomatic offensive to cut Russia off from its largest ally in the Western Hemisphere.

Still, the move rattled some of Biden's allies in Congress, including Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez.

“If the reports are true that the Biden administration is brokering the purchase of Venezuelan oil, I fear that it risks perpetuating a humanitarian crisis that has destabilized Latin America and the Caribbean for an entire generation," Menendez said in a statement.

"Nicolás Maduro is a cancer to our hemisphere and we should not breathe new life into his reign of torture and murder. As such, I would strongly oppose any action that fills the pockets of regime oligarchs with oil profits while Maduro continues to deprive Venezuelans of basic human rights, freedoms, and even food," added Menendez.

The White House has made clear it has other interests in talking with Venezuela, specifically about the release of imprisoned American citizens.

“There was a discussion that was had by members of the administration over the course of the last several days. Those discussions are also ongoing. And part of our focus is also on the health and welfare of detained US citizens — while a separate process, still that is part of our engagement with them,” Psaki said Monday. “So, at this point in time, I don’t have anything to predict. It’s ongoing.”

A full reinstatement of Maduro as a recognized leader in good standing with the United States would be a shocking turn of events.

Not only is Maduro's government not officially recognized as Venezuela's ruling body — the State Department in January refreshed its recognition of opposition leader Juan Guaidó as Venezuela's legitimate leader — but Maduro himself is under indictment in the United States since 2020 as an alleged narco-terrorist.

The Venezuelan overture also quickly spilled over into Florida's 2022 Senate race, where GOP Sen. Marco Rubio is seeking reelection to a third term.

Rubio on Sunday was quick to criticize the move, saying Biden was seeking to "replace the oil we buy from one murderous dictator with oil from another murderous dictator."

Rubio also came out forcibly against purchasing Iranian oil, largely on similar grounds.

The leading Democrat in the primary race to challenge Rubio, Florida Val Demings, said she is "deeply skeptical of the new talks in Venezuela."

"We have multiple strong actions that we can take right now to bring down costs without enriching corrupt and murderous dictators like Nicolás Maduro," Demings said in a statement.

Still, the Maduro regime had embarked on a charm offensive even before Russia's invasion of Ukraine, recruiting a former Ecuadorian finance minister to woo Wall Street as an ally in a push to decrease or lift sanctions against Venezuela.

The pitch before the invasion was essentially that bondholders would recover their investments if they successfully lobbied Washington to lift sanctions. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has added geopolitical and inflation-busting benefits to the mix.

It's unclear whether Venezuela would be able to increase oil production quickly enough to supplant Russia's isolation from the global energy market — Venezuelan oil production dipped from 3 million barrels a day in the 1990s to about a tenth of that following US oil sanctions in 2019.

While production has more than doubled since then, it could still take months or years for Venezuelan crude production to make a dent in domestic US gas prices.

Both Republicans and Democrats are critical of what they call the Biden administration's knee-jerk reaction to seek increased oil production abroad rather than easing conditions to increase domestic production, which would also take time to make a difference when it comes to prices at the pump.

“I find it disturbing that the Biden administration is negotiating with one tyrannical dictator while sanctioning another one. The U.S. is more than capable of producing its own energy. We need to stop relying on adversaries for energy we can produce here at home,” Vicente Gonzalez, a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, told The Hill.

Ukraine NATO membership in not on agenda, says German Chancellor

Ukraine’s membership is not on The North Atlantic Treaty Organization NATO’s agenda, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said Friday. “I also made it clear in Moscow and in my visit that this option, Ukraine’s membership of NATO, is not on the table and will not take place,” he said during an interview with German public broadcaster ZDF.

“I said publicly that we all know that Ukraine’s NATO membership is not on the alliance’s agenda today,” he added. “That was understood by the American President that was also understood by the French President.”

Scholz said he shares Russian President Vladimir Putin’s security concern and clarified to Putin that Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO.

“The Russians were worried about the control issue of their security. Putin was worried that NATO has a military setup and rockets in Ukraine targeting Russian territory. That is why we tried to make it clear that this will not occur,” he elaborated.

Ukraine’s pursuit of NATO membership appeared to be one of the core disputes that caused the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war.

In February 2019, the then Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signed a constitutional amendment committing the country to becoming a member of NATO and the European Union after the parliament passed the bill.

Poroshenko told the leadership of the Armed Forces of Ukraine days after he signed the amendment that joining NATO was a guarantee of security for Ukraine.

On the Russian side, Putin says Russia needs to lay down ‘red lines’ to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO saying that Ukraine’s growing ties with the alliance could make it a launchpad for NATO missiles targeted at Russia.

The United States and other Ukraine alliances have tried to avoid war by deescalating tensions between Russia and Ukraine.

However, the Kremlin criticized the United States and NATO for failing to address the fundamental security concerns of Moscow, demanding that NATO stop its eastward expansion and that strike weapons not be deployed near Russia’s borders.

Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24 after the efforts to deter war failed.

Russian armed forces made rapid progress and had reportedly encircled several Ukrainian cities or facilities in the first week.

They also reportedly gained control of Kherson, a port city in Ukraine’s south.

However, the Russian forces were met with strong resistance from the Ukrainian military, especially on the outskirts of the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv.

The resistance from Ukrainian forces and Russia’s own logistical difficulties has slowed down the Russian military’s speed of the advance, the UK’s Ministry of Defense said.

A United Nations official said around 1.2 million people have fled Ukraine as the war entered its ninth day. UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi confirmed the staggering figure in a tweet on March 4.

Grandi said on Thursday that in his four decades of work in refugee emergencies, he had rarely seen an exodus as rapid as the one in Ukraine.

“Hour by hour, minute by minute, more people are fleeing the terrifying reality of violence. Countless have been displaced inside the country,” he said in a statement.

The UN also said that, as of March 3, they had recorded 1,006 civilian casualties in the context of Russia’s military action against Ukraine, mostly caused by shelling and airstrikes.

The agency said that 331 civilian deaths have been recorded, including 19 children, while 675 have been injured, including 31 children. The UN says, however, that the “real toll is much higher.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Friday that, to date, 9,200 Russian soldiers have been killed in the war. Russian authorities have reported that 498 of its service members have been killed.

 

US Senator Lindsey Graham calls for the assassination of Russian President Putin

Reportedly, a senior US Senator, Lindsey Graham has called for the assassination of Russian President Vladimir Putin. This has sparked widespread condemnation and reflects another example of Washington’s failure to adhere to the rules of law within the international community. 

The White House tried to distance itself from the remarks made by the South Carolina Senator saying they do not reflect the position of the United States. 

Some congress members did come out and criticized Lindsey Graham’s remarks. The problem is that his statements represent the US foreign policy stance. 

Graham, who is widely viewed as an influential Senator within the Republican Party on military and foreign-policy matters, made public what many senators and the US foreign policymakers think privately. 

Speaking to the US media, Graham called for a hit job on a sovereign independent head of state saying "I'm hoping someone in Russia will understand ... you need to take this guy out back any means possible.”

The hawkish Senator carried on with his threatening rhetoric, telling the US media that Russians must rise up and take Putin down.

He also carried on his intimidating statements on social media platforms, making similar calls against the Russian President.

The Senator’s statements also reflect the inability of the United States to think, act and behave rationally in times of crisis. 

As the Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov put it “Unfortunately, in such an extremely tense atmosphere, and even more so in countries such as the United States, a hysterical Russophobic fit is being whipped up. These days, not everyone manages to maintain sobriety, I would even say sanity, and many lose their mind.”

The Russian ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov, denounced Graham’s remarks as unacceptable and outrageous, saying the degree of Russophobia and hatred in the US towards Russia was off the charts. 

In a statement posted on the embassy’s social media platforms, Antonov said “It is impossible to believe that a senator of a country that promotes its moral values as a guiding star for all mankind could afford to call for terrorism as a way to achieve Washington’s goals in the international arena.”

Washington’s assassination of anti-imperialist figures and independent leaders hasn’t been off the US foreign policy agenda. 

In the 1960s, the US government put together several attempts and plans to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro using various methods such as exploding cigars, murderous mobsters, an exploding seashell, and the infamous poison pen.

Also in the 1960s, many political figures inside the US itself were assassinated, including one of history’s most iconic black civil rights leaders Dr. Martin Luther King as well as another very iconic black civil rights leader Malcom X. 

After the murder of former US President John F. Kennedy which shocked America, successive President’s claimed enough was enough and signed executive orders prohibiting the use of assassinations as a tactic of the US operatives.

Unfortunately, American executive orders are not worth the paper they are written on. 

There are also terrorist leaders who worked hand in hand with Washington and were later assassinated by US Special Forces instead of being captured and put on trial. Critics argue taking these individuals for instance, Osama Bin Laden, to an independent International tribunal would have exposed the level of coordination with leaders of the now many terror groups. 

Over the years, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, another sovereign head of state survived multiple American-backed attempts on his life. 
 
As lately as January 2020, the US carried out the assassination of Iran’s top military commander General Qassem Soleimani and the highest-ranking military commander in Iraq Abu Mehdi al-Muhandis with drone strikes in the vicinity of Baghdad International Airport under the direct order of former President Donald Trump.

The United Nations declared the US drone strikes against the late Iranian anti-terror war hero as unlawful and an arbitrary killing that violated the UN charter.

Again, that hasn’t stopped the US senators such as Lindsey Graham from adding fuel to the fire in Ukraine by openly calling for the killing of President Putin. 

Some congress members have hit back at the Republican Senator which critics say is aimed at distancing the US from any involvement in the Ukraine conflict, which the US and its NATO partners sparked in the first place. 

Representative IIhan Omar wrote, “I really wish our members of Congress would cool it and regulate their remarks.”

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene said, “This is irresponsible, dangerous and unhinged.”

Representative Matt Gaetz wrote, “When has Sen. Graham encouraging regime change ever ended badly?”

Even Texas Senator Ted Cruz noted, “This is an exceptionally bad idea, use massive economic sanctions; boycott Russian oil and gas; provide military aid so the Ukrainians can defend themselves.”

The problem with Cruz’s thought process is that Ukraine has lashed out at the US-led NATO alliance for abandoning Kyiv. 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has chastised the bloc for its refusal to establish a no-fly zone over the country amid the ongoing Russian offensive that hit Ukraine last week.

Zelensky, in a videotaped address, told the United States and its NATO allies that people will die because of you in the country.

He said, “NATO knowingly approved the decision not to close the skies over Ukraine. We believe that the NATO countries themselves have created a narrative that the alleged closing of the sky over Ukraine will provoke direct Russian aggression against NATO”.

He also slammed the lack of aid from the alliance, saying that it has only managed to authorize a small fuel delivery for the country. While Ukraine has been recognized as a special partner of the alliance, NATO has repeatedly reminded the Ukrainian President that it would not go into a war with Russia for the sake of his country.

Zelensky said “All that the NATO alliance could do today was to allocate some 50 tons of diesel fuel for Ukraine through its procurement system.”

He also lashed out at the latest NATO meeting saying "today there was a NATO summit, a weak summit, a confused summit, a summit where it was clear that not everyone considers the battle for Europe's freedom to be the number one goal," Zelensky said

A similar statement has been made by the Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba, who said the ongoing conflict has exposed NATO’s weakness.

Speaking to Ukrainian media, Kuleba said “before the war, Ukrainian people believed that NATO was strong, while the EU was weak and indecisive. And after the war began, the people saw that the opposite was true.”

The top Ukrainian diplomat also claims that the European Union gave us a candidate status and prospects of membership, while NATO could not decide on anything. 

The reality is that Ukraine has not been given an EU candidate status, because a country needs to live up to certain conditions before attaining such a status.

The EU Parliament has only passed a non-binding resolution that states it would welcome Kyiv’s membership application. 

It’s actually not quite a difficult process to both enter or leaves the EU as Turkey and Britain found out. 

The Belarusian President, meanwhile, pointed out that the US and its Western allies want to prolong the conflict.

Alexander Lukashenko said, “All of NATO & EUmembers keep shouting about ending war in Ukraine. In public, but what they need there is war, the more of it, the better.

Lukashenko also said that the West is not allowing Ukraine to make a move to end the conflict.