Can Israel succeed in stopping new Iran deal?

It seems that Israel might once again try to replica ‘2010 moment’ which on the surface may seem like a path to war but a bluff aimed at seeking attention.

More than 13 years later, the events of 2010 are still something of a mystery in Israel. Then, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister, Ehud Barak, regularly threatened military action against Iran but stopped short of launching a strike.

Today, the ministers who were members of the security cabinet back then and the IDF officers who briefed them regularly are still conflicted about what happened. Were Netanyahu and Barak serious about attacking Iran and simply stopped – as they later claimed - due to the opposition they met within the defense establishment, or were they bluffing all along, using threats against Iran to stir panic in Washington, London and Berlin and get the world to ratchet up sanctions against Tehran?

Based on comments by senior Israeli politicians and military officers in recent weeks, it seems that Israel might once again be in a bit of a “2010 moment”, one which, on the surface, seems like a path to war, but on the other hand might be again a bluff aimed at getting the world’s attention.

There is no denying the escalation in the rhetoric. Last month, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Herzi Halevi said that Israel is not indifferent to what is happening in Iran and might need to take action to stop it.

This week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened a war drill and issued a public threat at a meeting of the security cabinet, saying that Israel can handle the threat from Iran on its own.

And then there was Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who said Tuesday that Israelis did not need to worry themselves with the new hypersonic missile that Iran unveiled earlier that day and that if a war were to break out with Tehran’s proxy, Hezbollah, Israel would send it back to the Stone Age.

One would be forgiven for thinking that the beating of war drums means that war is coming. What we have learned over the last couple of decades in Israel is that sometimes war drums mean the exact opposite and are used to deliver messages, oftentimes to allies and not just adversaries.

It seems Israel is using its threats to put pressure on the Biden administration as it negotiates a new interim deal with Iran as a way to stop its enrichment of military-grade uranium. Based on the intensity of the Israeli rhetoric, it seems that the US-Iran talks are proceeding at a faster pace than initially anticipated, and might even be on the verge of an agreement.

As a result, it is interesting to compare the way Netanyahu and his government spoke in 2015 against the original Iran deal with the way they are speaking now. Then, as is well known, Netanyahu accepted an invitation from the republicans and spoke before Congress in direct opposition to the deal, and somewhat to then-president Barack Obama.

While Netanyahu felt the need to do everything possible to stop the bad deal – as can be expected from an Israeli leader - his decision to speak in 2015 in Congress went against the president’s wishes and is still a raw nerve for many democrats.

Would Netanyahu do the same today? The reply is most ‘Unlikely’. The reason is twofold. On one hand, while Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy said during his visit to Israel last month that he would invite Netanyahu to Washington DC if President Joe Biden did not, Netanyahu understands that a fight with the administration will not succeed in stopping a new interim deal and will become highly politicized as the 2024 presidential election race heats up.

The second reason is because deep down, Israel wants a diplomatic resolution to the Iran nuclear challenge. It knows that a military option – while viable – will only delay Iran’s pursuit of a bomb and pave the way for the mullahs to gain the legitimacy they need to plow ahead under the claim that a bomb is needed to protect the republic.

While there are some in the Knesset and the defense establishment who are enamored by the military option and cite the success of the destruction of the Iraqi reactor in 1981 and the Syrian reactor in 2007, they would do well to remember that in both cases the reactors were built by external actors – France in Iraq and North Korea in Syria. That is not the case in Iran where the nuclear technical know-how is domestic and knowledge, as is known, is not something that can easily be destroyed.

Israel has always wanted a diplomatic resolution to the threat but one that took Israel’s concerns into consideration and dealt with the fundamental issues – not only Tehran’s nuclear program, but also its development of long-range ballistic missiles as well as the regime’s support of terrorist proxies throughout the region.

The talks that the Americans are engaged in now with Iran are unlikely to meet any of those criteria. From the little details that have leaked about the pending deal, Iran will be able keep its enriched uranium while committing to suspending all high-level enrichment.

In other words, it gets to keep all the uranium it has already enriched, all of its nuclear infrastructure and technical knowledge. What this means is that in the best-case scenario, Iran will only suspend its high-grade enrichment but will not abandon its desire to one day get the bomb. In exchange for this enrichment freeze it will see significant economic benefits.

Can Israel realistically stop this deal or at the very least sweeten it? That remains to be seen and is currently the Israeli objective. Like in 2015, Jerusalem understands that it is unlikely that it will succeed in stopping a new deal.

Netanyahu knows that he has sway in Washington, especially within Republican circles where Israel is looked to as a stamp of approval when it comes to US moves on Iran. Biden might want an interim deal, but he also does not want to do something that will simply give his republican opponents ammo to use against him on the campaign trail.

Can Israel maneuver through this complicated terrain? Can it improve the framework of the deal or receive some other benefit from the US, like security assurances, new weapons systems or maybe even some form of rapprochement with Saudi Arabia?

That remains to be seen. In the meantime, Israel would be negligent not to escalate its own talk against Iran right now. It might not be as glamorous as a speech before Congress or an invitation to the White House, but everything does need to be done to stop Iran.

 

Bangladesh clarifies its stance on Human Rights to US congressmen

To clear its position on human rights and elections, Bangladesh will communicate with six US congressmen, who recently wrote to President Joe Biden, said State Minister for Foreign Affairs Shahriar Alam.

Speaking to reporters at the foreign ministry, he said there were exaggerations, inconsistencies and information gap in the issues mentioned in the letter.

Congressmen Scott Perry, Barry Moore, Warren Davidson, Bob Good, Tim Burchett and Keith Self wrote to the US president on May 25 requesting urgent actions to stop the human rights abuses by the government in Bangladesh and give its people the best possible chance for free and fair parliamentary elections.

The letter said, “The well-documented abuses by the Hasina government are not confined to her political opponents; the government has also persecuted ethnic and religious minorities in Bangladesh.”

Shahriar said such letters were sent by US congressmen in the past and more letters may be sent in future as the national election is approaching.

“But, as I said, we will reach out to all these members. Not only them, we will regularly update all those who have interest in the issues covered in the letter.”

Asked for comments on Japanese Ambassador Iwama Kiminori’s meeting some BNP leaders in Dhaka and the discussion on the next parliamentary polls, Shahriar said he had no details on that.

He, however, said there was a time about six months ago when foreign ambassadors started talking about Bangladesh’s internal issues. “If they do it again and go beyond their limits, the government will take necessary measures.”

The state minister said the government has not noticed any such comments recently.

About speculations that some other countries may follow the new US visa policy, he said these are nothing but rumours and propaganda.

Under the visa policy, the US will restrict visas for Bangladeshis believed to be responsible for, or complicit in, undermining the democratic election process in Bangladesh.

Shahriar said as the general election approaches, more propaganda will be carried out and the mainstream media should verify all those information before publishing.

He the government does not believe in the policy of continuing relationship with a country while being under pressure.

Asked about Dhaka’s reactions to the setting up of a mural in India’s new parliament building that has triggered concerns in Nepal and Pakistan as it is being interpreted as a map of “Akhand Bharat” comprising parts of several neighbouring countries, the state minister said Dhaka has asked its mission in New Delhi for clarification.

The mural, as explained by the Indian foreign ministry, is the map of the Ashoka Empire which existed 300 years before Christ, he added. “It has nothing to do with politics. This is not the map of 2023. There is nothing to be confused about,” said Shahriar.

 

Iran accused of supplying drones to Russia

The White House said on Friday that Russia appeared to be deepening its defense cooperation with Iran and had received hundreds of one-way attack drones that it is using to strike Ukraine.

Citing newly declassified information, the White House said the drones, or Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), were built in Iran, shipped across the Caspian Sea and then used by Russian forces against Ukraine.

"Russia has been using Iranian UAVs in recent weeks to strike Kyiv and terrorize the Ukrainian population, and the Russia-Iran military partnership appears to be deepening," White House spokesman John Kirby said in a statement.

"We are also concerned that Russia is working with Iran to produce Iranian UAVs from inside Russia."

Kirby said the US had information that Russia was receiving materials from Iran required to build a drone manufacturing plant that could be fully operational early next year.

"We are releasing satellite imagery of the planned location of this UAV manufacturing plant in Russia’s Alabuga Special Economic Zone," he said.

The US has previously sanctioned Iranian executives at a defense manufacturer over drone supplies to Russia. Iran has acknowledged sending drones to Russia but said these were sent before Russia's February invasion. Moscow has denied its forces used Iranian drones in Ukraine.

A White House official said Iran had transferred several hundred drones to Russia since August last year.

Support between Iran and Russia was flowing both ways, Kirby said, with Iran seeking billions of dollars worth of military equipment from Russia including helicopters and radars.

"Russia has been offering Iran unprecedented defense cooperation, including on missiles, electronics, and air defense," he said.

"This is a full-scale defense partnership that is harmful to Ukraine, to Iran’s neighbors, and to the international community. We are continuing to use all the tools at our disposal to expose and disrupt these activities including by sharing this with the public – and we are prepared to do more."

Kirby said the transfers of drones constituted a violation of United Nations rules and the United States would seek to hold the two countries accountable.

Britain, France, Germany, the US and Ukraine say the supply of Iranian-made drones to Russia violates a 2015 UN Security Council resolution enshrining the Iran nuclear deal.

Under the 2015 UN resolution, a conventional arms embargo on Iran was in place until October 2020.

Ukraine and Western powers argue that the resolution includes restrictions on missiles and related technologies until October 2023 and can encompass the export and purchase of advanced military systems such as drones.

"We will continue to impose sanctions on the actors involved in the transfer of Iranian military equipment to Russia for use in Ukraine," Kirby said.

He said a new US advisory issued on Friday aimed "to help businesses and other governments better understand the risks posed by Iran’s UAV program and the illicit practices Iran uses to procure components for it."

The advisory highlighted key items sought by Iran for its development of drones, including electronics such as processors and controllers.

 

 

Iran rejects signing interim pact with United States

According to reports, Iran and the United States are concluding an interim deal that calls for partial sanctions relief on the Islamic Republic in exchange for modifications to the nation’s nuclear energy program have been rejected by Iran's mission to the UN.

The London-based Middle East Eye (MEE) website purportedly said that both countries were close to reaching such an agreement despite the stalling of negotiations on the renewal of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

It cited two unnamed sources as saying Iran and the United States were nearing a temporary deal that would swap some sanctions relief for reducing Iranian uranium enrichment activities.

The MEE also cited the sources as saying the two sides have reached an agreement on a temporary deal to take to their respective superiors.

The report said Iran would commit to cease enriching uranium to purity of 60% or above and would continue cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog in return for being allowed to export up to one million barrels of oil per day and gaining access to its income and other frozen funds abroad.

A White House National Security Council spokesperson also denied the MEE report on Thursday, labeling it false and misleading.

The spokesperson added, "Any reports of an interim deal are false."

According to National News, Iran's mission also said, "Our comment is the same as the White House comment."

Iran and a number of countries, including the United States, concluded an agreement known as the JCPOA in July 2015. The Islamic Republic was given a little amount of sanction relief as a result, and it subsequently offered to modify part of its nuclear activity. The agreement went into force in January 2016.

However, the United States withdrew from the agreement in 2018 under the administration of former President Donald Trump, reinstating all the sanctions that it had waived.

In April 2021, talks were resumed under Joe Biden’s presidency to renew the accord. However, since Washington has refused to provide assurances that it won’t back out of the pact again, the negotiations have been stalled since September 2022.

The Iranian mission to the UN stated that there is no interim agreement meant to replace the JCPOA and that no such agreement is on the table.

On Wednesday, Mohsen Naziri Asl, Iran’s permanent representative to the United Nations in Vienna, mentioned the U.S.’s self-proclaimed willingness to rejoin the JCPOA.

“Despite the arduous negotiations that lasted for more than 18 months, mainly due to the lack of American political will and determination, we could not bring the talks to a conclusion,” he added.

The talks to revive the JCPOA started in April 2021 and lasted until September 2022.

Naziri Asl described Iran’s recent cooperative efforts with the IAEA as constructive and logical, calling expectations from Iran unreasonable and illogical.

“Iran’s nuclear activities, including uranium enrichment at various levels, are completely peaceful and in accordance with the Iranian people’s rights based on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and are under the supervision and verification of the IAEA safeguards,” the top diplomat emphasized.

According to the diplomat, the US government has lately emphasized in many occasions that reviving the JCPOA is not on the agenda for months, expressing concern that certain parties have turned a blind eye to the irresponsible attitude, and are even aligning with it.

“The measure shows that miscalculations and minor political considerations are dominating the revival of an agreement that the international community has invested for years to achieve,” Naziri Asl remarked.

He also said, “It is a matter of serious concern that despite Iran’s extensive cooperation with the UN nuclear agency, the European Union, especially Germany, Britain and France, continue to resort to outdated tactics and play a dirty game with political motivation to target Iran’s ongoing cooperation with the IAEA.”

 

 

Shipowner demands stopping construction of fuel oil powered vessels

Precious Shipping boss Khalid Hashim has called on the IMO to put a hard stop on building fuel oil burning ships from 2030 and a scrapping of all vessels over 20-years old by 2035.

Along with a carbon tax starting from January 01, 2024, the radical proposals were put forward by Hashim, Managing Director of Precious Shipping and presented to the IMO last month via the Thai delegation through a video link, as well as to the Philippines IMO delegation, and at a recent HSBC conference.

The proposals from the Bangkok headquartered shipowner break down into three areas – a carbon tax, a hard stop on building fuel oil powered ships, and a mandatory scrapping of vessels over 20 years.

A carbon tax is already an item on the agenda for the key IMO MEPC80 meeting next month aimed at revising the industry’s ambitions for greenhouse gas emission reductions.

Hashim said the IMO should impose a tax of US$100 per metric ton (pmt) of CO2 emitted from January 01, 2024, increasing to US$200 pmt from 2030. Such a tax would increase the cost for ships engines burning fuel oil by US$320 pmt from January 01, 2024, and US$640 pmt from 2030.

He said it would provide massive resources exclusively for decarbonizing shipping and a universal tax would stop similar taxes by others.

The funds could be used for R&D into alternative fuels, subsidizing the costs of first movers, and building bunkering infrastructure. It would also push shipyards to build more zero emissions vessels (ZEVs) with a requirement of 5,000 such new builds a year to meet a 2050 zero emission target.

The second proposal involves a hard stop on building vessels that burn fuel oil and effectively forcing shipyards to produce ZEVs. “The IMO must put a hard stop to any fuel burning ships delivered by shipyards on or after January 01, 2030,” he stated.

Hashim cited the example of the automotive industry where a growing number of countries have set a deadline on production and sale of internal combustion engine vehicles. “Once they were given a deadline after which they could not produce or deliver diesel engine cars, significant numbers of electric cars are rolling off the assembly lines in every serious automotive manufacturing country,” he said.

This would give clarity to owners, shipyards, charterers and consumers with hard deadlines. He said it would also increase the capacity at yards needed to produce ZEVs, encourage charterers to enter into long term contracts for zero emission vessels, and for end consumptions to accept the increased cost in shipping.

The third proposal relates to a deadline by IMO for the scrapping of all ships over 20 years old by 2035.

“It will immediately reduce GHG emissions from the gas guzzling ships built in the past when fuel oil was not thought of as the culprit, that we can now see, all too clearly,” Hashim said.

The proposal would shrink the supply ships forcing clients to pay more shipping services the profits of which could be used to pay for the multi-trillion dollar cost of replacing the fuel oil burning fleet.

Renowned shipping economist Martin Stopford has estimated that replacing fuel burning ships with ZEVs will cost between US$1 trillion to US$1.5 trillion in a good case, or US$2 trillion to US$3 trillion in a poor case.

It would also accelerate the regulations for using alternative fuels, the training of crew, and creation of bunker hubs.

 

Saudi Arabian embassy in Sudan attacked

The attacks by armed groups on the diplomatic missions of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in Sudan are a cause of grave concern. It is believed that these attacks have been made by the proxies of those who are annoyed by the role being played by Saudi Arabia to end animosities among the Muslim countries.

Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has strongly condemned the sabotage and tampering carried out by some armed groups in the Kingdom’s embassy building and its annexes in Khartoum, capital of Sudan, on Wednesday.

The ministry also voiced its denunciation over the sabotage of the residence and properties of Saudi staff working in the embassy, the Saudi Press Agency reported on Thursday.

The ministry also expressed the Kingdom’s total rejection of all forms of violence and sabotage on diplomatic missions and representations. It also stressed the importance of confronting these armed groups that are trying to undermine the return of security and stability to Sudan and its brotherly people.

The Sudanese army confirmed last month that the circumstances of the war prevented the security forces from providing protection for diplomatic missions, refusing to hold it responsible for the looting of embassies in Sudan.

The army added in a statement that accusing the Rapid Support Forces of attacking embassies is based on reports and eyewitness accounts.

Meanwhile, the Bahraini Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported that the headquarters of the Bahraini embassy and the ambassador’s house in the Sudanese capital had been stormed and vandalized by an armed group.

The ministry renewed its call to the Sudanese parties to give priority to wisdom and the supreme national interest, and to respond seriously to the Saudi-American initiative to halt military operations.

 

crude oil prices fall on potential Iran deal

Oil prices fell US$3 a barrel on Thursday as demand weakness and a report that the United States and Iran may be approaching a deal on oil exports outweighed expectations of tighter Saudi supply and a potential pause to US interest rate hikes.

Oil fell on a news report, citing sources, that Iran and the US are nearing a temporary deal that would trade some sanctions relief in exchange for reducing Iran's uranium enrichment.

Brent crude was down US$2.2, or 2.86%, at US$74.64 a barrel by 1644 GMT, having earlier dropped as much as US$3.  WTI fell by US$2.40, or 3.3%, to US$70.12.

A larger than expected rise in US gasoline inventories also raised concern over demand, while US crude stockpiles registered a small decline of 451,000 barrels.

At an OPEC Plus meeting on Sunday, Saudi Arabia said it will cut its crude output by one million barrels per day in July on top of a broader deal to limit supply into 2024 as the producer group seeks to boost flagging prices.

"With the OPEC Plus meeting out of the way, focus is now shifting towards the next move the Fed will make when it meets next week," said Tamas Varga of oil broker PVM.

There is growing consensus that the central bank will skip a rate hike, which could lift oil prices even before falling supply starts draining global oil inventories, Varga added.

Economists polled by Reuters expect that the US Fed will not raise interest rates at its June 13-14 meeting. But a significant minority expects at least one more increase this year.

Still, a surprise rate increase in Canada gave investors their second reminder of the week, following the Australian central bank's monetary policy tightening, that the surge in global interest rates is not done yet.

The US dollar was slightly weaker on Thursday, making oil cheaper for buyers holding other currencies.

Both oil benchmarks settled up about 1% on Wednesday, supported by the Saudi plan, though gains remained capped by rising US fuel stocks and weak Chinese economic data.