Princess Haifa presents credentials to Macron

Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to Spain Princess Haifa bint Abdulaziz Al-Muqrin handed over her credentials as a non-resident ambassador to the Principality of Andorra to French President and the Co-Prince of Andorra Emmanuel Macron in a ceremony held at the Elysee Palace in Paris, reports Saudi Gazette.

Andorra is a sovereign landlocked country on the Iberian Peninsula, in the eastern Pyrenees in Western Europe, bordered by France to the north and Spain to the south. Andorra is a parliamentary co-principality with the bishop of Urgell in Spain and the president of France as co-princes. It’s popular for its ski resorts and a tax-haven status that encourages duty-free shopping.

Princess Haifa, one of the most influential Saudi women figures, was appointed as the Kingdom's ambassador to Spain in January 2024. Earlier, she held the position of the Kingdom's permanent representative to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). She also worked at the United Nations Development Program for seven years.

Princess Haifa is an expert in international institutional work, and one of the women who represented Saudi Arabia in international forums abroad. She has won the King Abdulaziz Order of Excellence in recognition of her outstanding contributions.

What gives the US authority to impose sanctions on other countries?

It is believed that the United States has the legal authority to impose sanctions based on a combination of constitutional powers, legislative acts, executive orders, and national security considerations. Sanctions can be imposed for a range of reasons, from counterterrorism efforts to enforcing international law or responding to violations of human rights or international norms. However, the time has come to reject these power, which cause difficulties for the nations the US does not like.

Sanctions are often imposed for reasons related to US national security. This could include targeting foreign governments or groups that support terrorism, are involved in weapons proliferation, or engage in activities that harm US foreign policy objectives.

While US sanctions are often unilateral, they can also be part of multilateral efforts. The US may align its sanctions with those of international organizations, such as the United Nations or the European Union, especially when it comes to issues like nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and human rights violations. In this context, sanctions are seen as part of broader international diplomatic efforts.

The President has the authority to issue executive orders to implement sanctions without needing Congressional approval. These orders often cite national security concerns, international obligations, or the need to enforce specific laws (like the IEEPA) to restrict economic relations with certain countries or individuals.

 

Here's a breakdown of the key legal and institutional bases for US sanctions:

1. US Constitution

• Executive Powers (Article II): The President of the United States, as the head of the executive branch, has the authority to conduct foreign policy and engage in international relations. This includes the power to implement sanctions as a tool of diplomacy and national security.
• Congressional Powers (Article I): Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and declare war. This allows it to pass laws that authorize sanctions, and the executive branch often implements those laws.

2. Specific Legislation

Several US laws grant the authority to impose sanctions, including:

• International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (1977): This law grants the President broad powers to regulate international trade and economic transactions in response to national emergencies. Under this act, the President can block financial transactions, freeze assets, and prohibit trade with foreign governments or entities that pose a threat to U.S. interests.
• Trading with the Enemy Act (1917): Initially passed during World War I, this law allows the President to regulate or prohibit trade with foreign nations deemed enemies during wartime or national emergencies.
• The USA PATRIOT Act (2001): This law expanded the President's powers to combat terrorism and the financing of terrorist activities, enabling sanctions targeting individuals and entities linked to terrorism.
• Magnitsky Act (2012): This law allows the U.S. government to impose sanctions on individuals involved in human rights violations and corruption, even if they are not from countries officially designated as threats to U.S. security.
• Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) (2017): This law specifically targets countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea, providing a legal framework for imposing sanctions against foreign governments and individuals involved in activities that threaten U.S. security or foreign policy.

 

 

Shift in US allegiance from Kyiv to Moscow raises concerns

A pressing question is emerging: can Asian allies such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines still rely on Washington after Donald Trump's betrayal of Ukraine? The US administration’s shift in allegiance from Kyiv to Moscow has raised concerns.

There are growing fears that Trump's unorthodox approach to the Ukraine conflict could signal a broader, more isolationist US strategy. This shift suggests that no allies, whether in Europe or Asia, can count on Washington's support in the event of a major crisis. Both the Pentagon and Congress are increasingly influenced by voices advocating restraint, with a clear desire to keep America out of significant overseas conflicts.

In this uncertain geopolitical landscape, Asian allies will likely need to strengthen their strategic autonomy. Notably, even the Philippines has begun openly discussing the advantages of multi-alignment, with plans to host a summit bringing together like-minded states from Europe and Asia to explore closer cooperation among middle powers.

It is expected that US allies in both Asia and Europe will pursue a collective strategic approach, aimed at countering Trump's erratic policies while addressing the growing threats posed by Russia and China.

Muslim unity necessary to counter forced displacement of Palestinians

The foreign ministers of Iran and Saudi Arabia have emphasized the urgent need for unity within the Muslim world to counter Israel’s efforts to forcibly displace Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, reports Tehran Times.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met with his Saudi counterpart, Prince Faisal bin Farhan, on the sidelines of an extraordinary session of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in Jeddah on Friday. 

The two top diplomats reaffirmed the necessity for the Islamic world to remain focused on the Palestinian cause and resist attempts to erase Palestine through mass displacement.  

During their talks, Araghchi and Faisal bin Farhan also assessed the progress of Iran-Saudi relations and expressed their nations' commitment to strengthening diplomatic, economic, and strategic ties in accordance with the vision of their respective leaders.  

Araghchi had arrived in Jeddah a day earlier to participate in the high-stakes OIC meeting, which was convened to address Israel’s military actions in Gaza and its broader campaign against Palestinians.  

A key topic of discussion was a recent proposal by US President Donald Trump, suggesting that Washington, could take control of Gaza and transform it into "Riviera of West Asia." The proposal was widely condemned by Arab and Islamic nations.  

On the sidelines of the OIC meeting, Araghchi also met with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan. The two officials addressed the broader challenges facing the Muslim world, particularly Israel’s ongoing aggression in Gaza and the occupation of the West Bank.

Araghchi expressed deep concern over the deteriorating security situation in Syria, where militant groups such as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) have gained control. He warned that instability in Syria would only serve Israeli interests and provide a breeding ground for terrorist organizations.

Fidan echoed these concerns and reaffirmed Turkey’s commitment to supporting Palestinian rights, emphasizing the collective responsibility of Islamic nations to resist Israeli expansionism.  

In addition to Saudi and Turkish officials, Araghchi held separate meetings with foreign ministers from Tunisia, Egypt, and Oman, discussing regional developments and the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza.  

During his meeting with Tunisian Foreign Minister Mohamed Ali Nafti, both sides underscored their shared stance in advocating for Palestinian self-determination and denouncing Israel’s apartheid policies. They called for collective action among Islamic nations to prevent further displacement of Palestinians and to hold Israel accountable for its war crimes.  

Similarly, in discussions with Oman’s Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Al Busaidi, both diplomats highlighted the strong ties between Tehran and Muscat. Busaidi reiterated Oman’s commitment to the Palestinian cause and emphasized the need for regional cooperation to support Palestinian sovereignty. Araghchi affirmed Iran’s willingness to expand its partnership with Oman across various sectors.  

In his talks with Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty, the Iranian diplomat rejected any initiative that involves the forced removal of Palestinians from Gaza, denouncing it as an act of ethnic cleansing. Both ministers stressed the need for continued solidarity within the Muslim world and the broader international community to support the Palestinian people and aid in Gaza’s reconstruction.  

 

Saudi Arabia reaffirms rejection of Palestinian displacement

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan reiterated Saudi Arabia’s firm rejection of any calls for the displacement of the Palestinian people from their land or attempts to impose solutions that do not meet their legitimate aspirations for self-determination. 

He warned of the grave consequences such actions could have on both the region and the world, reports Saudi Gazette.

Speaking at the extraordinary ministerial meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in Jeddah on Friday, Prince Faisal stressed the importance of ensuring a sustained ceasefire in Gaza and holding Israel accountable for adhering to international law.

He reaffirmed Saudi Arabia’s commitment to working with partner and friendly nations through the Two-State Solution Coalition to push forward its implementation.

During the meeting, the Saudi foreign minister welcomed Syria’s reinstatement to the OIC, expressing hope that the country would contribute positively to the organization's efforts.

The meeting featured speeches from OIC Secretary General Hissein Brahim Taha, Cameroon’s Minister of Foreign Relations and Chairman of the Council of Foreign Ministers Logen Mbela Mbela, Gambia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation, and Gambian Expatriates Mamadou Tangara, and Palestinian Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohamed Mustafa.

In his speech, OIC Secretary General Hissein Brahim Taha reaffirmed his support for the reconstruction plan for the Gaza Strip, which was adopted by the Arab Summit.

He underscored the need for mobilizing financial and political resources to implement the plan, within an integrated political and economic framework aimed at achieving the two-state solution.

He also warned of Israel’s unacceptable actions to liquidate the Palestinian refugee issue and reiterated that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) remains irreplaceable in providing essential services to millions of Palestinian refugees.

Taha highlighted the urgent challenges facing the Palestinian cause, including ongoing occupation, settlement expansion, daily crimes, annexation efforts, and forced displacement by Israel.

He condemned Israeli attempts to Judaize Al-Quds and violate its sacred sites, along with the siege, starvation, mass arrests, and destruction of Palestinian cities, camps, infrastructure, and homes.

He called for immediate international action to achieve a sustainable ceasefire, complete withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces, the delivery of humanitarian aid, and the return of displaced Palestinians to their homes.

He emphasized the necessity of enabling the Palestinian government to fulfill its responsibilities and preserving the unity of Palestinian territories, including Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.

France, Germany, Italy and Britain back Arab plan for Gaza reconstruction

According to Reuters, the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Italy and Britain said on Saturday they supported an Arab-backed plan for the reconstruction of Gaza that would cost US$53 billion and avoid displacing Palestinians from the enclave.

"The plan shows a realistic path to the reconstruction of Gaza and promises – if implemented – swift and sustainable improvement of the catastrophic living conditions for the Palestinians living in Gaza," the ministers said in a joint statement.

The plan, which was drawn up by Egypt and adopted by Arab leaders on Tuesday, has been rejected by Israel and by US President Donald Trump, who has presented his own vision to turn the Gaza Strip into a "Middle East Riviera".

The Egyptian proposal envisages the creation of an administrative committee of independent, professional Palestinian technocrats entrusted with the governance of Gaza after the end of the war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas.

The committee would be responsible for the oversight of humanitarian aid and managing the Strip's affairs for a temporary period under the supervision of the Palestinian Authority.

The statement issued by the four European countries on Saturday said they were committed to working with the Arab initiative, and they appreciated the important signal the Arab states had sent by developing it.

The statement said Hamas "must neither govern Gaza nor be a threat to Israel any more" and that the four countries "support the central role for the Palestinian Authority and the implementation of its reform agenda.

 

 

Trump’s unsent letter to Iran

US President Donald Trump claimed to have sent a letter to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, expressing interest in striking a deal with Iran on its nuclear program – a move that represents neither a swerve in Iran-US relations nor holds much promise under the current US policies.

"I wrote them a letter saying I hope you are going to negotiate," Trump stated, coupling the plea with the familiar threat to either "handle" Iran militarily or "make a deal." In an eyebrow-raising moment, when asked when he'd sent the letter to [Imam] "Khomeini," the long-deceased founder of the Islamic Republic, Trump claimed it was "yesterday," meaning Wednesday.

An unnamed American official, later told Al Jazeera that the letter had been "written" but not yet sent. That came after Iran’s mission to the UN said the country had received no such letter.

This isn't the first instance of a US president writing – or, in this case, claiming to have written – to Iran's Leader. Former President Barack Obama penned two letters to Ayatollah Khamenei, and Trump himself entrusted former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe with a message for the Leader during Abe's 2019 visit to Tehran. Ayatollah Khamenei declined to receive the letter, telling Abe that he didn't consider Trump a “worthy” interlocutor.

This also isn’t the first instance of Trump saying he wants a deal with Iran. He's been making this statement since 2018, the year he withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

That 2015 agreement, negotiated over at least two years by Iran, the United States, Britain, Russia, China, and Germany, traded limits on Iran's nuclear program for sanctions relief.

Trump's abandonment of the JCPOA and reimposition of sanctions not only undermined the agreement but ultimately spurred European nations to enact their own embargoes later, despite remaining official signatories.

On the same Thursday that Trump told a Fox anchor he wanted to negotiate with Iran, his Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, addressed the Economic Club of New York.

There, Bessent vowed that the president’s anti-Iran sanctions during his second term would be even more severe.

“We are going to shut down Iran’s oil sector and drone manufacturing capabilities,” Bessent stated, adding that the administration also intends to cut off Tehran’s access to the international financial system.

Multiple Iranian officials have reiterated in recent weeks that Iran will not engage in talks under pressure, aligning with a directive from Ayatollah Khamenei, who in early February described negotiations with the US as "unwise, unintelligent, and dishonorable."

Iranians’ deep-seated distrust towards the US is rooted in decades of American meddling in Iran's affairs, especially during the Pahlavi era. But Ayatollah Khamenei’s stance has especially hardened since Trump withdrew Washington from the JCPOA.

The fact that the president continues to threaten Iran with sanctions or military action is not helping ease Tehran’s concerns either. 

During his Fox Business interview, Trump stated his primary concern was preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. However, his decision to withdraw from the JCPOA – a deal that subjected Iran's nuclear facilities to unprecedented international scrutiny and compelled the country to roll back some of its advancements – suggests other priorities are at play.

As a February directive revealed, Trump's real goals are to force Iran to curtail its missile programs and sever ties with regional Resistance forces.

Analysts argue that publicizing a letter before it reaches the intended recipient serves primarily to advance Trump's own interests, rather than reflecting a genuine desire for good faith diplomacy.

Given Iran's sustained resistance to years of sanctions, it's clear that propaganda and media maneuvers alone will not compel the country to negotiate.

Iran also remains firm on its refusal to negotiate its military capabilities, and persistent or intensified Western pressure may ultimately force it to reconsider its nuclear doctrine. 

There's no guarantee that Trump's potential military options against Iran would achieve the desired outcome. Washington likely lacks the capacity to destroy all of Iran's fortified and dispersed nuclear sites, while a devastating response from Tehran would be all but certain.