Brewing Israel Jordan crisis

The fragility of one of Israel’s most important regional allies ‑ Jordan ‑ with whom security ties are often described as a cornerstone of regional stability – was underscored by a series of apparent tit-for-tat diplomatic price-tag attacks, most recently.

On Wednesday, Israel prevented Hashemite Crown Prince Hussein bin Abdullah from visiting the Temple Mount. Jordan in retaliation refused on Thursday to authorize Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flight path to the United Arab Emirates, causing the trip's cancellation.

It's the latest diplomatic skirmish in a 26-year relationship fraught with crises brought on by religion, geo-politics and violence.

Netanyahu might have glossed over the incident, pointing out that the flight path was later approved, but it's harder to brush away the persistent simmering tensions.

Here is a look at 10 Israeli-Jordanian crisis points, many of which center around the Temple Mount, as the present crisis does.

1. Prince Hussein denied access to Temple Mount

Israel might have barred Hussein from entering Israel because he wanted to bring a security retinue that was larger than agreed. But the issue at the heart of the dispute is about control of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, the most holy site for Jews and third-holiest site for Muslims.

There were those in Israel who felt the size of the security details was a deliberate show of Jordanian power and a statement against its authority over the site, which lies within Israel’s sovereign borders.

Israel wants Jordan to accept its sovereignty over the Temple Mount.

The Hashemite Kingdom’s special custodial relationship to the Temple Mount, known to Muslims as al-Haram al-Sharif, is one of the central pillars on which rests a monarchy whose family claims to descend from the Prophet Mohammed, and which takes pride in a long history as the keeper of holy Islamic spaces.

The British in 1924 during its rule over Mandatory Palestine granted the Hashemite Kingdom a special custodial role over the al-Aqsa compound.

The 1994 Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty enshrined that role, but events over the last decade have made Jordan nervous about the future status of that relationship. Wednesday's border snafu was a stark reminder that its custodial relationship could be in jeopardy.

2. West Bank annexation

Israeli willingness to advance a plan to annex 30% of the West Bank over the last two years, including the Jordan Valley, created an immediate public backlash among the Jordanian public that could have threatened to undermine the Hashemite Kingdom, had Netanyahu not suspended the plan in August 2020.

Palestinians make up over 50% of the population in Jordan, so tensions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict often translate into public pressure on the Jordanian leadership to take a hasher tone with Israel.

3. A Saudi role on the Temple Mount?

There was public speculation that in order to entice Saudi Arabia to normalize ties with Israel, the Trump administration had considered weakening Jordan’s sole role as custodian of al-Aqsa Mosque compound by offering a role to the Saudi Arabian monarchy, the House of Saud.

It was a move that would have been a violation of the 1994 peace treaty, and which struck a particularly sensitive nerve because of the competition between the Hashemites and the House of Saud as the spiritual keepers of the Islamic faith.

A century ago, Hashemites lost control of Mecca and Medina to the House of Saud, so its only foothold on Islamic holy spaces is now its special custodial role over the al-Aqsa compound in Jerusalem.

4. Israeli drive to change Temple Mount status quo

The Temple Mount, where the biblical Temple once stood, is one of the most volatile flash points in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It is governed by a very careful arrangement among Israel, Jordan and the Islamic Wakf (Islamic trust), which administers the site that everyone can visit but where only Muslims can worship. The ban on non-Muslim worship has been in place since the aftermath of the Six Day War.

Former US president Donald Trump’s peace plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict alluded to a change in that status quo that would allow for those of all faiths to pray there, including Jews.

There has been a growing political movement within the Israeli Right, including by ministers of Netanyahu’s own Likud Party, to allow Jewish worship at the site.

Netanyahu has continually spoken of maintaining the status quo, but persistent comments by his ministers as well as legislative drives in the Knesset has given Jordan cause for concern.

Jordan's persistent warnings about the erosion of the Temple Mount status quo has, in turn, inflamed Palestinians and helped spark violent incidents in Jerusalem and the West Bank.

5. Temple Mount metal detector crisis

A brief crisis erupted in the summer of 2017 after two Israeli policemen were shot to death by the Lion’s Gate entrance to Jerusalem’s Old City by three Israeli-Arabs, who had just visited al-Aqsa Mosque compound for the weekly Friday prayers. After the attack they ran back in the direction of the Temple Mount, where they were killed by Israeli police.

To prevent further such attacks, Israel placed metal detectors at the entrance to the Temple Mount to ensure that Muslim worshipers were not armed. The decision sparked immediate violent protests in Jerusalem and the West Bank, and created an immediate diplomatic backlash with Jordan. By July 25, Israel decided to remove the detectors and calm was restored.

6. Dispute over Jordanian detained

In 2019, a dispute broke out between the two countries when Israel detained but initially refused to release two Jordanians it suspected of security transgression, Hiba Labadi and Abdul Rahman Miri. Israel released them only after Jordan recalled its ambassador.

7. Violence at the Israeli Embassy compound in Amman

In July 2017, a violent incident occurred in an apartment within the Israel Embassy compound in Amman that left two Jordanians dead. According to Israel, a Jordanian worker violently stabbed the embassy’s deputy director of security, while moving furniture in his home. The landlord was also present. The security guard defended himself, fatally shooting 16-year-old Mohammad Jawawdeh, and also mortally wounding the landlord, Bashar Kamel Hamarneh.

8. Jordan shuts down Island of Peace

In light of Israeli-Jordanian tensions, King Abdullah in 2019 refused to extend a land lease with Israel that had been an annex to the 1994 peace treaty between the two countries. Under the terms of the deal, privately owned Jewish land near the Sea of Galilee was given to Jordan, but Israelis were allowed to farm the site and tourists could visit what had become known as the Island of Peace.

9. Island of Peace massacre

In 1997, during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s first term in office, a Jordanian soldier killed seven Israeli school girls who were on a field trip to the Island of Peace. Ahmed Daqamseh was tried and convicted in Jordan, which released him 20 years later in 2017.

10. Failed poison plot by Mossad against Khaled Mashaal in Jordan

A Mossad plot to poison former Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in Jordan in 1997 was foiled by the country’s security forces, but only after the poison had been injected. Israel gave Jordan the antidote and freed Palestinian prisoners, including Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, in exchange for the release and return of the two Mossad agents.

Will Saudi Arabia quit Yemen war?

Reportedly, Biden administration has ramped up pressure on Saudi Arabia to bring war in Yemen to end and the Kingdom has reluctantly accepted to go along with the US initiative. In his early days as President of United States, Joe Biden sent a clear message to Saudi Arabia that the days of Washington giving unwavering support for Saudi military operations in Yemen are over. 

This war has to end. And to underscore our commitment, we’re ending all American support for offensive operations in Yemen, including arm sales, said Biden in a recent speech at the State Department.

Not only Biden administration removed Yemen’s Ansarullah movement from the US government’s list of foreign terrorist organizations, Veteran diplomat, Timothy Lenderking has been appointed the US special envoy for Yemen.

The US approach towards Yemen changed after the new administration realized that Saudi Arabia can never win this war and there is an urgent need to offer the Monarchy a face-saving. 

Saudis don’t seem to agree with the US proposal. They still insist on excluding the Ansarallah movement and returning the obsolete, self-proclaimed government of Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, who resigned in 2015 and left Yemen open for foreign intervention. 

Saudi intervention in Yemen was aimed at achieving one goal, eliminating Ansarallah and Sanaa-based government. To justify its assault on Yemen, Saudi Arabia claimed that Ansarallah is backed by Iran and that the war on Yemen was primarily focused on eliminating foreign influence in the country.

Saudis and their allies besieged Yemen and prevented free coming and going to Yemen. Despite the blockade, the Saudis failed to defeat the Sanaa government; which now seems to be stronger than ever given its recent attacks on several strategic targets deep inside Saudi Arabia.

An official spokesman at the ministry told Saudi Press Agency on Sunday that one of the petroleum tank farms at the Ras Tanura Port in the Eastern Region, one of the largest oil shipping ports in the world, was attacked by a drone.

The official added that another deliberate attempt was made to hit Saudi Aramco’s facilities. The spokesman said a ballistic missile fell near Saudi Aramco’s area in the city of Dhahran. The spokesman said that both attacks did not result in any injury or loss of life or property.

The Yemeni forces claimed responsibility for the attacks on Aramco facilities. They said the attack came in response to ongoing aggression and siege against Yemen. 

The latest attacks indicated that Saudi Arabia has not only unsuccessful in defeating Yemeni forces, but it also failed in protecting itself from Yemen’s retaliatory strikes.

Instead of ending the war in Yemen, Saudis continue to level accusations on Iran, claiming that the missile and drones used by the Yemeni forces to target Saudi Arabia’s oil port and facilities were supplied by Iran. 

Saudi Arabia can quit war by ending its military operations and leaving Yemeni factions to pursue a political solution at their own. Saudis have failed in finding ways out of the Yemen crisis. Now that the US is negotiating for an end to Yemen war, Saudis should put an end to this unwinnable war. 

If Saudis continue the war, they may lose not only the war, but also their credibility. Saudis may not like the US plan, but the effort may prove a blessing in disguise.

Biden sends B-52 heavy bomber over Persian Gulf

Last week, a B-52 bomber of United States Air Force flew over the Middle East, the fourth time since Joe Biden became President of the United States. Washington said the flybys were due to instability in the region, but the reference was very clearly to Iran. 

What was more unusual about these flights than the previous was that the US Central Command announced that these were accompanied by supporting aircraft from Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Israel is a US ally and Saudi Arabia has been allegedly cooperating with Israel for years but has still not recognized it. Qatar has perhaps the closest relationship with Tehran and it is a key intermediary between Iran and the United States. If the purpose of these flights was to warn Iran; such warnings have little impact.

In a clear signal to Iran, a ‘Stratofortress bomber flew over the Persian Gulf, before the plane was spotted in Israeli airspace heading back to its base in the US. It was escorted by Israeli Air Force F-15s as it passed over Israel. It was the seventh mission into CENTCOM’s area of operation in the last four months and the second deployment of the heavy bomber since Joe Biden became president on January 20.

It is believed that the United States continues to deploy combat-ready capabilities into the US Central Command area of responsibility to deter any potential adversary, and make clear that it is ready and capable of responding to any aggression directed at its interests. Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander, US Central Command had said, “We do not seek conflict, but no one should underestimate our ability to defend our forces or to act decisively in response to any attack.”

One can recall that Iranians or their proxies have launched attacks at the US bases in Iraq. They have also damaged an Israeli merchant vessel off the Lebanese coast. The Biden administration’s pledge to revive the nuclear treaty has been rejected by Iran. Since Biden has made restoring the agreement an important objective of his presidency, Iran may feel Biden is desperate for a deal.

The flight of the B 52s didn’t matter, despite two of Iran’s greatest enemies – Israel and Saudi Arabia joining hands. Israel may be eager to strike Iran, but sees itself restrained by the United States.

Iran’s primary goals are to restore its economy and prevent an attack from the West. It can’t leave Iraq alone, nor can it abandon its allies in Yemen and elsewhere. Demonstrating real regional power is a foundation of its security. Iran knows its relative importance to the United States that gives it a sense of security.

Why United States is shy in imposing sanctions on Saudi Arabia?

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) “approved an operation … to capture or kill Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi,” according to a scathing new report from Joe Biden administration. Yet the President says the US will not sanction the Saudi government, cognizant of the fact that any direct punishment could risk Saudi Arabia’s cooperation in confronting Iran.

Biden is grapple with the reality that Saudi Arabia is needed to achieve certain US objectives in the Middle East. This is a change from Biden’s criticism of Saudi Arabia on the campaign trail. The Khashoggi affair highlights a persistent oddity in the US foreign policy.

The Trump administration was reluctant to confront Saudi Arabia over the killing of Khashoggi. Beyond revoking the visas of some Saudi officials implicated in Khashoggi’s death, Trump did nothing to punish the kingdom for Khashoggi’s torture, assassination and dismemberment. Trump and other White House officials reminded critics that Saudi Arabia buys billions of dollars weapons from the US.

 Biden has taken a slightly tougher line, approving the release of the intelligence report that blames MBS for Khashoggi’s murder and sanctioning 76 lower-level Saudi officials. Saudi Arabia isn’t the only nation to get a free pass from the US for its terrible misdeeds. The US has for decades maintained close ties with some of the world’s worst human rights abusers.

Ever since the United States emerged from the Cold War as the world’s dominant military and economic power, consecutive American presidents have seen financial and geopolitical benefit in overlooking the bad deeds of brutal regimes. Before the Islamic revolution in 1979, Iran was a close US ally. Shah Reza Pahlavi ruled harshly, using his secret police to torture and murder political dissidents. President Nixon hoped that Iran would be the “Western policeman in the Persian Gulf.”

After the shah’s overthrow, the Reagan administration in the 1980s became friendly with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. The US supported him with intelligence during Iraq’s war with Iran and looked the other way at his use of chemical weapons. And before Syria’s intense bloody civil war – which has killed an estimated 400,000 people and featured grisly chemical weapon attacks by the government – its authoritarian regime enjoyed relatively friendly relations with the US Syria has been on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1979. But US presidents i.e. Nixon, Carter, Bush and Clinton visited President Bashar al-Assad’s father, who ruled from 1971 until his death in 2000.

Why Saudi Arabia matters

Before the alleged assassination of Khashoggi by Saudi operatives, the 35-year-old crown prince was cultivating a reputation as a moderate reformer. He has made newsworthy changes in the conservative Arab kingdom, allowing women to drive, combating corruption and curtailing some powers of the religious police. Still, Saudi Arabia remains one of the world’s most authoritarian regimes.

Saudi Arabia ranks just above North Korea on political rights, civil liberties and other measures of freedom, according to the democracy watchdog Freedom House. The same report ranks both Iran and China ahead of the Saudis. But its wealth, strategic Middle East location and petroleum exports keep the Saudis as a vital US ally.

President Obama visited Saudi Arabia more than any other American US president – four times in eight years – to discuss everything from Iran to oil production.

American realpolitik

This kind of foreign policy – one based on practical, self-interested principles rather than moral or ideological concerns – is called “realpolitik.” Henry Kissinger, secretary of state under Nixon, was a master of realpolitik, which drove that administration to normalize its relationship with China. Diplomatic relations between the two countries had ended in 1949 when Chinese communist revolutionaries took power. Then, as now, China was incredibly repressive. Only 16 countries – including Saudi Arabia – are less free than China, according to Freedom House. Iran, a country the US wants Saudis to help in keeping in check, ranks ahead of China. But China is also the world’s most populous nation and a nuclear power.

Nixon, a fervent anti-communist, sought to exploit a growing rift between China and the Soviet Union. Today Washington retains the important, if occasionally rocky, relationship Kissinger forged with Beijing, despite its ongoing persecution of Muslim minority groups. American realpolitik applies to Latin America, too. After the Cuban Revolution of 1959, the U.S. regularly backed Central and South American military dictators who tortured and killed citizens to “defend” the Americas from communism.

US not ‘so innocent’

 US presidents tend to underplay their relationships with repressive regimes, lauding lofty “American values” instead. That’s the language former President Barack Obama used in 2018 to criticize Trump’s embrace of Russia’s authoritarian president, Vladimir Putin, citing America’s “commitment to certain values and principles like the rule of law and human rights and democracy.” But Trump defended his relationship with Russia, tacitly invoking American realpolitik. “You think our country’s so innocent?” he asked on Fox News.

The US has maintained close ties to numerous regimes, and still does, who’s values and policies conflict with America’s constitutional guarantees of democracy, freedom of speech, the right to due process and many others.

Iran must not ignore Senator Robert Menendez

Ever since Joe Biden has become President of United States, his administration has bombed Syria, imposed sanctions on Saudi Arabia and Myanmar, and taken steps to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal. However, analysts warn, “If Biden thinks he can make foreign policy decisions without consulting Robert Menendez, he’s got another thing coming”.

Menendez has been in this role before, and criticized the way the Obama administration conducted international affairs. In Menendez’s view, Obama treated foreign policy as if it were the sole discretion of the White House. Consequently, he often made things more difficult for himself, especially in areas that needed congressional approval.

The 67-year-old third-term senator and former longtime House member told Politico that he was often frustrated by Obama, who would simply notify Congress of his decisions rather than consulting with lawmakers in advance. Menendez came down on opposite sides of the White House on several issues, including the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, (JCOPA) the common name for the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

“Beyond the realities of a 50-50 Senate, when we talk about foreign policy, whenever we can get a bipartisan basis for something — maybe not absolute, 100 members — we are stronger in the world,” Menendez said. “And I believe President Biden believes that.”

Menendez quickly registered his dissatisfaction last week when the Biden team did not give him a heads up about the president’s retaliatory strikes against Iranian installations in Syria; and he and other Democrats are already calling for more severe punishments against Saudi Arabia after a US intelligence report officially pinned the blame for journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder on the Kingdom’s crown prince and de facto leader, Mohammed bin Salman.

In a statement, Menendez stressed, “I am hopeful it is only a first step and the administration plans to take concrete measures holding Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman personally responsible for his role in this heinous crime.” 

Politico reminded it is critical for Biden’s foreign policy to keep Menendez in the loop and wrote, “It’s not surprising, then, that there is an ongoing White House campaign to curry favor with Menendez, who hasn’t been afraid to break with his party and has a history of making matters difficult for presidents who try to strong-arm Congress.”

“That makes all the difference in the world,” Menendez said. “It doesn’t mean that we’re going to agree 100 percent of the time. But it does mean that we will understand each other, where we’re coming from — and more likely than not, we will agree.”

The American publication admitted the hawkish Menendez and the Biden administration disagree on a handful of key areas including the Iran nuclear deal, US relations with Cuba, the use of US military force overseas, and what to do in regard to Nicolas Maduro, the Venezuelan president.

Generally, Menendez opposes negotiations or deals that seem to give any concessions to them. He likely won’t take it easy on the Biden team, many of whose members served under Obama, as they try to revive agreements like the Iran deal, or reestablish ties with Cuba — relationships that were damaged under former President Donald Trump. He’ll also insist on greater congressional say if and when the United States uses military force in abroad.

The Biden team is “right to want to have a good relationship with him. They’re going to agree with him on a lot of things,” said Ben Rhodes, who served as a key force behind diplomatic openings with Cuba and Iran during the Obama years.

 “But at a certain point, there’s a Senate view and an administration view, and unless you want [Menendez] to be in charge of your Cuba policy, your Venezuela policy or your Iran policy, you’re likely going to reach a point where you have to have a difficult conversation,” Rhodes remarked.

Menendez said that Biden’s team is already discarding the Obama model — which he asserted did not always value Congress’ role in determining US foreign policy — and instead of working closely with the Senate to coordinate and seek input.

Nevertheless, Senators have reasons to be optimistic because Biden is a former chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken is the former Staff Director for the panel.

 “You haven’t had an administration as populated with people who understand the role of the Senate, and also how helpful the Senate can be,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee who is close with Menendez. “I think they have a huge opportunity with Bob as the chair, given who the players are in the administration, to really have a very good working relationship.”

However, Kaine has been among the outspoken critics of Biden’s airstrikes in Syria last week, insisting that the president should have had authorization from Congress. Kaine is seeking for years to scrap the 2001 and 2002 war authorizations that presidents from both parties have used to justify the US military activity in West Asia.

Biden’s top deputies, apparently eager not to repeat the perceived mistakes of the Obama administration, are already working to keep Menendez happy. 

Jake Sullivan, National Security Adviser, described Menendez “a sounding board, a source of advice, and a leading voice on the most important national security issues of our time. My team and I are making it a personal priority to reach out and engage regularly with him and his team, and we will continue to do so.”

Also, Blinken promised similar engagement, saying Menendez “has proven himself to be both principled and effective.”

“Menendez’s allies say the Biden administration would cross him at its own peril — especially when Biden is looking for lawmakers’ support for a major foreign policy initiative. Menendez’s penchant for working closely with Republicans can be an asset to an administration that came into office emphasizing bipartisanship. And in a 50-50 Senate, every vote counts.” 

“I would encourage the Biden administration to pick his brain because if Bob can get onto something, Republicans are going to take it seriously,” Sen. Lindsey Graham underlined.

Pointing to Menendez’s promise to conduct vigorous oversight of the Biden administration’s foreign policy, the American publication wrote, “Something that was sorely lacking under former President Donald Trump, whose administration routinely flouted Congress, ignored the law, and was openly hostile to both Democrats and Republicans.”

 “When things aren’t going as well as they should, don’t expect Menendez to lay back. I expect he’ll be pretty aggressive,” said Ben Cardin, the second-highest-ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.

The US presidents have long tried to blunt efforts by Congress to disable the executive branch and underscored, “Cardin experienced that hostility first-hand when he led the charge in 2012 for the Magnitsky Act, which imposed sanctions on Russian human rights violators. Obama ultimately signed the bill into law, but Cardin said his White House was “hostile toward Congress” because lawmakers were seeking to address an issue that was traditionally controlled by the executive branch.

 “There’s been, historically, under-performance by every administration on dealing with Congress. There is a view that they can do this without us,” Cardin noted.

Obama aides were worrying that Menendez would draw red lines that would box in their options and said, “Menendez, in particular, is loath to appear soft on governments like Cuba and Iran.” If Biden administration keeps Menendez looped into his satisfaction, he may ultimately disagree with some of their initiatives. 

 “I think it is important to include [us], as long as people are engaged in good faith, not just in being obstructionists at the end of the day,” Menendez asserted.

The Obama administration had agreed that keeping Menendez engaged early on was significant. It believed everyone understands the consequences of a Senate split 50-50 between the two parties. Menendez won’t want to be seen as a politician who hurt Democratic Party.

Menendez thought that the Obama administration did not consult enough with him forehand of adopting key foreign policy approaches and said, “They didn’t consult enough on the Iran deal. They just didn’t,” said a person close to Menendez. “They knew it was his No. 1 issue.”

Online Conference on boosting trade between Iran and Afghanistan

An online conference is scheduled on opportunities and strategies for trade between Iran and Afghanistan on Monday. This has been stated at the portal of Iran Chamber of Commerce, Industries, Mines and Agriculture (ICCIMA). The online event will be attended by Hossein Salimi, the chairman of Iran-Afghanistan Joint Chamber of Commerce.

In this conference, the security and political situation of Afghanistan and the perspective of economic and political relations between the two countries, trade opportunities and goods and services needs of Afghanistan, investment opportunities in Afghanistan, how to participate in the Afghan market, Afghanistan and Iran credit lines and financial transfer will be reviewed.

Back in January, the Director General of the Asia-Pacific Office of Iran’s Trade Promotion Organization (TPO) had said that a preferential trade agreement with Afghanistan was going to be signed in the near future.

Speaking in the fourth meeting of Khorasan Razavi-Herat Joint Trade Committee in Mashhad, Reza Seyed-Aqazadeh said, “Necessary coordination has been made with the Ministry of Commerce of Afghanistan.”

He mentioned previous tariff agreements between the two countries and said, “Previously, in 2015, the tariffs for the imports of five commodity items from Afghanistan including the imports of sesame were reduced; the tariffs on sesame imports were reduced from 10 percent to five percent.”

According to the official, balancing international trade, especially with Afghanistan is one of the major strategies of Iran in foreign trade, and TPO’s goal is to establish a balanced trade between the two countries.

Special strategies have been adopted by the Trade Promotion Organization for balancing trade with Afghanistan and for resolving problems in this field, he said, adding that the issues and demands of Afghan businessmen will also be reviewed in a special working group in this organization to take the necessary measures and resolve their issues.

Having shared historical, cultural, political, and economic backgrounds, Iran and Afghanistan have been allies for many years and the strategic cooperation between the two countries has been broadened especially over the past two decades.

The value of Iran’s exports to Afghanistan is anticipated to reach US$3 billion in the current Iranian calendar year, according to Hossein Salimi, the chairman of Iran-Afghanistan Joint Chamber of Commerce.

 

Iran and Pakistan to develop joint border markets

Iran and Pakistan held an online meeting to discuss issues related to developing border trade and reached an agreement to establish the first joint border market of the two countries, said an official of Iranian Trade Promotion Organization (TPO).

“A virtual meeting was held to discuss a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the establishment of joint border markets between Iran and Pakistan, and agreements were reached in this regard,” IRNA quoted Reza Seyed Aqazadeh as saying.

According to the official, following the preparation of the draft for the mentioned MOU in December 2020, additional negotiations were made for finalizing the memorandum in the online meeting which was held at the level of deputy ministers.

Referring to the 950-kilometer border between Iran and Pakistan, as well as the interest of two countries in developing trade, Seyed Aqazadeh noted, "Border markets have so far been created unilaterally by Iran or Pakistan, and a joint market will be established between the two countries for the first time."

The development of the joint border markets is expected to improve the business activities of border residents, he added.

“Based on the agreements reached, the two sides have appointed technical teams to determine the location and size of the joint markets and to prepare a list of the items that would be traded in the markets,” the official explained.

He stated that joint markets will be set up in Kuhak and Pishin (Saravan) in the near future, and specified, “Pakistan has proposed six points on the border to create joint markets, and the Iranian side is interested in setting up joint markets as much as possible in place of existing approved markets.”

Currently, border markets of Saravan-Jaleq, Saravan-Kuhak, Sarbaz-Pishin and Chabahar-Rimdan in Sistan-Baluchestan province are active on the border with Pakistan, and the Mirjaveh market has been merged with Mirjaveh customs, according to Seyed Aqazadeh.

Earlier in December 2020, Pakistan’s Advisor to Prime Minister on Commerce and Investment Abdul Razak Dawood had said his country was seeking to enhance ties with the Islamic Republic of Iran, especially in economic areas.

Considering Pakistan’s relatively large consumer market, expansion of trade with the country and boosting exports to its market has become one of Iran's priorities in recent years.

Iran's exports to Pakistan in the past Iranian calendar year was reported at US$1.18 billion, but in the meantime, financial and banking problems have created obstacles in the trade between the two countries.