Home Blog Page 133

Allow the conflict in Lebanon to unfold naturally: US opted markedly different strategy

October 12, 2024

Following weeks of vigorous diplomatic efforts to establish a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah militants, the United States has opted for a markedly different strategy: allowing the conflict in Lebanon to unfold naturally.

Just a fortnight ago, both the United States and France were advocating for an immediate 21-day ceasefire to prevent an Israeli invasion of Lebanon. However, this initiative was undermined by Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah leader Syed Hassan Nasrallah, the initiation of Israeli ground operations in southern Lebanon on October 1, and airstrikes that have significantly diminished the group’s leadership.

Currently, U.S. officials have rescinded their calls for a ceasefire, citing a shift in circumstances. “We do support Israel launching these incursions to degrade Hezbollah’s infrastructure so ultimately we can get a diplomatic resolution,” stated State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller during a press briefing earlier this week.

This shift in strategy illustrates the conflicting objectives of the U.S.: to contain the escalating conflict in the Middle East while simultaneously aiming to weaken the Iran-backed Hezbollah significantly.

The new strategy presents both practical advantages and significant risks. The United States and Israel stand to gain from the defeat of a shared adversary—Hezbollah, which Iran employs to threaten Israel’s northern border.

However, promoting an expansion of Israel’s military operations carries the danger of igniting a conflict that could spiral out of control. Jon Alterman, a former official at the State Department, noted that while the U.S. aims to diminish Hezbollah’s influence, it must also consider the potential consequences of “creating a vacuum” in Lebanon or instigating a broader regional conflict.

He remarked that Washington’s stance appears to be: “If altering the Israeli strategy is not feasible, then it is better to attempt to guide it in a positive direction.”

NO SIGNIFICANT CEASEFIRE NEGOTIATIONS

The recent conflict between Israel and Hezbollah ignited when the latter launched missiles at Israeli targets shortly after the Hamas assault on October 7, 2023, which marked the beginning of the Gaza war. Since then, the two sides have been engaged in ongoing exchanges of fire.

As indirect ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas stalled over several months, Israel intensified its attacks on Hezbollah in September, inflicting significant damage on the group, including the remote detonation of Hezbollah communication devices, resulting in thousands of injuries among its members.

Following the death of Nasrallah, which the U.S. described as “a measure of justice,” President Joe Biden reiterated calls for a ceasefire along the Israel-Lebanon border. However, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government proceeded with a ground invasion, and within days, the U.S. shifted its stance, withdrawing calls for a ceasefire and expressing support for Israel’s military actions.

Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. Middle East negotiator, noted that Washington had limited expectations of restraining Israel and recognized potential advantages in the operation. “It certainly created momentum in which the administration probably thought, ‘Let’s make a virtue out of necessity’,” he remarked, suggesting that U.S. officials were likely holding back leverage to manage Israel’s response to a recent ballistic missile attack from Tehran.

Currently, there are no significant ceasefire negotiations taking place, according to European sources familiar with the situation, who indicated that Israel intends to continue its operations in Lebanon “for weeks, if not months.” Two U.S. officials informed Reuters that this timeline is plausible.

From the U.S. perspective, the Israeli military campaign could yield at least two advantages. Firstly, diminishing Hezbollah—Iran’s most formidable proxy militia—could reduce Tehran’s influence in the region and lessen the threat posed to both Israel and U.S. forces. Additionally, Washington believes that sustained military pressure might compel Hezbollah to disarm, potentially facilitating the election of a new Lebanese government that could displace the influential militia, which has played a significant role in Lebanon for many years.

Jonathan Lord, a former Pentagon official now affiliated with the Center for a New American Security in Washington, expressed skepticism about achieving this outcome. “While many Lebanese citizens are frustrated by Hezbollah’s dominance in Lebanon, this transformation is being imposed on the country through a highly violent campaign,” Lord remarked.

RISKY STRATEGY

U.S. officials indicated this week that the primary objective is to uphold United Nations Security Council resolution 1701, which established a U.N. peacekeeping mission, known as UNIFIL, to assist the Lebanese army in maintaining a weapons-free zone along its southern border with Israel, excluding personnel from the Lebanese state.

According to U.S. officials, discussions with relevant parties to achieve these objectives can proceed even amid ongoing hostilities, although analysts caution that the conflict significantly heightens the risk of a wider war, especially as the region anticipates Israel’s reaction to Iran’s missile attack.

In addition to the potential for a conflict that could involve the United States, there are concerns that Lebanon could become another Gaza.

A year of Israeli military actions has devastated the enclave, resulting in nearly 42,000 fatalities, as reported by health officials in Gaza. U.S. officials have explicitly stated that Israel’s military campaign in Lebanon should not mirror that of the Gaza Strip.

Despite these risks, Alterman, who currently leads the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, expressed skepticism that diplomatic efforts will halt the fighting in the near future. “Netanyahu perceives that all his strategies are yielding results, making it a challenging time for Israel to consider easing its offensive,” he remarked.

Iran has kill list of former Trump aides, prompting urgent U.S. protective measures

Asif Shahid

October 12, 2024

U.S. officials are increasingly concerned about Iran‘s persistent threats to assassinate Donald Trump and several of his former top military and national security advisors. It has become evident that Tehran is not merely making empty threats and is unlikely to relent in its intentions.

Since January 2020, following Trump’s drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, Iran has openly targeted Trump and those involved in the national security decisions surrounding that operation. The Iranian regime has released videos threatening the lives of Trump and others associated with the attack, called for their arrest and extradition, and issued ominous statements vowing revenge.

Recently, U.S. intelligence officials briefed the Trump campaign about the assassination threats from Iran, indicating that the danger has escalated in recent months. This briefing came after two attempted assassination plots against Trump over the summer, although no evidence has been found linking these attempts directly to Iran.

However, the scope and intensity of Iran’s plans to eliminate Trump and former officials connected to the Soleimani operation appear to be more extensive than previously understood, according to multiple officials familiar with the situation.

“This is an extremely serious matter,” stated Matt Olsen, the Justice Department’s assistant attorney general for national security. “Iran has unequivocally expressed its intent to retaliate against former officials involved in the Soleimani operation.”

While the government has taken significant measures to safeguard many of these officials, some individuals facing similar threats do not receive any protection from the government.

POLITICO conducted interviews with 24 individuals who possess direct knowledge of the Soleimani strike and the subsequent assassination threats. This group included current and former U.S. lawmakers, Secret Service agents, congressional aides, and senior officials. Due to ongoing threats or the sensitive nature of their roles, some participants were granted anonymity.

These individuals collectively described a significant and tangible assassination threat that extends beyond the alarming videos, bold statements, and intimidating social media activity that have captured public attention. They recounted instances of hacking and digital surveillance targeting former officials and their families, a series of personal FBI alerts regarding new threats from Iran, escalating discussions on how to safeguard individuals amid persistent plots, and attempts by suspected Iranian agents to monitor a U.S. official during an overseas trip.

Many of those who spoke with POLITICO contend that the U.S. government is still grappling with the Iranian threat and has yet to establish a reliable method to protect all individuals at risk for the duration necessary, thereby allowing Tehran to potentially act on its threats.

“There were several individuals — not a large number, but a notable few — who would likely be seen as significant targets and were receiving minimal support,” stated Megan Reiss, a former national security policy adviser to Sen. Mitt Romney, who addressed the Iranian threats during his time in Congress.

Recently, lawmakers have allocated additional funds to assist the Defense and State departments in enhancing the already unprecedented level of protection for certain former agency officials targeted by Iran, resulting in costs to the federal government nearing $150 million annually.

Former officials from the National Security Council, who are reportedly on Iran’s target list, find themselves largely unprotected. Having served in the White House, they expect to receive security from the Secret Service. While the agency has increased its efforts, the support has been inconsistent. One former official had their government security detail removed without any explanation, another had to advocate for their protection, and several others never received any assistance at all.

As a result, some of these individuals are now investing hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to ensure their own safety and that of their families.

The Secret Service has chosen not to comment on this situation.

Sean Savett, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, stated that the Biden administration views Iran’s threats as a “national and homeland security matter of the highest priority.” He also emphasized that Iran would face “severe consequences” should it target any U.S. citizens, including former government employees.

The assassination of an official with less prominence than the former president could still lead to a significant crisis between the two countries.

Rep. Jim Himes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, stated, “The U.S. would view it as an act of war. While I cannot predict our response, it would certainly not be a favorable situation for the Iranian regime.”

The risk associated with the assassination of Soleimani

The Trump administration was aware that the elimination of Soleimani could provoke severe retaliation.

As the leader of Iran’s elite Quds Force, Soleimani played a pivotal role in orchestrating Iran’s proxy conflicts throughout the Middle East. He also held a close personal relationship with Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

“Soleimani was almost like a son to the Supreme Leader,” noted Ali Vaez, an expert on Iran at the International Crisis Group.

The Pentagon, under the Trump administration, determined that Soleimani was accountable for the deaths and injuries of thousands of Americans during the Iraq War. It asserted that the 2020 drone strike targeting him and several other Iran-aligned militants thwarted “active plans” to carry out further attacks.

However, the Iranian government and some legal experts have raised doubts about the immediacy of those alleged plans. Regardless, Vaez characterized the strike as a significant violation of Iran’s sovereignty.

While the U.S. designates the Quds Force as a terrorist organization, it is regarded domestically as an integral component of Tehran’s military structure. “From their viewpoint, allowing the assassination of your highest-ranking military official to go unanswered is not an option,” Vaez remarked.

Iran’s initial reaction to the strike, despite concerns of a full-scale war, was relatively restrained: a ballistic missile assault on U.S. forces in Iraq, which did not result in any American casualties.

This prompted President Trump and many supporters of the strike to celebrate, believing that Iran had effectively backed down.

However, Iranian proxies continued to carry out a series of rocket and drone assaults on U.S. forces in Iraq for several months, which at one point led then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to threaten the evacuation of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Concurrently, Iran began to prepare for targeted actions against specific officials.

The prospect of Iran attempting to assassinate a U.S. official in retaliation for the Soleimani strike was not something U.S. intelligence had foreseen, as many sources said.

Nevertheless, U.S. intelligence quickly determined that Iran was serious about pursuing such drastic measures almost immediately following the strike, based on both classified intelligence and public declarations. “It was pretty fast,” remarked a former senior national security official with direct knowledge of the Soleimani incident.

As time passed, these threats became increasingly overt.

“Those who ordered the murder of General Soleimani, as well as those who executed it, should be punished,” Khamenei stated on his social media account nearly a year later, in December 2020. “This revenge will certainly happen at the right time.”

A Life Sentence of Threats

Many experts expressed concerns that Iran does not possess the advanced capabilities necessary for executing a targeted assassination against a well-protected individual within the United States.

However, the recent attempts on Trump’s life this summer have raised significant doubts regarding the government’s capacity to safeguard even its highest-ranking former officials. Some observers contend that the U.S. government is only gradually adapting to a subtle yet dangerous threat posed by a foreign nation.

“This situation is unprecedented and fundamentally different,” remarked a former senior official from the Trump administration familiar with the assassination of Soleimani. “We have never seen former high-ranking national security officials, including Cabinet members, facing such a risk from a foreign adversary.”

Individuals reported ongoing Iranian surveillance activities—primarily, though not exclusively, conducted online—targeting a select group of more than six former officials. This includes efforts to monitor travel plans and daily routines, according to the same official.

Those identified as targets by Iran have also been receiving regular “duty to warn” briefings, where FBI agents inform them of specific threats to their safety.

“Sometimes the information can be quite detailed. They are aware of your location and daily patterns,” noted a former senior Pentagon official with firsthand knowledge of the assassination plots regarding the FBI alerts. “At other times, the information can be completely off base.”

“The Iranians may not be particularly skilled, but they are highly motivated,” the former Pentagon official added. “And they only need to succeed once.”

It remains uncertain when or how Iran might attempt to exact revenge.

Four individuals referenced Salman Rushdie, the Nobel Prize-winning author, as a pertinent example. Thirty-four years after the supreme leader of Iran issued a death sentence against Rushdie for a novel he alleged was offensive to Islam, an attempted assassin attacked Rushdie, stabbing him 15 times during an event in New York.

“When these fatwas are issued, they seem to last a lifetime,” remarked the first senior national security official.

Going on the Defensive

More than four years after the strike on Soleimani, the repercussions of that decision continue to cast a long shadow over the national security apparatus in Washington.

In addition to Trump, who is afforded Secret Service protection as a former president, at least seven former generals, diplomats, and civilian policy advisors from his administration are under constant government security detail. In some instances, a single security team may consist of approximately six individuals.

The list primarily includes those with direct connections to the Soleimani operation or who held prominent positions in the Trump administration: Mark Esper, Secretary of Defense; Mark Milley, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Paul Nakasone, head of NSA and U.S. Cyber Command; Kenneth McKenzie, head of U.S. Central Command; Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State; and Brian Hook, the State Department’s Special Representative for Iran.

The continuous and comprehensive security measures represent an extraordinary level of caution for former national security officials.

However, this may not be enough.

Iran has imposed largely symbolic financial sanctions on a wider array of over 50 former officials from the Trump administration, including those currently under protection, and has issued Interpol “red notices” for their apprehension.

Some individuals believe the threat is particularly serious for a select group of those officials whose images appeared alongside Trump in a propaganda video from an IRGC-affiliated social media account in January 2023, which vowed retribution for “the perpetrators of General Soleimani’s martyrdom.”

Two officials featured in the video continue to serve in government, while three others have retired but now benefit from security details. The remaining four individuals, despite being highlighted in the video and having received at least two FBI duty-to-warn briefings regarding threats from Iran, do not receive any government protectin.

The common factor among these four individuals is their affiliation with the National Security Council.

In contrast, most officials who do have protection are from the Defense and State departments, both of which have seen increased funding from Congress in recent years to enhance their capabilities in countering Iran’s assassination attempts.

Recently, lawmakers allocated $40 million to the State Department for the protection of officials like Hook and Pompeo. Additionally, Congress expanded the Pentagon’s authority to reimburse former officials requiring security or to extend protection as long as there is an ongoing threat. This initiative is estimated to cost around $100 million annually, according to one congressional aide.

Pentagon spokesperson Sue Gough stated that the Defense Department “does not disclose details regarding security measures for current or former officials.” A spokesperson for the State Department indicated that the agency cannot provide specifics about its protective operations due to longstanding security protocols.

Meanwhile, the once-renowned presidential protection agency is facing significant challenges, having endured a series of scandals that peaked with two assassination attempts on Trump this summer.

“The Secret Service was ‘stretched really, really thin,’” remarked Reiss, a former aide to Romney.

Some experts contend that Iran would only be satisfied with the assassination of someone they consider a comparable figure to Soleimani, suggesting that not every official who has received threats should be in fear for their life.

“It appears that Iran categorizes individuals into two groups: those whose assassination would be seen as proportional retribution for Soleimani, and everyone else,” noted another former national security official.

Bolton has been a prominent advocate among U.S. policymakers for a stringent approach towards Iran, frequently adopting hawkish stances and disseminating his views through various cable news platforms.

It is evident that the Ayatollahs do not appreciate his stance.

Bolton recounted that he first received a duty-to-warn briefing from the FBI regarding Iranian threats against him around late 2020 or early 2021. This was followed by a series of increasingly specific and concerning warnings throughout 2021.

At that time, Bolton did not have a government security detail, but he recognized the necessity for one. In a meeting with over 15 officials from the FBI, Justice Department, and Secret Service the week before Thanksgiving 2021, he inquired about potential assistance. “I appreciate you informing me, but what actions will you take?” he recalled asking.

Secret Service agents suggested the possibility of establishing a dedicated security detail, and Bolton urged the Justice Department to present the request to the White House, believing it would carry more weight if initiated by them.

The Justice Department agreed, and in December 2021, the Biden administration granted Bolton a Secret Service security detail.

Unfortunately, this action came perilously close to being too late.

In early November of that year, a member of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps initiated efforts to hire assassins to target Bolton within the United States, as detailed in a criminal complaint subsequently filed by the Justice Department, when Bolton lacked protective measures.

Bolton emphasized that this situation is not merely “idle internet chatter” or the work of “some nut-case sitting in his mother’s basement.” He expressed his readiness to publicly address the threats against him, distinguishing himself from others who may remain silent, as his name has already appeared in public legal documents.

He also criticized the $300,000 bounty placed on his life by Iran as “insultingly low.”

Bolton is not the only former national security adviser who has faced potential threats from Iranian operatives.

Robert O’Brien, who served as Trump’s national security adviser during the Soleimani strike, traveled to Paris in June 2022 to accept an award from the French government. At that time, the Secret Service detail assigned to protect O’Brien noticed two Middle Eastern men following him throughout the city, according to a former Secret Service agent and two individuals familiar with the situation.

The last sighting of the two men prompted the detail to act swiftly, extracting O’Brien from a meeting at the Ritz and escorting him back to his hotel room, as reported by those familiar with the incident.

O’Brien chose not to comment on this matter.

The current status of the threat against O’Brien remains uncertain, particularly since he no longer benefits from government protection.

In a letter dated June 2023, then-Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle informed O’Brien of the decision not to renew his security detail, allowing him 60 days to “make alternate security arrangements, if you choose to do so,” as stated in a document. The letter did not elaborate on the reasoning behind this decision.

Some Republican lawmakers, including Mike Turner, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, contend that the threat to O’Brien is as significant as that faced by other former officials.

Turner expressed concern in a letter to national security adviser Jake Sullivan last January, stating, “It is a dangerous precedent to set, to not extend a former national security adviser’s protective detail while there are active threats against his life,” as noted in a document.

Additionally, there are claims that the risk to Trump from Iran is escalating.

In July, the FBI apprehended an Iranian operative who had entered the United States with the intent to orchestrate the assassination of “a political person” in retaliation for Soleimani’s death, according to the Justice Department. This individual, a Pakistani national, even conducted remote surveillance of a Trump rally.

“Let there be no doubt, the threat of the Iranian regime targeting [Trump] is more real than ever,” stated Marco Rubio, the ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

On Friday, the Trump campaign sought military aircraft, flight restrictions around his rallies and residences, and additional protections due to the Iranian assassination threat.

Savett, the NSC spokesperson, remarked that “President Biden has reiterated his directive that the United States Secret Service should receive every resource, capability, and protective measure required to address those evolving threats to the former president.”

O’Brien is financing his own security measures after being instructed by the Secret Service to do so. Protecting oneself from a nation-state is proving to be quite costly.

He is reportedly investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in private security, which includes hiring a personal bodyguard, installing advanced home security systems, surveillance cameras, ballistic protection, and implementing digital counter-surveillance, as confirmed by three sources familiar with the situation.

While officials assert that O’Brien’s security measures are comprehensive, they believe he should not have to bear this financial responsibility alone. O’Brien ranks second on the Iran sanctions list, following Milley, and was also featured second in a January 2023 propaganda video. He has received four separate duty-to-warn briefings from the FBI, according to one of the sources.

“Security should be determined by necessity,” stated Jason Chaffetz, a former Republican congressman from Utah and a close associate of O’Brien. “They keep informing him that he is among the top individuals facing ongoing threats. So, do we trust the intelligence community or not?”

The other three National Security Council officials who appeared in the January 2023 propaganda video are in a similar situation as O’Brien, expressing concerns that Iran may target them, with no agency providing support.

These officials, who worked directly under O’Brien, include Matt Pottinger, Trump’s deputy national security adviser, along with two senior officials from the National Security Council who managed the Iran portfolio: Victoria Coates and Robert Greenway.

Since leaving office, Greenway, Pottinger, and Coates have each received at least two duty-to-warn briefings from the FBI and collectively spend hundreds of thousands of dollars annually on both physical and digital security.

All three believe that the threats they face justify some level of government protection, albeit not to the extent afforded to individuals like Pompeo or McKenzie. They are concerned that without government intervention, Iran may perceive them as vulnerable targets.

Greenway remarked, “If a thief encounters five houses equipped with ADT security and one without, it’s not difficult to predict which one will be targeted for a break-in.”

They are calling on the government to enhance their protective measures—or ideally, to deter Iran entirely. In July 2023, the trio reached out to the Department of Justice requesting fundamental protections, including support for cybersecurity.

While the Justice Department did not provide a direct response to their inquiry, they did address Rubio, who advocated on their behalf. In a letter dated June 2023 regarding the threats faced by the three officials, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Slade Bond informed Rubio that the department was “aware of and deeply concerned about this category of threats.” Bond also indicated that the DOJ would forward Rubio’s correspondence to “appropriate government agencies” responsible for determining eligibility for protection.

The White House, which decides on Secret Service protection, did not answer inquiries specifically concerning O’Brien and the other officials who lack security measures.

Both Coates and Greenway reported that Iran had hacked their emails at least once since the strike on Soleimani, and the FBI recently informed Pottinger that hackers associated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard had targeted him. In Coates’ situation, the personal email accounts of her two children were also compromised simultaneously. A digital forensic firm she hired independently confirmed that Iran was responsible for the intrusion, she stated.

“I can manage on my own, but my children are not accustomed to this,” Coates expressed regarding her kids.

Pottinger clarified that he was not directly involved in the planning of the strike on Soleimani, noting that Iran has linked him to the event based on a misleading 2021 news article.

He expressed concern that many Americans may not be taking Iran’s actions seriously enough due to their negative feelings towards Trump. “The same could apply to the Biden administration,” Pottinger remarked, asserting that the decision to strike Soleimani was a calculated and responsible action that ultimately protected American lives.

His primary concern is that adversaries such as China, Russia, or both Sunni and Shia terrorist organizations may feel encouraged by what he perceives as the Biden administration’s inadequate response to the assassination threat, potentially leading them to target American officials to intimidate them into altering their policies.

“We need national security officials who are resolute,” he stated.

Is the Biden administration de-escalating or worsening Middle East conflict?

Asif Shahid

October 12, 2024

Children at tent camp for displaced people in Gaza

In February, while holding an ice cream cone, President Joe Biden of the United States stated that a ceasefire in Gaza was imminent, potentially occurring within days.

However, over seven months later, Israel’s military actions in Gaza have not only persisted but have intensified, with Israeli forces conducting invasions and airstrikes in Lebanon as tensions and violence escalate throughout the Middle East.

The Biden administration has consistently called for de-escalation while simultaneously offering political backing to Israel and maintaining a steady flow of munitions to support its military operations.

Washington has largely endorsed Israel’s aggressive actions this year, including the targeted killings of Hamas leaders in Beirut and Tehran, the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, and the incursion into southern Lebanon.

More than a year into the conflict in Gaza, Israel continues its relentless offensive in the besieged territory, resulting in nearly 42,000 fatalities, while also conducting daily bombings in Beirut and gearing up for potential military action against Iran.

As the situation in Gaza escalates and extends throughout the region, the disparity between US rhetoric and its actual policies is becoming more pronounced.

Is the Biden administration merely unable to restrain Israel, as many liberal commentators argue? Or is it actively contributing to the escalation, using the turmoil to further a more aggressive stance towards Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah?

The concise answer is that through its ongoing military and diplomatic backing of Israel, the US continues to play a significant role in the violence in the region, despite its public statements advocating for restraint and a ceasefire, according to analysts. While it is challenging to ascertain the administration’s true motives or intentions, there is an increasing amount of evidence indicating that the Biden administration is closely aligned with Israel, rather than being a passive ally facing defiance.

What actions and statements have been made by the US thus far?

Following an extensive public campaign advocating for a ceasefire in Gaza, the US has redirected its attention towards backing the Israeli military operations in Lebanon.

Last week, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin expressed support for an Israeli ground offensive in southern Lebanon, which has the potential to escalate into a comprehensive invasion of the nation.

“I have made it clear that the United States stands behind Israel’s right to defend itself,” Austin stated on September 30 after a discussion with his Israeli counterpart, Yoav Gallant.

“We concurred on the importance of dismantling the attack infrastructure along the border to prevent Lebanese Hezbollah from executing attacks similar to those on October 7 against Israel’s northern communities,” Austin remarked, referencing the assault by Hamas on southern Israel that resulted in the deaths of at least 1,139 individuals.

The Lebanese group initiated attacks on Israeli military targets in October of the previous year, claiming it was a strategy to compel the Israeli government to cease its military actions in Gaza, which were launched in response to the Hamas assault.

For several months, the frequent clashes were primarily confined to the border region. This violence has caused tens of thousands of individuals from both sides to flee. Hezbollah contended that residents of northern Israel could only return once the country halts its military operations in Gaza.

In response to a targeted assassination campaign against Hezbollah’s senior military leaders, Israel commenced a significant bombing campaign across Lebanon, resulting in the destruction of civilian homes in numerous villages and towns starting on September 23.

Since that time, Israeli military actions have forced over 1 million individuals to flee their homes in Lebanon.

Prior to this escalation, the White House had been asserting for several months its commitment to finding a diplomatic resolution to the tensions at the Lebanon-Israel border. US envoy Amos Hochstein made numerous trips to the area, primarily to caution against further escalation.

As the ongoing low-level conflicts escalated into full-scale warfare in Lebanon, the Biden administration sought support from Arab and European nations, proposing an “immediate” 21-day ceasefire on September 25 to halt the violence.

However, just two days later, Israel carried out an airstrike that killed Nasrallah, destroying multiple residential buildings in Beirut and effectively eliminating any chance for a swift ceasefire. The White House praised the operation as a “measure of justice.” This assassination was authorized by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while he was in the United States for the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

Osamah Khalil, a history professor at Syracuse University, expressed skepticism regarding the authenticity of President Biden’s diplomatic initiatives, casting doubt on media claims that Hochstein had advised Israel to exercise restraint.

Khalil emphasized that the United States has been an active participant and supporter of Israel’s actions in Gaza and the broader region. He argued that the Biden administration utilized ceasefire discussions as a strategy to deflect domestic criticism.

“These negotiations were merely for appearances, especially as public sentiment towards the war grew increasingly negative,” Khalil remarked in an interview with Al Jazeera last month.

Transforming the Middle East

Recent reports from US media lend credence to Khalil’s claims.

On September 30, Politico cited unnamed sources indicating that high-ranking US officials, including Hochstein and Brett McGurk, the National Security Council coordinator for the Middle East, have discreetly endorsed an Israeli military initiative against Hezbollah.

The publication noted, “Behind the scenes, Hochstein, McGurk, and other senior U.S. national security officials are framing Israel’s operations in Lebanon as a pivotal moment—one that will positively reshape the Middle East for years to come.”

In a separate report, Axios highlighted that the US is seeking to capitalize on the recent setbacks Israel has inflicted on Hezbollah by advocating for the election of a Lebanese president aligned with Washington’s interests.

The Lebanese presidency has remained unfilled for nearly two years, as the parliament struggles to reach a consensus on a new leader.

On Tuesday, US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller characterized the conflict in Lebanon as an “opportunity” for political transformation. He expressed that Washington aims for the Lebanese populace to have “the ability to elect a new president [and] the ability to break the stalemate that Hezbollah has maintained over the country.”

Hezbollah and its allies hold numerous seats in the Lebanese parliament due to the outcomes of free elections.

The ambition to reshape the region has long been a cornerstone of the US neoconservative agenda, which advocates for support of Israel and the promotion of US-aligned governments through assertive foreign policy and military actions. This strategy was particularly evident during the administration of former US President George W. Bush.

Eighteen years ago, during the Bush administration, Israel engaged in its last significant conflict with Hezbollah, prompting then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to describe it as the “birth pangs of a new Middle East.”

Khalil pointed out that many neoconservatives from the Bush era have since aligned themselves with the Democratic Party, now supporting Vice President Kamala Harris in her presidential campaign for the upcoming November election.

Harris has received the endorsement of former Vice President Dick Cheney, a prominent figure behind the “war on terror” and the 2003 invasion of Iraq led by the United States.

As chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, President Biden also supported the Iraq war, a stance shared by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who was a Democratic staff member on the committee at that time. McGurk, who was an adviser in the Bush White House, played a significant role in the U.S. occupation of Iraq, while Hochstein has a background in the Israeli military.

Khalil remarked, “There is a neoconservative agenda within the Democratic administration.”

Gaza Failures

As the conflict intensifies in Lebanon and global attention shifts to a potential confrontation between Iran and Israel, numerous analysts argue that President Biden’s inability to resolve the situation in Gaza has contributed significantly to the current instability in the region.

Khalil Jahshan, executive director of the Arab Center Washington DC, emphasized that the Biden administration’s unwavering support for the Netanyahu government is leading the entire region into uncertain territory.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, Jahshan remarked that over the past year since the onset of the Gaza war, the US has demonstrated “total blind support” not only for Israeli policies but also for “Israeli excesses.”

“This outcome stems from a one-sided approach that has dismissed any rational considerations from the outset of this conflict,” he stated.

Following Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, Biden quickly expressed steadfast support for the US ally.

He supported a “swift, decisive, and overwhelming” military response from Israel against Hamas. The White House also quickly sought additional funding from Congress to bolster military aid to Israel in order to support the ongoing conflict.

Despite increasing calls for a ceasefire amid a worsening humanitarian crisis, Washington maintained that Israel had a “right” to pursue Hamas.

Recent investigations by ProPublica and Reuters revealed that the Biden administration received and disregarded internal alerts regarding potential Israeli war crimes in Gaza while continuing arms transfers to Israel.

As both domestic and international criticism mounted following Israel’s extensive destruction in Gaza, which displaced nearly all of the 2.3 million residents and pushed them to the brink of famine, Biden began to adjust his rhetoric.

In recent months, the U.S. has started using the term “ceasefire” to advocate for an agreement that would halt the fighting in Gaza and facilitate the release of Israeli captives held by Palestinian factions in the besieged area.

However, there has been minimal pressure on Netanyahu to agree to such a deal.

Whether Biden and his team genuinely sought a ceasefire but were unsuccessful, or if they employed the diplomatic initiative as a diversion from the grim realities of the U.S.-backed conflict, the outcome remains the same—an escalating war resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent individuals.

The evidence indicates that it is politically beneficial for them to publicly advocate for a ceasefire while failing to take any meaningful steps to achieve it, stated Ryan Costello, a policy director at the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), an organization in the United States that encourages diplomatic relations with Tehran.

Jahshan further remarked that the Biden administration has not presented equitable ceasefire proposals while simultaneously supplying arms to Israel.

“What is the purpose of a ceasefire if those proposing it are still providing military support to one of the involved parties?” he questioned. “That does not constitute a ceasefire; it merely serves as an invitation to prolong the conflict.”

Iran’s diplomatic efforts for mitigating the extent of Israel’s retaliation

Asif Shahid

October 12, 2024

Iran’s government is exhibiting considerable anxiety and has been actively pursuing urgent diplomatic discussions with various Middle Eastern nations. The aim is to explore possibilities for mitigating the extent of Israel‘s retaliation following its missile strike earlier this month. Should these efforts prove unsuccessful, Iran seeks assistance in safeguarding its interests, as reported by US media.

This apprehension is largely due to doubts regarding the US’s ability to persuade Israel against targeting Iranian nuclear facilities and oil infrastructure. Additionally, Iran’s primary proxy militia in the region, Hezbollah, has suffered significant setbacks due to recent Israeli military actions, further heightening Tehran’s concerns.

The US has been in dialogue with Israel regarding its intended response to Iran’s attack on October 1. US officials have expressed a clear preference for Israel to refrain from striking Iranian nuclear sites or oil facilities. President Joe Biden recently communicated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, marking their first discussion in nearly two months, during which he emphasized that Israel’s response should be “proportional.”

The Gulf allies of the United States, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Qatar, have conveyed their apprehensions to the US regarding a possible assault on Iranian oil facilities. Such an attack could lead to significant economic and environmental repercussions for the entire region, according to an Arab diplomat speaking to CNN.

The Biden administration is increasingly alarmed that the ongoing cycle of retaliatory strikes between Iran and Israel, which escalated earlier this year following Israel’s attack on what Iran claimed was its consulate in Damascus, could escalate into a broader regional conflict that might involve the US.

A significant aspect of these concerns is the perceived decline in US influence over Israel over the past year. In a manner similar to its actions in Gaza, Israel has shown a growing tendency to ignore US calls for restraint in Lebanon, where its extensive bombing campaign and ground operations have resulted in over 1,400 casualties since late last month.

Moreover, Israel did not seek US consultation prior to launching a large-scale attack that targeted thousands of communication devices used by Hezbollah operatives last month, nor before the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut, which disrupted a fragile ceasefire proposal put forth by the US and France just 48 hours prior.

As of Friday, Israel’s security cabinet has yet to make a decision on the next steps, as reported by an Israeli official to CNN. While the divergence between US and Israeli positions appears to be narrowing, a US official cautioned that this alignment may not be sustained.

A senior administration official commented on the discussions within the Israeli cabinet, stating, “We cannot definitively ascertain whether they voted or not,” and expressed doubts regarding the transparency of the information Israel is providing to the United States. The official indicated that it may be unwise to place too much confidence in the actions of the Israeli government.

Israel has not provided any guarantees against targeting Iran’s nuclear installations.

For many years, Israel has been strategizing potential strikes on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, with a military exercise conducted two years ago simulating such an attack. Additionally, Israel is believed to have been involved in the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists in recent years, and Iranian nuclear facilities have faced cyberattacks, likely attributed to Israel, including the notable Stuxnet virus that successfully infiltrated Iran’s Natanz nuclear site.

” Our response will be formidable”

Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant delivered a stern message to Iran regarding his country’s potential actions on Wednesday.

“Our response will be formidable, accurate, and most importantly – unexpected. They will be left bewildered by the events that unfold,” Gallant stated.

According to an Arab diplomat, the Gulf states generally prefer to remain neutral in the ongoing conflict. Although Iran has publicly declared that any entities perceived as supporting Israel will be regarded as aggressors, it is improbable that Iran’s neighboring countries would overtly defend Tehran in the event of an Israeli offensive.

However, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar have communicated to both the United States and Iran that they will not permit Israel to utilize their airspace for strikes against Iran, as reported by the Arab diplomat and another source familiar with the situation. Additionally, a Jordanian official confirmed that Jordan will safeguard its airspace from any unauthorized incursions, irrespective of their source.

The United States does not perceive that Iran seeks to engage in a full-scale conflict with Israel. Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, stated in an interview with Al Jazeera this week that Netanyahu is “the only one who wants a war and to set the region on fire to stay in power.”

Nevertheless, the US has communicated through backchannels to Tehran, advising them to carefully consider their response in the event of an Israeli strike, according to an official.

Qatar frequently engages in dialogue with Iranian officials and conveys their responses back to the US. However, the US official noted that ultimately, “we just do not know what [Iran] will do.” Various influential figures within Iran may have differing perspectives on how to react to Israel, which will largely depend on the magnitude and nature of the anticipated Israeli action, another US official indicated.

This official also mentioned that Iran’s messaging has remained consistent, both publicly and privately, since the country launched its missile attacks on Israel earlier this month, with no significant shifts in their communication.

Iran has shown a keen interest in seeking assistance from Saudi Arabia to deter an Israeli assault and in leveraging their influence with Washington to help resolve the ongoing crisis, as reported by an Arab diplomat to CNN.

Officials from various nations have convened three times within a month, and Araghchi visited Saudi Arabia on Wednesday to discuss regional issues and to address the actions of the Zionist regime in Lebanon and Gaza, as reported by local media.

The international community is closely monitoring Israel’s actions as it considers its response. However, until Saturday evening, Israel will observe a period of inactivity in recognition of Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement, which is regarded as the most sacred day in Judaism. While it is not entirely out of the question for Israel to initiate military action, all businesses, restaurants, and services will be closed, public transportation will be suspended, and the main airport, Ben Gurion in Tel Aviv, will also be closed.

Nicaragua severs diplomatic ties with Israel

Asif Shahid

October 12, 2024

Nicaraguan Vice-President Rosario Murillo sings revolutionary songs during a march called "We walk for peace and life. Justice" in Managua, Nicaragua.

Nicaragua announced on Friday that it is severing diplomatic ties with Israel, labeling the Israeli government as “fascist” and “genocidal.” The Nicaraguan government attributed this decision to Israel’s military actions against Palestinian territories. Earlier that day, the country’s congress had adopted a resolution urging the government to take measures in alignment with the one-year anniversary of the Gaza conflict.

According to the Nicaraguan administration, the ongoing conflict has now expanded to include Lebanon and poses serious threats to Syria, Yemen, and Iran. The situation in the Middle East remains tense following Iran’s missile strikes on Israel on October 1. Iran supports the militant group Hezbollah, which has been the target of recent Israeli attacks. Additionally, Iran is an ally of President Daniel Ortega’s government. Nicaragua has faced increasing isolation in recent years, particularly after Ortega’s crackdown on anti-government protests in 2018, which resulted in approximately 300 fatalities, according to human rights organizations.

Israel employing strategies in southern Lebanon similar to Gaza

Asif Shahid

October 11, 2024

Israel‘s education minister, Yoav Kisch, stated in early July that “Lebanon, as we know it, will not exist.”

This remark echoed the sentiments of far-right Israeli officials who have called for the dismantling of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.

A year prior, Israeli ministers had backed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s declared objective to “eradicate” Hamas in Gaza, following a deadly attack by the group on southern Israel that resulted in the deaths of 1,139 individuals and the abduction of approximately 250 on October 7, 2023.

In the name of this objective, Israel has reportedly killed over 42,000 Palestinians in Gaza, displaced nearly the entire population of 2.3 million, obliterated civilian infrastructure, and created conditions conducive to widespread famine.

Since intensifying its military actions against Lebanon in late September, Israel has been employing similar strategies in southern Lebanon, as reported by civilians, analysts, and human rights organizations.

Amal Saad, a Hezbollah expert originally from south Lebanon, stated, “The situation in south Lebanon cannot be compared to that of Gaza, as Gaza is experiencing a historically unprecedented crisis that amounts to genocide.”

She further remarked to Al Jazeera, “While Israel appears to be employing tactics similar to those used in Gaza, the current situation in Lebanon is not yet characterized by ethnic cleansing or genocide.”

However, she cautioned, “It has the potential to escalate in that direction.”

kill zones

On September 23, Israel’s military chief, Daniel Hagari, urged residents of south Lebanon to evacuate areas associated with Hezbollah’s military activities, including locations used for weapon storage.

According to Ramzi Kaiss, a Lebanon researcher for Human Rights Watch, the lack of specific guidance on which villages to evacuate and which areas might be safe rendered these warnings largely ineffective.

Furthermore, he noted that the warnings imply that Israel is categorizing anyone who remains in their villages, whether by choice or necessity, as a military target—similar to its approach in Gaza, where the Israeli military deemed areas designated for evacuation by Palestinians as “kill zones.”

Individuals who remain in these areas frequently face gunfire or aerial bombardment.

“Providing a warning does not grant permission to regard everyone as a combatant,” Kaiss stated.

Al Jazeera interviewed four residents from southern Lebanon who reported that most villages and towns beyond Sidon—located approximately 44 km (27 miles) south of Beirut—are nearly deserted.

Since September 23, Israel has reportedly killed nearly 2,000 individuals before they could evacuate their homes, including over 100 children, along with numerous medical personnel and rescue workers.

Ahmed, a young man from a small village near Nabatiya in southern Lebanon, chose not to evacuate due to his commitment to caring for his grandmother, who suffers from Alzheimer’s.

In a conversation with Al Jazeera, he recounted an Israeli bomb striking a location near his residence.

“There’s a 50-50 chance that someone still here will survive,” he conveyed in a voice message.

“The Israelis disregard civilian status,” he continued. “They assume everyone is a combatant, and many homes around me have been destroyed by Israel, despite the fact that there were no weapons in them.

“I knew all the residents of those homes.”

Israel blurred the lines between civilian and military targets

According to the latest data from the United Nations Satellite Centre (UNOSAT), Israel has damaged or destroyed approximately 66 percent of all structures in Gaza.

This widespread destruction suggests that Israel has deliberately blurred the lines between civilian infrastructure, such as homes, medical facilities, and aid warehouses, and legitimate military targets.

Analysts and civilians have indicated to Al Jazeera that this strategy appears to be mirrored in Lebanon.

An elderly resident from a predominantly Christian village in southern Lebanon reported that Israeli forces bombed both his home and that of his neighbor on September 30.

This attack resulted in the deaths of his wife and children, including a newborn less than a week old.

He mentioned fleeing to Beirut but did not specify the timing of his departure, emphasizing that Israel is targeting everything and sometimes provides civilians with delayed warnings.

“They did not provide us with any warning before commencing airstrikes on our village,” he stated to Al Jazeera. “This is unjust. The warning from them arrived only afterwards.”

A recent video shared on social media depicts the border town of Yaroun, a largely Shia community, devastated by Israeli bombings over the past year.

The visuals are reminiscent of those from Gaza and heighten concerns that many more civilians may lose their lives, according to Kaiss from HRW.

“Based on our observations on the ground, there is a considerable risk that civilians in the region will encounter atrocities or be subjected to them,” he informed Al Jazeera.

Prolonged Displacement

As Israel conducts extensive bombings across Lebanon, residents are left anxious about the duration of their displacement—similar to the situation in Gaza, where Israel has largely evacuated the northern areas and continues to instruct those remaining to move south.

No one in Gaza is certain when or if they will be able to return to the north to rebuild their lives.

The prospect of prolonged, possibly permanent, displacement also troubles Jad Dilati, whose family fled from Nabatieh to Beirut as Israel intensified its military actions in Lebanon two weeks ago.

Structures and businesses that were integral to his daily life and childhood now lie in ruins, including the local vegetable market and barber shop.

He worries that his home could be next.

“They might target our house simply on a whim,” Dilati, 23, expressed to Al Jazeera. “I feel as though I will return to a town that is unrecognizable.”

Dilati considered the likelihood that he might not return to Nabatieh for an extended period, given the potential for the war to continue or for Israel to attempt to occupy southern regions again, similar to its actions from 1982 to 2000.

On October 8, a video shared on social media depicted Israeli soldiers hoisting their flag on Lebanese territory.

“This is the cost of living adjacent to an expansionist ethno-state,” Dilati remarked to Al Jazeera.

In spite of Israel’s invasion and the widespread devastation in southern Lebanon, Dilati remains hopeful about returning to Nabatieh to assist his community in rebuilding the homes and livelihoods that have been shattered by renewed Israeli aggression.

“We will reconstruct [Nabatieh] to make it even better than it was before. My parents work in Nabatieh. My sister attends school there. Everything I know, I learned in Nabatieh,” he expressed.

“I cannot fathom not being able to return. I understand what Palestinians have endured, and while it may be a possibility, I find it hard to imagine.

“I have faith that we will prevail [in the war], even if it requires time.”

Putin and Pezeshkian emphasized the strengthening economic relationship between their nations

Hammad Saeed

October 11, 2024

Russian President Vladimir Putin meets Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian on the sidelines of a cultural forum dedicated to the 300th anniversary of the birth of the Turkmen poet and philosopher Magtymguly Fragi, in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan.

Russian President Vladimir Putin engaged in discussions with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Friday in Turkmenistan, where both leaders emphasized the strengthening economic relationship between their nations and their aligned perspectives on global issues, a development that raises concerns in the United States.

In opposition to Washington and the European Union regarding Russia’s military actions in Ukraine, which Putin frames as part of a broader existential battle against a self-serving West, he is eager to enhance connections with what he refers to as the Global East and Global South.

As Russia prepares to host a BRICS summit in Kazan from October 22-24, Putin extended an invitation to Pezeshkian for an official visit to Russia, a proposal that the Iranian president accepted, as reported by Russia’s state RIA news agency.

Pezeshkian reportedly stated, according to Iran’s official IRNA news agency, “Our economic and cultural exchanges are being fortified daily and are becoming increasingly resilient.”

The increasing collaboration between Iran and Russia, driven by the intentions of their respective leaders, should be expedited to enhance their relationship, he stated. Last month, Pezeshkian pledged to strengthen his nation’s ties with Russia as a means to mitigate the impact of Western sanctions. Both nations are reportedly on the verge of finalizing a strategic partnership agreement, which Pezeshkian expressed hope could be completed during the upcoming BRICS summit in Russia later this month.

The United States views the deepening connection between Moscow and Tehran with apprehension, having accused Iran of providing ballistic missiles to Russia for use in the Ukraine conflict, a claim that Tehran has refuted.

NEW WORLD ORDER ON THE HORIZON, PUTIN STATES

Russia has announced that its collaboration with Iran is deepening across various sectors. According to the TASS news agency, Putin remarked to Pezeshkian during a conference in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan, that both nations are actively engaging in the international arena and share similar perspectives on global events.

Pezeshkian, as reported by IRNA, emphasized the significant complementary strengths of Iran and Russia, suggesting that their positions in the world align more closely with each other than with other nations. He previously criticized Israel for its actions in the Middle East, urging it to “stop killing innocent people,” and pointed out that these actions are supported by the U.S. and EU. Russia has also condemned Israel’s military operations, which it claims are aimed at ensuring its own security, particularly when they target civilian areas.

Putin further noted that economic relations between Moscow and Tehran are on the rise. In statements released by the Kremlin earlier on Friday, he indicated that a new world order is taking shape, with emerging centers of economic growth and political influence. He expressed Russia’s support for extensive international dialogue regarding this evolving multipolar world and its willingness to engage in discussions through various platforms, including the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and BRICS.

Hezbollah is gearing up for a prolonged war following the significant loss of senior leadership

Asif Shahid

October 11, 2024

Hezbollah members parade during a rally marking al-Quds Day,

Hezbollah is gearing up for a prolonged war of attrition in southern Lebanon following the significant loss of its senior leadership due to Israeli military actions. A new military command has been established to oversee rocket launches and ground operations, according to two sources familiar with the group’s activities.

The organization has suffered greatly from three weeks of intense Israeli assaults, particularly the assassination of its leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. Observers, both allies and adversaries, are closely monitoring Hezbollah’s ability to withstand the Israeli forces that have entered Lebanon with the objective of pushing the group away from the border.

Despite the challenges, the Iran-backed organization retains a substantial arsenal of weapons, including advanced precision missiles that have not yet been deployed, as reported by four sources familiar with its operations. This comes in the wake of numerous airstrikes that Israel claims have significantly reduced Hezbollah’s military capabilities.

Following Nasrallah’s assassination on September 27, Hezbollah’s command structure faced disruption for several days until Shi’ite militants successfully established a new “operations room” within 72 hours, as confirmed by a Hezbollah field commander and a source close to the group.

Nasrallah, along with several other Hezbollah leaders and an Iranian commander, was killed when Israel successfully identified and targeted his fortified bunker beneath Beirut.

Despite ongoing Israeli assaults, the new command center has remained operational, allowing fighters in the southern region to launch rockets and engage in combat based on centrally issued directives, according to unnamed sources familiar with the situation.

A senior official affiliated with Hezbollah indicated that the organization is currently engaged in a war of attrition. Avraham Levine, an analyst at the Israeli think tank Alma, noted that Hezbollah is likely “well prepared and waiting” for Israeli forces, making them a formidable adversary. He emphasized that while the command structure has been compromised, Hezbollah retains the capability to target Israeli communities and confront Israeli troops, characterizing the group as “the same powerful terror army we all know.”

Fighters are empowered to execute orders “based on the capabilities of the front,” according to a Hezbollah field commander, who characterized the new command as “a narrow circle” maintaining direct contact with the field. It is uncommon for a Hezbollah field commander to engage with international media.

The commander noted that this new command functions under complete secrecy and refrained from providing additional information regarding its communication methods or organizational structure. Following the death of Nasrallah, Hezbollah has not appointed a new leader, and the most likely successor has also been killed. Sheikh Naim Qassem, the deputy leader of the Shi’ite group, expressed support for ceasefire initiatives this week while asserting that the group’s operational capabilities remain intact.

A source familiar with Hezbollah’s operations indicated that the group’s dedicated fixed-line phone network is “essential” for current communications. Reports suggest that this network withstood attacks on the group’s communication systems in September.

A statement released this week by the “operations room of the Islamic Resistance” claimed that fighters were actively resisting incursions and “watching and listening” to Israeli forces in unexpected locations, likely referring to concealed Hezbollah positions. This statement marked the first public acknowledgment of the new command’s existence, though it did not disclose the identities of its members or the circumstances of its establishment.

Hezbollah’s media office did not respond to a request for comment prior to publication, which included a comprehensive summary of the information shared by the field commander and other sources. Following the publication of this story, Hezbollah’s media office issued a written statement declaring that the portion of Reuters’ report “attributed to a Hezbollah field commander is completely false” and that there are “no sources in Hezbollah.”

When inquired about the situation in Lebanon, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) directed Reuters to previous public statements.

TUNNEL WARFARE

On October 1, Israel announced that its ground forces had commenced operations in southern Lebanon, initially deploying commando units, followed by regular armored and infantry units. The military confirmed on Tuesday that reservists from the 146th Division are now actively engaged, increasing the total number of divisions operating on Lebanese territory to four.

While Israel has not disclosed the exact number of soldiers involved, a typical division comprises over 1,000 personnel. The troops are reportedly engaged in close-quarters combat with Hezbollah fighters, with Israel stating that twelve of its soldiers have lost their lives in southern Lebanon or northern Israel since the operation began.
Both Hezbollah and Israel acknowledge the existence of a vast tunnel network in southern Lebanon, which has expanded since the 2006 conflict between the two. A 2021 report from the think tank Alma suggests that these tunnels may stretch for hundreds of kilometers.

A Hezbollah field commander emphasized that the tunnels are “the foundation of the battle,” noting that the group has invested years in their construction. “Their time has come,” he remarked.
The Israeli military has released video evidence purportedly showing deep tunnels seized by its forces. One video, shared on October 5, appears to depict an underground room equipped with landline telephones, although Reuters has not been able to verify the video’s date or location.

A source affiliated with Hezbollah indicated that the tunnels identified by Israel were specifically constructed for the Radwan special forces units, intended for future operations in the Galilee region of northern Israel. This source claimed that Israel remains unaware of the full extent of the tunnel network.

HEAVILY IMPACTED BUT STILL RESILIENT

Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer at the School of Security Studies at King’s College London, noted that while Hezbollah’s capabilities have been significantly diminished, the group continues to launch rockets at Israel with considerable intensity, reserving its ballistic missiles for critical situations.
Hezbollah has reported an increase in its firepower in recent days.

According to the World Factbook from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, prior to the current conflict, Hezbollah was estimated to have over 150,000 missiles and rockets in its arsenal.

Two sources indicated that Hezbollah has opted not to deploy its most advanced rockets, including precision-guided missiles, in order to conserve resources for a prolonged conflict and to prevent Israel from justifying broader attacks on Lebanese infrastructure, such as the airport in Beirut, as well as roads and bridges.

A third source mentioned that the group has refrained from targeting major Israeli cities like Tel Aviv with its most powerful weapons, as such actions would provide Israel with a rationale to intensify its military response against Lebanon.

It is clear that Israel has caused significant damage to Hezbollah. In September, thousands of booby-trapped communication devices utilized by Hezbollah operatives were detonated, an incident that Israel has neither confirmed nor denied involvement in.

Starting on September 23, Israel markedly increased its airstrikes, claiming to have destroyed tens of thousands of Hezbollah rockets, primarily located in southern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and the southern suburbs of Beirut.

Israeli officials have indicated that Hezbollah’s average daily launch of 100-200 missiles and rockets, rather than the anticipated thousands, signifies a notable decline in their capabilities. Estimates regarding Hezbollah’s losses have varied, with one Western diplomat noting that prior to Nasrallah’s death, as much as 25% of their missile capacity may have been compromised. Reports from Reuters have previously highlighted that Iran had proposed to replenish its ally’s arsenal but encountered difficulties with supply routes.

The Israeli military claims to have eliminated hundreds of Hezbollah fighters, including a significant portion of the senior leadership within the Radwan special forces. The United States, which classifies Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, remarked that deputy leader Qassem’s recent call for a ceasefire indicates that the group is under pressure.

GUERRILLA TACTICS

In a recent and lethal confrontation, hidden Hezbollah operatives launched an assault on Israeli troops advancing near Odaisseh, a southern village, shortly after Israel had bombarded the area with artillery and airstrikes, according to a source affiliated with Hezbollah.

The ambush involved the use of mines and Russian-made Kornet anti-tank missiles, weaponry reminiscent of that employed against Israeli forces during the 2006 conflict in southern Lebanon.

This incident appears to correlate with the Israeli military’s report of five soldiers from a commando unit being killed and five others suffering serious injuries during a gunfight on October 2.

The Israeli military has refrained from providing further details beyond its previously released statements. On the same day, two additional soldiers were reported killed in a separate event, as confirmed by the Israeli army.

Israel’s objective is to facilitate the return of tens of thousands of individuals who fled northern Israel following Hezbollah’s rocket attacks a year ago, which were launched in solidarity with Hamas in Gaza.

According to Lebanese officials, Israel’s military actions have displaced over 1 million people in Lebanon, primarily from the Shi’ite community that supports Hezbollah.

Mohanad Hage Ali from the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut anticipates an advance by Israeli forces, questioning the extent of the costs Hezbollah will impose on them.

The southern region holds significant symbolic value for Hezbollah, which was established by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in the early 1980s partly to counter an Israeli invasion and subsequently fought against Israel’s prolonged occupation.

“Engaging Israel on the battlefield is fundamental to Hezbollah’s operations,” noted Krieg.
“This is their area of expertise, and most of their ground defenses have been specifically designed for this purpose,” he added.

Hezbollah aims to convey a strong message to Israel, as well as to its supporters in Lebanon and allies within the Iran-backed Axis of Resistance, demonstrating that it remains resilient and capable of inflicting substantial damage on Israeli forces.

India disregards international regulations, sanctions, and even diplomatic ties to bolster its domestic defense industry

Asif Shahid

October 7, 2024

India has historically been the largest importer of military equipment, but it is now actively working to bolster its domestic defense industry. In pursuing this goal, the country appears to disregard international regulations, sanctions, and even diplomatic ties. Notably, a state-run defense public sector unit continued to engage in arms sales with a controversial German firm that has faced a business ban.

Recent reports from Indian media indicate that concerns arose when Munitions India Limited (MIL), a government-owned entity, supplied approximately 500 tonnes of explosives to Rheinmetall, a German company that has been inactive since 2012 due to corruption allegations. The final shipment is believed to have been suspended after the issue was escalated to government authorities.

Over the past two years, MIL has experienced a surge in international orders, driven by increased global demand for explosives in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The company has reached full production capacity, with numerous countries eager to place orders. Documentation reveals that the explosives were sold through an intermediary, with the initial shipment of 144 tonnes dispatched in October 2023 to a Spanish firm, Expal, which is now owned by Rheinmetall. Two additional shipments followed, with the last one occurring in March 2024.

Sources indicate that the initial delivery contract was established with Expel, which subsequently underwent a change in ownership to Rhine Metal. This transition was not communicated to the relevant higher authorities. Additionally, a comprehensive questionnaire submitted to the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Defense has not received a response.

Earlier it was revealed that artillery shells from Indian arms firms were being shipped to Ukraine by European customers and New Delhi had not intervened to stop the trade despite Moscow’s protests, Reuters news agency told Indian and European governments. A report was published in this regard after discussions with eleven sources and commercial analysis of the defense industry.

South Korea and Philippines upgraded their relationship to a strategic partnership

Asif Shahid

October 7, 2024

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol and Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. reached an agreement on Monday to enhance defense collaboration as their nations upgraded their relationship to a strategic partnership in response to increasing security challenges in the region.

During discussions at the Philippine presidential palace, the leaders addressed various issues, including the ongoing tensions in the South China Sea and the Korean peninsula. They also formalized agreements related to coastguard cooperation and nuclear energy.

“President Marcos and I have initiated a new chapter in our partnership by elevating our ties to a strategic partnership,” stated Yoon, who is on a state visit to Manila, marking the first visit by a South Korean leader in over ten years. In a joint press conference with Marcos, Yoon emphasized that South Korea would actively participate in the Philippines’ multi-billion-dollar military modernization efforts amid escalating tensions with China in the South China Sea.

South Korea is actively seeking to increase its global defense exports, particularly following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has created opportunities for substantial contracts in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. The nation has successfully sold FA-50 fighter jets, corvettes, and frigates to the Philippines and aims to rank as the world’s fourth-largest arms exporter by 2027.

As part of its modernization efforts, the Philippine military is in the process of acquiring advanced military assets, including fighter jets, submarines, and missile systems, to enhance its territorial defense and maritime security capabilities.

During discussions, the two leaders reaffirmed their commitment to maintaining an international rules-based order, particularly regarding navigation safety in the South China Sea. Yoon emphasized that the international community would not tolerate North Korea’s nuclear program or its “reckless provocations.” Elected in 2022 with a promise to expand South Korea’s nuclear power sector, Yoon announced the signing of a memorandum of agreement (MOU) to conduct a feasibility study on the long-idle Philippine Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP), with a goal of exporting ten additional nuclear power plants by 2030.

The BNPP, which was sanctioned by the late dictator and namesake of Marcos, has remained inactive since its completion in 1984, despite the $2.3 billion investment and its initial promise of providing energy security during the oil crisis of the 1970s.

The Philippines is looking to harness nuclear power as a feasible baseload energy source while aiming to phase out coal plants to achieve climate objectives and enhance energy security. Following his time in Manila, Yoon will travel to Singapore on Tuesday and Wednesday, before proceeding to Laos the next day to participate in the regional summit with leaders from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and other Asian nations.

Hezbollah rockets struck Haifa on first anniversary of the Gaza conflict

Asif Shahid

October 7, 2024

An Israeli police officer inspects the damage to a residential building caused by a rocket fired towards Israel from Lebanon, amid cross-border hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel, in Haifa, Israel.

Hezbollah rockets struck Haifa, Israel‘s third-largest city, early Monday, resulting in reports of 10 injuries in the northern region, coinciding with the first anniversary of the Gaza conflict that has escalated across the Middle East. The Iran-backed group, allied with Hamas, which is currently engaged in combat with Israel in Gaza, announced that it aimed at a military installation south of Haifa using a barrage of “Fadi 1” missiles.

Reports indicate that two rockets impacted Haifa, located on Israel’s Mediterranean coast, while five others struck Tiberias, approximately 65 kilometers (40 miles) away. Authorities noted damage to several buildings and properties, with some individuals sustaining minor injuries and requiring transport to a local hospital. In response, Israel’s military conducted airstrikes targeting Hezbollah’s Intelligence Headquarters in Beirut, focusing on intelligence-gathering assets, command centers, and other critical infrastructure.

In recent hours, airstrikes targeted Hezbollah’s weapons storage facilities in the Beirut region, according to military sources, who reported secondary explosions following the strikes, suggesting the presence of munitions.

Additionally, airstrikes were conducted against Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon and the Beqaa Valley, which included weapons storage sites, infrastructure, a command center, and a launcher, as stated by the military.

The military accused Hezbollah of intentionally situating its command centers and weaponry beneath residential buildings in central Beirut, thereby jeopardizing civilian safety.

On Monday, Israelis commemorated the first anniversary of the catastrophic Hamas attack that initiated a conflict, which has led to global protests and poses a threat of escalating tensions throughout the Middle East.

Ceremonies and demonstrations in Jerusalem and southern Israel were scheduled to commence at 06:29 a.m., coinciding with the moment when Hamas militants launched rockets into Israel at the onset of the October 7 attack last year.

Hamas instigated an Israeli military operation in Gaza that devastated the densely populated coastal region, resulting in nearly 42,000 fatalities, according to Palestinian health officials. On Monday, security forces throughout Israel were on heightened alert, as military and police sources indicated concerns over potential Palestinian assaults coinciding with the anniversary of October 7, 2023, marking the onset of the most severe violence in the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The unexpected attack by the Palestinian Islamist group, which has ties to Iran, represented a significant security lapse for Israel, a nation known for its robust and advanced military capabilities. The assault on Israeli settlements near Gaza, coupled with Israel’s ongoing military response, has further destabilized the Middle East, drawing international condemnation due to the extensive loss of life and destruction.

Israel has inflicted substantial damage on Hamas and Hezbollah through targeted assassinations of their leaders and commanders, part of Iran’s “Axis of Resistance,” which also encompasses the Houthis in Yemen and various armed factions in Iraq opposing Israeli and U.S. interests in the region.

Esmail Qaani, commander of Iran’s Quds Force, reportedly traveled to Lebanon following the recent killing of Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in an Israeli airstrike. However, two senior Iranian security officials informed Reuters that Qaani has not been heard from since the strikes on Beirut late last week. One official noted that Qaani was present in the Dahiyeh area of Beirut during an attack aimed at senior Hezbollah figure Hashem Safieddine, although he was not in a meeting with Safieddine at that time.

The Quds Force, which is the international branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, oversees relationships with militias allied with Tehran throughout the Middle East, including Hezbollah. Additionally, Brigadier General Abbas Nilforoushan of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards was killed alongside Nasrallah in a bunker that was struck by Israeli bombs on September 27.

The conflict has increasingly shifted its focus northward to Lebanon, where Israeli forces have been engaged in exchanges of fire with Hezbollah since the Iranian-backed group initiated a missile barrage in support of Hamas on October 8. What started as limited daily skirmishes has escalated into significant bombardments targeting Hezbollah’s stronghold in Beirut, along with a ground offensive aimed at eliminating its fighters in border villages. This military action is intended to facilitate the return of tens of thousands of Israelis who have been evacuated from their homes in the northern part of the country.

Israel’s military campaign, which has resulted in the deaths of over 1,000 individuals in the last two weeks, has led to a mass exodus from southern Lebanon, displacing more than 1 million people. The intensification of hostilities has raised concerns that both the United States and Iran could become embroiled in a broader conflict in the oil-rich Middle East.

In retaliation for Israel’s operations in Lebanon and Gaza, where Hezbollah and Hamas militants are aligned with Tehran, Iran launched a missile attack on Israel last week. Israel has stated that its goal is to ensure the safe return of its citizens to their homes in the north, while also pledging to retaliate amid fears that the situation could escalate into a full-scale regional war involving the United States.

Malaysia is establishing a new naval base in Sarawak, how this will impact ties with China?

Asif Shahid

October 7, 2024

Royal Malaysian Navy littoral mission ship KD Rencong, from the HQ Eastern Fleet at Teluk Sepanggar naval base that oversees the waters off Sabah and Sarawak, taking part in a maritime exercise on security in the South China Sea.

In recent weeks, there has been a resurgence of interest in establishing a new naval base in a quiet town in Sarawak after a decade of inactivity. This development aligns with Malaysia‘s potential shift towards a more assertive posture in response to Chinese influence in resource-rich regions near Borneo.

However, experts suggest that while Malaysia plans to construct its latest naval facility in Bintulu, which is closer to the contested waters of the South China Sea, the government is likely to avoid provoking tensions.

Analysts indicated that Malaysia is expected to refrain from adopting more confrontational measures against incursions by Chinese vessels, as the nation aims to uphold its low-profile strategy regarding maritime territorial disputes and maintain its valuable economic relationship with Beijing.

China, which is currently facing its own challenges with the Philippines in the northern strategic waterways, is also inclined to preserve amicable relations with Malaysia. This approach may serve to distance Manila from other Southeast Asian nations with similar claims, according to the analysts.

Dr. Collin Koh, a senior fellow at Singapore’s S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, noted that the establishment of the Sarawak naval base is unlikely to significantly impact China-Malaysia relations, provided that the Malaysian government continues its “non-megaphone” stance on the issue.

He remarked that while the naval base and a potentially heightened Malaysian maritime presence might be perceived as an annoyance by Beijing, the crucial factor remains the political attitude in Kuala Lumpur rather than the developments related to Malaysia’s naval expansion in Borneo.

CHINESE VESSELS OPERATING WITH REGULARITY

The Region 4 Naval Headquarters in Bintulu is set to become Malaysia’s sixth primary naval base, complementing the three existing bases in West Malaysia and two in Sabah.

The Malaysian government has indicated that this new base will enhance surveillance capabilities within the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the South China Sea, enabling the navy to deploy ships more swiftly to the area.

Located on a 200-acre site in Samalaju, northern Bintulu, the base will accommodate Malaysia’s three new littoral mission ships. Construction is planned to occur in two phases, with the base anticipated to be officially opened in 2030.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a nation holds exclusive rights to explore and exploit natural resources within its EEZ, which extends up to 200 nautical miles (370 km) from its coastline.

Malaysia’s EEZ is rich in oil and gas resources, contributing nearly 25 percent to the nation’s gross domestic product. This includes the Luconia Shoals, known in Malaysia as Beting Patinggi Ali and Beting Raja Jarum, a series of mostly submerged reefs situated 155 km off the coast of Sarawak, among various Malaysian oil and gas sites.

China, which asserts claims over the majority of the South China Sea within its so-called nine-dash line, has consistently objected to Malaysia’s operations in the Luconia Shoals and has maintained a persistent presence in the region. Reports indicate that Chinese coast guard vessels have harassed Malaysian drilling rigs and survey ships.

A report from the Washington-based Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) released on October 1 highlighted tracking data showing that Chinese coast guard vessels operated in Malaysia’s EEZ with remarkable regularity in 2024.

From January 1 to September 27, AMTI observed that at least one Chinese coast guard vessel was present in the area nearly every day, often remaining for up to six weeks before being replaced by another ship.

On August 29, a news outlet in the Philippines released a diplomatic note that was sent to the Malaysian embassy in Beijing back in February, in which China urged Malaysia to halt all activities in the resource-abundant region.

In response to the article, Malaysia affirmed its commitment to safeguarding its sovereign rights in its waters, although it expressed concern regarding the “leak” of the note.

Given the significant implications, Malaysia is likely to exercise caution, as any further escalation could provoke a more severe reaction from China’s significantly stronger naval forces, similar to the predicament currently faced by the Philippines, experts noted.

Dr. Koh noted, “If Malaysia adopts a stance similar to that of the Philippines, we may anticipate China intensifying its actions against Malaysia’s interests in the South China Sea.”

In addition to Malaysia and the Philippines, Brunei, Vietnam, and Taiwan also have competing claims in the South China Sea.

Malaysia has generally downplayed Chinese incursions into its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and has adhered to its traditional non-confrontational strategy in the South China Sea, opting for diplomatic solutions and striving to prevent tensions from affecting its bilateral relations with China.

In recent months, prominent politicians in Sarawak have publicly called on the federal government to enhance naval presence in the region, citing concerns over China’s activities and the severe implications of losing such a vital economic area to a foreign entity.

On the same day that news of the Chinese diplomatic note emerged, Sarawak’s Minister of Tourism, Creative Industries, and Performing Arts, Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah, urged for the swift advancement of the naval base construction.

“China has recently gained significant power and boasts a formidable naval fleet, leading to a more assertive stance in expanding its maritime boundaries by displaying its naval capabilities in these waters,” he stated, as reported by Berita Harian.

“Malaysia’s valuable oil and gas resources are located there. What consequences will arise if the sovereignty of that region is compromised by the territorial expansion of a superpower?”

In August, Malaysian Defence Minister Khaled Nordin informed local media that the federal government was nearing the conclusion of negotiations with Sarawak regarding the land price for the naval base, with construction anticipated to commence once an agreement is finalized. However, no completion timeline has been provided.

WILL THE SARAWAK NAVAL BASE COUNTER CHINA?

The establishment of the Bintulu naval base, Sarawak’s inaugural facility, was initially confirmed in 2013 but gained momentum in 2023 after a suitable location was identified within the Samalaju Industrial Park. Previously, it was believed that the waters of Sarawak were too shallow to support a naval base.

Currently, Malaysia has depended on naval vessels stationed at a more remote base in Sabah to monitor its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Sabah is home to two primary bases: one located in Teluk Sepanggar near Kota Kinabalu and the other in Sandakan.

In September 2023, then-defence minister Mohamad Hasan informed parliament that vessels from the nearest Teluk Sepanggar base would require 19 hours to reach Beting Patinggi Ali, whereas the journey from Bintulu would take only nine hours, assuming both travel at a speed of 12 knots (22 km/h).

The extensive coastlines of Sabah and Sarawak pose significant challenges due to the absence of naval bases, which could hinder accessibility and response times in times of crisis, thereby increasing Malaysia’s vulnerability to external threats, according to an expert.

Dr. Tharishini Krishnan, a senior lecturer at University Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia, noted in a 2021 commentary for the New Straits Times that establishing a base in Sarawak would alleviate the logistical burdens currently placed on Sabah in managing these regions.

Furthermore, she emphasized that the establishment of MAWILLA 4 would counteract China’s ongoing attempts to alter the regional status quo, referring to the Bintulu naval base by its abbreviated name.

Dr. Koh further pointed out that both the Malaysian navy and coast guard are inadequately equipped for effective patrols within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), as they require vessels capable of extended operations at sea.

He highlighted that the navy’s fleet is aging and in need of modernization, while the coast guard primarily utilizes vessels designed for coastal operations rather than the broader EEZ waters.

Although the new Sarawak naval base will host Malaysia’s upcoming littoral mission ships, which are being constructed to better serve EEZ operations, Dr. Koh indicated that it will take an additional three to four years for these vessels to become fully operational.

He stressed that beyond the new Bintulu base, the critical factor is the availability of physical assets that Malaysia can utilize to protect its interests in the South China Sea, which necessitates more offshore-capable ships along with enhanced maritime domain awareness tools.

Depending on the availability of these assets, Malaysia could potentially deploy at least one ship to the EEZ at any given time to assert its stance against “Beijing’s illegitimate claims,” Dr. Koh added.

Dr. Ian Storey, a maritime security expert at the ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute, remarked to CNA that the new base would bolster Malaysia’s “dual-track policy” regarding the South China Sea dispute.

The establishment of the new base will enable the navy to ensure a consistent presence in the oil and gas sectors off Sarawak, while Malaysia seeks to minimize tensions with China to safeguard its economic relationships, according to his statements.

He expressed confidence that the new facility would not adversely affect bilateral relations, as both the navy and coast guard are committed to a non-confrontational stance towards Chinese vessels operating within Malaysia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

On October 2, Royal Malaysian Navy chief Admiral Zulhelmy Ithnain informed reporters that the navy is active in disputed regions but intends to “steer clear of aggressive maneuvers.”

“Our main approach is to resolve conflicts through diplomatic means. Military resources will only be deployed if diplomatic efforts fail, which we do not anticipate will occur,” he was quoted by the Daily Express during a submarine conference.

DIVERSE APPROACHES TO DIPLOMACY

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim of Malaysia has expressed his readiness to engage in discussions regarding the territorial dispute with China, a stance that has drawn criticism for appearing overly accommodating. However, Dr. Storey interprets this as a strategic move to de-escalate tensions rather than a sincere offer of compromise.

It is important to highlight that Mr. Anwar has reaffirmed Malaysia’s commitment to continue its exploration and drilling operations in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), despite China’s objections, a fact corroborated by the AMTI report.

The report states, “In spite of the Chinese coast guard’s interventions, Malaysia has not only maintained its current oil and gas production but has also increased its exploratory efforts,” noting that 15 new exploratory wells were drilled off the coast of Sarawak in 2024.

Dr. Azmi Hassan, a foreign policy expert and member of the National Council of Professors, asserted that Malaysia’s decision to persist with its oil and gas initiatives in the region is “appropriate.”

He remarked, “China’s actions have primarily involved monitoring these projects, and thus far, there have been no significant developments, as diplomacy remains our preferred approach.”

Dr. Azmi emphasized the importance of dialogue with China regarding Malaysia’s EEZ, which is grounded in maritime law. He believes that under such legal frameworks, China lacks a valid claim over Malaysia’s EEZ.

Conversely, Dr. Azmi expressed disagreement with calls from Sarawak for a more assertive response to the dispute, cautioning that Malaysia could find itself at a disadvantage in any physical confrontation with China.

“We should avoid escalating tensions by deploying our navy against China. We do not want to replicate the situation faced by Manila. Even with U.S. support, physical conflict will not resolve the underlying issues,” he stated.

Do EU leaders want war?

Sadia Asif

October 6, 2024

Anxiety and frustration regarding the future of the European Union have been escalating for some time. The union is currently experiencing a profound crisis, characterized by multiple interrelated issues: a cost-of-living crisis, a housing crisis, a migration crisis, sluggish economic growth, and, most critically, a political crisis. The rise of far-right movements poses a significant threat, as they gain traction in polls across numerous EU nations, jeopardizing the delicate cohesion of the EU and its foundational liberal values.

Recently, the far-right Freedom Party secured victory in the Austrian elections, garnering 30 percent of the vote. While the far right may still be excluded from participating in the government formation in Austria, similar parties are either in power or supporting governments in 9 out of the 27 EU member states.

The European Union is currently grappling with significant challenges on the international stage, most notably the ongoing conflict in neighboring Ukraine, which shows no signs of resolution despite a steady influx of military support from Europe and the United States. Additionally, the persistent threat of climate change looms large, contributing to increasingly severe natural disasters.

In light of these escalating crises, the EU’s political leadership has largely opted not to confront the underlying issues, which stem from the harmful neoliberal policies they have adopted. Instead, their approach has leaned towards militarization, possibly in an attempt to distract the European populace from their discontent.

Over the last two years, there has been a consistent narrative that Russia poses the greatest threat to European security, with the prevailing belief that the solution lies in achieving a decisive victory over Russia in Ukraine. The message has been clear: the route to peace is through further escalation.

European arms have been increasingly supplied to Ukraine, with EU nations progressively broadening their arsenal to encompass more lethal and destructive weaponry. Recently, European leaders, including the outgoing EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell, have advocated for Ukraine to be permitted to deploy long-range missiles against targets within Russian territory.

On September 19, the European Parliament adopted a non-binding resolution urging nations that provide missiles to Ukraine to permit their use against Russian targets.

Russia has consistently issued warnings regarding this development, recently revising its nuclear doctrine to lower the threshold for nuclear weapon deployment.

As the flow of arms to Ukraine continues to escalate, European nations are also being advised to increase their military expenditures in preparation for the possibility that this escalation could spiral out of control, potentially leading the EU into conflict with Russia. Andrius Kubilius, the nominee for the newly established position of EU defense commissioner aimed at addressing the “Russia threat,” has suggested that the union should function as a “war-weapons storehouse” to deter Moscow.

The narrative of a war economy is also being promoted, encouraging Europeans to believe that military expansion could revitalize the struggling European economy.

In September, Mario Draghi, the former president of the European Central Bank and former Italian Prime Minister, released a highly anticipated report titled “The Future of European Competitiveness.” This report has been widely praised as a significant move towards fostering greater economic integration within the European Union.

In the introduction, Draghi emphasized that “Peace is the first and foremost objective of Europe.” However, he noted the increasing physical security threats and urged the EU to invest substantially in its defense industry.

European leaders seem to be adopting the Latin phrase, “Si vis pacem para bellum,” meaning “If you want peace, prepare for war.” The challenge with this approach today is that the presence of nuclear weapons, capable of devastating human civilization, has fundamentally altered the dynamics of war and peace, particularly when a nuclear power is involved.

It can be argued that while European leaders are vocal about their intentions, they often fall short in action—illustrated by their hesitance to permit Ukraine to utilize long-range missiles, despite a resolution from the EU parliament and abundant rhetoric. Nevertheless, the ambiguity and implied threats remain perilous, as they create opportunities for military incidents that could lead to severe repercussions.

Ultimately, the focus on war, preparations for conflict, and military buildup diverts attention from the numerous crises facing the EU and their underlying causes.

Despite its strong rhetoric surrounding human rights, freedom, democracy, and equity, the European Union fundamentally operates as a neoliberal entity that primarily safeguards the interests of the affluent, enabling them to accumulate even greater wealth. Economic policies are driven not by a commitment to the health and welfare of the average EU citizen, but rather by the imperative to ensure corporate profitability.

This focus on neoliberalism is evident in the diminishing welfare state across Europe, the rise of precarious employment largely characterized by the gig economy, and the soaring costs of essentials such as food, utilities, and housing, which have become unaffordable for many. Furthermore, the EU’s exploitative neoliberal practices, exemplified by various trade agreements with developing nations, are undermining economies in the Global South and contributing to increased migration towards Europe.

The EU’s neoliberal foundation also explains the leadership’s inability to implement a fair green transition without imposing its financial burdens on ordinary citizens.

Engaging in militarization and fostering a unified military-industrial complex will not address these pressing issues. Instead, the EU must reform its political, social, environmental, and economic frameworks to prioritize social values, participatory democracy, pluralism, welfare, sustainable development, peace, and collaboration. This may necessitate the emergence of a new form of socialism to replace the current neoliberal paradigm and elevate the entire continent.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Defence Talks’s editorial stance.

US foreign policy indicates that the US-Russian tensions are likely to persist

Hammad Saeed

October 6, 2024

The 2024 American presidential campaign has been characterized by a series of extraordinary occurrences. These events include legal actions against one candidate and family members of the current president, assassination attempts on Donald Trump, and the unprecedented scenario of Joe Biden being compelled to withdraw from the race by his own party. Collectively, these developments have transformed the election process into a remarkable spectacle.

At the same time, the dynamics of US domestic politics are reverberating globally, contributing to the rising discontent among nations that represent the majority of the world in response to Washington’s vigorous efforts to uphold its dominance. However, it is essential not to overinterpret the electoral outcomes, as the overarching strategy of both candidates remains focused on preserving American supremacy.

The neoconservative faction continues to hold significant influence within the ruling Democratic Party, where its members view power as the primary means of sustaining US leadership. This perspective is not shaped by individual beliefs but is a reflection of their roles within the political framework. For instance, then-Senator Biden previously introduced numerous constructive proposals in Congress, including opposition to NATO membership for the Baltic states, leading some of his party colleagues to label him as overly pacifistic in his foreign policy approach.

Upon assuming office, Biden adhered closely to the established American approach to global leadership. His administration’s defense budget set unprecedented records in recent history. The continuity of U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding its deterrence strategy against geopolitical adversaries, suggests that the structural rivalry with Russia and China will persist, irrespective of electoral outcomes. The trajectory of this rivalry—especially in Ukraine and around Taiwan—will be influenced by the military budget, which has already been drafted and is expected to receive approval prior to the inauguration of his successor.

In the context of the election campaign, it is noteworthy how much more aggressive the rhetoric has become, accompanied by appealing and actionable proposals. Former Secretary of State Michael Pompeo’s initiative for a “forced peace” in Ukraine, which includes rapidly integrating Kiev into NATO to shift the defense burden onto European allies, has garnered significant attention. However, such a scenario could lead to direct military confrontation between NATO and Russia, making it unlikely.

These statements, lacking a comprehensive understanding of the situation, are not intended to be long-term strategies. Instead, they aim to rally support among hawkish elements within the establishment and the electorate, suggesting that a forced escalation of the conflict is a conceivable option. It is important to recognize that during his tenure, Pompeo was known for making bold statements that rarely translated into substantial actions. Nonetheless, his remarks should be viewed in light of the absence of any political faction in the U.S. that perceives the resolution of the Ukraine crisis as a chance for reconciliation with Russia.

The conflicting interests between Washington and Kiev are significant in this context. The Ukrainian government, fully aware of its dwindling resources, is desperately striving to maintain its position as a priority within the Western coalition, often resorting to opportunistic actions, as seen in Kursk. By presenting the West with a tangible military achievement, Kiev aimed to compel direct Western involvement in the conflict. While the United States recognizes this initiative from Ukraine, it is not inclined to pursue such a course of action.

Washington views Ukraine as a valuable proxy to be utilized for as long as feasible. The strategic role of Ukraine in US foreign policy indicates that the US-Russian tensions are likely to persist. Furthermore, the increasing trend of the American defense budget is expected to continue, irrespective of the electoral outcomes. Consequently, Russian foreign policy and military strategies are predicated on sustaining the current military landscape and perpetuating the strategic competition with the United States, regardless of who assumes the presidency in America.

Russia’s ambassador to US conclude his term during a period of unprecedented bilateral tension

Asif Shahid

October 6, 2024

A pedestrian walks with an umbrella outside the Embassy of the Russian Federation, near the Glover Park neighborhood of Washington, U.S.

Russia‘s ambassador to the United States, a staunch Kremlin supporter, is set to return to Moscow, as reported by state media, marking the conclusion of his term during a period of unprecedented tension between the two countries.

According to the TASS news agency, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced, “Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Anatoly Ivanovich Antonov is wrapping up his assignment in Washington and is en route to Moscow.”

Antonov, 69, who hails from Siberia and has had a long career in diplomacy, is regarded as a hardliner yet has demonstrated an ability to negotiate. He has led the Russian diplomatic mission in Washington since 2017 and indicated in July that his tenure was nearing its end.

There has been no announcement regarding his successor, who is viewed as a negotiator with a military approach. Antonov’s position on Russia’s military actions in Ukraine has consistently reflected unwavering support for President Vladimir Putin. In a recent post on the Telegram messaging app, he stated, “It is clear to us that the enemy will be defeated and victory will belong to Russia,” while commenting on Russian forces’ capture of the Ukrainian town of Vuhledar.

Russia characterizes its actions in Ukraine as a special military operation, alleging that Washington and its NATO allies are conducting a hybrid war in the region. In contrast, Kyiv and its Western partners assert that Moscow’s aggression represents an unprovoked imperialistic effort to seize territory.

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022 marked the most significant confrontation between Moscow and the West since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, a period when the Soviet Union and the United States were on the brink of nuclear conflict.

Antonov, who held the position of deputy defense minister during the time of Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, was subjected to European sanctions when he was appointed by Putin as Russia’s ambassador to the United States. He graduated in 1978 from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, the primary diplomatic training institution of the Soviet Union. According to his biography on the embassy’s website, Antonov spent the subsequent thirty years advancing through the ranks of the foreign ministry.

Prior to relocating to Washington, he gained a reputation as a savvy negotiator in arms control, having led Russian delegations in various international discussions on strategic weapons. In an interview with TASS in August, Antonov expressed Russia’s willingness to explore a treaty with Washington regarding arms control. “My approach to negotiations is quite straightforward: we should each take a piece of paper and outline our respective desires,” he stated. “Then, we can compare the two lists to identify any common ground, no matter how small, and use that as a foundation for addressing the issues at hand.”

Russia targets Kyiv and Odesa in latest drone attack

Asif Shahid

October 6, 2024

A view shows a semi-truck destroyed during a Russian drone strike near Ukraine-Romania border, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Odesa region, Ukraine.

Russia conducted a drone assault overnight across Ukraine, focusing on the capital city of Kyiv and impacting infrastructure in the Black Sea port of Odesa, according to Ukrainian officials on Sunday.

The State Emergency Service reported that one individual sustained injuries, and several warehouses and cargo trucks were damaged in Odesa during the extensive attack, which kept much of the nation under air-raid alerts for several hours.

The Ukrainian military successfully intercepted 56 out of at least 87 drones launched by Russia across various regions, as stated by the air force. Additionally, it noted that another 25 drones were “lost” due to electronic jamming, though further details were not provided.

Serhiy Popko, the military administrator for Kyiv, confirmed that air defenses neutralized all drones targeting the capital, with no injuries reported. Air raid alerts for Kyiv and its surrounding areas were issued three times throughout the night, accumulating to over five hours, according to Popko.

Reuters has not been able to independently verify these claims. Russia has consistently denied targeting civilians during its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which began in February 2022, yet it frequently launches missiles, drones, and bombs at civilian areas well beyond the front lines.

A year after the war, Gaza in ruins, it would take 14 years to remove the rubble

Hammad Saeed

October 6, 2024

In the remnants of his two-story house, 11-year-old Mohammed collects pieces of the collapsed roof into a damaged bucket and crushes them into gravel, which his father will use to create gravestones for those lost in the Gaza conflict. “We gather the debris not to construct homes, but for tombstones and graves—transitioning from one tragedy to another,” explains his father, Jihad Shamali, 42, a former construction worker, as he cuts through metal salvaged from their residence in Khan Younis, which was destroyed during an Israeli operation in April.

The task is laborious and often somber. In March, the family constructed a grave for one of Shamali’s sons, Ismail, who was killed while running errands. However, this effort represents a small part of the initiatives beginning to emerge to address the debris left by Israel’s military actions aimed at dismantling the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

The United Nations has reported that there are more than 42 million tonnes of debris, which includes both partially standing structures and completely collapsed buildings. This amount is 14 times greater than the rubble accumulated in Gaza from 2008 until the onset of the recent conflict a year ago, and it exceeds the debris left by the 2016-17 Battle of Mosul in Iraq by more than five times, according to the U.N. If stacked, this debris would fill the Great Pyramid of Giza, Egypt’s largest pyramid, eleven times over, and the volume continues to increase daily.

In response, the U.N. is working to assist Gazan authorities in managing the debris, as indicated by three U.N. officials. A U.N.-led Debris Management Working Group is set to initiate a pilot project in collaboration with Palestinian authorities in Khan Younis and Deir El-Balah to begin clearing debris from the roads this month. “The challenges are immense,” stated Alessandro Mrakic, head of the Gaza Office for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which co-chairs the working group. “This will be a significant undertaking, but it is crucial that we commence immediately.”

Israel’s military has stated that Hamas fighters conceal themselves among civilian populations and that they will target them wherever they appear, while making efforts to minimize civilian casualties. In response to inquiries about debris management, Israel’s military unit COGAT indicated its intention to enhance waste disposal practices and collaborate with the U.N. to broaden these initiatives. Mrakic noted that coordination with Israel has been effective, although detailed discussions regarding future plans are still pending.

TENTS AMID THE RUINS

The offensive by Israel commenced following the incursion of Hamas militants into Israel on October 7 of the previous year, resulting in the deaths of approximately 1,200 Israelis and the abduction of over 250 individuals. According to Palestinian health authorities, nearly 42,000 Palestinians have lost their lives during the year-long conflict. On the ground, debris is stacked high, obstructing pedestrians and donkey carts on what were once bustling streets. “Who is going to come here and clear the rubble for us? No one. Therefore, we did that ourselves,” remarked taxi driver Yusri Abu Shabab, who managed to clear enough debris from his home in Khan Younis to set up a tent.

Approximately two-thirds of the structures in Gaza prior to the conflict—over 163,000 buildings—have sustained damage or been completely destroyed, as indicated by U.N. satellite imagery. About one-third of these were high-rise buildings. Following a seven-week conflict in Gaza in 2014, the UNDP and its collaborators managed to remove 3 million tonnes of debris, which represents only 7% of the current total. Mrakic referenced an unpublished preliminary estimate suggesting that clearing 10 million tonnes would require around $280 million, indicating a potential cost of approximately $1.2 billion if hostilities were to cease at this moment. A U.N. estimate from April projected that it would take 14 years to remove the rubble.

HIDDEN REMAINS

The debris also conceals unrecovered bodies, with estimates from the Palestinian health ministry suggesting there could be as many as 10,000, along with unexploded ordnance, according to Mrakic.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has described the threat as “widespread,” while U.N. officials warn that some debris presents a significant risk of injury. Nizar Zurub, residing in Khan Younis with his son, occupies a home where only the roof remains, precariously tilted.

According to the United Nations Environment Programme, approximately 2.3 million tonnes of debris may be contaminated, based on an evaluation of Gaza’s eight refugee camps, several of which have sustained damage.

Inhalation of asbestos fibers is linked to laryngeal, ovarian, and lung cancers. The World Health Organization has reported nearly one million cases of acute respiratory infections in Gaza over the past year, although it has not specified how many are associated with dust exposure. WHO spokesperson Bisma Akbar emphasized that dust is a “major concern,” as it can contaminate both water and soil, potentially leading to respiratory diseases.

Medical professionals are apprehensive about an increase in cancer cases and birth defects due to the leaching of metals in the coming years. Additionally, a UNEP spokesperson highlighted concerns regarding snake and scorpion bites, as well as skin infections caused by sandflies.

SHORTAGES OF LAND AND EQUIPMENT

Previously, rubble from Gaza has been utilized to construct seaports. The U.N. now aims to recycle some of this material for road construction and to reinforce the coastline. The UNDP notes that Gaza, which had a pre-war population of 2.3 million within a 45 km (28 miles) long and 10 km wide area, faces significant challenges in finding adequate space for debris disposal.

Landfills are currently situated within an Israeli military zone. According to Israel’s COGAT, these sites are located in a restricted area, although access will be permitted. Mrakic noted that increased recycling could lead to additional funding for equipment like industrial crushers, which would need to be transported through crossing points overseen by Israel.

Government representatives have reported shortages of fuel and machinery due to Israeli restrictions that hinder cleanup operations. A spokesperson for UNEP indicated that lengthy approval processes represent a significant obstacle. Israel has not directly addressed claims regarding its limitations on machinery.

The UNEP has stated that it requires the consent of property owners to clear debris; however, the extensive destruction has complicated property lines, and some records have been lost amid the conflict. Following a meeting hosted by the Palestinian government in the West Bank on August 12, several donors have shown interest in providing assistance, as mentioned by Mrakic, though he did not disclose their identities. A U.N. official, who requested to remain anonymous to protect ongoing initiatives, expressed concern about the willingness to invest in Gaza’s reconstruction without a political resolution in place.

1...132133134...149 Page 133 of 149

DefenceTalksLatest Defence News & Analysis

DefenceTalks

DefenceTalksLatest Defence News & Analysis

DefenceTalksLatest Defence News & Analysis

TOP STORIES

DIPLOMACY

Nuclear Doctrine

DISPUTES

Defense Budget

Featured

DEFENCE

Military Exercise

Ukraine War

DefenceTalks.com

TOP STORIES

DIPLOMACY

Nuclear Doctrine

DISPUTES

Defense Budget

Featured

DEFENCE

Military Exercise

Ukraine War

DefenceTalks.com

NO SIGNIFICANT CEASEFIRE NEGOTIATIONS

RISKY STRATEGY

The risk associated with the assassination of Soleimani

A Life Sentence of Threats