Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Why Trump’s return is of little consequence to Iran

Press TV – November 10, 2024

Rolling sanctions imposed on Iran for years have generated a degree of endurance and resourcefulness which enables the country to deal with any possible fallout of Donald Trump’s return to the White House.

The mainstream Western media is already conjuring the things that will come out, citing what they call people briefed on his early plans saying he will drastically increase sanctions on Iran and throttle its oil sales as part of an aggressive strategy to undercut Tehran’s abilities.

Trump took a dim view of Iran during his first term, aborting a six-nation agreement with Tehran—known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. He also imposed what was described as a “maximum pressure” strategy in hopes Iran would abandon its anti-US and anti-Israeli policies.

However, he sounded contrite at an event for the New York Economic Club in September, where he fielded questions about his future plans, saying he would use sanctions as little as possible and singling out Russia and Iran.

“The problem with what we have with sanctions, and I was using the sanctions, but I put them on and take them off as quickly as possible, because ultimately it kills your dollar and it kills everything the dollar represents. And we have to continue to have that be the world currency. I think it’s important. I think we’d be losing a war.

“If we lost and we lost the dollar as much as the world currency, I think that would be the equivalent of losing a war. That would make us a third-world country. We can’t let it happen.

“So I use sanctions very powerfully against countries that deserve it. And then I take them off because, look, you’re losing Iran. You’re losing Russia. China is out there trying to get their currency to be the dominant currency, as you know better than anybody.

“All of these things are happening. You’re losing so many countries because there’s so much conflict with all of these countries that you’re going to lose that, and we can’t lose that.

“So I want to use sanctions as little as possible,” Trump said.

Analysts say a Trump administration return to a maximum-pressure campaign on Iran would mean tougher enforcement of US oil sanctions, but it could struggle to get China as Iran’s top crude customer to cooperate.

China, they say, could retaliate by strengthening work in the BRICS club of emerging economies, consisting of Iran, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and others, including by reducing reliance on the dollar in deals in oil and other goods.

Iranian officials have played down the significance of the US election result, with the government saying it will not affect the livelihoods of the Iranians.

“The US elections are not really our business. Our policies are steady and don’t change based on individuals. We made the necessary predictions before and there will not be change in people’s livelihoods,” Government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani said Wednesday after Trump claimed victory.

Iranian economists think Trump’s return to power is unlikely to lead to any turbulence in the country’s economy.

Nevertheless, much depends on measures taken by state planners to deal with the situation. The history of sanctions has shown every threat entails an opportunity that can be used to stabilize the situation and improve.

Trump’s sanctions in 2018 initially led to a steep drop in Iran’s oil exports, but they forced the country to find alternative export channels and return the Iranian oil to the market.

Iran has also been able to tamp down the effect of American sanctions by expanding its trade with third countries through a proactive economic policy.

One should not forget the wise leadership of the country’s top authority to the accompaniment and support of the people which have greatly reduced and sometimes neutralized the effects of the sanctions.

Moreover, the hegemonic power of the United States is waning, and its last tactic of using economic sanctions as a weapon against countries is losing effectiveness in the face of rising multilateralism.

As reflected in Trump’s remarks, further resort of such coercive measures has grave consequences for the country.

China, Russia and Iran have built a trading system that uses mostly national currencies in trade, avoiding the dollar and exposure to US regulators, making sanctions enforcement tough.

When Trump imposed sanctions during his first term, Iran was an observer member of BRICS. Now, it is a full member of the expanding strategic and economic coalition, which has given it diverse means of trade and ways to effectively fend off any hostile measure.

November 10, 2024 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia, India are early birds as Pax Americana is ending

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR – Indian Punchline – November 10, 2024 

The working visit of Russia’s First Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov to Mumbai and Delhi on November 11-12 has been in the cards for sometime. It assumes added interest today as, in a delightful coincidence, it overlaps with the beginning of the end of Pax Americana in international politics. 

Manturov, 55, is one of the brightest stars of the new generation of leaders in the Russian political firmament with a brilliant record as an economist and technocrat in the energy and military-industrial complex, two key sectors of the economy. 

President Vladimir Putin has entrusted him with responsibilities that go far beyond the portfolio of Minister of Trade and Industry, a position he held for 12 years until May 2024 when he was elevated as First Deputy Prime Minister. Manturov is now a familiar face at the high table when Putin takes meetings on Ukraine war, which shows he wears many hats. 

Manturov is the co-chairman of Russian-Indian joint commission, alongside External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar. To be sure, Jaishankar will have wide-ranging discussions with Manturov. Who else Manturov is meeting in Delhi will be an indication of the stirrings in the air in the Russian-Indian cooperation. 

The timing of the visit is notable since the neoconservatives who dominated the Biden administration — Secretary of State Antony Blinken, CIA director William Burns, et al — are on their way out and a brave new world is taking shape in Washington, DC. 

The influential CEO of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs Ivo Daalder, who was the US ambassador to Nato, succinctly captured the imminent power shift in DC when he wrote in Politico in the weekend,  “Trump won in a landslide. He helped Republicans take control of the Senate and may well help them keep the House (by the way, Republicans have flipped the House as well) — ensuring single-party control across all three branches of government. He can rightly claim a mandate to implement all the policies he touted… All the while, he’ll be shielded by a Supreme Court.” 

Of course, Ambassador Daalder is an acolyte of the “rules-based order” and a firm believer in America’s manifest destiny to lead the world. He wrote in his column titled The end of Pax Americana: “I also worry about what this means for the rest of the world. In his first term, Trump made clear he doesn’t buy into Washington’s global leadership role as his predecessors have done. He doesn’t believe in leading — he believes in winning… 

“Moscow and Beijing have long chafed at Washington’s leadership, and for the past decade, they’ve sought to counter and undermine it. They may now get their wish. Trump isn’t interested in sustaining the Pax Americana in the ways his 14 predecessors were… The end of the Pax Americana will have profound consequences…The Pax America will officially end on Jan. 20, 2025, when the US inaugurates Donald J. Trump as its 47th president. The country and world will be very different because of it.” 

Suffice to say, we are getting a preview of this historic juncture. Although, taking place in the conditions under sanctions, Manturov’s agenda of discussions in Delhi will have a futuristic dimension. The point is, while the sanctions against Russia may take some time to be scrapped, their cutting edge — the fanaticism and the sound and fury with which Blinken and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen applied that intrusive diplomatic tool to dictate other countries’ economic and military relations with Russia — may now become blunt, what with all signs already pointing toward a Russian-American engagement. 

The Indian side should be mindful of this transition to accelerate the economic and military-technical cooperation with Russia with a medium and long-term term perspective. This is one thing. 

Second, we are edging toward a conversation between Trump and Putin. Do not be surprised if they decide to meet at an early date. Historically speaking, there is nothing like summitry to energise political systems with top-down culture as the US and Russia have.

Suffice to say, we are nearing a point when the International Criminal Court which has an arrest warrant against Putin won’t know where to hide itself. From our perspective, that opens the door leading to the rose garden for a state visit by Putin to India — perhaps,  as the chief guest at the celebrations marking the 75th anniversary of the Indian Republic on January 26, 2025. 

Putin is a great friend of India’s. Only two days ago, he described India as unparalleled in the global arena and went on to say Russia is strengthening its relationship with India on multiple fronts, with a high level of trust underpinning their bilateral ties. Putin paid fulsome praise to India’s rise saying, “India should undoubtedly be added to the list of superpowers, with its billion-and-a-half population, the fastest growth among all economies in the world, ancient culture, and very good prospects for further growth.” 

To be sure, India finds itself in a truly privileged position in the international political arena with the consolidation of the Indian-Russian partnership, prospects opening for a spurt to take the US-Indian ties to new heights taking advantage of Trump’s goodwill, and, indeed, the nascent signs of a thaw in the troubled Sino-Indian relationship — and as the fastest growing major economy in the world. 

India’s optimal aim should be to create synergy out of all three relationships running on parallel tracks — with Russia, US and China respectively. No matter the complexities of their mutual relationships, India should aspire for a confluence of the three streams for advancing its development. 

There is a whiff of hope in the air for a warming of bilateral relations between Moscow and Washington under Trump, which have been in a free fall. But Russophobia is deeply entrenched in the American elites and Russia will remain a toxic issue. Yet, Trump has repeatedly stressed good relations with Putin, as well as mutual respect. And Putin is a very talented politician who understands Trump. 

As for Russia-China relationship, Moscow and Beijing are at a high noon of partnership unparalleled in their history. That relationship is  anchored in the great camaraderie between Putin and Chinese president Xi Jinping, is rock solid and will remain so despite the fluidity in the international environment.

Of course, there are misgivings about the trajectory of the US-China relationship going forward. But, here again, the crux of the matter is the US’ economic rivalry with China in the American mindset. Per se, China does not hold any threat to the US. And China, unlike Russia, does not challenge American power, influence and interests directly or by design. 

A military confrontation between the US and China will not happen under Trump’s watch. Besides, the Indo-Pacific strategy is floundering, the latest sign being Indonesia, the largest country in southeast Asia, turning its back on US-led alliance systems. and seeking BRICS membership.

The presence of Tesla CEO Elon Musk as an influencer in Trump’s inner circle can be seen as a stabilising factor for US-China relations. Above all, only China can be a meaningful interlocutor to help Trump realise the ambitious MAGA project.

November 10, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Indo-Pacific braces for Trump 2.0

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – November 10 2024

The victory of Donald Trump in the US presidential election is far from unexpected. Yet, the fact that he has won means that many countries across the world will brace for the impact this win will have on them.

This is especially true for countries in Asia – in particular, in the Asia Pacific region – where the Biden administration, despite its flawed plans, appeared willing to invest US resources, both economic and military, to offset China. Although Donald Trump is, in many ways, more anti-China than Joe Biden is, his anti-China geopolitics is confined primarily to one arena: the US-China trade (im)balance.

It means that the Trump administration will be far less interested in extending military and economic assistance to the regional countries than the Biden administration has been in the past four years. On the contrary, his administration is likely to slap heavy tariffs, which will negatively affect Washington’s bilateral trade with regional countries. In such a scenario, regional countries will have one key policy option: turn more towards China to resolve bilateral ties via diplomatic means and reduce their dependence on Washington.

The Aftermath of the Victory

If Trump’s previous four years in office are any guides to the future, Washington’s Indo-Pacific allies, such as Japan and South Korea, are deeply worried. As former officials of the Trump administration, such as the former National Security Adviser John Bolton, revealed later in their memoirs, Trump had plans to withdraw US military forces from South Korea, keep up with his planned rapprochement with North Korea, and demand massive payments from Japan to pay for the American defence role. During his campaign, Trump defended his foreign policy and repeatedly vowed to continue after assuming the presidency.

For Japan, defence payments are, however, only one of the major areas of concern. Trump will hit trade as well. A key Trump campaign pledge is slapping 10- to 20-percent tariffs on all imports to the United States. Trump has also vowed to “absolutely” block Nippon Steel Corp.’s proposed 2-trillion-yen ($13 million) acquisition of US Steel Corp. More importantly, the US-Japan trade gap has widened to the disadvantage of the US – a situation that Trump would like to reset.  According to US official data,

“In 2022, both U.S. exports to Japan and imports from Japan continued to grow for a third year in a row. U.S. exports totaled $80.3 billion, an increase of 7.7% ($5.8 billion), and U.S. imports totaled $148.3 billion, an increase of 10.0% ($13.5 billion). The trade deficit was $68.0 billion, increasing 12.8% ($7.7 billion) from 2021”.

“Our allies have taken advantage of us more than our enemies,” Trump said in a media interview on October 15, referring to the US trade deficit and other issues. With Trump having repeatedly referred to cutting off US support for NATO, Japan’s idea of an ‘Asian NATO’, too, seems in deep trouble. The military pacts Joe Biden made with Japan, South Korea, and Australia are likely to face the same fate. According to Trump, one of the key reasons why the Biden administration entered into these pacts was the pressure the Ukraine conflict generated on these states.

Therefore, he believes, that if he can end the Ukraine conflict – which he promised to end quickly by cutting off US aid to Ukraine – this will allow for the US to divest its sources away from these countries. On the other hand, Trump would not only want South Korea and Japan to spend more on defence but also push them to join him in slapping tariffs on China, thus pushing them into a ‘trade war’ with Beijing. Given South Korea’s and Japan’s trade (im)balance with China, they are bound to suffer from such a policy step because China has the leverage to retaliate. Therefore, they are unlikely to initiate their ‘trade war’. Alternative routes, however, exist.

The Alternative Option

Official Think Tanks in India are already proposing that India should join the China-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Agreement. This policy shift probably speaks volumes about the direction that most regional countries might be willing to take. India is also one country that recently signed an agreement to jointly manage the disputed border. Now, this pact is crucial – not only because it signifies peaceful management of tensions, but also because the India-China border dispute is probably one major issue where China actually fought. This is unlike the South and East China Seas. Therefore, if China is able to diplomatically resolve its tense issues with India, there is little denying that other countries can do the same. There is, thus, a silver lining for countries like Japan, the Philippines, etc. to resolve their issues without relying on the US (or any other external power, such as the EU or NATO).

In some ways, an inward-looking approach, i.e., an approach that does not seek external mediation, would help push external powers permanently out of the region. Knowing that the Trump administration will itself be looking for disengagement, regional countries wouldn’t have to worry about annoying the US too.

For China, it presents an excellent opportunity to capitalise on US disengagement and deepen its ties with countries in the Indo-Pacific. Although China will probably be fighting a ‘trade war’ in the Atlantic, it can still find a major leeway in the Indo-Pacific. Its willingness and openness will only find regional countries ready to jump on the regional bandwagon of free trade for growth and diplomacy for dispute resolution.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

November 10, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

On the beginning of détente in Chinese-Indian relations

By Vladimir Terehov – New Eastern Outlook – November 7, 2024

The meeting of the leaders of India and China, which took place on October 23 on the side-lines of the latest BRICS summit, became one of the most significant events of the Kazan summit, in which 30 countries participated.

In a commentary on the Chinese Global Times, the term ‘détente’ was used to characterise the state of relations between them, two of the multiple participants in the ‘Big Global Game’ at its current stage, which began to form both as a result of the aforementioned meeting and as a result of certain previous events. This article is a reaction to the words of Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar that it is premature to talk about the normalisation of relations between the two countries and that “restoring trust and readiness to work together will, naturally, take time”.

Half a century ago, the term ‘détente’ was used at one point of the Cold War by very responsible (both to their own peoples and to the world as a whole) leaders of opposing military and political groups. One of the main tasks was to prevent the use of ‘doomsday devices’, which are today absent-mindedly juggled by self-asserted political connoisseurs due to schizoid propaganda.

However, it did not, of course, reduce the multitude of fundamental problems at the heart of the Cold War itself, which were not eliminated by détente. Today, the ‘détente’ that has seemingly begun does not eliminate the serious issues in relations between the two Asian giants. This is likely what was meant by the head of the Indian Foreign Ministry and his commentators from the leading Chinese newspaper, warning against premature euphoria about the results of the meeting of the Chinese and Indian leaders in Kazan.

Issues in relations between India and China

This meeting was preceded by the resolution of a private problem that arose after the famous events of the summer of 2020 in Ladakh, a disputed area in the Himalayas. That which was agreed upon on the eve of the meeting between Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi boils down to the fact that the border guards based there will not face each other looking through a scope, but will rather engage in joint patrolling of certain paths passing through the territory that remains disputed.

There are several such disputed areas (with a total area of about 130,000km2). In the 50s and 60s, attempts were made to solve the territorial issue according to the principle of mutual and approximately equal concessions.

But something went wrong; what exactly went wrong is hard to pinpoint. This is the mystery of the whole issue of Chinese-Indian relations, the scale of which goes beyond the disputed territories. In order to define this ‘something’, international conferences are held with the participation of reputable Indologists and Sinologists who offer plausible hypotheses about this ‘something’.

10-15 years ago, it was defined by the word ‘Tibet’. More precisely, the state of bilateral relations after the liquidation of the virtually independent status of Tibet at the end of 1950. This status, in turn, turned out to be a consequence of the turmoil in China as a result of the Xinhai Revolution of 1911-1912. Since 1952, Tibet has ceased to be a sort of buffer zone between India and China and the military units of both countries are now separated by a 4,000,000 km line of actual control, which is not an internationally recognised border and will not become such until the parties resolve the issue of control over several of the above-mentioned disputed territories.

As a result of this and a number of subsequent events (this is first of all the 1959 rebellion in Tibet), the head of Buddhism in the world and about 100,000 Tibetan refugees found themselves in India, creating ‘authorities in exile’ there. This aids in keeping the ‘Tibetan issue’ – and suspicion in relations between India and China in general – in a tense state.

Over the past 10-15 years, radical changes have taken place in the status of these countries in the format of the ‘Big Global Game’. At the same time, the interests of both India and China extend far beyond national borders, intersecting on the territories of ‘external’ countries, which include all the countries of the Indian Ocean area and that are adjacent to India and China on the Asian mainland.

The situation developing within and outside Bangladesh requires special attention; a de facto coup took place in early September of this year and the country’s permanent (since 2009) Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, fled to India. Today, this serves as an additional reason for her to be accused of maintaining a ‘pro-Indian’ political vector, although she has actually been skilfully balancing the force fields created by two great neighbours of Bangladesh.

Relations between India and the current ‘transitional government’ of Bangladesh (which demanded the extradition of S. Hasina for her trial) have deteriorated markedly. This is especially notable against the background of a number of recent friendly gestures in Dhaka’s relations with Beijing (e.g. two Chinese navy ships visiting one of the ports of Bangladesh in the first half of October).

One may also recall India’s membership (along with the United States, Japan and Australia) in the Quad configuration, the latest summit of which was held in September in the US. Three weeks later, 10-day joint naval exercises between Quad countries took place in the Bay of Bengal. It is possible that, among other things, this was a warning signal to Bangladesh and China.

What to expect from future developments of Chinese-Indian relations? 

It is difficult to make forecasts at the current stage of the radical reformatting of the world order. Therefore, assessments regarding the nature of further development of bilateral relations – both in China and in India – are reserved. The illustration in the Global Times article mentioned at the very beginning accurately reflects reality.

Nevertheless, a remark in another commentary from the same newspaper about the need to “reduce future fluctuations in Chinese-Indian relations so as to minimise geopolitical disruptions from third parties guided by hidden malicious intent” seems noteworthy. Everything is significant in this phrase, especially the term ‘fluctuations’, a word which could describe the entire period of bilateral relations between independent India and China.

The previous stage of bettering bilateral relations started during a meeting of the two countries’ leaders held in April 2018 in Wuhan, China. A year and a half later, this trend was confirmed during Xi Jinping’s return trip to India and his meeting with N. Modi. The ‘incident in Ladakh’ followed and bilateral relations again fell to one of their lowest levels.

As for the ‘third parties with malicious intent’, it is clear who is meant by this. Note that Russia is also a ‘third party’, but with the complete opposite ‘intent’. There can be little doubt that it was Russian assistance that facilitated the meeting of the Indian and Chinese leaders on the side-lines of the latest BRICS summit. Russian diplomacy should be acknowledged on this occasion.

Fully aware of the fact that various difficulties remain in Chinese-Indian relations, let us hope that this meeting will become the starting point of their long-term positive development.

Vladimir Terekhov is an expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region.

November 7, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran-Arab Rapprochement Gains Ground

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – November 6 2024

Israel’s escalation in Gaza and Lebanon has severely hindered U.S. efforts to expand the Abraham Accords by bringing Saudi Arabia into the fold.

When Israel began its brutal war on Gaza following Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, the Arab-Israel peace deal became nearly impossible. Washington, however, did not abandon its efforts to pursue expanding the Abraham Accords by getting Saudi Arabia to sign them. However, Washington’s inability to control Netanyahu’s war has undermined its efforts to convince Saudi Arabia.

Simultaneously, this overall failure has also negatively affected Washington’s ability to drive a wedge between Iran and Saudi Arabia to undo the Beijing-mediated normalisation between the two erstwhile rivals in the Middle East. Instead, this normalisation seems to have found new grounds in the wake of Israeli expansion of the war into Lebanon against Hezbollah. Riyadh, as reports show, categorically denied Israel the leeway it needed to execute its plans to attack Iran’s oil and nuclear facilities. How Saudi Arabia reached this conclusion is an outcome of, among other things, Iran’s active diplomacy.

Iran-Arab Normalisation

According to a recent report in Reuters, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE explicitly gave Washington an ‘enough is enough’ call when they asked it to stop Israel from attacking Iran’s oil and nuclear facilities. Simultaneously, all three of these states have also closed their space for Israeli jets and missiles to cross to attack Iran. As the report mentions,  “the moves by the Gulf states come after a diplomatic push by non-Arab Shi’ite Iran to persuade its Sunni Gulf neighbours to use their influence with Washington amid rising concerns Israel could target Iran’s oil production facilities”.

The fact that Arab states conveyed Iran’s message – and explicitly took Tehran’s side – reveals many things. But, most importantly, it shows their ability to transcend the US-imposed narrow confines of ‘sectarian rivalry’ to follow a radically alternative line of foreign policy – one that prioritises long-term regional goals. In other words, while Arab states may have failed to bring Israel’s war on Gaza to an end, they have certainly succeeded in denying Israel an easy way to impose another war in the region – a war, if it breaks out, will affect Arab states more than the Gaza war.

It has turned out to be a source of confidence for Iran to confront Israel. The Foreign Minister of Iran recently noted Iran’s readiness to respond to any hostile actions by the Zionist regime, stating, “We are not seeking to escalate tensions or war.”

No Anti-Iran Alliance

In terms of regional politics, the Arab states’ refusal to become a party to tensions between Iran and Israel means that Washington – and Israel – will not be able to establish an anti-Iran regional alliance, which was one of the goals of The Abraham Accords. Thanks to the proactive diplomacy of China and Russia, Arab states no longer share with Washington and Israel the anti-Iran enthusiasm that, until recently, defined the very core of Arab geopolitics in the region. This is one of the reasons why the US and Saudi Arabia have not been able to finalize their otherwise ‘history making agreement’.

For one thing, if Saudi Arabia has openly declared its intentions to not engage Iran in a military fight, Washington sees no potential benefit arising out of this pact vis-à-vis the security of Israel and its ability to manipulate regional politics to its advantage and at the expense of its global rivals.

This failure, in many ways, has to do with how Washington behaved in 2019 when Saudi oil facilities came under Houthi attacks. The US failed to ‘protect’ Saudia Arabia – something that created an opening for China to push for an alternative to war.

For the Saudis as well, signing this treaty in the present context has become a lot more complicated than it would have been in a context with no Israeli war on Gaza and no prior Saudi-Iran rapprochement. Riyadh understands that tying its defence deeply with Washington via a treaty means it will have to, for instance, offer its space for the US/Israel to launch strikes on Iran. It would also mean Saudi Arabia exposing itself – once again – to Iran and Iran-backed Houthis. It also means Saudi Arabia going back to the past insofar as its ties with Iran are concerned and insofar as its plans to push for a multipolar order, both in the region and worldwide, are concerned. From the Saudi perspective, this treaty not only offers (an illusion of) protection but also comes with (the very real possibility of) a new phase of military conflict.

Alternatives to Washington

Middle Eastern states having become assertive vis-à-vis Washington’s dictates has also to do with the fact that the US is no longer the only global player in the region. Russia and China are already two major players that these states have deep ties with. Beijing, for instance, reportedly invested US$152 billion in the Middle East and North African (MENA) region between 2013 and 2021.

Russia’s sale of advanced missile and air defence systems to countries like Turkey and Iran showcases its willingness to deepen its defence with the region, presenting itself as an alternative to Washington. The availability of alternatives allows Arab states to better position themselves vis-à-vis Washington.

Will this pattern be permanent in the region? This is a key question. The Middle East, as it stands, is unlikely to see any major internal shift in terms of one state singularly dominating the region. Still, the region itself is surely moving towards a system that has multi-alignment as its central feature. It means Arab states are not necessarily becoming anti-US; it means they are diversifying in ways that give them a lot more leverage to manoeuvre and protect their interests. It means they are becoming stronger both regionally and globally.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

November 6, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

China demands that US stop militarizing space

RT | October 28, 2024

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has urged the US to stop the militarization of space and to refrain from actions that threaten global security. The warning comes days after Washington announced plans for the first delivery of satellite jammers.

Speaking at a press conference on Monday, the ministry’s spokesman Lin Jian said that Beijing insists on the peaceful use of what it called outer space and opposes the arms race and the placement of weapons there.

“China once again urges the US to stop spreading irresponsible remarks, stop expanding military build-up in outer space, and make due contribution to upholding the lasting peace and security in outer space,” Lin said, when asked to comment on China’s response to the potential threat to its satellites from US ground-based jammers.

The spokesman stressed that China is not planning to participate in a space race with any country and is not seeking space superiority. He also said that Washington openly defines space as a war zone, continues to expand its space capabilities and is working to establish a military alliance in outer space.

Last week Bloomberg reported, citing the US Space Force, that the first five of a planned 32 weapons meant to jam Chinese and Russian satellites in the early stage of a possible conflict could be declared operational between January and March 2025. The Counter Communications System known as Meadowlands is more than two years behind schedule.

Technological weaponry of this type is intended to cause temporary damage in a conflict “to counter the growing number of Chinese and Russian space systems,” the news agency noted.

The Pentagon has repeatedly accused China of amassing anti-satellite weapons, voicing concerns about the country’s focus on space-war capabilities. The Chinese government has denied the allegations, saying that Washington poses the greatest threat to security in space and is the main instigator behind the militarization of its various domains.

Washington has voiced similar allegations against Russia on multiple occasions, suggesting that Moscow has undisclosed anti-satellite capabilities that, it claims, are possibly nuclear in nature. The Kremlin has dismissed the insinuations as unfounded, saying that they are merely a smokescreen intended to distract from Washington’s own military activities in space.

October 28, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , | 1 Comment

I don’t want war with Russia, China – Vance

RT | October 28, 2024

The US is not at war with Russia and should not seek one, Republican vice-presidential nominee J.D. Vance has said.

The senator from Ohio was asked during his appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday whether he saw the Russian leader “as an ally or an enemy.” Putin is “clearly an adversary, he is a competitor,” but Washington needs to be “smart about diplomacy too,” Vance responded.

”Just because we don’t like somebody doesn’t mean that we can’t occasionally engage in conversations with them,” he suggested.

Host Kristen Welker pushed him further on whether he would directly refer to Putin as an enemy.

”We are not at war with him. And I don’t want to be at war with Vladimir Putin’s Russia,” the senator said. “I think that we should try to pursue avenues of peace.”

The same logic applies to China, Vance said, adding that he perceives it as a greater threat to American interests than Russia. The US may not like having to talk to its rivals, but in the case of the Ukraine conflict, resolving it will require negotiations, the senator pointed out.

When asked whether former President Donald Trump would take the US out of NATO, Vance assured that he wouldn’t. If his running mate returns to office, the country will honor its commitment to the organization, but the bloc “is not just a welfare client, it should be a real alliance,” he said. Vance was referring to Trump’s criticism of insufficient defense spending by its European members.

Moscow has identified NATO’s enlargement in Europe as a threat to its national security and a key reason for the deterioration of relations with the West. Russian officials have for decades declared that the US-led military bloc’s increasing involvement in Ukraine since the 2014 armed coup in Kiev and its promise to bring the country into the fold have contributed in a major way to setting off the ongoing hostilities.

The current US Democrat administration has pledged to stand by Kiev “for as long as it takes” to defeat Russia and has pushed other nations to do the same. Despite the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on weapons and aid for Ukraine, Kiev’s troops are currently retreating along many parts of the front. Trump has claimed while campaigning that he would end the hostilities in 24 hours, if elected.

October 28, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

More on Israeli Atrocities

Attacking UN peacekeepers is a dangerous policy

By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • October 15, 2024

That Israel is now attacking United Nations peacekeepers in south Lebanon might well be decisive in turning its few remaining “friends” against it. Spain, France, Ireland and Italy, all of which contribute to the peacekeepers force (UNIFIL), and which continued to look the other way when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his band of war criminals committed atrocity after atrocity against Arabs, are now finding themselves mortified when European soldiers are being attacked and wounded by cannon fire from snipers and Israeli tanks. In one incident, Israeli armored vehicles smashed their way through the gate of a UNIFIL base, allegedly using chemical weapons that injured 15 UN soldiers. The Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez is urging Europeans to cut off all trade and especially weapons sales with Israel. French President Emmanuel Macron declared an embargo on selling weapons to Israel and called for an immediate cease fire while several prime ministers have all expressed their “outrage” at the Israeli actions. Even the occupied-by-Israel UK declared itself to be “appalled.” Giorgia Meloni of Italy observed that two bases manned by Italian soldiers had been hit. Her Minister of Defense Guido Crosetto called the attack on the UNIFIL bases “totally unacceptable,” elaborating that “This was not a mistake and not an accident. It could constitute a war crime and represents a very serious violation of international military law.” He might have also added that since it was a gross violation of the UN Charter countries including permanent Security Council members China and Russia are demanding a full investigation of what took place.

As usual, Israel portrayed itself as the innocent victim surrounded by evil neighbors. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called on the UN chief to remove the UN peacekeepers who are now deployed in southern Lebanon. He claimed, without providing any evidence, that UNIFIL was serving as a “human shield to Hezbollah terrorists… This endangers both [those in UNIFIL] and the lives of our soldiers… Mr. Secretary General, get the UNIFIL forces out of harm’s way. It should be done right now, immediately.” The reality is, of course, that anyone encountering armed Israelis is automatically in “harm’s way,” ask any Palestinian. The Israeli armed forces, having already killed scores of UN workers during their 13-month siege of Gaza, appear set to double down and take on UN peacekeeping forces on their mission to expand the war to Syria and Iran. United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres has thus far refused to remove UNIFIL.

Regarding UNIFIL, the United States characteristically played its usual game of protecting Israel and throwing in a couple of misrepresentations of fact while saying nothing substantive. A National Security Council spokesman said that the White House is “deeply concerned” by reports Israel fired on the UN peacekeeper headquarters and bases in south Lebanon. “We understand Israel is conducting targeted operations near the Blue Line to destroy Hezbollah infrastructure that could be used to threaten Israeli citizens. While they undertake these operations, it is critical that they not threaten UN peacekeepers’ safety and security.” It was an all too rare expression of the reality that the United States is being dragged into a war in which it has no real interests by a ruthless client state that has been able to buy or coerce nearly all Congressmen into cheering and singing its song while also controlling much of the relevant bureaucracy and the White House itself. It is also being reported that a beefed up CIA station at the US Embassy in Beirut is collecting information on Hezbollah that is passed on to Israel to assist in its targeting.

It is not the first attack by Israel on United Nations personnel and it will probably not be the last as the Israel Occupation Force (IOF) has been de facto waging war against the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in Gaza over the past year, targeting and killing its personnel and denying or blocking its largely humanitarian mission. And the United Nations is also a target more generally speaking. At his most recent visit to the UN in New York, the monstrous Netanyahu exhibited a new low even for him, shouting to a nearly empty General Assembly room that the UN has become a “swamp of antisemitic bile,” again playing his favorite tune that Israel is always the victim. And the US has played a role in that campaign, denying any funding to the UNRWA and other international human rights bodies while also attacking the UN’s broader mission which has been to prevent wars of choice like what is occurring in what was once Palestine.

Inevitably, however, the Zionist fanatics in power in Washington are still motivated to ride the Israeli horse no matter who Netanyahu marks for death, leading to strident calls in Congress, mostly coming from Christian Zionist Republicans, to defund or even leave the United Nations completely. Given Donald Trump’s total fealty to Israel, it is something he just might consider doing if he is reelected. And the threats from individual congressmen to kill UN officials as well as justices and their families who serve on the international courts are all part of what one is hearing.

One particularly charming threat comes from a Jewish former White House advisor Matthew Brodsky, who has lived and studied in Israel. Brodsky recommended in a tweet on X that Israel should attack Irish peacekeepers in South Lebanon, suggesting what kind of advice the White House and Congress are accustomed to receive regarding Israel and Palestine from their overwhelmingly Jewish foreign policy team, which consists of nearly all confirmed Zionists, including President Biden, and also includes a number of dual nationals who hold Israeli citizenship. Brodsky’s background includes briefing members of Congress, the Department of State, Department of Defense and the National Security Council on Iran, Syria and Palestinian-Israeli issues. Brodsky is currently a Senior Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy and a former Director of Policy at the Jewish Policy Center. He wrote that: “Israel should carpet bomb the Irish area and then drop napalm over it.” The tweet included a map showing the deployment of Ireland’s peacekeeping force in Southern Lebanon, presumably to help guide the Israeli pilots.

There is considerable evidence that Brodsky is far from alone in expressing his complete loyalty to Israel no matter what crimes it commits. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, also Jewish and possibly a dual national, has been acting as Israel’s lawyer, complete with lies about Israeli behavior to cover-up war crimes like the deliberate starving of the Gazan people that equates to genocide. And he is joined in the Middle East by Amos Hochstein, Joe Biden’s personal roving ambassador to the region, who reportedly connived at Israel’s recent invasion of Lebanon. And clearly there is a long tradition of asserting Jewish supremacism within the upper levels of the US government. Last year Stuart Seldowitz, a former US State Department official, was filmed in New York City threatening an ethnic Egyptian halal food street vendor, calling him a terrorist. Seldowitz was recorded saying that the death of 4,000 Palestinian children “wasn’t enough”, highlighting legitimate concerns about anti-Palestinian sentiment among some former US officials. Seldowitz worked for former State Secretary Madeline Albright, who in a shocking interview once justified the killing of 500,000 Iraqi children, stating her view that the killings were “worth it”.

So where do we go from here. Sometimes recognizing that we have a problem can be the first step in coming up with a solution. To my mind, the rot started with President Harry Truman, who sold out to Jewish money and media power in the 1948 creation of the state of Israel, which real statesmen like Secretary of State George Marshall warned against. Some would put the betrayal earlier, with the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913. In any event, it is now counter to actual US interests to be so totally subservient to Israeli priorities. A good first step would be to require the constituent groups that make up the Israel Lobby to register as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which would require them to reveal their sources of income and their connections to Israel. It would also prohibit them from interfering in US politics. In addition, it does not make sense to send American Ambassadors and Emissaries to Israel who are far more loyal to Israel than to the United States, as the last several have been. Nor does it make sense to have a Jewish/Zionist Secretary of State backed up by a largely Jewish staff and White House cabinet to carry out diplomacy in the Middle East. Diplomacy is precisely what Blinken has not been doing and if he had any decency, which he does not, he would in any event recuse himself from involvement with anything having to do with Israel.

The unconditional ironclad pledge to defend a nation carrying out a genocide while simultaneously seeking to go to war with all its neighbors is a formula for initiating World War III, which will kill millions of people. Indeed, Biden, who has been discussing with Netanyahu how to attack Iran, has now deployed to Israel a $1.15 billion Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system to be manned by 100 American soldiers on the ground in Israel. The Washington Post is reporting that Israel has decided to attack military sites in Iran before the US election. This is just what Netanyahu wants as he will initiate a new conflict with Iran, Iran will retaliate, possibly killing US military based inside Israel, and bingo the US will be at war. In truth, the world needs less of a rabid dog Jewish state calling the shots as well as less of a corrupted and befuddled America dedicated to protecting the ravening beast. International lawyer John Whitbeck has described the current reality best: “By their venality, cowardice, moral bankruptcy and near-treason, the American political class is flushing a once great country down history’s toilet, and the Global West, if it does not liberate itself from domination by the Israeli-American Empire, risks a similar fate.”

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

October 16, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

China Slams Military Supplies to Taiwan as Instigation of War

Sputnik – 09.10.2024

The situation around Taiwan significantly escalated after Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the US House of Representatives, visited the island in early August 2022. China condemned Pelosi’s visit, viewing her trip as America’s support for Taiwanese separatism.

The US is escalating regional tensions and pushing Taiwan step by step to the brink of war through repeated violations of its commitments and arms sales to Taiwan, Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman, Wu Qian, stated in response to US President Joe Biden’s recent approval of a $567 mln military package to the island.

“The US side, ignoring China’s strong objection, continues to provide military support to Taiwan, which is a flagrant violation of the ‘one China’ principle and the three joint Sino-US communiqués. This seriously jeopardizes China’s sovereignty and security interests, and undermines peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. We express strong condemnation of it and lodge representations with the US,” Wu Qian said in a statement on WeChat social network.

He added that “attempts to use Taiwan to contain China will only turn out to have bitter consequences for those who undertake them.”

October 10, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , | 1 Comment

EU airline’s boss wants Chinese to pay for flying over Russia

RT | October 8, 2024

Brussels should establish financial measures to curb competition from Chinese airlines that can freely cross Russian airspace, according to Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) CEO Marjan Rintel.

Western countries closed their airspace to Russian airlines as part of sanctions imposed after the onset of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. In response, Moscow banned aircraft from “unfriendly nations,” forcing EU planes to reroute, resulting in higher fuel consumption and increased costs.

“Russia’s airspace is closed to European airlines, while Chinese carriers fly over it, which can save two to four hours. You see that reflected in pricing, and consequently, our costs are higher,” Rintel said in an interview with Dutch broadcaster WNL on Sunday.

Rintel suggested that Brussels should intervene to address this competitive imbalance. “Europe can at least explore how we can level the playing field by adjusting pricing or examining other alternatives,” she stated.

In response to rising costs, KLM plans austerity measures aimed at saving €450 million ($494 million) annually, including €100 million ($110 million) by “adjusting” in-flight catering, Rintel noted.

“In the Netherlands, we are facing a tight labor market and rising wage costs, which differs from the situation in France,” she added, referring to KLM’s parent company, Air France-KLM. “Due to a shortage of pilots and technicians, roster changes will occur, and maintenance may need to be outsourced,” she explained.

Last month, Germany announced it was considering halting its daily Frankfurt-Beijing flights due to similar pressures from rising costs and competition from Chinese and Gulf airlines that can fly over Russia. The previous month, British Airways announced it would suspend London-Beijing flights starting in October. Additionally, Virgin Atlantic recently terminated its only China route to Shanghai.

October 8, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

U.S. Swings and Misses in Energy Competition

By Wallace Manheimer | RealClear Energy | September 30, 2024

Who can develop reliable, cheap, clean power? In the parlance of baseball, the U.S. led early with a leadoff home run. It invented, developed and perfected the first ultra-super critical (USC) coal-powered plant.

Coming online in 2012, the 600-megawatt (MW) John W. Turk Jr. Coal Plant in Arkansas employed new technology, most notably, an advance in metallurgy that allowed pipes and boilers to operate for extended periods at extremely elevated temperature and pressure.

This higher temperature allows efficiency of 40%, instead of the more usual 33%. Also, Turk had the best pollution controls, its emissions being mostly carbon dioxide and water vapor. Power Magazine was so impressed that it gave the plant its highest honor in 2013.

It looked like the U.S. was set to win the game, until it took its eye off the ball and made numerous errors. Instead of exploiting its remarkable technological achievement, U.S. policymakers decided to abandon coal and promote wind and solar.

Powerful environmental groups fought to end coal; Michael Bloomberg bragged that he contributed $500 million to the effort. Companies in the coal industry suffered, some went out of business, and domestic consumption of the country’s most abundant fuel declined. Turk is still the only USC plant in the U.S.

Solar and wind do not provide reliable power, as they fluctuate with the weather and time of day.

Also, they are not cheap. Germans, whose electric system relies heavily on solar, pay more than twice as much for electricity as the nuclear-dominant French and nearly triple the amount paid by U.S. consumers.

Furthermore, solar and wind technologies, contrary to popular belief, are not clean; not where their materials are mined, nor where they are used, nor at the end of life.

First, the mining: These technologies use many exotic and rare earth materials like praseodymium, terbium, cadmium, indium and dysprosium. Such materials are available mostly in Western China and Africa, under who-knows-what environmental and working conditions.

Secondly, where they are used, solar and wind take up tremendous amounts of land – many times the acreage of a coal plant. The average solar power reaching Earth is about 200 MW per square kilometer. Hence, with a perfectly efficient conversion to electricity, a 1,000 MW solar farm would require 5 square kilometers. But maximum solar efficiency is only 20%, boosting the land requirement to 25 square kilometers, space that could not be used for anything else. Even the maximum theoretical efficiency is only 30%.

The numbers for wind are worse: A 1,000 MW wind farm would require a whopping 500 square kilometers – equal to about 27,000 big league baseball fields. This land could be used for crops and grazing animals, but not much else.

Finally, disposal of the huge amount of material used in the fabrication of solar and wind facilities, whose life spans are mere fractions of traditional generating plants, must be disposed of. Many of these exotic materials are not suitable for standard landfills, as their compounds are harmful to humans and are water soluble. Frequently, the solar or wind company has just walked away and left the relics in place for others to worry about.

Solar and wind are more of an environmental disaster than an environmental savior.

With the U.S. relegated to the locker room, China came to bat and staged a tremendous scoring rally. Out of the top 100 Chinese coal plants, 90 are ultra-supercritical units.

Having improved on USC technology, Chinese plant efficiency is around 44%. The new 1,350 MW Pingshan Phase II plant achieves 49% efficiency! The best Chinese coal plant is now cleaner and 22 % more efficient than its American counterpart.

Since 2010, India has constructed more than 90 super critical and ultra-super critical coal plants.

Has the U.S. played its last coal-fired season?

Perhaps- unless America’s free enterprise system were brought fully into the game, with the private sector mostly doing the engineering and the federal government sponsoring long-range scientific research.

However, U.S. policymakers must abandon their obsession with solar and wind as answers for a climatic “existential threat.” Otherwise, sensible people play a fool’s game in a fantasy league that demonizes a gas sustaining all life — carbon dioxide – as others compete in the majors.

Such absurdity is no match for the technical leadership displayed in China and India.

Dr. Wallace Manheimer is a life fellow of the American Physical Society, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers and is a member of the CO2.Coalition. He is the author of more than 150 refereed papers.

October 7, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , | 2 Comments

China Asks US Not to Interfere With Its Right to Develop Ties With Hungary – Embassy

Sputnik – 07.10.2024

WASHINGTON – The United States should not interfere with China’s right to develop relations with the government of Hungary, the Chinese Embassy in Washington told Sputnik after US lawmakers lambasted Budapest for growing ties with Beijing.

A group of US senators was in Hungary last week to meet with government officials. Following the visit, the senators issued a joint statement criticizing Hungarian officials for developing ties with Russia and China, adding that Budapest has ignored allies’ concerns regarding its deepening cooperation with Beijing.

“China’s right to develop bilateral relations and conduct normal exchanges with other countries in the world should not be interfered with or disrupted,” the Chinese Embassy spokesperson said.

The Chinese Embassy added that the remarks by the US senators advocate bloc confrontation and are full of Cold War thinking and zero-sum game concepts, coercing other countries to choose sides.

The US senators did not go into detail about their concerns in the joint statement but urged Hungary to work closely with its allies, and listen to their concerns and act on them.

The delegation of US senators that visited Hungary included senators Jerry Moran, Susan Collins, John Cornyn, John Boozman and John Hoeven.

October 7, 2024 Posted by | Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »