Egypt’s Parliament rejects plans for Palestinian resettlement after Trump’s call
MEMO | January 27, 2025
US suspends aid to Ukraine – Politico
RT | January 24, 2025
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has frozen nearly all new aid grants to Ukraine for 90 days, Politico reported on Friday. The move comes after President Donald Trump ordered a full review of all foreign assistance.
Rubio instructed diplomatic and consular posts to issue “stop-work orders” on nearly all “existing foreign assistance awards,” Politico said, citing an internal document.
According to Politico, the order “shocked” State Department officials and appears to apply to funding for military assistance to Ukraine.
The magazine cited three current and two former officials familiar with the matter as saying Rubio’s guidance means that “no further actions will be taken to disperse aid funding to programs already approved by the US government.”
The BBC, which also reviewed the State Department memo, reported that it appears to “affect everything from development assistance to military aid.”
Although the Pentagon previously told Voice of America that the aid freeze would not affect “security assistance to Ukraine,” Rubio’s memo reportedly only granted exceptions for military aid to Israel and Egypt, without mentioning any other country.
Journalist Ken Klippenstein posted what he said was a copy of Rubio’s guidance, which “pauses all new obligations of funding, pending a review, for foreign assistance programs” funded through the State Department and the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
Trump, who took office on Monday, has ordered a 90-day suspension of all “foreign development assistance for assessment of programmatic efficiencies and consistency with United States foreign policy.”
A USAID official told Reuters that among the programs that were frozen are assistance to schools and healthcare, including emergency maternal care and the vaccination of children.
Since February 2022, USAID has provided $2.6 billion in humanitarian aid, $5 billion in development assistance, and more than $30 billion in “direct budget support,” according to its website.
The US has provided nearly $66 billion in military aid to Ukraine since February 2022, according to the Pentagon.
Trump has repeatedly criticized his predecessor, Joe Biden, for approving unconditional aid to Ukraine and has vowed to implement cost-cutting measures. He also promised to quickly negotiate a peace deal between Moscow and Kiev.
Normalizing expansion: Israel sets its sights on Egypt’s Sinai
By Robert Inlakesh | The Cradle | January 10, 2025
As Israel accuses Egypt of military buildup in the Sinai Peninsula, tensions between the two states – bound by their 1979 normalization treaty – are reaching a boiling point. Israeli officials and allied neoconservative think tanks are now actively escalating rhetoric alleging Cairo’s breach of the peace treaty while hinting at Tel Aviv’s ambitions to expand into Egyptian territory.
In September 2024, the Washington-based Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) published a report accusing Egypt of allegedly aiding Hamas through tunnels leading into Gaza to enable the Palestinian resistance movement to build its military capabilities. The charges are a stretch, given Cairo’s long-held acrimony toward Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations.
Sinai standoff intensifies
These claims were further contradicted by recently leaked documents showing Egypt’s aggressive measures to destroy over 2,000 tunnels between 2011 and 2015. Senior Egyptian military officials even explored the construction of a canal to obliterate these underground networks.
Also in September, Israeli military analyst Alon Ben-David admitted on Channel 13 News that “no single open tunnel has been found in the Egyptian territory. No single usable tunnel has been discovered under the Philadelphi Corridor.”
However, Tel Aviv’s allegations did not end there. Israel’s former ambassador to Egypt, David Govrin, has now accused Cairo of violating the normalization treaty by strengthening its military presence in the Sinai. He was quoted by Yedioth Aharonoth as saying, “after all these years, and even after 7 October 2023, questions remain about Egypt’s genuine recognition of Israel within its 1948 borders.”
On 7 January, the occupation state formally demanded explanations from Egypt regarding its military activities in Sinai, citing treaty violations related to demilitarization. The US, which brokered the 1979 treaty, joined the chorus, withholding $95 million in military aid to Egypt – a recurring tactic used to exert pressure on Cairo.
Washington then redirected those funds to the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), echoing similar cuts in 2023 when Egypt-bound aid was diverted to Taiwan. The move ties with intensified pressure on Beirut, aiming to coerce and incentivize compliance with US influence over its internal affairs, especially with newly-elected President Joseph Aoun.
While Egypt’s human rights violations have been copiously documented, this is a card that the US government will routinely roll out when they want to see their North African ally play ball. It is worth noting that Egypt has historically been the second-largest US foreign aid recipient after Israel.
Stand-off in the Sinai
In 2005, following Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip to its periphery, an agreement was reached allowing 750 Egyptian security personnel to enter the Sinai Peninsula.
At the time, Yuval Steinitz, then chairman of Israel’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, vehemently opposed the deal, calling it a “black day” and cautioning:
“We are inviting the cat to keep the cream. This is a solar eclipse that has befallen the government, which is giving up on demilitarizing Sinai in exchange for a lentil stew of compliments and gestures.”
Since then, Cairo has submitted hundreds of requests to deploy additional forces and equipment into Sinai, most of which were approved by Tel Aviv, especially after the rise of a takfiri insurgency in 2013. In 2018, the New York Times revealed that Israel had conducted airstrikes inside Sinai at the request of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to counter the insurgent activity.
In the aftermath of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, relations between Cairo and Tel Aviv began to sour significantly. The occupation state initially proposed that Egypt facilitate ethnic cleansing via a mass expulsion of Gaza’s population into Sinai, creating a buffer zone between Gaza and occupied Palestine. President Sisi outright rejected the plan, sparking further tensions.
By early 2024, the occupation military had intensified its invasion of Gaza, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signaling an assault on Rafah, Gaza’s southernmost city. Egypt swiftly issued warnings against any attempt to reclaim the Philadelphi Corridor, a border area that separates Egypt and Gaza, arguing that such actions would breach the 1979 normalization treaty.
In a dramatic escalation on 6 May, Israel launched its Rafah offensive on the same day Hamas agreed to a ceasefire proposal. This offensive, which included the seizure of the Rafah Crossing and the Philadelphi Corridor, drew condemnation even from former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who described it as “a blatant violation of the peace agreement with Egypt.” Despite threats from Cairo to annul the treaty, Sisi’s primary response was to join South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza.
When Israeli tanks first entered the Rafah Crossing, they desecrated the area and taunted the Egyptian guards stationed there. Later that same month, a clash broke out, and Israeli soldiers killed an Egyptian soldier. Israel then launched a series of airstrikes in June against targets in the Sinai Peninsula.
The Zionist vision for expansion into Egypt
Last year, uncovered documents in the British National Archives shed light on Israel’s historical campaign to legitimize its claim over the Sinai Peninsula. During Israel’s occupation of Sinai following the 1967 war, pro-Israel lobbyists and think tanks in the west disseminated narratives to delegitimize Egyptian sovereignty over the strategic region.
Only two years after the occupation of the Sinai, which had come as a result of Israel’s war of aggression in June of 1967, the Jewish Observer and Middle East Review published an article that featured a provocative front cover, “Sinai without the Egyptians — a new look at the past, present and future.”
The Zionist Federation of Britain even argued that since Sinai had been under Turkiye’s control until 1923, it should have been incorporated into the British Mandate for Palestine, laying the groundwork for Israel’s claims to the territory.
Fast forward to today, similar arguments have resurfaced to justify Israel’s expansionist ambitions. On 6 January, Israeli-Arabic social media accounts published a map showcasing the supposed territories of the ancient kingdoms of Judah and Israel, sparking condemnation from Jordan and the Persian Gulf states. While these claims overtly target Jordanian, Lebanese, and Syrian lands, they also subtly include parts of modern Egypt, particularly Sinai.
In July of last year, Israel’s Heritage Minister, Amichai Eliyahu, retweeted a post made on X that called for the occupation army to occupy the Sinai Peninsula, along with southern Lebanon, southern Syria, and eventually part of Jordan.
Back in September, as Israel was launching its assault on Lebanon, the Jerusalem Post ran an article entitled ‘Is Lebanon part of Israel’s promised territory?’ that was later removed after considerable backlash.
An existential threat for the WANA region
At this current moment, Israel is openly talking about remaining in southern Lebanon even after the 60-day ceasefire implementation period, as it currently expands its occupation further into Syrian territory by the day. It also seeks an imminent annexation of the occupied West Bank. All of these moves are indicative of Israel’s seriousness in expanding its undeclared borders.
In March 2023, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich openly displayed a “Greater Israel” map, fueling speculation about the Zionist leadership’s long-term goals. The “Greater Israel” vision encompasses parts of Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.
Israeli leaders employ fluid justifications – historical, religious, and political – to advance these claims, a strategy the late Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah warned would continue unabated unless confronted by a unified Arab resistance.
Syrian ‘end-game’ will change the Middle East
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – December 20, 2024
The fall of the Assad regime in Syria may have been a geopolitical loss for Iran (and Russia), but the fact that Islamists have overthrown the regime threatens both Iran and Arab states, creating prospects for their cooperation in the near future and minimising whatever gains the ‘winners’ of this ‘end-game’ may have made.
The ‘Winners’ and the ‘losers’
There are clear ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in the fall of the Assad regime in Syria. But geopolitics is a very dynamic field in which gains and losses are hardly one-sided. In some ways, the fall of the Assad regime – and the inability of Iran to rescue its key ally in the region – may have been an outcome of Israel’s war on Palestine and Hezbollah, but it does not necessarily mean a permanent weakness of Iran and a permanent gain for Israel. For now, Israel is consolidating this gain by a) seizing Syrian territory, and b) bombarding the Syrian military positions to decimate its ability to launch any counter-offensive at all.
In other words, Israel’s steps show a clear direction. First, it weakened Hezbollah by engaging it in a brutal war. Second, it is now supporting the Islamist takeover of Syria. The Islamists have declared that they have no problem with Israel as their neighbour. Israel’s Netanyahu, on the other hand, has already claimed the credit for “reshaping” the Middle East.
Another clear ‘winner’ is Turkey, which had long wanted Assad to go. For years, the Turkish military had been maintaining a direct presence in Syria’s Idlib province, which also happened to be the main province under (partial) control of the so-called “rebel” Islamists. For years, Turkish forces shielded these groups from the Syrian (and Iranian and Russian) strikes and offensives. In addition, the fact that Turkey allowed these groups to conduct trade across the Turkish border provided these groups with economic support too. Now that Assad is gone, Turkey finds itself in a much better position than it was earlier to counter Kurdish groups.
But there are no ‘losers’
All of this apparently translates into crucial geopolitical gains for Israel (Washington) and Ankara, except there are no permanent ‘losers’ here. The fall of the Assad regime has brought to power a well-known Islamist group globally designated as terrorist. It is said to be only previously allied with al-Qaeda, but the way it controlled Idlib for years provides a sufficiently sound snapshot of where the group stands as an ultra-orthodox network, with serious questions remaining about whether the group was ever able to shun its ideological past.
Still, there is little denying that the ability of armed Islamists to overthrow Assad and capture power has upset not only Tehran but also Riyadh, Doha, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, and even Cairo. All of these states previously faced actual, or prospects, of popular discontent during the so-called ‘Arab Spring’. All of these states are Muslim-majority states, which makes them vulnerable to groups operating both regionally and domestically to overthrow monarchies and/or existing regimes. Can any of them face similar prospects as Syrians did? Let’s not forget that the “rebels” first emerged in Syria in the wake of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’. If the end of the Asad regime is the continuation of the same ‘movement’, there is no denying that it can reach other states too. A clear logic for these states to cooperate with each other against this Islamist threat, backed as it is by Turkey and Israel, exists.
Therefore, while Iran may have become ‘isolated’ and the fall of the Assad regime may have blocked its ability to support Hezbollah via Syria, Iran’s prospects of developing new – and deeper – relations with the Arab world have also increased manifold. Therefore, while Netanyahu might be right in claiming that he is “reshaping” the Middle East, the new shape might not be exactly to his liking. The coming together of Iran and Arab states would directly undermine Israeli ability to defeat Iran in the short and long run.
Iran and the Arab world
They are already cooperating. Iran, Saudia, Qatar, and Iraq were all quick to oppose Israeli incursions into Syrian territory. A Saudi official statement called the Golan Heights “occupied” territory. This is not an isolated development triggered by Israeli actions. It is an outcome of an ongoing policy convergence between Riyadh and Tehran vis-à-vis Israel. On Nov. 11 at a summit of Islamic nations in Riyadh, the Saudi crown prince called on the international community, i.e., the US mainly, to compel Israel to “respect the sovereignty of the sisterly Islamic Republic of Iran and not to violate its lands.” At the same gathering, he described the Israeli war on Palestine as “collective genocide.”
In Egypt, the fall of the Assad regime has brought back echoes of the fall of the Mubarak regime more than a decade ago. When the present Egyptian ruler overthrew the government of Mohammad Morsi, a Turkish ally, Erdoğan said he would never talk to Sisi. Yet, he met Sisi twice in 2024. The fact that Turkey is now backing Islamists – and it has always supported the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood – there is yet again every reason for Egypt to align its policies in ways that might help keep the Islamists at bay. This way includes closer ties with the rest of the Arab world, plus Tehran.
Quoting senior Western diplomats, a recent report in Middle East Eye described the situation as particularly unravelling for the UAE, which has “been unnerved by the US’s manoeuvring to open backchannels of communication to HTS via Turkey”. The report also mentions the UAE’s efforts to “broker talks between the government of Bashar al-Assad and the US. The UAE wanted to strike a grand bargain to keep the Assad family in power”. The only reason why the UAE wanted Assad to stay in power was that the alternative to Assad would cause more damage to Emirati interests than any potential benefits. The Islamists are that alternative now that no one, except the Turks and the Israelis, wants.
Therefore, a logical response of these states (Arab and Iran) is to develop coordinated action to thwart any prospects of an Islamist revival, including the revival of the Islamist State, which has a sizable presence in Afghanistan. This is probably the only way that the Arab states can collectively outmanoeuvre Turkey and Israel. There is also little denying that any effort to deepen Gulf-Iran cooperation will be squarely seen as a welcome development in Moscow and Beijing, both of which have vital interests in the region.
Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.
War in Sudan and its Grim Prospects
By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – November 29, 2024
Russia used its veto power in the UN Security Council (UNSC) to block a draft resolution calling for an end to the 20-month war in Sudan and the commencement of negotiations between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).
The draft resolution, widely seen as neo-colonial in its design, was proposed by the UK, which holds the UNSC presidency on Sudan, and Sierra Leone, a non-permanent UNSC member, which London appears to have pressured into supporting Western interests in this instance.
Reasons for the Russian Veto
During the drafting process leading up to the vote, several concerns regarding the wording were raised. However, following the vote, it became clear that constructive proposals from UNSC members were disregarded, and their legitimate concerns were not adequately addressed. The Chinese representative stressed that any UNSC resolution or action must “respect the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Sudan.” He warned that, “Imposing external solutions will only worsen the situation and will neither help end the war nor protect the civilian population.”
Explaining the outcome of the vote, the Russian representative stated: “The main problem with the British draft lies in its misunderstanding of who bears responsibility for protecting the civilian population, as well as border control and security within the country.” According to the Russian representative, “this should be exclusively a matter for the Sudanese government.” He further accused British diplomats of “clearly denying Sudan this right.” He concluded, “Our country will continue to consistently use its veto power to prevent such occurrences against our African brothers.”
Sudanese Support
According to Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the draft resolution’s wording violated Sudan’s sovereignty. An Arab diplomatic source at the UN explained al-Burhan’s position, stating that the draft “implied an equivalence between the SAF and the RSF, which is something al-Burhan could not accept, especially now that the army is making gains on the ground and receiving stronger political support regionally and internationally.”
Many diplomatic sources in the region agree that the draft resolution failed to reflect the balance of power on the ground, which, according to one, has “definitely shifted in favour of the SAF.” The army currently controls much of Sudanese territory, and al-Burhan enjoys greater international recognition than the RSF and its leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as Hemeti. They point out that Hemeti heads the RSF, a militia created in 2013 by Omar al-Bashir to protect his brutal regime and responsible for numerous atrocities, particularly in Darfur. Hemeti, along with other RSF figures, has been accused by international humanitarian organisations of ethnic cleansing targeting non-Arab tribes in West Darfur.
The Rift Between al-Burhan and Hemeti
Al-Burhan appointed Hemeti as his deputy on the Transitional Sovereign Council (TSC) formed after the overthrow of al-Bashir. This move drew criticism from the African Union, which stated that it was “a very bad sign, showing that al-Bashir’s successors were attempting to recreate his dictatorial regime, albeit under a democratic façade.” The TSC, it seems, was designed more for the internal distribution of power within al-Bashir’s clique than for any other purpose.
The conflict began in mid-April 2023. Following al-Bashir’s removal, al-Burhan and Hemeti initially joined forces, seizing control but allowing for limited power-sharing with civilians. However, when al-Burhan dismissed the interim civilian government in October 2022, Hemeti seized the opportunity to oppose al-Burhan, claiming the move was “anti-democratic.” According to Arab diplomatic sources, including those who served in Khartoum, Hemeti’s pronouncements on democracy ring hollow. In reality, they say, Hemeti has always aspired to power and believed he could strike a deal with the civilian government to replace al-Burhan as commander-in-chief.
Sudan’s problems are largely driven by regional powers vying for control of the country’s natural resources and exploiting its strategic location. It’s no secret that an Arab capital, with significant investments and interests in Sudan, pushed the West to draft a self-serving resolution which they attempted to sneak through the UNSC. They failed! However, the West remains undeterred, continuing its sophisticated attempts to bring Sudan entirely under its control.
Attempts to Resolve the Conflict
The international community has been closely monitoring the situation in Sudan since the conflict began and, over the past year, has been working with like-minded regional partners to create an opportunity for peace. Cairo, a view shared by Ankara and Tehran, believes that the best chance for peace lies in a unified Sudanese army under a single command, arguing that “otherwise, the country will simply move from one war to another.” Over the past 11 months, a series of meetings have been held in Cairo with representatives from Sudan’s armed, political, and religious forces, aiming to forge a united front capable of cooperating with the SAF based on power-sharing and stability. As the SAF has made military gains against the RSF, the number of Sudanese actors willing to participate has increased. Many believe it is only a matter of time before the RSF is forced to acknowledge its weakening position, despite the support it receives from regional allies.
Since the start of the war, 11 million Sudanese have been displaced. The UN estimates that half are children, the majority of whom lack access to basic nutrition. Furthermore, a further 15 million Sudanese are suffering from food insecurity and a lack of access to essential healthcare.
It was only in mid-August that significant UN humanitarian aid reached Sudan via the Adre crossing point connecting Darfur to Chad. According to the UNHCR, just over 50% of the $2.7 billion budget required for humanitarian assistance in Sudan has been secured in 2023. The UN believes that “Sudan needs more than just immediate humanitarian aid; it needs a proper and workable peace plan. This is what we are working on, and we have the support of several global and regional capitals.”
According to David Patteritt, US envoy to Sudan, outgoing US President Joe Biden is making every effort to secure a deal on Sudan before leaving office on 20 January. However, according to Cairo’s Al-Ahram, this deadline is overly optimistic. The newspaper warns that “we’ll be lucky to see any movement by then, and a deal will take considerably longer,” suggesting that much will depend on the stance of US President Donald Trump’s new administration.
It is therefore abundantly clear who is fanning the flames of civil war in Sudan, attempting to profit from the Sudanese people’s suffering. But this is the 2020s, and neo-colonial politics, however alluringly packaged, no longer hold sway.
Victor Mikhin is a Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RANS).
Israel’s ‘zugzwang’ moment with Iran
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | October 28, 2024
A senior US official told Washington Post that the toned-down early morning Israeli strike Saturday on military targets in Iran was a “proportional strike,” which “was moderate enough to quiet the conflict without provoking Iran into a counterattack.”
However, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted in a speech on Sunday: “We hit hard Iran’s defence capabilities and its ability to produce missiles that are aimed at us. The attack in Iran was precise and powerful, and it achieved all its objectives.”
But within Israel itself, there is scepticism. Israel’s most popular news outlet Channel 12 called the operation insignificant and demonstrated Iran’s status as a major power in the region. Netanyahu has not released any reliable documentation to back up his claim, which he usually does.
NourNews lampooned that Israeli psychological war against Iran has not worked. Israel hoped to stir up panic that there might be an attack on Iran’s nuclear installations but normal life continues in Iran. It appears that Israel was neither inclined to carry out an extensive attack nor was incapable of conducting such an operation without greater American involvement — or both. Iran’s attack on October 1 badly exposed the weakness of Israeli air defence system.
So, the bottom line is that Israel may have succeeded in conducting a limited predawn operation against Iran without excessively increasing the chances of an all-out war.
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on Sunday that the “evil committed by the Zionist regime two nights ago should neither be downplayed nor exaggerated”. Khamenei added: “Of course, our officials should be the ones to assess and precisely apprehend what needs to be done and do whatever is in the best interests of this country and nation. They [the enemy] must be made to realize who the Iranian people are and what the Iranian youth are like.”
Khamenei’s remark suggests that an immediate military response is not planned. Indeed, Tehran has been playing down the Israeli strike, saying it caused limited damage.
The foreign ministry said in a statement on Saturday that given Iran’s “inherent right of legitimate defence” under UN Charter, “Tehran will utilise all material and spiritual capabilities of the Iranian nation to defend its security and vital interests, and firmly stand by its duties towards regional peace and security.”
The statement drew attention to Israeli operations in Gaza and Lebanon, but, notably, kept silent on any Iranian response to Saturday’s air strike.
Iran will no doubt weigh the unprecedented diplomatic support from the regional states. This is a moment that Tehran cherishes, as apparent in Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s words: “Since yesterday [Saturday] until now, we are regularly receiving messages from different countries, the statements they issued, the level of condemnation from different countries both in the region. It is really remarkable that it took place at this international level.”
Other statements at the military level played down the Israeli attack saying the air defences intercepted it successfully and only “some limited damage was caused in some areas, the dimensions of which are being investigated.” The public mood in Tehran is one of high expectations from the Pezeshkian government on the economic front.
Javad Zarif, former foreign minister and current strategic adviser to the government, also made no direct threat of retaliation, saying, “The west should move away from its outdated and dangerous paradigm. It must condemn Israel’s recent acts of aggression and join Iran in efforts to end the apartheid, genocide and violence in Palestine and Gaza, and in Lebanon. Recognising Iran’s confident resolve for peace is essential; this unique opportunity should not be missed.” [Emphasis added.]
The Israeli strike did not take Tehran by surprise. In a “scoop”, Axios reported that Israel sent a message to Iran on Friday ahead of its air strikes warning the latter not to respond in “an attempt to limit the ongoing exchange of attacks between Israel and Iran and prevent a wider escalation.”
The message from Tel Aviv conveyed through third parties “made it clear to the Iranians in advance what they [Israelis] are going to attack in general and what they are not going to attack.”
Apparently, the US pressured Israel to calibrate its proposed attack as a “proportionate response”. This becomes hugely important in the downstream, as the Biden Administration’s efforts will continue to prevent conflict between Israel and Iran escalating into a confrontation.
To be sure, Iran will press ahead on the diplomatic track. Interestingly, the Jerusalem Post newspaper highlighted that Araghchi’s hectic tours of regional capitals are “important because he is not only visiting countries that are close to Iran historically or where Iran has interests, such as Lebanon or Iraq; rather, he is doing outreach to countries that have peace with Israel and which are close to the West, such as Jordan and Egypt…
“This shows how Iran is gaining influence in Jordan and Egypt. Egypt and Iran have been on a road to reconciliation, for instance. In addition, Iran and Saudi Arabia have reconciled with China’s backing. Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince was also in Cairo this week, illustrating how a triangle of ties between Cairo and Tehran is emerging.”
Meanwhile, Tehran will closely watch the November 5 presidential and Congressional elections in the US. In the event of a Kamala Harris presidency, the resumption of nuclear negotiations is highly likely. On the contrary, a Donald Trump presidency may presage a difficult 4-year period ahead, but here too, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proximity with Trump to calm down tensions between Washington and Tehran should be factored in.
A paradigm shift cannot be ruled out, either. Trump is a quintessential pragmatist who disregarded criticism to engage North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un in a dramatic turnaround, and is not known to be enamoured of Zionism.
Trump boasted on Wednesday of almost daily conversations with Netanyahu. “Bibi called me yesterday, called me the day before,” Trump said. Trump had already reported a telephone conversation with Netanyahu on Saturday, claiming that the latter “wants my view on things.”
Conceivably, Trump’s repeated call for Israel to swiftly defeat Hamas and wrap up the war in Gaza, stems from the apprehension that otherwise, if he wins the upcoming November 5 election, a clash with Iran may become unavoidable.
The US is a far superior military power compared to Iran. But this is a war of attrition that is being fought on multiple fronts. And there is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare. Trump abhors open-ended US military interventions. And Iranians are known to be highly nationalistic and subjugating them is impossible.
A prolonged war can result in US retrenchment from West Asia and the destruction of Israel — and may jeopardise Trump’s mesmerising MAGA movement.
Against this tumultuous backdrop, what are Israel’s options? There seems to be no way out of the war in West Asia but the catch is, it won’t be the sort of war Israel is hoping for, let alone can win.
Seymour Hersh wrote in Substack on Tuesday, “I’ve heard nothing from contacts in Beirut close to Hezbollah — whose troops are putting up a stiff fight as they did in Hezbollah’s 2006 war against Israel — that suggests anything other than a long war ahead…”
Israel is a small country and it keeps its head above water thanks to American money. It lacks the capacity to wage a war with Iran on its own steam. The Israeli planes reportedly flew to Iran through US-controlled air space in Syria and Iraq!
The situation is turning into a ‘zugzwang’ in real life for Israel. Anything that Israel does will only make the situation worse, and it doesn’t have a choice not to make a choice, either.
Failure of US policy in the Middle East
By Veniamin Popov – New Eastern Outlook – 10.08.2024
The dramatic events of late July in the Middle East are a clear indication of the failure of American policy in the region.
The Americans, staking their hopes on being able to sweep the Palestinian problem under the carpet, have miscalculated and as a result not only has their influence been weakened, but there is now a real possibility of a new full-scale war.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has made nearly a dozen visits to Middle Eastern countries since October 2023, and the only result has been that the mass murder of Palestinians is continuing. The much-publicized “Biden Plan” to resolve the crisis has simply been shelved. All USA’s actions in the Middle East have merely served to exacerbate the situation.
The likelihood of an Iranian response to the Netanyahu government’s actions has brought the entire region to the brink: according to the New York Times, Israel could not fight a war for long alone, so Washington must decide whether to go to war with Iran, along with Israel.
The governments of the Arab countries are aware of the dangers of the situation: as the Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani puts it, political assassinations and the ongoing attacks on civilians in the Gaza Strip during peace talks make us question how mediation can be successful if one side kills the negotiators from the other side. To achieve peace, there is a need for serious partners, and a position of disregard for human life is unacceptable.
Washington is trying to create a military bloc
The American administration tried its best to forge a military alliance between the Arab monarchies and Israel, and to this end it did all it could to woo Riyadh. Today, this strategic plan appears to be an ill-considered fantasy, but Washington is still seeking to create some sort of bloc, with the latest initiative being an economic grouping tentatively named I2U2, consisting of India, Israel, the United Arab Emirates and the United States.
The US is also trying to create an important economic corridor from India to Europe via the Middle East, also known as IMEC (India—Middle East—Europe Economic Corridor). It was designed to promote closer trade and energy ties between the European Union and India, with the help of US allies in the Persian Gulf. The goal is to help India distance itself away from China’s attempts to sideline New Delhi from its One Belt, One Road infrastructure initiative. while creating a grand pro-American economic alliance stretching from the EU through Saudi Arabia and the UAE all the way to India—a grouping that would also isolate Iran. The founding partners of the IMEC are the US, EU (France, Germany and Italy), Saudi Arabia, the UAE and India.
The American plan was to give military weight to these intersecting alliances by forging a mutual defense treaty with Saudi Arabia and also normalizing Saudi-Israeli relations. America’s allies in the Middle East—Jordan, Egypt, UAE, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain—would thus serve as an anti-Iranian alliance.
Current events make it clear how unrealistic the calculations of the US are. In this regard, it is worth remembering the words of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who described Muslim countries that normalize relations with Israel as “betting on a losing horse,” before adding that “the definitive stance of the Islamic Republic is that the governments which prioritize the gamble of normalization with the Zionist regime will incur losses… Today, the situation of the Zionist regime is not one that should motivate closeness to it; they should not make this mistake.”
The decline of the US is also evident in its foreign policy
Washington officials frequently display wishful thinking—notable in this regard is an article dated August 2, 2024 by University of Texas professor Gregory Gause III, published in the Foreign Affairs magazine. He argues that the real prospects for a US-Saudi security deal are very elusive, and that Riyadh should hardly be expected to “take Washington’s side Against China and Russia.”
The well-known US American political scientist John Mearsheimer believes that the US, through its unconstructive actions and miscalculations, “has itself played a decisive role in destroying its own world dominance.”
The renowned French scientist Emmanuel Todd, in a recent interview with the Berliner Zeitung, emphasized that trust in the United States around the world is declining because “the West, with America at its center, is experiencing internal disintegration, and we can see the decline of the West at various levels—if we look not at the GDP inflated by the service sector, but at the real industrial and agricultural production of the West, we can see a huge weakness… here the failures in education, especially in the United States, are even more alarming. Educational attainment there has been falling since 1965, there has been a decrease in the number of students, and tests show that IQ levels are dropping. Today in America they often train not engineers, but lawyers and stockbrokers.” Perhaps this can help to explain the huge failures of US foreign policy, including in the Middle East.
Renowned US economist Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University has repeatedly stressed that America’s meddling in the Middle East destabilizes the region and provokes mass suffering. Professor Sachs also believes that changes taking place around the world make it reasonable to expect that “a comprehensive peace in the Middle East based on a two-state solution is still achievable.”
Chinese FM calls for international community to unite behind cease-fire in Gaza

By Liu Xin | Global Times | August 8, 2024
Top Chinese diplomat Wang Yi has held phone conversations with the foreign ministers of Egypt and Jordan, condemning the assassination of Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on July 31, calling for efforts by different parties to prevent further escalation of conflicts and urging countries to form a joint force to help achieve a cease-fire in Gaza.
Hamas named Yahya Sinwar, who is seen as representing Hamas’ hard-liners, as successor to Haniyeh. Arab countries, in a dilemma and feeling more anxious, hope that China can play a positive role in deescalating the situation as they recognize China’s efforts and capacity in regional reconciliation, analysts said.
But the complexity of the situation requires joint efforts from all parties to address the current crisis, especially the US and Israel, to avoid escalation, they said.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry on Wednesday released information on Wang’s phone conversations with Badr Abdelatty, Egypt’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Emigration and Egyptian Expatriates and with Jordan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Ayman Safadi, which took place on Tuesday. During both conversations, Wang said that China resolutely opposes and strongly condemns the assassination of Haniyeh.
While talking with Abdelatty, Wang said that retaliatory action leads to a vicious cycle, and violence begets more violence, exacerbating conflict. China will strengthen solidarity with Arab countries, and work with all parties to avoid further escalation and deterioration of the situation.
In talking with Safadi, Wang said that the key to avoiding the deterioration and escalation of the situation is to achieve a full and permanent cease-fire in Gaza as soon as possible and the international community should make a more consistent voice on this issue and form a joint force.
Liu Zhongmin, a professor from the Middle East Studies Institute of Shanghai International Studies University, told the Global Times on Wednesday that Egypt and Jordan are neighbors of the parties in conflict. Both countries established diplomatic relations with Israel early and have upheld a cautious approach to the situation involving Iran.
At this complex and critical juncture, they seek to engage with China given China’s previous role in brokering reconciliation between Iran and Saudi Arabia and among various Palestinian factions, Liu said.
Fourteen Palestinian factions signed the Beijing Declaration on July 23, seen as a positive move toward ending division and strengthening Palestinian national unity.
The conflicts in the Middle East not only relate to the Palestinian-Israeli issue, but also result from the US’ long-term partial policies toward Israel and Iran’s diplomatic inclinations, Liu said, therefore joint efforts from all involved parties are needed to address the crisis.
Simmering escalation of tension
With Iran’s retaliation against Israel looming after Haniyeh’s assassination, regional countries and major players have been actively engaged in diplomacy to avoid an all-out regional war. Jordan’s Foreign Minister Safadi made a rare visit to Iran on Sunday and Russian media reported that Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu also visited Iran on Monday.
US President Joe Biden called Jordan’s King Abdullah II on Monday and spoke with the leaders of Qatar and Egypt on Tuesday to discuss efforts to deescalate regional tensions, the White House said.
The US is indeed the instigator of the situation which has been spiraling out of control in the Middle East, Sun Degang, director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Fudan University, told the Global Times.
“If the US had managed to restrain Israel and allow a cease-fire in Gaza earlier, the situation would not have escalated to this extent. Also it is the US’ repeated obstruction at the UN Security Council on cease-fire proposals that has led to the current situation,” said Sun.
Unlike Haniyeh, Sinwar represents hard-liners in Hamas, Sun said, adding that Hamas’ past approach of “fighting while seeking negotiations at the same time” may likely shift to “survival through combat.”
Sun said that Hamas would also seek to form an alliance with Iran, the Houthis and Hezbollah, while trying to gain international support.
Iran did not immediately retaliate after the assassination but tried to tell the world that it is Israel that has infringed international norms and violated Iran’s sovereignty, which has forced Iran to respond. The appointment of Sinwar could be a critical moment when Iran might take action, Sun said.
Liu said Iran is likely to continue missile attacks on Israel and mobilize other militia groups in skirmishes with Israel. However, given Iran’s current domestic and international situation, it is unlikely to engage in a large-scale conflict with Israel at the expense of the nation’s interests.
No matter how the crisis unfolds, the hatred between Iran and Israel will accumulate, and the escalating cycle of retaliation and counter-retaliation between them will worsen regional diplomatic relations, said Liu.
In past decades, the vicious cycle in the Middle East has repeated with no country emerging as a true winner, and if the cycle continues, none of the regional countries can have substantial security, analysts said, adding that as China and many other countries have advocated, negotiation and political settlement is the only way out.
Jordan, Qatar, KSA balk at US-led ‘peacekeeping force’ for post-war Gaza: Report
The Cradle | August 7, 2024
Jordan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia have reportedly refused requests to take part in a US-led “peacekeeping force” for Gaza once Israel’s genocide of Palestinians comes to a stop, according to informed sources who spoke with the Times of Israel.
One of the sources told the Israeli outlet that troops from the Arab nations would be seen to be “protecting Israel from the Palestinians.”
The reported positions of Aman, Doha, and Riyadh contrast starkly with those of the UAE and Egypt, which have reportedly expressed willingness to participate in the effort.
Abu Dhabi made this position public last month when Lana Nusseibeh, the country’s Permanent Representative to the UN and special envoy of the Emirati Foreign Ministry, penned an op-ed for the Financial Times (FT) in which she called for the establishment of a “temporary international mission” in Gaza.
“Any ‘day after’ effort must fundamentally alter the trajectory of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict towards the establishment of a Palestinian state that lives in peace and security with the state of Israel … A first step in such an effort is to deploy a temporary international mission that responds to the humanitarian crisis, establishes law and order, lays the groundwork for governance and paves the way to reuniting Gaza and the occupied West Bank under a single, legitimate Palestinian Authority (PA),” Nusseibeh declared.
The UAE in June hosted a secret gathering with US and Israeli officials to discuss plans for Gaza after the genocidal war ends. Abu Dhabi has also stepped up joint efforts with Tel Aviv since 7 October to construct military and intelligence infrastructure on the Socotra Archipelago off the coast of Yemen.
During trips to Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, and Israel in June, US State Secretary Anthony Blinken reportedly informed officials that Washington had received “support from Cairo and Abu Dhabi for the creation of a force that would work alongside local Palestinian officers” in Gaza, the Times of Israel reports.
“Blinken told counterparts that the US would help establish and train the security force and ensure that it would have a temporary mandate so that it could eventually be replaced by a fully Palestinian body, the third source said, adding that the goal is for the PA to eventually take over full control of Gaza. Blinken clarified, though, that the US would not be contributing troops of its own, the officials said,” the report adds.
The stunning audacity of Yemen’s drone strike on Tel Aviv
The Cradle | July 24, 2024
On 19 July, a low-altitude drone breached Tel Aviv’s airspace from the sea and detonated, causing one fatality and injuring ten others.
The incident sent shockwaves through the occupation state, with a panicked populace and bewildered policymakers grappling with the Israeli army’s “mega-failure” to intercept a single drone amid prolonged aggression against Gaza and the mounting tensions with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The attack’s impact was magnified by its direct hit on Tel Aviv, the heart of Israel’s governmental and economic power, starkly exposing inadequacies in its defense strategies and further alarming a population that has for months been questioning the effectiveness of its military preparedness.
It wasn’t long before the de facto Yemeni authorities in Sanaa claimed responsibility for the attack, calling the strike a retaliation for Israeli massacres and threatening more to come.
But how did a Yemeni drone reach the heart of Israel’s most fortified region and strike a blow to Israeli military pride?
Tactical evolution of suicide drones
Suicide drones, as they are known, are a relatively modern weapon, posing significant challenges even for technologically advanced states like the US and Israel. These drones vary in range, warhead size, speed, and guidance methods.
Analysis of the wreckage revealed that the “Yaffa” drone, an enhanced version of Yemen’s Sammad drones, was employed in the operation. The name is deeply symbolic as it references the ancient port city of Jaffa, also known as Yaffa in Arabic, which now forms part of modern-day Tel Aviv.

Yaffa Drone
Its rectangular wing shape and V-shaped tail distinguish it, but it is notably the more powerful 275 cc (16 kW) engine that sets it apart. This engine enables the drone to cover distances exceeding 2000 kilometers – sufficient to reach Tel Aviv from Yemen.
Unlike with ballistic missiles, the difficulty in tracking drones lies in their ability to take unconventional paths, maneuver through winding routes, and hide behind terrain features, making them hard to detect by radar systems.
This detection challenge is a daily issue in northern occupied Palestine, where drones operated by Lebanese resistance groups often go unseen by the increasingly blinded occupation army.

Moreover, drones are typically constructed from lightweight materials such as fiberglass, carbon fiber, or various reinforced plastics that do not reflect radar waves effectively, which is crucial for detection and tracking.
Their low speeds reduce the need for the metallic compositions necessary in constructing conventional military hardware like missiles and fighter jets. Consequently, drones can be mistaken for birds by radar systems. This confusion has occurred regularly in northern occupied Palestine since the war’s onset, with Israel’s Iron Dome defense system spotted expending its limited supply of $50,000 projectiles shooting at birds during this conflict.
Yaffa’s route to Tel Aviv
The suicide drone likely took an unconventional path to evade detection. Previous Yemeni attempts have been intercepted in Egyptian Sinai airspace, with Israeli-allied Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt contributing to these detection and interception efforts.
On the night of the attack, however, no US aircraft carrier groups were in the Red Sea, and the nearest carrier, the USS Theodore Roosevelt, was positioned in the Indian Ocean. Israel’s air force has suggested that the drone may have taken a non-traditional route via Eritrea, Sudan, and Egypt, crossing near the Suez Canal before entering the Mediterranean and turning east toward Tel Aviv.

Possible path of Yaffa drone that targeted a building in Tel Aviv
Some aspects of that route seem unlikely: the Suez Canal area is heavily patrolled by Egyptian air defense, with its 8th Brigade stationed there, so the Israeli announcement may have been an attempt to pressure Egypt.
Israel’s response: Bombing Hodeidah
On 20 July, Israeli aircraft launched punishing airstrikes on the besieged Yemeni port of Hodeidah, specifically targeting areas designated for fuel and oil storage, as well as destroying port cranes used for loading and unloading cargo and a power station.
But these were civilian targets in a country already suffering from the effects of the Saudi-led coalition blockade, which has caused severe shortages of fuel and essential resources needed for power generation and transportation.
The strike at these particular target banks, which killed at least six and wounded dozens of others, appears to be primarily aimed at creating significant explosions and large fires to help Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu score points at home.
But the Israeli response against civilian targets also reveals that Tel Aviv suffers from a dearth of intelligence on potential Yemeni military targets. It was also evident that the selected targets were ones that Saudi Arabia and the US have refrained from striking due to fears of Yemeni retaliation, which could strike Saudi commercial ports or oil exports in one of the world’s most vital energy passages.
Indeed, Riyadh was quick to deny any involvement in the assault, fearing reprisals from Sanaa, although reports that Israeli jets used Saudi airspace for this attack suggest otherwise.
Video footage shows that Israel used F-35 and F-15 fighter jets, as well as Boeing 707 tanker aircraft, due to the distance involved – a range exceeding 4,000 kilometers round trip. Israeli-released footage suggests that the strikes were carried out using Spice guided missiles launched from outside the Yemeni air defense range.
Some of these missiles are equipped with boosters that extend their range up to 150 kilometers, which only showcased Israeli operational limitations against Yemen in a broader conflict, in which Sanaa’s air defenses will be surely activated against enemy aircraft, drones, and projectiles.
Yemen’s retaliation
Yemeni officials, led by Ansarallah leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi and Yemeni Armed Forces Spokesman Brigadier General Yahya Saree, quickly announced a decision to launch retaliatory strikes against Israel, in which they declared Tel Aviv to be an “unsafe zone” and warned of Yemen’s readiness for a “long war” against the occupation state.
Given the targeting of vital civilian infrastructure, this places several Israeli targets on the list of potential Yemeni target banks. These include fuel tanks in Haifa, clearly shown in video footage taken by a Hezbollah drone weeks ago, as well as fuel tanks in Ashkelon and the power stations adjacent to these tanks.
What concerns Israelis the most, however, is Yemen’s potential targeting of vital gas platforms in the Mediterranean Sea, stationary targets highly susceptible to significant ignition and explosion. While there are currently only three active Israeli gas fields – Karish, Tamar, and Leviathan – in operation, these fields have become essential to Israel’s energy independence.
Underestimating Sanaa’s resolve
The damaging Israeli strike on Hodeidah Port was based on an assumption by Tel Aviv that it would deter a Yemeni counterstrike. But Yemen’s Ansarallah Movement, which has endured years of punishing Saudi, Emirati – and now US and UK – military attacks, has shown no inclination whatsoever to halt its operations in support of Gaza.
While the Israelis may have felt an obligation for a quick military fix by striking Hodeidah – the port, incidentally, has already reopened for business – it comes at the expense of any logical assessments of losses and gains. Already facing strategic defeat in Gaza and unable to follow through with its threats against Lebanon, Tel Aviv has cracked open a new front with Yemen, the most fearless component of West Asia’s Axis of Resistance.
The Israelis are between a rock and a hard place, desperately trying to cleave to old narratives of regional military superiority to keep domestic faith in the Zionist project, yet unable to score victories anywhere.
Based on Yemen’s oft-declared resolve not to retreat from any escalation, it is expected that the outcome of the Hodeidah strike will lead to a compounded retaliatory operation against the occupation state. Israel, however, has limited operational freedom due to issues related to geographic distance – such as the airspace and uninterrupted refueling access required – which makes waging war against Yemen a nonstarter.
Harsher strikes on critical Israeli centers are likely to drive Israel into greater missteps and strategic errors, especially at a time when escalation and the further weakening of its deterrence are counterproductive to its interests.
By targeting the Yemenis directly, Israel has underestimated the resolve and capabilities of a formidable adversary, potentially choosing the worst possible opponents in this round of conflict.

