Convergence of interests between Trump and Biden may result in an agreement to end the war in Gaza

Convergence of interests between Trump and Biden may result in an agreement to end the war in Gaza

    Wednesday, November 27, 2024   No comments

Trump has been consistent with his demand that "finishes the job in Gaza quickly." In fact, he wants the war to end before he takes office so that he can focus on his domestic agenda which is expected to take most of his energy. Biden, who has been involved in a balancing act of supporting Israel and listening to young Americans most of whom see the war in Gaza as genocide, to enable his party to win elections is now free to focus on his personal legacy and achieve something in the Middle East. This convergence of interest may lead to an end of the war in Gaza, which will bring down the level of tension in the region.

With a temporary ceasefire in Lebanon in place, Biden is now looking to end the war in Gaza, which will reduce violence in the region. To this end, Biden will launch a new push on Wednesday to reach a ceasefire in Gaza and release hostages, after Israel and Hezbollah agreed to a truce in Lebanon, his national security adviser Jake Sullivan said.

The truce that began early Wednesday in southern Lebanon means Hezbollah is no longer fighting in support of Hamas in Gaza. It will increase pressure on the Palestinian movement to accept a ceasefire and release the hostages, Sullivan told MSNBC.

Biden spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just before the US- and French-brokered truce with Hezbollah was announced Tuesday and they agreed to try again to reach a deal on Gaza, Sullivan said.

“President Biden intends to begin this work today by engaging his envoys with Turkey, Qatar, Egypt and other actors in the region,” he said.

“We believe this is the beginning of an opportunity for a more stable Middle East where Israel’s security is assured and the interests of the United States are secure,” he added.

The agreement between Israel and Hezbollah was seen as an achievement for Biden as he prepares to leave the White House and hand over power to Donald Trump on January 20.

In parallel with announcing the agreement on Tuesday, Biden said that the United States, Turkey, Egypt, Qatar and Israel will again seek a ceasefire in Gaza, where Israel is still fighting a war against Hamas after an October 7, 2023 attack on its territory.

Biden confirmed that Washington will also push for a long-discussed agreement to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Media review: reactions to the ceasefire in Lebanon

Israeli media focused on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's announcement that the Security Cabinet had agreed to a ceasefire with Lebanon under US mediation. While politicians opposed the agreement and considered it a surrender, analysts and journalists welcomed it, saying that there were political and military circumstances that pushed for signing it with all its negatives and loopholes, as they described them.

Kan 11 political affairs correspondent Suleiman Masouda said, "There are circumstances that are not only political, but also operational (military) that push for signing this agreement. We are entering the winter season, and the United States has not been supplying Israel with all the ammunition it requests for a while now, and there is a broad arms export ban."

Doron Kadosh, military affairs correspondent for Army Radio, described the agreement as "bad and with negatives and loopholes," but said that the army is demanding the agreement.

However, the Israeli correspondent explained that "there are immediate positives regarding ammunition and the issue of reserve soldiers who are collapsing under the pressure of military service and are no longer able to endure, in addition to the need to focus efforts on the Gaza Strip and recover the kidnapped soldiers."

For his part, Channel 13 military affairs analyst Alon Ben David explained that they in the security establishment acknowledge that the agreement with Lebanon "is not an ideal agreement, but from the beginning the army did not claim that it would eliminate Hezbollah's military power, because that would mean occupying all of Lebanon."

Former head of the Military Intelligence Division, Amos Malka, said that the war in Lebanon could end in three ways: the first is: "with the proposed agreement, the second with a security belt, and the third with a war until the last breath in an attempt - as National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said - to eliminate Hezbollah."

He pointed out that the third possibility is not possible "because it will be a different war, and I do not think we have international support, and I do not think we have military plans for that."

Moshe Saada, a member of the Knesset for the Likud party, commented on the subject of the agreement with Lebanon by saying: "The situation is very complicated, and there are threats to ban the supply of weapons to us, and there are threats of UN resolutions against Israel."

As for the head of the "Israel Beiteinu" party, Avigdor Lieberman, he said, "This is a short ceasefire for 5 or 6 years, until the Fourth Lebanon War breaks out," noting that within 5 or 6 years "they (Hezbollah) will have 40,000 drones in Baalbek."

For his part, Yair Golan, leader of the opposition Democrats party and a former deputy chief of staff, described the agreement as “an interim agreement with clear justification, which we reached with a very exhausted army.”

"Hasty and irresponsible decision"... Anger in Israel over ceasefire agreement with Lebanon

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented the agreement in the context of what he said were “unprecedented achievements” made by Israel over the past year of war on seven fronts.

He said that Israel had set Hezbollah back decades and that it was no longer the same group it once was, according to the BBC.

Netanyahu indicated that the ceasefire would also allow Israel to “focus on the Iranian threat,” stressing that his country would retain full military freedom to confront any new threat from Hezbollah.

But Netanyahu’s political rivals, and even some of his allies, view the agreement as “de facto surrender.”

A poll conducted yesterday indicated that more than 80 percent of Netanyahu’s support base opposes the agreement, and that residents of northern Israel, who have been evacuated in large numbers due to Hezbollah strikes in the area, are also angry.

In Israel, the deal was deeply divided. One poll showed that 37 percent of Israelis support the ceasefire, 32 percent oppose it, and 31 percent do not know that there is an agreement at all.

Shelly, an English teacher in the town of Shlomi, said the ceasefire was “an irresponsible, hasty political decision.”

Rona Valenci, who was evacuated from Kibbutz Kfar Giladi in northern Israel on October 8 last year, said she wanted to return home and that a ceasefire was necessary, but the idea of ​​Lebanese residents returning to villages near Kfar Giladi, such as the Lebanese village of Adaisseh, gave her “a sense of anxiety and fear”.

“The only thing I can hope for is that Hezbollah does not infiltrate such nearby villages and build a new network there,” she said.

“There is nothing real that can make me feel safe except for these villages to be completely wiped out, and for no one to be there.”

The BBC said it had spoken to many Israelis who believe Netanyahu should continue the war in Lebanon, and wonder why the prime minister, who has vowed to continue fighting in Gaza until “complete victory”, would sign a ceasefire in Lebanon?!

Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir opposed the agreement, calling it a “historic mistake”.

“This is not a ceasefire, it is a return to the concept of quiet for quiet, and we have already seen where this leads,” Ben-Gvir wrote in a post on the X website explaining his opposition to the agreement. He predicted that “in the end we will need to return to Lebanon again.” In contrast, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich asserted that “this agreement may guarantee Israel’s security forever.”

Le Figaro: 4 reasons why Israel accepted a ceasefire in Lebanon

Le Figaro reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced a ceasefire in Lebanon on Tuesday, saying that the duration of the agreement depends on what happens there, and asked about the military and diplomatic issues that could explain this agreement. To shed light on this, the French newspaper met with researcher David Khalfa, co-director of the North Africa and Middle East Observatory, and responsible for the "geopolitical meetings" of the Jean Jaurès Foundation, to decode this announcement.

Experts to Asharq Al-Awsat: Ceasefire agreement does not prevent Hezbollah from returning to what it was

So far, the contents of the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hezbollah are still unclear. Does the agreement, which appears to have been divided between Hezbollah and Israel, mean that Hezbollah’s military hand will remain free in Lebanon, despite talk of transforming it into a political party?

Hezbollah will continue its policies

Asharq Al-Awsat posed questions to two American researchers regarding the expected agreement to be signed. Michael Rubin, a senior researcher at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, expressed his fear that “Hezbollah will continue to maintain its capabilities to continue its policies,” while David Daoud, a senior researcher at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, said that “although the language of the agreement seems stronger than the language of Resolution 1701,” it does not seem sufficient to stop Hezbollah’s activities in the future.

The draft ceasefire agreement includes a 60-day transitional period during which the Israeli army will withdraw from southern Lebanon, the Lebanese army will deploy in areas near the border, and Hezbollah will move its heavy weapons north of the Litani River. The deal includes a US-led oversight committee to monitor implementation and address violations.

The ICC and Hezbollah’s Money

“It is true that there has been significant progress, but it is unfortunate that the ICC’s accusations against Netanyahu have shifted these matters in another direction, forcing some mediators in the region to halt direct visits to Jerusalem and prevent Netanyahu from traveling to third countries,” said Michael Rubin. “My greatest concern about Hezbollah is that its financial and criminal network in Africa and South America remains intact. If Hezbollah turns its guns on the rest of the Lebanese, it will have the financial means to support itself,” Rubin added.

According to the agreement, the United States agreed to give Israel a letter of guarantees that includes support for Israeli military action against imminent threats from Lebanese territory, and to take measures to disrupt operations such as the re-establishment of Hezbollah’s military presence near the border, or the smuggling of heavy weapons. Under the agreement, Israel will take such action after consulting with the United States, if the Lebanese army does not deal with the threat.

Israel’s approval is incomprehensible

David Daoud says: “Although the language of the agreement seems stronger than the language of international resolution (1701), the Netanyahu government’s approval of this type of agreement cannot be explained, as long as international law gives the right to any country that is attacked, or sees that there is an imminent attack on it, to respond to it.” He pointed out that “Hezbollah’s breach of the agreement without causing a new imminent war is possible, as it can, for example, build a weapons factory that does not, according to the text of the agreement, constitute a direct threat to Israel.”

“The agreement guarantees Hezbollah’s continued dominance and control over Lebanon in light of the Lebanese people’s inability to confront it, and the Lebanese army’s inability to enter into a war with it, and cause a new civil war,” he said. Daoud believes that “the new reality resulting from the International Criminal Court’s decision against Netanyahu may complicate matters, and the internal Israeli situation may put him in a predicament, which may expose the agreement to collapse... Despite that, we are facing a 60-day agreement, which may give the new Trump administration (credibility) that it has entered an era free of wars in the Middle East, but nothing guarantees that it will not explode again in the coming years if its causes are not (removed).”

Did Israel's war in Lebanon achieve its goals?

Israeli leaders argued that the war was necessary to remove the threat of Hezbollah so that Israelis can return to their settlements in the north. The ceasefire agreement does not include any stipulation that could realize those aims. Hezbollah will not disarm, and at best will be expected to limit its presence south of Litani river. However, given that Hezbollah's rockets reached south of Tell Aviv just days before the ceasefire, 30 miles north of the border will not make any difference. This conclusion is clear in the mind of most Israelis, especially those of the north who are yet to start returning, and they may not return until after the 60 days had passed to see if this 60-day agreement is going to be made permanent. making the agreement permanent may depend on another ceasefire in Gaza; without an end to the war in Gaza, resumption of violence is a possibility and that will prevent many Israelis from returning to the north.  Military solutions rarely produce permanent solutions unless they are followed by a political solution. Israeli leaders have no interest in settling the conflict with the Palestinians in a way that will make wars unnecessary. 

Nika Soon-Shiong said LA Times endorsement was blocked over Gaza war support

Nika Soon-Shiong said LA Times endorsement was blocked over Gaza war support

    Sunday, October 27, 2024   No comments

CNN and other media outlets reported that "the daughter of Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong suggested on Saturday that herfather’s decision to block the newspaper’s endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris was made over Harris’ support for Israel’s war in Gaza.

Nika Soon-Shiong, a 31-year-old activist who has no official role at the newspaper but has previously been accused of meddling in its coverage, told The New York Times that she and her father made the decision not to endorse Harris. Nika Soon-Shiong reportedly said:

“Our family made the joint decision not to endorse a Presidential candidate. This was the first and only time I have been involved in the process... As a citizen of a country openly financing genocide, and as a family that experienced South African Apartheid, the endorsement was an opportunity to repudiate justifications for the widespread targeting of journalists and ongoing war on children.”

Before Biden dropped out, it was argued that Gaza Genocide will be for Biden what Covid-19 was for Trump. Harris, not making a clear shift in Biden's policies and approach made her inherit his legacy and that will likely sink her bid for the presidency. Young Americans, especially, are not willing to look past the atrocities in Gaza and now Lebanon happening under Biden's watch and by his support.

Media review: How to End America’s Hypocrisy on Gaza

Media review: How to End America’s Hypocrisy on Gaza

    Friday, February 09, 2024   No comments

Sarah Yager, director of Human Rights Watch in Washington, described the US handling of the Israeli war on Gaza as “hypocrisy,” and the Biden administration must evaluate Israel’s behavior and hold it accountable for that.

Yager commented in an article published by Foreign Affairsmagazine that the staggering numbers of Palestinian casualties and injuries as a result of the war launched by Israel on Gaza in response to the attack by the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) on October 7 is impossible to consider without considering whether Israel has violated the law. International humanitarian aid during its war.

She added that a large amount of available information indicates that Israel did in fact do this, as human rights organizations and the media published reports of illegal collective punishment of the Palestinian population, the use of starvation as a weapon of war, air and artillery strikes, and the demolition of buildings that had no targets. A clear military operation, but it resulted in heavy civilian casualties and the destruction of property.

She pointed out that there was enough smoke to suspect a fire, which put American officials in a dilemma, because American law obliges the State Department to ensure that American security aid does not go to security forces that constantly commit gross human rights violations.

 Current US policy also requires the department to evaluate whether recipients of US military assistance are “more likely” to use US weapons to violate international law, and prohibit transfers to any country that meets these criteria.

 Yager questioned whether the State Department had conducted these assessments yet, despite the fact that its Secretary, Tony Blinken, and Defense Secretary, Lloyd Austin, repeated on more than one occasion the phrase that the number of civilian casualties was “very high.”

 However, despite President Joe Biden's offhanded warning last December about the risk to Israel's reputation by carrying out "indiscriminate bombing," US officials have avoided clearly stating that any specific Israeli actions in Gaza are unacceptable, taking Administration spokesmen walk back Biden's comment.

 The director of Human Rights Watch referred to the direct questions directed to White House spokesmen regarding Israel's behavior in Gaza and their twisted responses on more than one occasion.

 She commented that these official statements and many others were noticeably absent of any positive declaration that Israel is in fact adhering to international law.

 She said if American officials believed that Israel was doing this - or at least taking all possible measures to avoid harming civilians under difficult circumstances - they would say so with passion, but they did not do so even though the Biden administration was not shy about criticizing the behavior of the warring parties in Other conflicts.

 The reason is that drawing more attention to what is happening in Gaza could almost certainly force a policy change that Biden does not want to make, could confront his administration with a series of difficult choices that it would rather avoid, and could also further complicate the already complex dynamics of the US-Israel relationship. And it may create political weakness for Biden in the election year.

 She added that as long as the administration avoids the reality of Israeli violations in Gaza and selectively applies the rules for military assistance, the moral authority claimed by the United States will diminish more and more, and the Biden administration’s apparent unwillingness to apply the legal aspect to the available information will be exacerbated by its clear failure to adhere to policies that She put it herself as an expression of Biden's supposed commitment to human rights.

 Yager believes that the worst consequence of the administration's refusal to comply with the letter and spirit of American law is that Washington may make it possible for massive and perhaps criminal loss of civilian lives in Gaza.

 

She added that there is another victim of this approach, which is the credibility of the United States, which has been damaged by what can be considered at best inconsistency and at worst hypocrisy.

 

For example, in 2016, President Barack Obama condemned Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s deprivation of food and water to civilians in Aleppo. It can be said that Israel did the same thing with the civilian population in Gaza for more than 3 months without facing any criticism for this method from the Biden administration. Biden Netanyahu called for opening a corridor to Gaza to deliver more aid, but he did not directly criticize the blockade.

 

She added that to begin to rein in Israel and stop the bleeding of American credibility, the Biden administration needs to assign its lawyers to evaluate all available information - confidential and non-confidential - regarding the Israeli military campaign in Gaza and determine the time and place of Israeli forces violating the laws of war, and the results should be published and evidence submitted to Congress.

 

She concluded that the political costs resulting from looking directly at the evidence and correcting the course of American policy as necessary will not be comfortable for the president and lawmakers during the election campaign.

 

But these costs are less than the cost of US authorities acting as if the extreme suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza does not deserve the same scrutiny as the suffering of civilians in other conflicts, a position that gives an argument to those who claim that when it comes to applying basic American principles and protecting inherent human rights, Washington applies A clearly hypocritical double standard.

 

 

 

International condemnation of the American “veto”... “History will not forget Washington’s actions”... Israel conducting mass-arrests of "military-aged" Gazan Men

International condemnation of the American “veto”... “History will not forget Washington’s actions”... Israel conducting mass-arrests of "military-aged" Gazan Men

    Saturday, December 09, 2023   No comments

Russian Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Security Council, Dmitry Polyansky, announced that the United States, by using its veto power against the draft resolution presented by the Arab group in the UN Security Council calling for a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, “sentenced the death penalty to thousands of civilians.”

Polyansky said during a voting session in the UN Security Council: “It will not be an exaggeration if we say that today is one of the darkest days in the history of the Middle East, as our colleagues in the United States have sentenced to death before our eyes thousands, if not tens of thousands, of civilians, including women and children. "By obstructing the call for a ceasefire."

Polyansky stressed that history will not forget Washington's actions in this regard.

The Russian deputy delegate continued, saying, "You can say as many empty words as you want about democracy, human rights, women, peace, security, and some rules, but we have seen their true price now, when two members of the Security Council chose to remain complicit in this genocide committed by Israel."

For his part, China's permanent representative to the UN Security Council, Zhang Jun, strongly supported the Arab draft resolution as a means to save lives, and criticized the United States for using the veto, saying that expressing grief for civilians and using the veto to continue the fighting is "the utmost hypocrisy."

John pointed out that "the ceasefire helps to achieve a two-state solution to establish lasting peace in the Middle East," pointing out that "the continuation of the war would increase the collapse of security in the region, and the Security Council must assume its responsibilities without delay."

He also called on "Israel" to stop the policy of collective punishment that it is committing against the residents of the Gaza Strip. He also described what is happening as a "humanitarian catastrophe," stressing that "any slowdown means more bloodshed."

For his part, Colombian President, Gustavo Petro, stressed that the “veto” in the United Nations cannot be used to allow massacres, noting that in order for “democracy and peace to shine on the American continent, America cannot allow genocide anywhere in the world.”

In turn, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian confirmed that as long as Washington supports the crimes of the occupation and the continuation of the war, the scope of the war will not be limited to the current situation only, but will expand, pointing to the possibility of an “uncontrollable” explosion in the situation in the region.

In a phone call with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, the Iranian minister appreciated the latter’s activation of Article 99 of the United Nations Charter regarding developments in Palestine and the genocide in Gaza, describing it as a “courageous act.”

This comes after the UN Security Council failed to adopt a draft resolution submitted by the Arab group to the UN Security Council with a record sponsorship of 100 countries, calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, despite receiving 13 votes, after the United States used its veto power. Veto to block the draft resolution.

The draft resolution calls for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip for humanitarian reasons. It also stresses the need for the immediate and unconditional release of all prisoners, ensuring the arrival of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, and the entry of aid in sufficient quantities into the besieged Strip and from all crossings.

It is noteworthy that Britain abstained from voting, while the French representative, François de Rivière, regretted not adopting the resolution and wished it had included a condemnation of “Hamas.”

Israeli leaders thanked the United States for the veto, and attacked the UN General Secretary, once again invoking anti-semitism.

Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid said that the decision of United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to push for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza is anti-Semitism.

Lapid said anti-Semitism was the only “logical explanation” for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ decision to push for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza.

“Just when Israel was defending itself after our children were killed by brutal terrorists and our people were taken hostage, the UN Security Council suddenly decided to activate Article 99 to help Hamas,” Lapid wrote in a series of social media posts on Saturday.

“How do we know it is anti-Semitic?” he added. Because there is no other logical explanation.”

Lapid cited a number of other bloody conflicts, including in Sudan and Syria, in which neither Guterres nor any of his predecessors used Article 99 power to force debate in the Security Council.

Guterres used Article 99 of the UN Charter, which has not been used for decades, to force the UN Security Council to discuss a resolution calling for a ceasefire.

The United States used its veto power yesterday, Friday, against the draft resolution submitted by the UAE for a ceasefire in Gaza.

Meanwhile, a UN source confirmed to Sputnik that a delegation from the UN Security Council intends to visit the Rafah crossing on the border between Egypt and the Gaza Strip next Monday.

The source added that the delegation heading to the crossing will include the Russian permanent representative to the Security Council, Vasily Nebenzia.

In a related context, the American website “Axios”, citing an Israeli official, said that the United States is not “pressing the brakes” or giving “Israel” a specific deadline to stop the military operation in Gaza, but it points to the fact that time is running out.

The Israeli official said that the United States would be satisfied if Israel finished the high-intensity phase of the operation by the end of December, while Israel aims for the end of January.

“The message from the United States is that they want us to finish faster, with fewer civilian casualties and more humanitarian aid to Gaza,” the official explained, adding: “We want the same thing, but there is another player here and that is the enemy who does not agree.”

He continued by saying, "The United States understands this. We are working together. We need them and they need us."

Former US official: Killing 4,000 Palestinian children is “not enough”

Former US official: Killing 4,000 Palestinian children is “not enough”

    Wednesday, November 22, 2023   No comments

To understand why US foreign policy in the Middle East was a complete failure, listen to this former US official, talk to a NYC food cart operator and tell him how he really feels about Muhammad, Quran, Muslims, Egypt, and the war in Gaza.

Stuart Seldowitz, a former US State Department official under President Barack Obama, said that the killing of 4,000 Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip is “not enough,” in a scene that sparked great criticism and reactions.

Seldowitz served as the acting director for the National Security Council South Asia Directorate under the Obama administration. He also worked as a senior political officer in the State Department’s Office of Israel and Palestinian Affairs.

Seldowitz appeared in a video clip circulating on social media platforms, harassing a young Egyptian man who works as a street food vendor in New York by calling him a "terrorist."

The young man documented, via a video clip, that this former official came to him several times and provoked him in many ways. Among them was his inappropriate talk about Islam, and he also threatened to deport him from America.

The United States provides unlimited support to Israel during its war on the Gaza Strip, which has been ongoing for more than 6 weeks and has left, to date, more than 14,000 martyrs, including about 5,800 children, in addition to tens of thousands injured and displaced due to the violent Israeli bombing.

Some excerpts:

Scenes posted on the “X” platform show the street vendor repeatedly explaining to Seldowitz that he is currently working, asking him to stay away from him. However, the latter refused and insulted him, calling him ignorant because he did not master English.

Seldowitz, after continuing to harass the street vendor, accusing him of supporting the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and "terrorism," told him, "Do you know? If we kill 4,000 Palestinian children. That's not enough, it's not enough."

In other scenes, Seldowitz also appears harassing the seller by uttering provocative and insulting words toward the Prophet Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace, and the Holy Quran.

"What do you speak? You speak Arabic, the language of the Quran, the holy Quran that some people use as a toilet. What do you think of that, people who used the Quran as a toilet? Does it bother you?" Seldowitz asks mockingly.

"That’s why you're selling food in a food cart, because you’re ignorant. But you should learn English. It’ll help you when they deport you back to Egypt and then the Mukhabarat wants to interview you.”

In another video, he harasses the same vendor but is interrupted by a bystander who tells him to leave, saying "It's not right; you are harassing."

 

U.S. soccer scrubs the word for "God" from Iran flag

U.S. soccer scrubs the word for "God" from Iran flag

    Sunday, November 27, 2022   No comments

In a move that is interpreted to mean that the US has a problem with the Islamic governing system more than with just the leaders of Iran, US soccer officials removed the word "God" from the Iranian flag ahead of FIFA's US-Iran match on Tuesday.

The action was reported by Politico, quoted below:

The U.S. soccer federation briefly displayed Iran’s national flag on social media without the emblem of the Islamic Republic, saying the move supports protesters in Iran ahead of the two nations’ World Cup match Tuesday.

Iran’s government reacted by accusing America of removing the name of God from their national flag.

The decision by the U.S. Soccer Federation adds yet-another political firestorm to the Middle East’s first World Cup, one which organizers had hoped would be spared of off-the-field controversies.

It also comes as the U.S. faces Iran in a decisive World Cup match, which was already freighted by the decades of enmity between the two countries and the nationwide protests now challenging Tehran’s theocratic government.

The U.S. Soccer Federation said in a statement Sunday morning that it decided to forego the official flag on social media accounts to show “support for the women in Iran fighting for basic human rights.”

The Twitter account of the U.S. men’s team displayed a banner with the squad’s matches in the group stage, with the Iranian flag only bearing its green, white and red colors. The same could be seen in a post on its Facebook and Instagram accounts laying out the point totals so far in its group.

Biden: "We Will Free Iran"; Raisi: "Mr. President! Iran was liberated 43 years ago, and it’s determined to never become a milk cow."

Biden: "We Will Free Iran"; Raisi: "Mr. President! Iran was liberated 43 years ago, and it’s determined to never become a milk cow."

    Friday, November 04, 2022   No comments

On Thursday, US President Joe Biden vowed to "liberate" Iran.

On Friday, a White House spokesman flet the need to clarify: President Joe Biden was expressing his solidarity with protesters in Iran by telling a crowd of his supporters, "We will liberate Iran."

White House national security spokesman John Kirby made the remarks to reporters a day after Biden made his comment at a rally in California.

On Friday, too, Iran's president said that the country had been freed by the 1979 Islamic revolution in response to a vow by US president Joe Biden to "free Iran". Ebrahim Raisi said: “Maybe he said this because of a lack of concentration...He said we aim to liberate Iran," 

“Mr. President! Iran was liberated 43 years ago, and it’s determined not to become your captive again. We will never become a milk cow.”

   

German Foreign Minister calls for economic system independent of US: Maas wants EU own SWIFT system

German Foreign Minister calls for economic system independent of US: Maas wants EU own SWIFT system

    Wednesday, August 22, 2018   No comments

...

It is also important to correct fake news because it can quickly result in the wrong policies. As Europeans, we have made it clear to the Americans that we consider the withdrawal from the nuclear agreement with Iran to be a mistake. Meanwhile, the first US sanctions have come back into force.

In this situation, it is of strategic importance that we make it clear to Washington that we want to work together. But also: That we will not allow you to go over our heads, and at our expense. That is why it was right to protect European companies legally from sanctions. It is therefore essential that we strengthen European autonomy by establishing payment channels independent of the US, a European monetary fund and an independent SWIFT [payments] system. The devil is in thousands of details. But every day that the Iran agreement lasts, is better than the potentially explosive crisis that threatens the Middle East otherwise.



A balanced partnership also means that, as Europeans, we bring more weight to bear when the US withdraws. We are concerned about Washington’s withdrawal of affection, in financial and other terms, from the UN — and not only because we will soon be on the Security Council. Of course we can’ t fill all the gaps. But together with others, we can cushion the most damaging consequences of the thinking that says success is measured in dollars saved. That is why we have increased funding for relief organizations working with Palestinian refugees and sought support from Arab states.

We are striving for a multilateral alliance, a network of partners who, like us, are committed to sticking to the rules and to fair competition. I have made my first appointments with Japan, Canada and South Korea; more are to follow. This alliance is not a rigid, exclusive club for those with good intentions. What I have in mind is an association of states convinced of the benefits of multilateralism, who believe in international cooperation and the rule of the law. It is not directed against anyone, but sees itself as an alliance that supports and enhances a global, multilateral order. The door is wide open — above all to the US. The aim is to tackle the problems that none of us can tackle on our own, together — from climate change to fair trade.

I have no illusions that such an alliance can solve all the world’s problems. But it is not enough just to complain about the destruction of the multilateral order. We have to fight for it, especially because of the current trans-Atlantic situation.

source: handelsblatt.com

what will China do if the U.S. or North Korea launch first strike?

what will China do if the U.S. or North Korea launch first strike?

    Friday, August 11, 2017   No comments

ISR comment: While the U.S. and North Korea increased their threats to one another, China moved to make its position clear. Although the views of this news outlet are not direct official government declarations, reports nonetheless represent China's inclination made public before issuing policy statements. The Global Times outlined China's position as follows:
 

Beijing is not able to persuade Washington or Pyongyang to back down at this time. It needs to make clear its stance to all sides and make them understand that when their actions jeopardize China's interests, China will respond with a firm hand.

China should also make clear that if North Korea launches missiles that threaten US soil first and the US retaliates, China will stay neutral. If the US and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so.

U.S. to handover Tanf base to Russia, attempt to collect weapons it gave Syrian rebels, many are surrendering to Syrian armed forces

U.S. to handover Tanf base to Russia, attempt to collect weapons it gave Syrian rebels, many are surrendering to Syrian armed forces

    Wednesday, August 02, 2017   No comments

On the same day Trump signed Russia sanctions bill, it was reported that U.S. and Russian negotiators were working on a plan that would lead to US withdrawing American forces from al-Tanf and handing over its control to Russia. 

According to some reports, the talks took place in Jordan over many weeks and when the news of the meeting reached the Syrian rebels affiliated with the U.S., several groups that are affiliated with the Free Army Syrian Army (FSA) and trained by U.S. defected.

Al-Thawra members decided to leave al-Tanf after they were informed of the US-Russia possible agreement and the Syrian army's massive operations to free the Northern parts of Sweida province, a number of them have surrendered to the Syrian troops.

Sources affiliated with opposition groups disclosed on Wednesday that another group backed by the US army surrendered to the Syrian Army troops in al-Tanf region in Southern Homs. The group of al-Thowrah brigade has fled its positions in al-Tanf region and surrendered to the Syrian Army troops with their arms and military equipment. A Syrian army commander said that several groups of Jeish Maqawir al-Thowrah have handed over their weapons and military hardware to the army men after they surrendered. This trend, apparently, prompted the U.S. to start a process of taking back the weapons it gave the rebels.

One of the commanders of Jaysh Maqawir al-Thowrah in Syria's Badiyeh (desert) with the nom de guerre Haws al-Forati along with 30 of his forces fled the militant-held regions. The fleeing militants took a number of weapons, vehicles and munitions with them while fleeing.

U.S. military and CIA agents have trained Syrian rebels and equipped them with weapons and communication devices over the past six years. Most recently, it established a base on the Jordanian-Syrian-Iraqi border with the aim of connecting much of southern Syria to the Kurdish-held northern region. That plan fell apart after the Syrian troops and their allies cut them off during the last eight months and essentially restricted them to desert (seem attached map).