The friendly and close relations between Israel and the United States have become over the years, since the sixties of the last century, a cornerstone of Israel’s national security doctrine. The security, economic and political aid that Washington provides to Israel is significant in scope and beyond that it helps to strengthen Israel’s regional and international standing and its deterrence capability in the face of its adversaries. 

Israel has always been careful to emphasize its part in the unwritten alliance established by the two countries, mainly its contribution to the United States national security – during the Cold War, but also today, when Israel stands at the forefront of the struggle against Iran as well as against terrorism and Islamic radicalism.

The close relations between the two countries have withstood the test of time and even deepened. They relied on bipartisan support of Israel (on the part of both Democrats and republicans), as well as broad support of the American public, and especially of American Jewry. AIPAC, the pro-Israel Jewish lobby in the United States, is instrumental in maintaining these close relations.

President Donald Trump’s term in office (2016-2020) undoubtedly brought American support for Israel to a peak. But at the same time cracks were exposed during Trump’s term that could affect the intimacy and the strength of American-Israeli relations. 

The awareness of Israel, its government and the general public, of the importance of the unwritten alliance with the United States and even of Israel’s dependence on it ensures that no Israeli government will act to harm this alliance, intentionally or unintentionally. And yet, the shift to the right in Israel, and alongside it, deep processes within American society, such as the strengthening of the progressive camp in the Democratic Party, may erode the strength of these close relations and require a special effort on the part of the American and Israeli governments to preserve it. 

Relations between Israel and the United States – Difficult Beginnings

The relationship between Israel and the United States has become over the years one of the cornerstones of Israel’s national security doctrine and is seen as one of Israel’s main sources of strength.

However, it is interesting to discover that in the first decades of Israel’s independence, in the fifties and early sixties, its relations with the United States were characterized by coldness and suspicion. President Harry Truman (1952-1944) supported the partition resolution at the United Nations in 1947 and was the first to recognize the State of Israel shortly after it became independent. However, he did so under the influence of some of his Jewish associates, and contrary to the position held by the Department of Defense and the State Department, which opposed the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, because they believed that it would not be able to withstand the attacks of its Arab neighbors and that it might become a Soviet outpost due to the fact that the majority of its Jewish population originated from Eastern Europe.

Under President David Eisenhower (1952-1960), the United States refrained from selling arms to Israel, provided it with negligible economic aid, and repeatedly pressured it to agree to territorial and other concessions, such as the return of the Palestinian refugees to its territory, in order to bring the Arab-Israeli conflict to an end. During the Suez crisis in 1956, the United States stood up against Israel and against France and Great Britain, who joined forces in this war, and demanded that Israeli forces withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula, which they had captured from the Egyptians. In those years, the United States hoped to mobilize Arab support in the struggle against the Soviet Union, and therefore tended to view Israel as an obstacle to Arab friendship with the West. However, many of the Arab countries, led by Nasser’s Egypt and also Syria and Iraq, chose to align themselves with the Soviet Union over the West. And yet, even when it became clear that the Arab countries were turning to Moscow, the American hesitation and reservation concerning the relations with Israel remained unchanged. Thus, Israel’s Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, met President Eisenhower for the first time only in March 1960, near the end of his term in the White House, and even then in a private meeting and not as part of an official visit to the United States. 

The tension between Israel and the United States continued during the administration of President John Kennedy (1960-1963). Kennedy sought to improve Washington’s relations with Egypt and this was seen in Jerusalem as a move that could come at Israel’s expense. The tension in American-Israeli relations was however rooted in the pressure of the Kennedy Administration on Israel not to develop nuclear capabilities. Israel was forced to allow American inspectors to visit the Dimona nuclear reactor and only in the early 1970s the two states reached an understanding, according to which Israel would be allowed to maintain and develop its nuclear capabilities, but would not become nuclear power (i.e. would not conduct nuclear tests and would not declare itself a nuclear power).  

The change in the relationship between Israel and the United States took place during Lyndon Johnson’s presidency (1968-1963) and especially after the Six Day War. The Israeli victory in this war strengthened Israel’s strategic importance, due to its ability to defend itself and to defeat its Arab adversaries, who were Soviet allies. Thus, the Arab-Israeli conflict turned into a part of the ‘cold war’ between the West and the Soviet Union, and the American military establishment started to see Israel as an ally. 

Indeed, it was in the period after the Six Day War, that the foundations of the “special relations” between the United States and Israel were laid and became a central component of Israel’s national security doctrine, based on Israel’s need, as a small country with limited resources, surrounded by hostile neighbors, of an alliance with a superpower that would provide it with economic aid, political support and weapons it needed for its defense. 

The United States supplied Israel with weapons during the October 1973 war and then played a central role in the efforts to bring the Arab-Israeli conflict into its end, for example in the signing of the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt in March 1979 and in the 1990s, when it launched an Arab-Israeli peace process  that led to the signing of the Oslo accords in September 1993 between Israel and the Palestinians, and a peace agreement between Israel and Jordan in October 1994. 

The American-Israeli relations have also an economic dimension, since the United States gives Israel economic aid every year in the amount of about 2.5 to 3 billion dollars, and over the years has given it special grants and guarantees in the cumulative amount of tens of billions of dollars – for example after the signing of the peace agreements with Egypt; after the signing of the  Oslo Accords; and after the signing of nuclear deal with Iran in 2015. It should be noted that the United States is Israel’s largest trading partner (after the European Union), and the volume of Israeli export to the US is about a third of Israel’s total export, while the import from the United States is about 18% of all Israeli import.

It should also be noted that the rise of the high-tech industry that began in the late 1990s led to a dramatic increase in the number of Israeli companies (mostly high-tech companies) traded on the New York Stock Exchange to such an extent that they constitute the largest group of foreign stocks there.

Despite tensions that erupted in relations between the two states, the main interest of Israel’s foreign policy since 1967 has been to maintain close relations with the United States and establish bipartisan support for the special relationship between the two states.  Israel was assisted by the pro-Israeli lobby in the United States, AIPAC, which derives its strength from the commitment to Israel of the American Jewry, the second largest Jewish community in the world, which has significant weight and standing in American society and American politics.

Israel therefore attaches great importance to maintaining its special relationship with the Jewish community in the United States. However, during the last two decades, support for Israel grew among evangelical communities in the United States, although such support has provoked a backlash among liberal audiences in the American society.

Looking Ahead

The last decade was marked by several developments and processes that affected and probably will continue to affect the relationship between the two states:

On the one hand, the importance of Israel as an American asset in the Middle East increased significantly – Israel has become a regional power thanks to its economic and military strength. The contribution it provides to the United States, both in the intelligence and Cyber warfare and through the development of security and defense technologies, such as the Iron Dome and Arrow missile systems, strengthen and deepen the security ties between the two states and especially ties between the Israeli and the American military establishments. The operational and intelligence cooperation between the two countries has been proven invaluable in the struggle against terror and radicalism as well in confronting Iran’s ambitions in the region. 

On the other hand, the bond with Israel among parts of the American public and even the Jewish community has weakened – the shift to the right in Israel led to the abandoning of the of two states solution to the conflict with the Palestinians and to the efforts (at least by the Netanyahu government – 2009-2021) to preserve an Israeli presence in the West Bank, and to ensure that it would be possible in the future to annex it to Israel. 

All of these were perceived by the American administration as a development that could undermine regional stability, encourage violence and terror and thereby harm American interests in the Middle East and throughout the Muslim world. As someone who considers itself a close ally of Israel, the American administration also believes that such Israeli policy harms the long-term interests of Israel itself.

In American society, deep processes of a growing rift between liberals and conservatives, alongside the strengthening of the progressive camp within the Democratic Party, are evident. This camp tends to show suspicion and even animosity towards Israel, mainly against the background of its never ending conflict with the Palestinians. However, the shift to the right inside Israeli society and within the Israeli political system, as well as the close alliance forged between the right-wing circles in Israel and the Republican Party, especially during the Trump era, deepened the gap with Israel even among the “mainstream” Democrats. These processes do not spare the Jewish community in the United States either and certainly the young generation. The Jewish community is also affected by the strengthening of the ultra-Orthodox political power within the Israeli political system (the ultra-Orthodox community is hostile to the Reform and Conservative communities that make up the majority of American Jewry).

It is worth noting that the older generation of American politicians who led the American political system in the 1980s and 1990s were influenced by the events of the Holocaust and felt committed to Israel as the state of the Jewish people. These politicians were also influenced by the cold war and tended to see Israel as a Western outpost surrounded by Arab countries, which were Soviet allies. However, the new generation of American politicians is freed from these historical memories and burdens, and therefore their commitment to Israel is not self-evident.

All of this has burst to the surface already during Barack Obama’s presidency (2008-2016). Obama repeatedly expressed his “unshakable” support for Israel, however, at the same time he also showed sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians and tried to promote the vision of “two states for two peoples” based on the 1967 lines. Obama was also determined to reach a nuclear deal with Iran that was perceived by Israel as dangerous. The tension between the two states reached its peak with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the US Congress in May 2015 in which he challenged, with the support of Republican Party, the president’s policy. 

Relations between Israel and the Trump administration that replaced Obama (2016-2020) flourished, and there will be those who would argue that this happened due to Trump’s efforts to win the support of the Jewish vote in the Presidential elections. Trump was perceived as sympathetic to Israel, as evidenced by his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (December 2017) and the transfer of the American embassy to Jerusalem and the recognition of the Golan Heights as Israeli sovereign territory (on March 2019). In May 2018, the United States also announced its withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran and imposed additional sanctions on its economy. In January 2020 he presented the “deal of the century,” an American peace plan, favorable to Israel,  to bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to an end.  Finally, the United States played an important role in obtaining the Abraham Accords, the peace agreements signed between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and later also Morocco and Sudan. This was part of an American effort to promote regional cooperation, and even to form a Middle Eastern NATO, to face common threats to these countries, mainly from Iran.

President Biden, who replaced President Trump, belongs to the older generation of American politicians whose commitment to Israel is deeply rooted. During the years of his tenure, the close relations between the two countries continued and even deepened. The war in Ukraine and the world need for energy resources, mainly gas, have also increased the importance of Israel in the eyes of the Americans. But it must be admitted that in Biden’s party – the Democratic Party – the voices that show suspicion and express criticism and even hostility towards Israel are growing stronger, especially in the progressive camp in the party. As mentioned, the intimate relations between former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Trump led to the erosion in the bipartisan support for Israel and created a rift between Israel, and at least Netanyahu’s government, and the Democrats. The establishment of a new government in Israel under Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, a “government of change”, somewhat improved the atmosphere, but the possible comeback of a right-wing government in Israel may change this trend back.

And finally, Israel’s importance in the Middle East had to do with the importance of the region in general in the American strategic view, due to its central location on the world map and the dependence of the US on its oil resources. However, in the last decade, the United States seeks to disengage from the region, as its importance in its eyes has decreased, as compared to other regions in the world. This might have repercussions on the importance of Israel in the eyes of the Americans. It seems thus that the Middle East was pushed aside by other regions, such as the Far East, where the United States maintains competition and even rivalry with China, or Eastern Europe (mainly following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine at the beginning of this year). Israel, which sought to walk between the drops and preserve its relations with China, an important economic partner of Israel, as well as with Russia, has often provoked Washington’s irritation for not standing by its side in the rivalry between the United States and these countries.

In conclusion, the relationship between Israel and the United States is deep and based on political and security interests. It still relies on broad support both among the American security and political establishment, and among large segments of the American society and public opinion.

Taking into account the interest that both countries have in preserving and promoting these relations and the benefit they see from these relations, it can be assumed that they will do all they can to preserve and even deepen these relations.

It should be noted that Israel’s great advantage in the eyes of the United States has always been that it does not need American soldiers to fight for it. And thus, the Americans were asked only to help Israel help itself rather than to send troops to help it on the battlefields, as they were required to do in South Vietnam, Korea, and later in Afghanistan and Iraq.

However, an ill-considered Israeli conduct, in the case of a right-wing government coming to power in Israel – such as leaning too much on one side of the American political map or try to annex the West Bank to Israel, or even a deterioration in Israeli-Palestinian conflict, could put a strain on the relations between the two countries. These can meet the deep processes of slow but continuous erosion in the commitment to Israel that is already taking place within serval segments in the American public and thus damage the relations between the two countries.

And yet, as far as can be expected, the special relationship that Israel and the United States are establishing will continue for the foreseeable future as it is a vital interest for Israel and an major  interest for the United States, and both countries recognize this.

L'articolo The future of US-Israel Alliance proviene da InsideOver.

There is speculation on whether Egypt will succeed in convincing the United Nations to reject two deals signed by Turkey and western Libya’s Government of National Accord (GNA), including one on security cooperation.

Egypt had sent two letters to UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, in which it described the two deals as “illegal” and “groundless”. Turkey and the western Libya government signed the two deals, which included another one on the delimitation of maritime borders, in late November.

According to Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the deal on security cooperation allows his country to send troops to Libya at the request of the Tripoli-based GNA. The other deal, Erdogan said, makes it necessary for Eastern Mediterranean nations, Egypt, Israel, and Greece to get Turkish approval before exploring natural gas or extending pipelines in the region.

The two deals have come to add more fuel to simmering coals in the Eastern Mediterranean, a region that has turned into the center of tension because of the emergence of a huge natural gas wealth in it.

Egypt has come at the heart of this wealth with the discovery of a major gas field off its Mediterranean coast by an Italian company in late 2015. The field produces close to 3 billion cubic feet of gas every day, a little less than half of Egypt’s daily production.

Production from Zohr field has helped Egypt bridge the gap between its natural gas production and consumption. It also opened the door for the return of Egyptian natural gas to the international market.

Egypt also has plans to turn into a regional energy hub or a concentration point for gas produced in the region. It wants to collect this gas, process it at its sprawling liquefaction facilities, and then export it to Europe.

Nevertheless, the new development between Turkey and the Tripoli government is threatening all this. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi warned against attempts by some countries to control Libya.

“We will not allow any country to control Libya,” Sisi said. “Libya is a national security issue for Egypt.”

Libya’s unrest has had a heavy toll on security conditions in Egypt, especially in Sinai. Egypt says most of the arms and explosives that reach a branch of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria in Sinai come in from Libya. Egypt also has to guard its joint border with Libya, about 1,200 kilometers, alone, in the absence of a functional government in the North African state.

The letters Egypt sent to the UN are part of a major international offensive launched by Cairo against what it describes as Turkish attempts to control Libya. Turkey has turned into a bitter enemy of Egypt in 2013, when Egyptians rose up against Islamist president Mohamed Morsi with backing from the Egyptian army.

A major sponsor of political Islam, in general, and the Muslim Brotherhood, Morsi’s movement, in particular, Turkey relied on the rise of the Islamists to power in North Africa and in the wider Arab Middle East to help it increase its influence in the region.

However, the uprising against Morsi brought Turkey’s hegemonic dreams to an end, analysts said. Egypt’s demarcation of its maritime borders with Cyprus and its plans to do the same with Greece are increasing Turkey’s isolation as well as anger.

Increasing this isolation even more was also Egypt’s formation of an Eastern Mediterranean natural gas forum in January of this year. The two deals with the GNA might be a desperate Turkish attempt to come on board in a region where it finds itself increasingly isolated and excluded from its potential wealth.

Nonetheless, Turkey’s détente with the Tripoli government rings the alarm in Egypt.

“Egypt’s national security is under threat because of Turkish interference in Libya,” said retired Egyptian diplomat, Ahmed al-Quesni. “There is an urgent need for preventing Turkish plans in the North African state.”

L'articolo Egypt Addresses UN Against Turkey-GNA Deals proviene da InsideOver.

In October, President Donald Trump’s abrupt withdrawal of troops supporting the Kurds in northeastern Syria was placed under the umbrella of the president’s effort to “end the endless wars.” Barely a month later, the US Central Command ordered 500 troops to resume fighting in that region to quell any ISIS growth.

The American military is now “conducting training exercises, active combat, and air and drone strikes on six continents.” Or put another way, the United States military is currently operating in 40% of the world’s nations.

Despite the proclamations and efforts of American presidents, and presidential candidates, the “end of endless wars” has no visible expiration date.

The end of the Second World War began the start of the Cold War: the battle between democracy and communism and the United States and Russia. With the Cold War came a stronger relationship between the military and private industry. The Cold War was good for business and as the saying goes, business was good.

This relationship wasn’t given a public name until President Eisenhower’s farewell speech in 1961, when he said, “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”

The military-industrial complex relates specifically to those fluid relationships that include political contributions, political approval for military spending and lobbying. Perhaps it’s best understood by the flow of money and resources among individuals, defense contractors, private military contractors, institutions, the Pentagon, the US Congress and the executive branch of the United States.

Famed linguist Noam Chomsky disputes the concept of the military-industrial complex. In On Power, DIssent, and Racism: A Series of Discussions with Noam Chomsky, he asserts, “There is no military-industrial complex: it’s just the industrial system operating under one or another pretext.”

With only a handful of years where defense spending decreased, it has steadily increased since 1948. After the end of the Cold War, military spending in the United States increased very little until September 11, 2001, and the beginning of the “War on Terror.” In 2002, the military budget was 362 billion dollars and for the 2020 budget, 718 billion dollars has been designated for the Department of Defense. And that is expected to grow to 776 billion dollars by 2034.

However, a 0.5% annual military increase from 2020-2034 seems to be a miscalculation based on historical military spending. In the years between 1996 and 2015 that had an uptick in military spending, it was an average increase of 3.75%. A 0.5% annual increase appears to be small when America is doing battle on 40% of the world.

The relationship between military contractors, the military and government oversight is such that it’s often referred to as the “iron triangle.” This “iron triangle” is made up of the decision making relationships between congressional committees, the bureaucracy and interest groups. Given these relationships and the various US military activity throughout the world, the question that must be asked is whether this “end of endless wars” is a possibility.

The rhetoric from President Trump and the presidential candidates around this topic would lead you to believe that an end to all of the American military conflicts is on the horizon. The reality is more complicated and can’t be explained or marginalized to a 240-word tweet or a 20 second sound bite.

All of the Democratic front-runners have released articles and proclamations saying there must be an “end to endless wars” and “forever wars” must cease. However, all the candidates are short on specifics on how to do so.

In a release from June of 2019, Vermont Senator and presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders offers a plan that falls short on specifics. While maintaining the US fight against terror he calls for a softer approach like diplomacy.

Democratic candidate and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren’s plan calls for a similar approach but has made more than one gaff in explaining how. For example, in October, she mentioned that America needed to “get out of the Middle East.” This left her team scrambling to immediately issue a follow-up tweet to clarify that Warren meant “combat troops.”

Former Vice President Joe Biden, and current Democratic presidential front-runner, also claims a desire to end “forever wars.” However, given his hawkish foreign policy views and history on pro-war voting as a member of Congress, one must consider his statements with scepticism.

In 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump won over a large number of voters by also claiming he was going to end the wars that America was embroiled in. This has also been part of his rhetoric for the length of his administration. However, to date, his record indicates otherwise.

As President, he’s been unable to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, he vetoed an order to exit Yemen and has not ruled out military action in Venezuela. He’s also been less than shy about his animus towards Iran.

The American military’s presence around the world isn’t contracting it’s expanding.

In 2007 the United States established Africa Command (AFRICOM). The American military has thousands of troops, planes, air bases, drone bases, outposts, etc. spread all over the continent. In March of 2019, AFRICOM’s outgoing commanding general, Thomas Waldhauser, told congress that AFRICOM is bound to be a “forever outfit.” His thinking calls up shades of the cold war as he believes that “Russia has taken a more militaristic approach in Africa.”

In Somalia alone, 2018 saw U.S. forces strike the leaders and fighters of Islamist terror group al-Shabaab 47 times, tripling the amount carried out by the Obama administration in 2016. The U.S. military is increasing its presence there, placing 500 troops and an estimate from the Pentagon says that those troops in Somalia will be there for “at least another seven years.”

And just recently, as a result of the heightened tensions with Iran, 1,400 additional troops have been ordered to the Persian Gulf as a precautionary measure.

The past sixty years have seen America expand its military influence across the globe. In addition to no less than five wars: Korea, Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, Afghanistan and the War on Terror there have been countless military skirmishes and billions of dollars spent on varying degrees of military support for American allies.

The sentiment behind removing troops and slowing down global military expansion is largely a  bi-partisan political issue. It’s also a perspective shared by a large swath of voting Americans.

However, given the intricate web and fluidity of geopolitics and the influence of the military-industrial complex an end to all the military conflict America is involved in is a really optimistic point of view. Furthermore, anyone who claims to have the definitive idea or plan to end these “forever wars” should be considered dubious.

L'articolo An End to the “End of Endless Wars” Rhetoric is Unlikely proviene da InsideOver.

The Pentagon is withdrawing US troops from Syria but, rather than heading homeward, the troops are set to be deployed in Iraq. Mark Esper, US Secretary of Defense, has confirmed the redeployment to western Iraq. The resurgence of Islamic State (IS) militants has clinched the decision to deploy some 1,000 US soldiers to that region. This is in opposition to President Trump’s last assertion that US troops would withdraw from Syria and return home.

Continuing hostilities in Syria show no sign of pending resolution, in spite of the fact that a recent US-brokered ceasefire between Kurdish fighters and Turkey has facilitated the current US redeployment. All of the US troops being withdrawn from northern Syria will relocate to western Iraq, a resurgent hot spot. Alongside the US withdrawal, Kurdish forces say they have also withdrawn all fighters from the besieged Syrian town of Ras al-Ain.

Although it would appear that the US is hastily grabbing the opportunity to withdraw after it brokered a temporary ceasefire between warring parties, the direct route home for US troops seems to have fallen away. Correspondents on the ground in Syria have speculated whether the withdrawal forms part of a wider extraction post ceasefire, although the troops will still not return home just yet, remaining active in the Middle East.

Armoured vehicles followed by a convoy of ambulances have left northern Syrian positions en route to Ras al-Ain, while President Trump’s withdrawal announcement has also paved the way for Turkish military action against Kurdish fighters in northern Syria.

Republicans berate Trump’s Syrian plans

Senior Republican Mitch McConnell has said that Trump’s withdrawal, particularly precipitating Turkey’s offensive against Syrian positions, was a “strategic nightmare.” In contrast, the president himself has labeled the current Syria-Turkey border hostilities as “strategically brilliant” for US aims. To whatever extent US troops maintained a fragile peace, this has now been lost, as the ceasefire appears tenuous, with sporadic breaches from all sides. Turkey’s offensive against Kurdish positions, has prompted many American politicians – including from within the Republican Party – to accuse President Trump of abandoning a former US ally. The SDF previously fought alongside US forces against Islamic State (IS) groups in Syria.

The ceasefire mandated that Turkey halt hostilities for five days while Kurdish fighters withdrew. Whether Kurdish fighters relinquished their positions en masse or not, and whether Turkey afforded them the full five days to withdraw, is now lost in varying understandings of the agreement. After Trump’s command effectively withdrew all US troops from the border area, however, Turkish forces immediately came in to attack Kurdish fighters.

Turkey’s objectives are nuanced. In a bid to generate a safe zone to house some 2 million Syria refugees in their own country, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan is seeking to push Kurdish fighters out of the north of Syria. Turkey views Kurdish fighters as terrorists, and is also keen to resettle the millions of Syrian refugees currently on Turkish soil. In terms of the ceasefire, the prominent Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) has committed to a withdrawal from a 120km area, from Tal Abyad to Ras al-Ain.

For its part, Turkey is pushing to control a far larger area in order to ensure a cessation of hostilities so close to home. Turkey alleges that combatants have not vacated the area, whereas the SDF has alleged that Turkey prevented its fighters and civilian wounded from leaving Ras al-Ain. Both sides accuse one another of ceasefire violations. Turkey said that a recent attack left one of its soldiers dead and another wounded near Tal Abyad in Syria.

Hopes for stability continue

In other overtures, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has visited Jordan with a bipartisan assembly of US lawmakers to discuss the ongoing crisis with King Abdullah. Pelosi and many other senior American politicians have been outspokenly critical of President Trump’s edict to withdraw US troops from the north of Syria.

Pelosi spoke of a deepening crisis exacerbated by Turkish hostilities, expressing concern over “regional stability” and a worsening refugee situation. She specifically pointed to the “… dangerous opening that has been provided to Isis (IS), Iran and Russia,” made possible by the US withdrawal. Also in the region, US Secretary of Defense Esper said the redeployed troops are needed to “help defend Iraq” and quash a renewed attempt by IS to reestablish in the western region.

President Trump posted a tweet that was later removed, claiming Esper had said that the ceasefire is “holding up very nicely.” The Turkish defence ministry, meanwhile, has accused Kurdish forces of being behind 14 “provocative” attacks that occurred within some 36 hours, mainly in Ras al-Ain. Turkey insists its troops are abiding by the ceasefire, however the SDF has accused Turkey of sporadic violence in spite of it, and also failing to provide the safe corridor of passage agreed to for Kurdish fighters.

One reporter in Ras al-Ain watched the convoy of armoured US vehicles and ambulances leave the town’s hospital, whereupon the hospital building immediately burst into flames, set alight by unknown combatants.

L'articolo US Troops Relocating In The Middle East proviene da InsideOver.

The ongoing protests on the streets of Iraq and Lebanon are about deteriorating living and economic conditions in both countries. They are also about growing resentment of Iranian influence in Iraq and Lebanon, two of the most important regional strongholds of Iran.

Decision-makers in Tehran are closely watching what the peaceful demonstrators in both countries are saying and planning to do in the coming days. In Lebanon, Hezbollah, a protégé of the Islamic Republic with a majority of members in the cabinet of outgoing Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri, is out to threaten the demonstrators that their demands for reform, a new government and new legislative elections will open the door for a political vacuum. On October 25, Hezbollah Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah, even warned that the protests could morph into a civil war.

However, this could not intimidate the demonstrators who moved ahead with their shows of anger against a government that has failed to make the dream of a decent life for the majority of Lebanese citizens attainable.

Almost a quarter of Lebanon’s population of 6 million lives in poverty, 20% lives with unimproved sanitation, and 10% with no access to drinking water. Around 36% of the Lebanese workforce is unemployed, the economic growth rate is at 0.2%, and the general debt has reached $86 billion or a staggering 150% of the country’s GDP. Almost half of spending in the Lebanese state budget goes to debt services, which means that the government has very little to spend on public services.

To make up for the gap between spending and revenues, the government has to impose huge taxes and force citizens to pay more for water and electricity, which in some of Lebanon’s cities are non-existent on almost a daily basis.

Iraq’s conditions are no better. A quarter of the population of the oil-rich country lives under the poverty line, according to the World Bank. Almost 20% of the national workforce is unemployed and the economic growth has reached 4%, but oil exports bring in more than 90% of the national income, which means that this country’s revenues are strongly connected with oil prices in international markets.

The Iraqi economy paid dearly for the occupation of some of Iraq’s cities by ISIS and the subsequent liberation war. After the war, rampant corruption and economic mismanagement meant that economic conditions would not be better in a country divided along sectarian and ethnic lines.

Despite these strong reasons for public anger and revolt, Iran’s influence in Iraq and Lebanon is more infuriating to the peoples of both countries. There is a growing feeling among the peoples in these Arab states that Iran is behind their calamities. There is a strong feeling also that their affairs are managed in Tehran, not in either Beirut or Baghdad.

The enormity of anger against Iran’s domination of Iraqi politics was manifest in a November 1 video of Iraqi demonstrators tearing down a poster of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. On the poster, the words “Iran out, Baghdad to be free” were written.

A day later, Khamenei accused the US and western intelligence of standing behind the demonstrations in Iraq and Lebanon.

He said the US and western intelligence are causing “riots” in both countries with the financial support of some “reactionary” countries. Losing Iraq and Lebanon will be a big deal for Tehran which has presence in four Arab states now, namely – apart from Lebanon and Iraq – Syria and Yemen.

This is also a big deal for Sunni Arabs who have been battling growing influence in the region for a long time now. Despite the initial successes of demonstrators in both states in maintaining their presence on the streets, even at a precious price in Iraq, Iran will not likely back down or leave either Iraq or Lebanon slide out of its control easily.

This opens the door wide for all possible bloody scenarios, especially with Iran’s zealots in both countries probably preparing for the next sectarian or civil war in them.

L'articolo Iran Can Be On Way Out Of Mideast Strongholds proviene da InsideOver.

L'articolo China Boosts Its Influence in The Middle East proviene da InsideOver.

As Lebanon continues to struggle with a financial meltdown and ongoing “economic emergency,” the country is now also being rocked by its largest protests in years. A new tax of 20 cents US per day for any voice calls made via voice-over-internet protocol (VoIP) on apps like Facebook Messenger, FaceTime and Whatsapp was apparently the final straw that motivated the first few hundred protesters to flood the streets of Beirut Thursday. That few hundred became a few thousand and is now in the tens of thousands in cities around the country from the northern city of Jbeil to Taalabaya in the Bekaa Valley and Tyre in the south. It is not an exaggeration to say that protests and riots have now brought the country to a major crisis point, as many major businesses, banks, services and schools remain closed. With its economy poised to completely disintegrate, Lebanon now has to contend with widespread disorder and demands that its current administration step down.

Despite the government backing down on the VoIP tax only a few hours later and promising it will no longer be applied, protests have only intensified, with smoke from burning tires filling the air and fierce clashes between security forces and activists continuing Friday. Rampant rage at the political elite in Lebanon and the corrupt “regime” have spurred increasing protests which have demanded that the country’s establishment including President Michel Aoun, Parliamentary Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Saad must all resign. Protesters in southern Lebanon even reportedly vandalized offices from the Hezbollah Party and Amal movement which they say have not been dedicated enough in rooting out corruption. Protesters accuse those in power of looting the people and trying to make up for their malfeasance and mistakes by over-taxing everyday life necessities and making life miserable for ordinary Lebanese citizens. Protesters and rioters come from all backgrounds, some with specific political goals and many simply angry over rising costs and corruption or vaguely demanding “revolution!”

Anxiety over Lebanon’s ailing economy, high prices for food, fuel, electricity and other necessities and lack of job opportunities is primarily fueling the unrest. Protesters are also furious about government corruption and incompetence in managing finances and public funds as the country’s debt soars to extreme levels and possibilities for the working class continue to plummet. In addition to the VoIP tax, the Lebanese government previously said they would be considering putting in place a two percent raise on the country’s value-added-tax by 2021 and another two percent by 2022 to bring it to fifteen percent. There is also significant anger among members of the public about the lack of an effective response to major forest fires that have burned up large swathes of the nation’s forests.

There were reportedly tens of thousands of protesters in cities across Lebanon on Friday demanding that the current administration step down. The Red Cross said they responded to two dozen people injured by exposure to tear gas and over 75 injuries on the ground, while the Lebanese government reported that their security personnel and police have suffered over 100 injuries thus far. At least two individuals have died at this point, after two Syrians were burned in a shop set on fire by protesters on Thursday. Photographs that have emerged on social media show how seriously the protests are impacting the country logistically, including shutting down access to cities via major motorways and even impeding access to Beirut-Rafic Hariri International Airport.

Speaking Friday evening, PM Hariri said that “Lebanon is witnessing a difficult situation, the people’s pain is real and I support every peaceful movement,” but claimed that he has been the victim of political obstructionism and “all possible obstacles have been put in my way since the formation of the cabinet.” Hariri, who has been in power since December, 2016, referred to Lebanon as a family and promised to regrow Lebanon’s economy and find solutions other than increased taxation, but stopped short of offering his resignation which some had speculated he might do. Hariri gave an ultimatum of 72 hours to other political parties in Lebanon to support his economic reforms, come up with answers and work together with his Future Movement and said that if not he will reconsider the situation and talk again to the nation. Shortly prior to Hariri’s remarks, there were reports that bodyguards of former deputy Mosbah Al Ahdab in the Lebanese city of Tripoli fired on protesters after they threw water bottles at Al Ahdab for trying to give a speech in the early evening of Oct. 18. Injuries and a possible fatality among the protesters were reported from the incident.

Frequent armed conflict from the mid-1970s until 1990s has left Lebanon as an unstable and debt-ridden nation, with unemployment rates reaching almost forty percent for citizens under 35. Hariri’s interior minister Raya el-Hassan said the PM will not step down, as his resignation would lead to even worse instability and wreak even worse havoc on Lebanon’s economy and society. Lebanon’s last major protests were in 2015 and were spurred by a garbage crisis after Beirut’s main landfill was closed. The protests came to include anger at corruption, infrastructure problems and lack of opportunities as well as demands to overthrow the government. There were a number of injuries in clashes between the military and protesters and the #YouStink uprising was estimated to have reached 100,000 during the summer of 2015, although it eventually fizzled out.

This round of protests and upheaval is unique in that religious and political forces are finding more common ground than previously in their opposition to the ruling class and administration. The current situation looks set to potentially spiral into more significant change than 2015, particularly since there is not an easy—or quick—fix to the economic woes gripping Lebanon at this time.

L'articolo Lebanon Engulfed In Protests proviene da InsideOver.

This past weekend’s attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil refineries has deepened tensions in the region. In response to their on-going war with the Saudis, the Houthi rebels of Yemen have announced responsibility. But it sounds as though no one is listening to the Houthi. The blame is being almost entirely attributed to the Houthi supporters, Iran.

Whether it was the Houthi using Iranian drones and missiles or if it was Iran acting on their behalf is the subject of much debate. Having been embroiled in a war with Saudi Arabia since 2015, it’s thought that the Houthi rebels have missiles that could “sink a Navy warship.” 

In 2015, shortly after the conflict began, Yemeni sailors used recovered missiles to fire on the Saudi-led coalition. If one is to believe official reports from the Houthi controlled Yemeni capital of Sana’a, an attack from October of 2015 “destroyed” Saudi navy tanker Yunbou. 

Shortly after, pro-Houthi rebels targeted either the Saudi tanker Boraida or the Egyptian navy warship identified as Al Mahrousa. According to The National Interest, “neither the Yunbou nor Boraida was damaged” and the Al Mahrousa was a century and a half-year-old presidential yacht that hasn’t been “anywhere near Yemen in years.” While there is no doubt the rebels have artillery, the degree of candour during wartime is suspect.

The Saudis and Americans aren’t buying that it was the Houthi acting alone. Since the attack on their oil facilities on 14 September, both countries have become increasingly confident it was Iranian based. They claim that the Iranians launched a “complex missile and drone attack” from the southern part of Iran.

In defence of the Saudis, President Donald Trump said that the US was “locked and loaded” and prepared to go to war with Iran. Absent of a smoking gun that indicts the Iranians, the presidents’ comments did nothing more than agitate the already strained relationship between the US and Iran.

It’s worth noting that this is now the second time President Trump has threatened war with Iran since July. 

According to National Public Radio in America, US Defense Department officials have said they have satellite imagery detecting Iran readying drones and missiles. The department has not yet provided the satellite photos. The officials do point out that the imagery and activity are just “circumstantial evidence” that the strike originated in Iran. Because it’s believed that the drones and missiles used for the attack were more intricate than initially thought this strongly suggests Iranian involvement.

Without any empirical evidence, and taking its lead from the top, the US has beefed up its rhetoric. US Energy Secretary Rick Perry said, “The United States wholeheartedly condemns Iran’s attacks on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and we call on other nations to do the same.” In a briefing on Capitol Hill, President Trump’s special representative for Iran, Brian Hook, said that this attack was Saudi Arabia’s “9/11”. And after landing in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asserted that Saturday’s incident was indeed an “Iranian attack.” Then he doubled down on the bombast by calling it an “act of war.”

However, unlike the US, England has not gone so far as to blame Iran for the attack. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has condemned the act but called for a “diplomatic response” to the attack.

On 18 September, the Saudi Defense Ministry held a press conference, displaying “material evidence” proving Iranian Involvement. The evidence they provided included remains of missiles, shredded metal and blown up bits and pieces from the oil production plants.

Officially, Iran has denied any responsibility for the attacks.

Because much of this appears to be playing out over Twitter, Iranian political advisor Hesameddin Ashena tweeted in response, “The press conference proved that Saudi Arabia knows nothing about where the missiles and drones were made or launched from and failed to explain why the country’s defence system failed to intercept them.”

Also taking to Twitter was Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, replying to the accusations, who criticized the US saying, “Just imagine: The US isn’t upset when its allies mercilessly BOMB babies in Yemen for over 4 years-with its arms and its military assistance. But it is terribly upset when the victims react the only they can-against the aggressor’s OIL refineries.”

While there is no doubt that Iran supports the Houthi rebels in Yemen, the degree to which that support run is questionable. While Saudi’s claim that the Houthi are Iranian proxies, there is scant evidence to suggest that Iran provides anything other than tangential support. In a 2016 report, Thomas Juneau of the University of Ottawa said: “there is limited hard evidence that Tehran has provided them with material support.”

Saudi Arabia is America’s strongest ally in the region so it’s not surprising President Trump has chosen to stand by Mohammad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, or MbS, and the Saudis. In all honesty, Trump appears to be volunteering the US to stand in for the Saudis. Initially, Trump’s weekend “locked and loaded” tweet strongly suggested he would send in American troops if the Saudi’s asked. And then having his top diplomat refer to the incident as an “act of war” certainly throws another log on the diplomatic pyre between Iran and the United States.

While President Trump has not closed the book on a military strike against Iran, he has since tempered himself by saying that he had not “promised” the Saudis anything. He also went on to say that he will “sit down with the Saudis and work something out.”

In the meantime, Trump will use this event to flex his “maximum pressure” policy and penalize Iran for their alleged involvement in the attack. On Wednesday 18 September, he ordered new sanctions on top of the already crippling ones that are strangling the Iranian economy.

It was thought that President Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani might sit down for a talk next week when the United Nations General Assembly gathers in New York City. That now seems unlikely. According to Iranian state broadcaster IRIB, President Rouhani said, “Instead of creating a positive atmosphere, the American diplomats are trying to exert maximum slander on Iran with baseless and meaningless accusations.”

Whoever perpetrated the attacks on 14 September successfully crippled more than half of Saudi Arabia’s oil-exporting capability. Its effect on the world market was immediate and profound. After an initial surge of almost 20%, oil prices fell on 16 September. This accounted for the largest intra-day jump since the Gulf War in 1990-91. Acknowledging this and to assuage the world market, the Saudi’s have said that oil production will be restored to their pre-attack levels “in the coming weeks.”

As of this writing, the evidence shows that Iranian involvement in the attack is unclear. There is no denying their support of the Houthi but whether that support includes arms like specialized drones and missiles is not known. But that has not stopped the Americans from stepping onto the bully pulpit as a stand-in for Saudi Arabi and condemning Iran as the sole culprit.

It took 41 years to get clarity on the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The event that launched America into a full-blown war with Vietnam. When it was all said and done, the incident proved to be nothing more than “material misrepresentation by the US government” to justify going to war.

We can only hope this incident doesn’t play out the same way: and that it doesn’t take as long to find out who is responsible for the attacks on the Saudi Arabian oil refineries…or lead to yet another war costing far too many lives.   

L'articolo America Takes One More Step Towards War with Iran proviene da InsideOver.

The southern separatists who have seized control of Yemen’s port city of Aden will use upcoming crisis talks to push for an independence referendum and a role in the country’s UN-led peace process, said the group’s envoy Sulaiman Al-Khader.

Speaking with Inside Over, Al-Khader, the UN representative for the Southern Transitional Council (STC), said emergency talks requested this week by Saudi Arabia offered his group a chance to push for greater southern autonomy and, ultimately, independence.

“We welcome the talks in Saudi Arabia and will take part, as de-escalation is a priority right now. But moving forward, the STC must get a seat at the table in the United Nations-led peace process, from which it has so far been sidelined,” Al-Khader said in an interview.

“Bringing the STC into the process is the only way to bring peace to Yemen.”

Southern separatists, supported by coalition member the United Arab Emirates, effectively took control of Aden, the temporary seat of Yemen’s Saudi-backed government, this past weekend by seizing government military bases and the presidential palace.

The fighting killed up to 40 people and wounded 260 others, the UN says. But the International Committee for the Red Cross said this week that clinics in Aden had counted “scores dead” and hundreds wounded from the clashes.

The US-backed, Saudi-led coalition intervened in Yemen in March 2015 against the Iran-backed Houthi rebels who ousted President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi from power in the capital, Sanaa, in late 2014. Hadi’s government relocated to Aden.

The STC’s Security Belt and other armed southern groups are integral to Riyadh’s coalition, but the war has revived old wounds between north and south Yemen, which were separate countries until unification in 1990.

A peace process led by UN envoy Martin Griffiths has focused on Hadi’s government, the Houthis, the coalition and fighting around the port city of Hodeidah — pushing the question of southern secession down the agenda.

Saudi Arabia has called for a summit over the Aden crisis without setting a date. Abu Dhabi has echoed Riyadh’s call for dialogue but stopped short of asking the southern forces that it trained, funds and arms to give up control.

“The southern people have been marginalized for too long and their patience has run out. There must be a referendum on independence so that the people of south Yemen can exercise their human right for self-determination,” said Al-Khader.

For Al-Khader, Hadi’s government needs to scrap its ties with the Islamist Islah party, which has been linked to a Houthi missile strike on southern forces that killed a prominent southern military leader earlier this month.

“Hadi runs a dysfunctional government of non-functioning institutions that do not provide basic services. It has also been hijacked by Islah and other forces that make it difficult for the STC to partner with,” Al-Khader said.

The deadly clashes exposed a rift between nominal allies that threatens to worsen a stalemated conflict that has claimed tens of thousands of lives and created what the UN calls the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

The war broke out in late 2014 when the Houthis, allied with forces loyal to former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, seized much of the country, including Sanaa. It escalated in March 2015 with a Saudi-UAE-led coalition air campaign against Houthi rebels.

Al-Khader spoke with Inside Over outside UN headquarters in New York, where he was recently posted as the STC’s representative in a sign of the group’s growing appetite to win recognition on the world stage.

“We’re trying to return our south Yemeni flag, which used to hang outside UN headquarters,” Al-Khader said, referencing the independent socialist Soviet-backed state of South Yemen that existed until 1990.

“We have the most at stake, but the world hasn’t seen that yet. It’s our job to show that we will not be third class citizens in our own country under a Sanaa regime. We’ve tried that for the past three decades and seen little but war, marginalization, poverty and abysmal schools, hospitals and roads.”

STC officials say that between 80 and 90 percent of southerners want independence. Such levels of support may be exaggerated, but many analysts say the majority of the southern population could well vote to split.

The STC is supported by Independent Diplomat, an advisory group founded by former British government political officer Carne Ross that has assisted secessionists in Somaliland, Western Sahara and elsewhere.

L'articolo Yemen’s South Demands Role in UN Peace Process: Envoy proviene da InsideOver.

On Wednesday, July 31, the US Treasury Department said that it was imposing sanctions on Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s chief diplomat and present foreign minister. The sanctions led against Zarif would freeze any assets or interests he has in the United States or which are controlled by US entities.

The Iranian official responded by asserting that he had nothing as such in the United States, and that the sanctions were imposed on him after he had turned down a White House invitation.

For decades, Tehran and Washington have been locked in a spiral of mistrust and dichotomy. Their feud has reached an unprecedented level following the Trump administration’s withdrawal last year from the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal.

“The Iran Deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into,” declared Trump as he announced the withdrawal from the nuclear treaty.

Trump’s move meant further pressure on Iran by means of resuming economic sanctions, once halted during the Obama-made deal, and which aim at bringing the Iranian regime to its knees, compelling it to give up its nuclear weapon programme and its meddling in current Middle Eastern conflicts.

Whereas the Obama administration believed that Iran could be integrated internationally as a normal modern state, subsequently through negotiations and mutual compromise, Trump’s has opted for “maximum pressure” in order to either reach a new, sterner deal with Iran at last, or bring its economy to collapse by cutting its oil revenues to zero.

Last year, prior to the first set of economic sanctions, Iranian oil exports were at approximately 2.5 million barrels a day. They have drastically dwindled to about 500.000 a day presently.

However, “Iran never negotiates under pressure,” Javad Zarif said in a CNN interview recently. “You cannot threaten an Iranian and expect them to engage. That will never happen. If there is an interest in engagement, the way to do it is through respect, not through threat,” he added.

Dangerous escalations

Last May, Iran denied accusations of attacking four oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. Two of the oil vessels belonged to Saudi Arabia and one to the United Arab Emirates – US major allies in the region and avowed enemies of Iran –  whereas the fourth vessel belonged to a Norwegian company.

The acts of sabotage were carried out with what appeared to be explosives, leaving however no human casualties, and have reportedly taken place near the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most crucial shipping lanes. Iran has often threatened to block traffic in the Strait of Hormuz in response to the sanctions.

Later in June, a US drone aircraft was downed near the same sea passage – this time with no denial from Iran. The Revolutionary Guard Corps said the incident occurred after an “intruding American spy drone” had entered into Iranian territories. US officials, for their part, maintained that the aircraft had been flying in international space before the shoot-down.

The Revolutionary Guard Corps commander in chief, Hossein Salami, later declared that Iran did “not want war with any country,” but was nonetheless “completely, and totally, ready and prepared for war.”

Although crippled by economic sanctions, Iran has often proved defiant in the face of its – even more truculent –  adversary, the United States. On many occasions, it was accused of directly attacking US forces in conflict-torn Syria and Iraq through proxy groups.

It has even grown so much as to represent a patent threat to many neighboring countries – Middle Eastern, Sunni-majority monarchies that have sworn alliance to the United States, and Israel.

Iran’s geopolitical influence stretches as far as Yemen, where it supports Houthi rebels, Lebanon, through Hezbollah, Syria, where it stands for al-Assad’s regime, and Iraq, where it funds Shia militias. But even if Iran has been able to meddle in as big a regional scope, analysts still find it hard for it to stand up to a foreign offensive.

Iran’s peculiar armed forces

The Iranian Armed Forces are divided into two major pillars – the Revolutionary Guards Corps, also known as Sepah, and the conventional Islamic Republic of Iran Army, called Artesh. Both have multiple branches, such as ground force, air force and navy.

As one, the Sepah, is highly elitist, favored, and is equal to conducting large-scale operations throughout the region, Artesh remains a victim of a lame economy, marginalized and under-armed for the most part.

“Artesh is thought of as a classic defensive army,” wrote Akram Kharief, journalist and publisher of MENA Defense, whereas the Revolutionary Guards Corps “is meant to serve the ideology of the Islamic Republic.”

Although strong in men (523,000), Artesh, the conventional army, disposes of but little sophisticated weaponry  – save missiles and airspace protection – compared to its potential belligerent, the United States.

Artesh’s most powerful tank is the Soviet-produced T-72, which was designed in the 1970s. Its armored division is by and large formed of Chieftain and Patton tanks that sometimes date from as far back as the Korean and Vietnam wars. Only about sixty-five fighter aircrafts, some of which date back from the Shah era – like the Northrop F-5 and the US-made McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II – form its air force.

In contrast, however, the Revolutionary Guards are believed to hold hundreds of drones, some of which have the capability to bear missiles – such as those used by Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Iran’s dominance of the Persian Sea and its manifest aggressiveness in the Strait of Hormuz draws from its having, in addition to the swarms of drones, one of the fiercest maritime forces with locally-built speedboats, midget submarines and ground-effect vehicles with the ability to sustain low-level flight over water.

Iranian observation drones had filmed US ships and aircraft carriers on many occasions between 2010 and 2017 in the Persian Gulf, Washington Post reports revealed in 2017.

Iran also bears one of the world’s most efficient territorial air defense systems —Russian-made Rezonans radars, and Avtobaza passive ELINT systems, among many other classic Russian and Chinese systems. Its main manufacturers remain Russia, China and North Korea.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Iran also possesses around 100 Shahab-3 and Ghadr missiles with a range of over 1,000 kilometres, as well as others, such as Soumar and Sejjil, with even a greater range of up to 2,500km, which put US regional bases, as well as Saudi Arabia and Israel, within plain reach.

L'articolo Could Iran Survive a Foreign Attack? proviene da InsideOver.