On Thursday, August 6 US Special Envoy to Iran Brian Hook announced his resignation, although a senior government official claimed that Hook had been asked to step down due to his alleged failure to give maximum pressures on Iran.

The senior official also told Washington Post that Iran had violated a uranium enrichment limit, accumulation, and production.

Pompeo Praises Hook

However, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo thanked Hook for the service for two years and praised him for successfully negotiating with Tehran for the release of two Americans.

“He successfully negotiated with the Iranians the release of Michael White and Xiyue Wang from prison. Special Representative Hook also served with distinction as the Director of Policy Planning and set into motion a range of new strategies that advanced the national security interests of the United States and our allies,” Pompeo said, adding that “he has been a trusted advisor to me and a good friend. I thank him for his service.” 

Hook to be Replaced by Elliott Abrams

The departure of Hook—who will be replaced by Elliott Abrams, a special representative for Venezuela and an anti-Iran hardliner—shows the Trump administration’s dissatisfaction over Iran. This is especially true given that US sanctions did not deter Iran from building its military and enriching uranium after the US left the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 — the Joint Comprehensive Plans of Action (JCPOA). Despite slamming the agreement as ineffective in pushing Iran to actually halt its nuclear ambitions, US withdrawal and sanctions have also not succeeded thus far.

China’s Military Base in Iran

Indonesian international affairs lecturer Yusran told InsideOver that the US is panicking over China’s plan to build a military base in Iran, given that Washington and Beijing have been involved in several spats, from trade and technology to the military showdown in the contested South China Sea.

“From what I heard China is going to set up a military base in Iran, which makes the US panic. Also, we see the sanctions will not stop Iran from building its military and enhancing its uranium even though Tehran allows an inspection from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),” the lecturer at Budi Luhur University stated.

The military exercise held by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) two weeks ago also sent a warning that Iran is continuing to equip its military with sophisticated weapons.

Could There be a New Nuclear Deal?

The answer is uncertain and it is unlikely to happen unless all the JCPOA signatories can sit together to solve the dispute.

“European countries — particularly Germany and Russia which are signatories to the deal — can put pressure on the US to negotiate,” Yusran said.

Germany is seen as the most influential power in the continent, with a stable political situation. European Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen is also from Germany. 

While Russia is respected as one of the world’s nuclear powers and military powerhouses, Russia, as well as China also has a good relationship with Iran and the three nations held a joint military exercise at the end of 2019.

Yusran hailed the JCPOA as the most effective deal, signed by the Obama administration in 2015. The agreement stipulates a limit on the extended time needed by Iran to produce a nuclear bomb.

How Worried is the US About Iran?

The US is the world’s military powerhouse. However, Washington is concerned that a nuclear Iran will threaten the Middle Eastern stability.

“Of course, the US is above all. However, when it comes to uranium enrichment, the US may have worried that it would trigger a nuclear war in the volatile Middle East,” the head of the Indonesian International Affairs Association (AIHII) stated.

“The military option will not create a stable region as we see how the situation is going on in the Middle East. Look at Syria, Libya, and Lebanon. Also, many countries are entering the region to exert their influence. For example, China and Turkey,” he added.

US Withdrawal from Iran Nuclear Deal Sparked Worldwide Protests

The White House departure from the JCPOA sparked a worldwide protest. Trump alleged that Iran had violated the deal despite the IAEA saying the opposite.

The European Union protested Trump’s unilateral withdrawal. The bloc set up a mechanism that facilitates financial transactions with Tehran without avoiding the US sanction aimed at maintaining Europe’s interest in Iran.

“European countries also want to maintain a good relationship with Iran since they have companies operating in Iran. They also want to protect their assets in Iran,” Yusran said.

Maximum Pressure on Iran and the US Election

Yusran elaborated that Trump would use the Iran issue to boost electability among Conservative voters since the real estate mogul’s popularity has declined, mainly due to the COVID-19 mitigation and the mass protest against police brutality last May.

“Foreign issues can be utilized to boost votes ahead of the 2020 presidential election,” Yusran stated.

Trump has unilaterally withdrawn from several international agreements such as the JCPOA and the INF (Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces). The most recent is the U.S announced its formal withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) in July 2021.

“When it comes to foreign affairs, Trump seems to take an anti-mainstream measure by unilaterally abandoning the international agreement. We will see whether his ‘breakthrough’ will help him in the election,” Yusran said, wrapping up the interview.

L'articolo Behind The Resignation of the US Special Envoy to Iran Brian Hook proviene da InsideOver.

The United Arab Emirates and Israel have agreed to complete normalization of their relations, an historic deal conducted through US mediation.

‘Historic Day’

In their joint statement, both countries confirm that full diplomatic relations will be established. In return, Israel would give up certain claims to Palestinian-inhabited areas in the West Bank. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke of an “historic day.”

Netanyahu’s Vision Remains Unchanged

At the same time, however, Netanyahu dampened hopes that his annexation plans in the occupied West Bank would end altogether.

“I said that I would extend sovereignty to Judea and Samaria. Nothing has changed in my plan to do that, in full coordination with the US,” Netanyahu told journalists in Jerusalem.

Trump had asked Israel to postpone the plans – “to advance peace with the United Arab Emirates, and I hope with other countries too.” An annexation without US support would, in turn, seriously damage the settlement project.

Nonetheless, Netanyahu also spoke of a “new era in relations between Israel and the Arab world”. After 49 years, full relations will be established with the United Arab Emirates, and embassies will be set up. Economic relations ought to be also expanded.

Negotiations Ongoing

Both states now seek to negotiate detailed agreements in all of these areas in the next few weeks. The United Arab Emirates is the first Gulf state to conclude such an agreement with Israel. The overwhelming majority of Arab states are – at least officially –  hostile to Israel on the diplomatic stage.

However, Israel already has diplomatic relations with its neighbors Jordan and Egypt. Recently a cautious rapprochement between Israel and individual countries in the region has also been discernible. Netanyahu visited Oman in 2018, for example.

Arab Realpolitik

The Gulf States’ interest in being close to Israel has become increasingly apparent in the past few years, with the United Arab Emirates as the driving force.

Even if the lively economic and secret service exchange between Israel and the Gulf States is considered the worst-kept secret in the Middle East, at least outwardly, the Gulf states have preserved their facade. Until Thursday. Relations between Israel and the Emirates had gradually improved over the past few years. Despite not having diplomatic relations officially, the Emirates have long since secretly established contacts with Israel.

Above all, the Gulf monarchies, including Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, now see Iran as the greatest threat to the region. It can be considered Arab realpolitik: act according to the circumstances and not by ideology. Israel is therefore seen in Abu Dhabi and Riyadh as a possible partner to reduce Iran’s influence in the Middle East and thus of strategic importance. For Israel, as its immediate neighbor to Iran, the UAE is an essential bridgehead in the event of a military conflict.

The reaction from Tehran came promptly. The agreement was “dangerous and illegitimate,” said the Tehran Foreign Ministry. It was a “shameful measure” with which the Palestinians were stabbed in the back. In the region, however, the action of the Arab Emirates only strengthened the front against Israel. Moreover, Iran claimed that the agreement was a “strategic mistake” by the UAE and would not create peace in the Middle East.

Palestinian Cause Overshadowed by Geopolitical Calculus

For the Palestinians, too, the news is a diplomatic disaster. Little is likely to change for them. However, the deal reveals the loss of importance of the Palestinian cause in the Arab world, mercilessly before the eyes of the world. As expected, the Palestinian leadership criticized the move. Israel was rewarded for not openly declaring what it had been doing illegally since the occupation began,” wrote the Palestinian politician Hanan Ashrawi on Twitter.

The Islamist terrorist organization Hamas ruling in the Gaza Strip also attacked the agreement saying it was a “fraudulent stab in the back of the Palestinian people.”

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas denounced the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and the UAE as “aggression”. After an emergency meeting of the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah, the Emirates had committed a “betrayal of Jerusalem and the Palestinian cause” through their agreement with Israel.

The Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki announced that the Palestinian Ambassador to the Emirates had been recalled.

Meanwhile, Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi welcomed the agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. He followed the corresponding communication from Israel, the “brotherly” Emirates, and the USA with “great interest and appreciation”. He appreciated the efforts of those involved who wanted to bring peace, prosperity, and stability to the region.

Much-Needed Win for Trump and Netanyahu

Meanwhile, President Trump can claim to have landed a real coup. The fact that an Arab state extends its hand to the Jews can be seen as significant progress. Trump benefited from the fact that both the Emirates and Israel are close allies of the United States. Moreover, when the superpower pushes, the smaller partners cannot easily evade it. In addition, it was part of the American president’s agenda on the Middle East conflict from the outset to promise more economic stability for the region. The economic impact and radiance of Israel and the Emirates can certainly do something in this direction. Furthermore, Trump can present himself as a successful “deal maker” and present a success on the international stage – both desperately needed and rather seldom as of late.

For Netanyahu too, the deal is a much-needed win. The government is under increasing criticism, and he is cited as a culprit for the missed COVID management. There are also charges and a shaky government that could collapse at any time.

L'articolo The Historic Peace Deal Between Israel and the UAE proviene da InsideOver.

The strategic Strait of Hormuz has been a source of tension between the US and Iran for some time. The US military’s Central Command recently published a black-and-white video showing that the Iranian Navy boarded and briefly seized a Liberian-flagged oil tanker called the MT Wila in the Strait.

The video also showed that special forces were fast-roping down a helicopter onto the MT Wila, whose last position appeared to be off the eastern coast of the United Arab Emirates near the city of Khorfakkan.

The Iranian Navy captured the vessel for approximately five hours before releasing it on Wednesday, according to a US military official who spoke to the Associated Press. So far, no reason has been given for the vessel’s seizure.

US Sanctions are Having a Limited Effect

In July, an oil tanker wanted by the US was “hijacked” off the coast of the United Arab Emirates after supposedly smuggling Iranian crude oil.

US President Donald Trump has provided no response to this latest incident so far, but with a presidential election around the corner, he has a limited amount of time to tackle Iran’s action.

The US President recently pledged to strike a new nuclear deal with Tehran “within four weeks” if he is re-elected in November, according to a video of his remarks from inside a New Jersey fundraiser that was reported on by the Independent. Regardless, it is unclear what a new deal would look like, but it is needed fast if Trump is serious about curbing the threat that Iran poses to peace in the Middle East.

One option that is available to Trump in the meantime is that he could impose more sanctions on Iran. It is clear that the Iranian economy has been badly damaged by both the coronavirus and preexisting US sanctions. Focus Economics states that US sanctions and the coronavirus will cause the Iranian economy to contract sharply for the third consecutive year by 7.3 percent.

Iran is Breaching its 2015 Deal

Whilst US sanctions have succeeded in slowing down the Iranian economy, they are not a long-term solution to the problem. It is clear that they are not preventing Tehran from developing its nuclear program.

Bloomberg’s Jonathan Tirone discovered that the Iranian Government is moving to boost production of nuclear fuel at a crucial facility in Natanz which was struck by apparent sabotage last month. Iranian engineers have already installed piping needed to accumulate higher volumes of material that will be generated by three new centrifuge cascades. This represents an apparent breach of the 2015 Iran Deal that Barack Obama signed during his tenure as US president.

For now, Washington has no choice but to exercise all diplomatic options available to them to exert pressure on Iran. The Trump Administration recently revised a resolution that would extend a UN arms embargo on Iran for an indefinite period of time. The original resolution is due to expire on October 18. The UN Security Council will vote on this resolution on Friday, but Tehran’s allies, China and Russia, have the power to thwart such a proposal and they have already voiced strong opposition to it.

The Trump Administration has few Options Left

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has already warned of consequences if the UN approves of such a measure.

The resolution does have the support of Saudi Arabia as the country’s UN ambassador, Abdul Aziz Al-Wasel, said during a conference held in Geneva that Tehran smuggles weapons to militias to destabilize peace in the Middle East.

The Trump administration is right to prioritize a deal with Iran should the US President succeed in getting re-elected in November. But until Trump can produce a coherent plan to achieve this aim, it seems like his options are limited, at least until later on this year. This is why Iran is bold enough to continue to seize oil tankers and enrich its nuclear fuel. Whoever wins the US election this year has an enormous challenge ahead of them.

L'articolo How Should Trump React to Iran’s Seizure of Another Oil Tanker? proviene da InsideOver.

Six months ago, US President Donald Trump ordered the death of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad. It was a decision that provoked mixed responses throughout the world and almost sparked a conflict between Iran and the US. That is because he was a significant figure in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), who directed the nation’s overseas proxy forces and military operations.

Voa News reports that General Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., the commander of United States Central Command (CENTCOM), said on Wednesday during a webinar with a Washington-based think tank called the Middle East Institute, that Soleimani’s death has had ‘a significant effect in establishing and reestablishing a rough form of deterrence in the theater.’

Iraq remains vulnerable to Iran’s influence

Seventeen years after the Iraq War, the country remains vulnerable to Iran’s influence. The Islamic State (IS) is also continuing its relentless terror campaign in Iraq. However, many Iraqis remain divided over whether American troops should remain in their nation. Trump’s desire is for US soldiers to return home and to end America’s ‘endless wars’, but that is easier said than done when the Iraqi Government still needs American assistance to defeat IS and Iranian proxy forces.

When Soleimani was killed, Eric Edelman, a practitioner senior fellow at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs and a career U.S. Foreign Service Minister, told the University of Virginia that the reason why the former Iranian general flew to Iraq in the first place was to try and ensure Iranian-sponsored Shiite militias in the country could suppress Iraqis protesting against Iran’s influence at the time. He added that Soleimani’s death may embolden Iraqis who resent Iran’s influence in their nation.

Soleimani’s death triggered Iraqi militias

However, Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr announced that he would be reactivating his Mahdi Army militia in the immediate aftermath of Soleimani’s killing. This is the same militia that behaved like a major death squad that murdered and abused many Iraqi Sunnis during the Iraqi civil war.

Aside from Sadr, Qais al-Khazali declared that his Asaib Ahl ul-Haq [AAH] militia will attempt to expel American forces from Iraq. In the short-term, Soleimani’s death only radicalized many militias in the country.

Despite this, the Associated Press says that Iran is struggling to maintain its influence among Iraqi Popular Mobilization Front (PMF) militias. This is because Esmail Ghaani, who succeeded Soleimani, is less of an established name for leaders of the many militia groups operating under the PMF umbrella.

Ghaani also has the disadvantage of being unable to speak good Arabic and he depends upon an interpreter to resolve any disputes.

The PMF is struggling to receive Iranian funds

Because of Trump’s campaign of ‘maximum pressure’ against Tehran through targeted sanctions, many PMF leaders received no funds from the Iranian Government recently.

In a further blow to Iran, Iraq’s Shi’ite establishment, led by Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali al-Husayni al-Sistani, has supposedly stated its unwillingness to tolerate Tehran’s grip over Iraq. It is clear that Soleimani’s death has made it harder for the Iranian Government to expand its influence over Baghdad, and that will only become more difficult over time if Tehran cannot fund militias who intend to destabilize Iraq’s current government.

The biggest obstacle to Iraqi-Iranian relations is the presence of US troops in Iraq, but Soleimani’s death has provided a further wedge between both nations. Without an influential figure in the IRGC, Iran will struggle to increase its support among the Iraqi population, and that task will be made harder if it cannot fund the PMF either. Iraq is stuck in the middle between the US and Iran and as tensions between Washington and Tehran worsen, Baghdad will be affected regardless. But how much further can Iran’s regime go before the Trump administration decides the time is right to go to war with them?

L'articolo The long-term consequences of Soleimani’s death on Iraqi-Iranian relations proviene da InsideOver.

After an active beginning for 2020, Iran has calmed down its aggressive maneuvers that once had the world on edge in anticipation of World War 3. After the US assassinated top Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani in January, Iran nonetheless conducted additional drone strikes in Saudi Arabia, continued hitting tankers in the Persian Gulf, and carried about a nuclear program ramp-up. 

However, Iran’s current geopolitical calculus is changing.

Iraq Stability Forces Coordination

Several factors have convinced Iran to assume a more reserved attitude recently, as the New York Times reports. Chief among these is the situation in its neighbor, Iraq. Last month, Iranian Gen. Ismail Qaani informed Baghdad that Tehran’s officials were not satisfied with the approach to economic problems in Iraq. 

“Things are not good in Iraq and they can’t go on like this because Iraq will become a burden on Iran,” recounted a senior Iraqi political leader who met with General Qaani.

Protests in Iraq, both against the government and America’s occupation force, drove further discontent in Iran and feelings that the situation could cross over the border. Iraq is one of Iran’s closest trading partners and one of its only remaining sources of revenue amid crippling US sanctions. It is not a state that Iran can afford to let fall into further disarray.

The solution was actually to team up with the US to bring in a prime minister that both states favored. When the parliament was incapable of choosing one, Washington and Tehran found their candidate in Mustafa al-Kadhimi.

Iran actually promoted Kadhimi’s nomination, which earned it some good will with Washington. In return, the US extended a four-month waiver for Iraq to buy gas from Tehran, an unusual measure that is customarily only done for one month. The US also removed some forces from Saudi Arabia as a goodwill gesture.

Diplomacy Wins Out

Agreeing on a prime minister for Iraq where both Washington and Tehran have vested interests was not the only point of concession from Iran. At the beginning of the month, Tehran announced it is prepared for an unconditional prisoner swap with Washington, although talks for it have yet to begin.

Iran also slowed down attacks in the Persian Gulf and ordered its proxy militias in Iraq to stop attacking America forces. The Israeli military also reported that Iran is pulling out from Syria, largely as a response to domestic discontent.

“Iran is redefining its regional policies after Gen. Soleimani’s assassination,” Mohamad Hossein Malaek, an Iranian diplomat and former ambassador to China, wrote in Iranian Diplomacy magazine last month. “It’s reshuffling its cards, it’s reassessing its capabilities, and it has entered the arena with a new perspective and plan.”

The goals of Tehran haven’t changed — it still desires a release from US sanctions and access to regional governments where it can spread its influence. However, Iran has found itself increasingly spread thin across the globe, partly due to those sanctions. The Trump administration’s maximum pressure campaign combined with renewed attacks from Israel across Syria and Lebanon have made Tehran recoil.

Eyes on US Election

Outside of Iran, the US election has also largely affected Tehran’s decision to tone down its tactics. Tehran has concluded that by causing turmoil in the region, it indirectly helps US President Donald Trump in his reelection bid. Trump has already argued that Iran is a malevolent state and that his administration is the one to bring it in line. Furthermore, it was Trump who threw away the nuclear deal and restored sanctions.

By acting out in response, Iran was only proving Trump right. Now that the US presidential elections are less than six months away, it’s time for Tehran to remove any reason for Trump to use it as a campaign speech.

Finally, Iranian officials also took into account the domestic discontent that boiled over into protests in January as a result of the government accidentally downing a passenger aircraft. The coronavirus pandemic quickly followed, adding to the litany of reasons why Iranians have pent up anger at their government.

Iran’s Attempt at an Image Makeover

By holding off from further attacks in the region, working with the US to push a favorable candidate in Iraq, and removing some forces from Syria, Tehran is essentially trying to reset its global image at a critical juncture. The COVID-19 virus represents a perfect opportunity to do so because it is presently the focus of the international community. When it subsides, perhaps people will have forgotten about Iran’s actions before the disease struck. Tehran can rebuild its image at the perfect time before US elections.

The UN Security Council is also set to rule on an arms embargo in October. The US has already said it should be extended or it will try to snap back UN sanctions through the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. However, Russia and China are on the security council and are expected to side with Iran. Even so, it is in Tehran’s interests to avoid stirring up more trouble before the decision is made.

Developments from Tehran this month bode well for the rest of the year. At least into November, Tehran will retain itself. Should Democratic candidate Joe Biden win the US election, Tehran would likely enter 2021 with a more peaceful spirit in anticipation of potentially restoring the nuclear deal once Biden takes office.

Should Trump win reelection, Iran’s government will have to make the difficult decision to stop its nuclear program or face collapse. The state has barely survived a few years under Trump’s sanctions and its unthinkable that it could hold out for another four years. Tehran will be forced to concede defeat to the maximum pressure campaign and make a deal with the devil.

L'articolo Restraint is the New Face of Iran proviene da InsideOver.

Following the January 3 assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, the United States and Iran came within inches of an all-out military conflict. On January 10, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13902 which compounded a crippling set of sanctions on Iran.

Also in January, China was just beginning to identify and deal with an unknown and deadly virus that was starting to infect people in the Chinese city of Wuhan. In a very short time, that virus became a worldwide pandemic know as Covid-19 or the coronavirus.

The Spread of Covid-19 and Iran’s Situation

As this virus made its way around the world and continues to do so, countries have been facing worst-case medical scenarios, which have led governments to enforce countrywide work stoppages, strict “social distancing” guidelines, and in many cases complete lockdowns.

Even the most advanced Western countries have come face-to-face with worst-case medical scenarios, leaving those less advanced in worse conditions.

For decades Iran has had a series of crippling sanctions imposed on them. These worldwide sanctions against Iran include preventing any international financial transactions and shipping, and trade, including that of medicine and medical equipment. These coupled with falling oil prices — Iran’s principal export — have debilitated the Iranian economy.

In a global economy, the sanctions have left Iran unable to compete in that environment. They have also left Iran prostrate should any worst-case situation impact the country. That worst-case scenario has arrived with the coronavirus.

Iran is in Dire Need of Help

As the virus spread through Iran, its government has been unable to react in the same manner that other governments have. The punishing financial nature of these worldwide sanctions against the country means Iran is unable to enforce the kinds of measures other nations have taken in order to properly combat the coronavirus.

According to Tehran Mayor Pirouz Hanachi, any kind of shutdown would be “nearly impossible to enforce because the government would be unable to financially support people unable to work.”

Like many countries battling the pandemic, Iran is in dire need of help — one citizen is dying every ten minutes and 50 become infected every hour.

As of 25 March, according to the Center for Systems Science and Engineering, Iran ranks sixth in the world with the number of confirmed cases of coronavirus. And the country is not expected to reach the apogee of the pandemic until May. Countries around the world, including top American adversaries China and Russia, and its strongest ally Britain, have implored the Trump administration to ease its sanctions on Iran.

However, US President Donald Trump is so committed to crushing Iran’s current government that instead he instituted a new round of sanctions on March 20, blacklisting 12 companies from trading in petrochemicals.

Is Trump Making the Iran’s Health Crisis Worse?

In addition to their request for the US to ease its sanctions, China defied US sanctions and sent a medical team, test kits, and ventilators to Iran after the country became a hot zone. As tensions between America and China continue to bubble, having Iran looking to China for help has the potential to upset the balance of power in the region away from the West.

In early March, Chinese Government spokesman Lijian Zhao poked fun at the US by tweeting, “might be the US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan.”

Not easing the tension between Iran and the US, Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has also taken a page from Zhao’s propaganda playbook by claiming that the coronavirus “is specifically built for Iran using the genetic data of Iranians.”

The accusations of both China and Iran remain wholly unsubstantiated.

Taking aim at both China and Iran, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo referred to the coronavirus as the “Wuhan virus” and said Khamenei’s “fabrications are dangerous and they put Iranians and people around the world at greater risk.”

The approach that the United States has taken with Iran has been called “maximum pressure.” Yet the US Special Representative for Iranian Affairs, Brian Hook, has said:  “US sanctions are not preventing aid from getting to Iran,” which isn’t entirely accurate.

If Iran Can’t Beat Coronavirus Neither Can the World

In order to see through the inaccuracy of Hook’s claims it is necessary to understand some rather obscure language. The arcane legalese used for sanctions is challenging but in President Trump’s January 10 Executive Order it is stated in Sec. 4: “I hereby determine that the making of donations by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests are blocked…”

This includes:

• The making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person 
• The receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services 
• Accepting deposits, making granting, transferring, holding, or brokering loans or credits
• Purchasing or selling foreign exchange, securities, commodity futures or options

Because banks were unable to process financial transactions, the international companies who manufacture the equipment and supplies needed to fight the coronavirus have stopped shipping to Iran.

To put it simply: Iran does not have the ability to institute measures that could “flatten the curve” and stop the spread of the coronavirus. This “maximum pressure” policy that the US has applied to Iran strictly prohibits both foreign and domestic companies and governments from lending aid as the country still faces the worst of the pandemic. 

This isn’t just a problem for the Middle East because if the international community continues to turn its back on Iran because of punitive measures, the world will face an endless battle with a deadly disease.

Iran’s inability to constrain the coronavirus means a potentially never-ending battle against the deadly Covid-19 for all of us.

L'articolo US-Led Sanctions Against Iran Could Mean an Endless Battle with the Coronavirus proviene da InsideOver.

The US Senate voted in favour of a bipartisan measure that would limit US President Donald Trump’s authority to start military operations against Iran.

Bipartisan Effort to Restrict Trump’s War Powers

The resolution was authored by Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. He asserted that the President must win approval from Congress before engaging in future military action against Tehran. In a devastating blow to Trump, eight Republicans sided with the Democrats on Wednesday on a procedural motion to force a vote on the issue as early as Thursday, according to the Associated Press.

Both Trump and his supporters have argued that the legislation sends a signal of weakness to Iran and other potential adversaries.

However, Kaine and his supporters said the measure was not targeted at Trump or his presidency, but instead characterised them as a significant reassertion of congressional power to declare war.

Which Republicans Supported the Resolution?

The legislation had the support of GOP senators like Senator Mike Lee of Utah, who supports the President’s foreign policy towards Iran, but also believes that Congress cannot escape its constitutional responsibility to act on issues of war and peace.

Although Kaine’s measure had cross-party support, it is understandable why the President and his supporters believe this bill is targeted at his presidency. The Democratic Senator was Hillary Clinton’s running mate in the 2016 US Presidential Election, and many in his party opposed Trump’s order to kill Iranian General Qassem Soleimani last month.

This is why the Senate’s Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, opposed the bill because he believes that it sends the wrong message to the US’s allies.

No Guarantee Resolution Will Become Law

There is no guarantee that the legislation will become law yet. Now that it has passed the Senate, the House of Representatives could take up the former chamber’s resolution later this month.

Also, if Trump vetoes the resolution, it would require two-thirds of both chambers to overturn the President’s veto.

All US presidents since George W. Bush have enjoyed an expansion in executive authority to declare war following 9/11. According to Chris Edelson, assistant professor at American University’s School of Public Affairs, Congress has struggled to challenge any sitting president who has overstepped the limits of their emergency powers.

During 2011, Congress failed to challenge Barack Obama’s executive order to declare war on Libya, a conflict arguably as controversial as the 2003 Iraq War, and the former president’s decision to order attacks against ISIS was not thwarted by the legislature either.

This is why Kaine’s resolution is so radical because it could limit the executive’s authority to declare war for the first time in almost twenty years.

Expansion of Executive Authority is Nothing New

But as the American University argues, presidents pushing the limits of executive authority when it comes to national security is not entirely new. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, though he secured congressional authorisation to do so.

As another example, Harry Truman ordered the Secretary of Commerce to seize and control the country’s steel mills to produce weapons during the Korean War, which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional.

For those who believe that the legislature should have the final say to authorise the executive’s decision to declare war, Kaine’s legislation is a welcome move. However, at a time when the nature of war is changing and terrorist attacks are becoming more sophisticated, it could weaken Trump’s authority to act quickly if an individual or terrorist group poses an imminent threat to the US. This was the main reason why Bush was awarded those powers in 2001 and why no president has faced the prospect of being robbed of them until now.

Checks and balances are needed. Arguably⁠—the Bush administration went too far in its waterboarding of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay⁠—but with Iran becoming more threatening, this bill could not come at a worse time for the Trump administration or for American readiness to face national security threats.

L'articolo The Senate Has Decided To Restrict Trump’s War Powers proviene da InsideOver.

Iran will sue US President Donald Trump at the International Criminal Court in The Hague following the American drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassim Suleimani. Gholam Hossein Esmaeili announced his state’s intentions to file lawsuits at the ICC, in Iran, and in Iraq where the assassination took place.

“There is no doubt that the US military has done a terrorist act assassinating Guards Commander Lt. Gen. Soleimani and Second-in-Command of Iraq Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis … and Trump has confessed doing the crime,” Esmaeili said Jan. 14. 

The attack on Suleimani caused immediate concern over a possible war with Iran, with some observers even questioning whether it would bring about a Third World War. None of that came to pass, however, as Iran chose to fire missiles at a US military base in Iraq instead. US officials initially downplayed damage reports, declaring no US casualties, but The Pentagon later amended its report to include 11 injured US military personnel.

Trump and Iranian officials both declared the end of armed hostilities and pledged to move toward peace with a return of diplomatic negotiations. However, Washington levied more sanctions on Iranian officials and Tehran is intent on holding American responsible for what was most likely a war crime. 

What is the ICC?

The ICC is a tribunal with 123 member states, including the entirety of South America, most of Europe, a large portion of Africa, Canada, Australia, Mexico, and New Zealand. Compared to other institutions, such as the UN, the ICC is relatively new. It was spearheaded in the 1990s and formally created with the singing of the Rome Statute at a UN General Assembly on July 17, 1998. 

It should not be confused with the International Court of Justice, which is designed to hear inter-state complaints. The ICJ is a formal branch of the UN, dating back to the organization’s creation in 1948 and every member state is subject to it, unlike the ICC which requires member states to ratify the Rome Statute to join it. 

Consequently, the ICC holds significantly less power than the ICJ, which is used as an avenue to punish individuals it convicts of international crimes. Genocide, crimes against humanity such as murder, torture, and rape, war crimes, and crimes of aggression, like military invasions and blockades, are common areas states use the ICC for redress.

Does it hold any power over the US?

The US has not signed the Rome Statute into law, therefore an ICC ruling is essentially non-binding. An American citizen convicted in the court could, in theory, find their travel options restricted and overseas assets frozen by signatories to the Rome Statute. An American citizen has never been investigated by the court, and in its existence, it has only carried out 12 investigations in total. 

The worst likely outcome, as pointed out by Business Insider, is a stain on the US faces a public relations “embarrassment.” Iran’s case, according to some analysts such as Agnes Callamard, UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial executions, is sound. 

“The targeted killings of Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al Muhandi most likely violate international law [including] human rights law,” Callamard wrote. “Lawful justifications for such killings are very narrowly defined and it is hard to imagine how any of these can apply to these killings.” 

Since the beginning of the US war in Afghanistan, it has never faced such an official, black stain on its international reputation. By assassinating Suleimani, Trump placed America in an unprecedented position. Even that war in Iraq, which resulted in the capture and trial by Iraqis of Saddam Hussein, did not prompt an ICC investigation, despite Washington producing no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. 

Other dictators which have allegedly committed crimes worth of international trial, such as Chinese President Xi Jinping and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, have not been investigated, nor have such actions been seriously put forward.

Further complicating Washington’s case, the Trump administration has produced no evidence to justify the attack. Although it claimed “imminent threats” as the reason, briefings before the US Congress yielded no specifics. As such, if Iran follows through with opening an investigation and subsequent trial at the ICC, the odds are stacked against the US. 

L'articolo Iran Will Take Trump to ICC Over Suleimani Assassination proviene da InsideOver.

When he became the Republican candidate for the 2016 Presidential Election over four years ago, Donald Trump promised to ensure that American trade would not be disadvantaged by other countries. He has succeeded in delivering on his promise so far to a certain extent.

Although some critics say there is little substance behind China and America ending their trade war by signing Phase One of their trade agreement, Trump can still claim an achievement heading into the 2020 Presidential Election.

The new deal slashes tariffs on $120 billion worth of products, but most of the steeper duties – which affect another $360 billion of Chinese goods and more than $100 billion worth of US exports – remain.

In another victory for Trump before this year’s election, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated that his chamber could approve of the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement) at the end of this week.

These trade deals represent substantial achievements for a President committed to fairer trade for the US, and they can provide the GOP with plenty of ammunition for this year’s election.

Nonetheless, there is one crucial trading partner that Trump has failed to reach an agreement with, and that is the EU. In August, Trump hinted that the US will be able to reach a fair trade deal with the EU without imposing proposed tariffs on car imports. He also said he planned on visiting Germany to discuss a trade pact with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Merkel said herself she wants trade discussions to be concluded ‘as quickly as possible.’

But the escalating Iranian crisis could now become the latest stumbling block in Trump’s bid to reach a trade pact with Brussels. Washington has threatened to impose a 25 percent tariff on European automobile imports if Britain, France and Germany do not formally accuse Tehran of breaking the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

This is despite the fact that the three nations triggered a dispute mechanism under the agreement on Tuesday, accusing Iran of violating its terms. This could lead to the reinstatement of UN sanctions lifted under the pact.

Iran has now become a bargaining chip for the Trump administration. According to the Washington Post, he wants to use Tehran to receive better terms for Washington within the US-European trade relationship, not to shift European foreign policy.

This is a huge gamble for the President. He has a limited timeframe to reach an agreement with the EU and if London, Paris and Berlin all refuse to shift their positions on the Iran Deal, despite being imposed with a fresh round of tariffs, both sides will only prolong their current stalemate. It will be a devastating double blow for the Trump administration’s foreign policy.

Even if he succeeded in using the threat of tariffs to force those three European nations to support Washington’s position on Tehran, both the US and the EU have failed to make any progress towards a trade pact or tariff reductions. In October, the Trump administration planned to introduce duties of 25 percent for agricultural products like French wines in response to EU subsidies for Airbus.

There is still time for Brussels and Washington to compromise on trade and for European nations to be persuaded to support Trump’s position on Iran. Perhaps Tehran is the ‘trump card’ the President needs to win his trade war with the EU and persuade Europe’s three most powerful countries to support his proposal to renegotiate the Iran Deal.

But Trump must use what time he has left wisely to reach an accord with his European allies on these two crucial issues, otherwise, his opponents will go into the 2020 election claiming he has alienated America’s closest partners. The consequences of the President’s latest threat are yet to become apparent.

L'articolo How Iran Could Affect Trump’s Fairer Trade Pledge in 2020 proviene da InsideOver.

For two whole hours, six Democratic presidential candidates took to the stage at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, for the Democratic presidential primary candidates’ last debate before the February 3 caucuses – the first nominating contest in the Democratic Party presidential primaries for the 2020 presidential election. This means the six Democrats – Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and Tom Steyer – had their last chance to have a game-changing moment to boost their campaigns or solidify a front-runner status.

Among the topics discussed in the capital and the most populous city in the US state of Iowa, healthcare, the question of electability on how and whether a woman could defeat Donald Trump, and foreign policy.

After the Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani was killed in a US drone strike in Baghdad on 3 January, and the escalating tensions between the United States and Iran, the debate was supposed to kick off with foreign policy. And it did: for more than half an hour, candidates fielded a number of questions about why they were best prepared to be commander-in-chief, whether they would withdraw US troops in Iraq, and how they will prevent the spread of Islamic State terrorism and international trade agreements.

However the beginning of the discussion was led by Biden and Sanders, the latter called former vice president out for his support of the Iraq War in 2002.

Only few days ago, Bernie Sander’s campaign unleashed a full–throated attack on Joe Biden over the 2003 American invasion of Iraq: Vermont Senator accused former vice president of “rewriting history” over his vote for the war.

“The war in Iraq turned out to be the worst foreign policy blunder in the modern history of this country,” Sanders said during the debate in Des Moines. “Joe and I listened to what (former Vice President) Dick Cheney and George Bush and (Secretary of Defense Donald) Rumsfeld had to say. I thought they were lying. I didn’t believe them for a moment. I took to the floor. I did everything I could to prevent that war. Joe saw it differently.”

During his campaign, Biden has struggled to give an explanation on his vote for the Iraq war, not only on the stages. “I said 13 years ago it was a mistake to give the President the authority to go to war if, in fact, he couldn’t get inspectors into Iraq to stop what was thought to be the attempt to get a nuclear weapon. It was a mistake,” Biden said Tuesday night. But once Obama was elected, he said, “he turned to me and asked me to end that war.”

Back in July, Biden acknowledged he did make a bad judgment, trusting the president saying he was only doing that to get inspectors in and get the UN to agree to put inspectors in. The same happened in September 2019 when the former senator from Delaware, who is favorite to win Iowa caucus race, explained he was opposed to Bush’s invasion from the get-go.

“Joe Biden voted and helped lead the effort for the war in Iraq, the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in the modern history of this country,” Sanders added during an interview with CNN earlier this month; his senior campaign adviser Jeff Weaver also expressed his judgement on Biden, “he tried to distort his record on the Iraq War.”

Meanwhile, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced the House she will call a vote on Wednesday to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate. In Des Moines, the city in Iowa that hosted the debate, voters are split on the U.S. House of Representatives’ decision to impeach President Donald Trump, but nearly half say the president should not be removed from office. According to the latest Des Moines Register together with CNN and Mediacom Iowa Poll, 45 percent registered Iowa voters disapprove of the House decision to impeach the president, 43 percent approve of it and 12 percent aren’t sure.

L'articolo Biden vs Sanders: War in Iraq Dominates Last Democratic Debate proviene da InsideOver.