Middle East Press On Israel, Genocide, BRICS, Turkiye, US, Gulf: New Age Islam's Selection, 25 October 2024
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
25 October 2024
European Supporters Of Israel's Genocide Threaten Academic Freedom
Turkiye’s Strategic Shift: Why BRICS Membership Matters For The World’s 19th Largest Economy
Is Israel Moving Its Eswatini Embassy Back From South Africa?
Is Iran Next? Israel's Next Move After Hezbollah
Iran, Israel Have Formidable Militaries With Different Strengths
The US Approves Of All Of Israel’s Genocidal Methods
AI As A Key Economic Driver For Saudi Arabia
Gulf States' Power Play In Afghanistan
------
European Supporters Of Israel's Genocide Threaten Academic Freedom
By Selman Aksunger
October 24, 2024
Western universities, once seen as paragons of free speech and academic freedom, are today accused of compromising democratic principles by attempting to silence academics and students for expressing their views on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
A report by Anadolu, titled “Israel’s silent genocide supporters in Europe”, explores the systematic pressures on students and academics in European universities protesting against the crisis situation in Gaza. The response of prominent Western institutions, dismissing academics and launching disciplinary action against students, suggests that democratic values are at significant risk.
The termination of Jewish Professor Maura Finkelstein’s position at Muhlenberg University over an anti-Zionist social media post, along with numerous other dismissals of academics for similar reasons, has sparked concern over the decline of academic freedom at Western universities. A Cambridge University academic’s contract was not renewed due to their criticism of Israel’s Gaza policies, for example, while an instructor at Heidelberg University faced dismissal for expressing similar sentiments.
The art community has also been impacted, as American artist Laurie Anderson withdrew from a guest professorship at Folkwang University in Germany in response to her support for Palestinian artists’ “Anti-Apartheid Letter”.
Protests that erupted at Belgian universities demanding an end to collaboration with Israel under the Horizon Europe programme have now spread to other European institutions. Violent police responses to peaceful protests, the arrest of hundreds of students at universities such as Amsterdam and Utrecht, along with threats of eviction at Bristol University in the UK illustrate the limited space for pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campuses across the continent.
The arrest and deportation of the rector of the University of Glasgow, Ghassan Abu-Sittah, in Berlin where he was due to speak, further highlighted the intolerance of discussions about the Palestinian crisis at Western universities. Human rights advocates emphasise the need for international public pressure to influence the stance of universities. Academic freedom groups have been urging institutions to foster open dialogue about Palestine and respect a diversity of viewpoints.
Ghada Sasa, an academic at McMaster University in Canada, spoke to Anadolu and stressed that the repression of Palestinian voices represents both genocide and “epistemicide”, the destruction of knowledge. Pointing out the hypocrisy of Western universities, she said: “It’s just so hypocritical the way that Western universities have offered support financially and symbolically to Ukrainians and outrightly condemned the Russian occupation. But when it comes to Palestine, it’s at most ‘both-siding’ the genocide, and we’re just not being offered that support.”
She also noted that academic repression has become systematic: “Young Palestinian scholars… were actually getting paid offers of leave. They don’t want our voices in the university. They don’t want us to be teaching. We are considered a toxic liability for them.”
Sasa asserted that Western academic institutions are complicit in colonialism by systematically silencing critical voices. She recounted her experience of undergoing a year-long investigation following a complaint from a Zionist student: “They hired a private law firm, only to rule that I had the right to condemn his ideology. But that year gave me so much anxiety.”
She also described the challenges of publishing works critical of Israel. “I faced all kinds of backlash… trying to get me not to critique Zionism or focus more on Palestinian environmentalism as opposed to green Israeli colonial violence.”
Sasa mentioned other cases, including the 2014 firing of Steven Salaita from the University of Illinois and the challenges faced by Sabreena Ghaffar-Siddiqui, a diversity, equity and inclusion specialist at Canada’s Sheridan College, due to their outspoken anti-Zionist views.
In her own case, said Sasa, she was being pressured to resign from the McMaster University Senate. “Unfortunately, more prestigious schools like Harvard and McMaster are more regressive. McMaster never even divested from South Africa, which says a lot about the school sticking to its own white supremacist agenda.”
Despite the obstacles, though, she remains hopeful. “The world right now is very scary and dark. But we’re also seeing people resisting everywhere, from armed resistance on the ground in Palestine and Lebanon to cultural resistance. Many people, including many Jewish individuals, are recognising that Zionism is a death cult.”
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241024-supporters-of-israels-silent-genocide-in-europe-threaten-academic-freedom/
---------
Turkiye’s Strategic Shift: Why BRICS Membership Matters For The World’s 19th Largest Economy
By Dr Elif Selin Calik
October 24, 2024
Turkiye’s potential BRICS membership is an intriguing move that signals Ankara’s strategic intent to diversify its international alliances beyond its traditional affiliations, primarily NATO and the EU. This development is not only about enhancing trade or economic opportunities but also reflects Turkiye’s ambitions to reposition itself as a more influential player in global governance. In this analysis, we will explore why Turkiye is considering BRICS membership, the economic and geopolitical implications and the factors driving this shift, all while highlighting its current position as a NATO member.
Economic diversification and benefits
Turkiye’s economy is one of the largest in the Middle East and ranks as the world’s 19th largest economy, with a GDP of approximately $906 billion in 2023. While Turkiye has long been integrated into Western economic structures like NATO and the EU Customs Union, the allure of joining BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) lies in the substantial economic benefits it offers:
Access to emerging markets: BRICS countries collectively account for around 31.5 per cent of global GDP, surpassing the G7’s share of 30.7 per cent. Turkiye’s alignment with BRICS would provide access to a vast economic bloc that encompasses some of the world’s fastest-growing economies, including China and India, which are both projected to continue their growth trajectories in the coming years.
Trade and investment opportunities: Turkiye’s trade with BRICS countries has been on the rise, reaching around $120 billion in 2023. China alone is one of Turkiye’s largest trading partners, with bilateral trade standing at $38 billion. By joining BRICS, Turkiye could secure more favourable trade terms, diversify its export markets and attract investments from these rapidly growing economies.
Investment in infrastructure: Membership could also facilitate Turkish access to BRICS institutions like the New Development Bank (NDB), which finances infrastructure and sustainable development projects. With Turkiye’s ambitious plans for infrastructure expansion, such as the Kanal Istanbul project and the modernisation of its energy sector, BRICS membership could unlock new financing avenues and technical expertise.
Geopolitical repositioning: Balancing NATO and the West
Turkiye has been a member of NATO since 1952, and this alliance has traditionally formed the backbone of its defence and foreign policy. However, recent years have seen strains in Turkiye’s relationship with its Western allies:
Tensions with the EU and the United States: Turkiye’s long-standing bid for EU membership has stalled, and the relationship has often been marred by disagreements over human rights, Cyprus, and Ankara’s military interventions in Syria. Additionally, Turkiye’s purchase of the Russian S-400 missile system strained its ties with the US, leading to sanctions and Turkiye’s removal from the F-35 fighter jet program.
A strategic pivot toward multipolarity: Turkiye’s interest in BRICS represents a pivot toward a more multipolar foreign policy. By aligning itself with BRICS, Turkiye seeks to reduce its dependence on Western alliances, signalling that it is open to other partnerships that better align with its regional interests and global ambitions.
Energy security considerations: With BRICS, Turkiye can also deepen energy ties with Russia and China, both of which play critical roles in its energy supply. Turkiye’s strategic location as a transit hub for energy between Asia and Europe makes it an essential player in the energy sector. By joining BRICS, Turkiye could strengthen its cooperation with these energy giants, securing favourable deals and partnerships for its growing energy needs.
Turkiye’s role in global governance
By considering BRICS membership, Turkiye also aims to amplify its influence on global governance structures:
Greater voice in multilateral platforms: BRICS has been advocating for a more inclusive global governance model that reflects the growing influence of emerging economies. For Turkiye, joining BRICS would mean participating in a bloc that is pushing for reforming institutions like the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Turkiye could leverage this platform to advocate for its own regional interests, such as stability in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Building a diplomatic bridge: Turkiye’s participation in both NATO and BRICS could position it as a diplomatic bridge between East and West. This dual alignment allows Turkiye to mediate and influence negotiations between different power centres, enhancing its strategic value globally. For example, Turkiye’s efforts in brokering deals, like the grain export agreement between Russia and Ukraine, showcase its ability to play a mediating role.
Why BRICS, while being a NATO Member?
While Turkiye’s NATO membership provides military security guarantees, its strategic and economic interests extend beyond the Western alliance. Several reasons illustrate why Turkiye is considering this move, despite being a NATO member:
Increasing autonomy and strategic flexibility: Turkiye’s pivot to BRICS allows it to exercise greater autonomy in its foreign policy decisions. As global power dynamics shift and the influence of Western powers is increasingly challenged by rising powers like China, Turkiye sees an opportunity to diversify its partnerships and reduce dependence on NATO and the EU.
Non-western alternatives: The US and EU have criticised Turkiye for its human rights record, its actions in Syria and its purchase of Russian defence systems. By joining BRICS, Turkiye signals that it has alternative partners who do not impose the same level of political or economic scrutiny.
Military-Industrial cooperation: NATO membership has constrained Turkiye’s military-industrial ambitions, as seen with the US imposing restrictions following Turkiye’s acquisition of the S-400 system from Russia. BRICS could provide an alternative platform for military cooperation, especially with Russia, China and India, allowing Turkiye to develop and expand its defence industry without facing Western limitations.
Challenges and risks for Turkiye
Despite the potential benefits, Turkiye’s bid to join BRICS is not without risks:
Navigating conflicting alliances: Balancing its commitments to NATO and a growing relationship with BRICS will be a diplomatic challenge for Turkiye. NATO may perceive Turkiye’s deepening ties with BRICS, especially with Russia and China, as a threat to alliance unity.
Economic and political trade-offs: While BRICS membership may offer economic opportunities, Turkiye risks alienating its Western allies, who remain significant trading partners and sources of foreign direct investment. The EU accounts for around 40 per cent of Turkiye’s exports, and any major shift toward BRICS could complicate its economic relations with Europe.
Institutional limitations within BRICS: BRICS remains an informal group without the same level of institutional structure as NATO or the EU. The group’s ability to act cohesively on global challenges varies, and Turkiye may find it challenging to extract tangible benefits if BRICS does not evolve into a more structured and proactive entity.
Turkiye’s potential BRICS membership reflects a desire for diversification and increased influence on the global stage. While it continues to rely on NATO for its security needs, Ankara’s engagement with BRICS is a strategic attempt to reduce dependence on Western allies and explore non-Western economic and political opportunities. Balancing these alliances will be crucial for Turkiye, as it navigates the complex dynamics of a rapidly shifting global order.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241024-turkiyes-strategic-shift-why-brics-membership-matters-for-the-worlds-19th-largest-economy/
---------
Is Israel Moving Its Eswatini Embassy Back From South Africa?
October 24, 2024
The tiny Southern African kingdom of Eswatini has diplomatic ties with Israel going back over five decades, Anadolu Agency reports.
Today, as Israel faces growing international isolation for its genocide in Gaza and escalating assault on Lebanon, Eswatini seems to be among the few countries moving ever closer to Tel Aviv.
This could, according to local media reports, soon lead to another major development: the return of an Israeli diplomatic mission to Africa’s last absolute monarchy.
There was an Israeli Embassy once in the capital, Mbabane, but that was shut down in 1994. Diplomatic relations between Eswatini and Israel have since been managed from South Africa’s administrative capital, Pretoria.
Relations between Israel and South Africa are currently strained, to say the least, with the latter leading the international legal charge against Israel’s Gaza genocide.
While that increases the likelihood of Israel actually planning an Eswatini mission move from South Africa, authorities from either side have remained tight-lipped over the plan.
In June, Newman Ntshangase, principal secretary at the Eswatini Foreign Ministry, told local media that consultations on the matter were “at a high level and in early stages”.
Information would be made public once it was “mutually concretised by both states”, he told local publication, Times Sunday, adding that Eswatini would view it as “a positive outcome”.
While there has been no official comment from Israel, Ntshangase told Anadolu that matters were still at the same point as the government has not “received new information with regards to Israeli’s foreign policy decision to reopen (a diplomatic mission) in Eswatini.”
He said Israel has the right to make the sovereign decision of where to station its diplomatic missions, which would be “done through a formal mutual consent process with the host nation.”
“Should there be any (progress), the Ministry will gladly bring it to the public domain,” he said.
Percy Simelane, spokesperson for Eswatini’s King Mswati III, also defended the country’s right to engage with Israel.
“Israel had an embassy in Eswatini even before the incumbent King,” he told Anadolu.
“Eswatini has a sovereign right to choose, which comes into force without having to be passed or approved by other nations. The Kingdom is at liberty to pick its diplomatic partners just like any other country.”
Israel is ‘running the regime’
Thokozane Kunene, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Swaziland, slammed the idea and asserted that it was a reflection of the Eswatini government’s level of conflict with Israel.
“Israel has always had an important role in defending the Swazi regime, protecting its economic interests and helping it accumulate strategic territories,” Kunene told Anadolu.
He asserted that Israel has also “supported the regime by placing its agents in the executive, judiciary and security agencies.”
They have increased their “presence in the country, becoming more dominant to a point that they are literally running the regime,” he said.
The accusations have been denied by the Eswatini government.
Back in 2018, online investigative outlet, Swaziland News, revealed that Clayford Holdings Corp, an international intelligence company with links to the Israeli weapons industry, was paid nearly $700,000 by the Eswatini government in a controversial arms deal.
The report also exposed alleged spying by the Eswatini government, charges that authorities denied.
In 2019, Times of Eswatini reported that the government had lined up a $72 million controversial cyber-security deal with Israel Aerospace Industries.
In April this year, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists revealed how an Israeli company gave highly sophisticated spying technology to Eswatini police, allowing them to intercept phone conversations and access text messages without leaving a trace.
Is Eswatini endorsing Gaza atrocities?
Petros Qambukusa Magagula, a former political science lecturer at the University of Eswatini, warned of the implicit message being conveyed by the Eswatini government.
“If they (Israel) want to move the embassy because South Africa doesn’t agree with their behaviour, and if we allow them, it would mean Eswatini is in agreement with the atrocities they are committing in Gaza,” he told Anadolu.
A relocation of the embassy, he added, would be a heavy blow to democracy in Eswatini.
“The collaboration of the Swazi monarch and Israel is leading to a consolidation of dictatorship,” he said.
“This is nothing new … Even in apartheid South Africa, Israel was a great collaborator of the apartheid regime.”
Magagula said Eswatini has received a lot of development aid from the Arab world over the years.
King Mswati III, he explained, strategically shifted his foreign policy towards the Arab world because he was irked by the conditions of “good governance and human rights which were always attached to Western development aid.”
If Eswatini opens the door to Israeli diplomatic presence, it could lead the country to hostilities with others in the Middle East, he added.
“Are the Arab governments going to be happy? Definitely not. It will then depend on how the Arab world reacts to Eswatini’s betrayal … Are they going to react in terms of material support or diplomatically? Will they punish or sanction Eswatini as far as economic assistance is concerned?”
Simelane, the King’s spokesperson, rejected these concerns, asserting that Eswatini is a member of the Non-Aligned Movement and Arab countries should respect its position.
“We have no reason to think the Arab world would disassociate itself from Eswatini if Israel brings back its embassy,” he said.
“There is a country that supplies Israel with weapons that are used against Arab states, but that country has not been dumped by the Arab world as yet.”
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241024-is-israel-moving-its-eswatini-embassy-back-from-south-africa/
-----
Is Iran Next? Israel's Next Move After Hezbollah
By Eric R. Mandel
October 24, 2024
Last year, veteran Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross said that as someone who has worked on the issue of a nuclear Iran and “talked to the Israelis for a long time, the one thing I am personally convinced of is they will never allow themselves to lose the option [to preemptively strike Iran]. You don’t wait until it is one minute to midnight.”
After Iran’s unprecedented attack against Israel in April 2024 with ballistic and cruise missiles and drones, a Reuters headline read, “Iran threatens to annihilate Israel should it launch a major attack.”
The question is even more urgent in the fall of 2024, as Israel has decided to go on the offensive, dramatically increasing its kinetic actions against Iran’s most important proxy in the North. In rapid succession was the daring special forces operation in the Masyaf area of Syria, destroying an IRGC and Hezbollah precision weapons factory; the assassination of the terror group’s chief of staff Faud Shukr, who was directly related to killing US soldiers in the Beirut barracks bombing in 1983; the pager and walkie-talkie attacks targeting the Hezbollah command structure; and culminating in the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.
By forcing Israel to empty its northern civilian communities since October 2023, Iran and Hezbollah had achieved a decisive short-term victory. This has followed the Iranian playbook – to design long wars of attrition to dishearten the Jewish nation while using Lebanese civilians and their homes as human shields to manipulate the West and isolate Israel diplomatically. The more far-reaching strategy is to encircle Israel and construct an unending multi-front war without bearing direct consequences on its nuclear, military, or economic resources on Iranian territory.
Will Israel strike Iran and will the US support them?
So, is Israel’s major offensive against Hezbollah to push them north of the Litani River, which is called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1701, the beginning, or is it the end of its strategy to deter Iran? The real questions are: How far is Israel from falling off the proverbial cliff by not having already targeted the primary source of its existential issues, a nuclear Iran? And when does it become too late to save itself?
Unfortunately, Iran has been assisted by the Biden administration’s decision not to fully enforce sanctions that were crippling its economy and its ability to support its proxy network of Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. According to a report in The Wall Street Journal on September 23, 2024, President Biden’s Iran envoy Robert Malley – who is under FBI investigation for allegedly mishandling secret documents – proposed right from the beginning of the Biden administration, “removing…US sanctions that related to Iran’s nuclear program,” which the Iranians “pocketed” while demanding even more far-reaching concessions.
The Iranians correctly interpreted this as weakness and desperation on the Americans’ part. According to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Iran continued to march within “two weeks” from “producing enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon.” Although former president Donald Trump should be commended for ending a terrible deal guaranteeing an industrial-sized Iranian nuclear arsenal over time, he should have had a Plan B after withdrawing from the executive action.
Israel’s survival is directly related to the viability of the Iranian regime, its hegemonic ambitions, and its fundamental goal to annihilate the Jewish nation as a central feature of its religious mindset. What is needed but is highly unlikely to occur is a meaningful American-led economic coalition against the leading state sponsor of terror, fully enforcing sanctions. There is clear justification, as Iran is thumbing its nose at the International Atomic Energy Agency, not allowing them to certify their compliance with the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which it is a signatory.
Is there any nation in the world willing to design or be part of a coalition and strategy to destabilize the Islamic regime, even if they are convinced Israel’s survival is at stake? The answer is no, and that likely includes the United States, which sees Israel as an essential security partner but considers the threats of China, North Korea, and Russia to be of much greater danger to American security.
The empty rhetoric of the Biden administration about not allowing Iran to get a nuclear weapon is transparently false, as Iran has advanced its ability to enrich enough uranium for many atomic bombs in just a few weeks. The US national director of intelligence, Avril Haines, could not affirm to Congress this summer that Iran is not weaponizing a device. Trump talks a big game, but would he have his secretary of state clearly declare it is in America’s interests to aid the Iranian people to change their fanatic government?
No discerning person believes a future Harris administration, with Secretary of State Chris Murphy or National Security Advisor Phillip Gordon, would counsel president Harris to help Israel end the Iranian nuclear program kinetically or have the courage to state that American foreign policy’s goal is to be for the Iranian people and against the regime and take actions, even non-military actions, to undermine the authoritarian government, even if it were only days from a functional atomic weapon.
Weaponization entails turning uranium gas into a metal for a nuclear warhead, enhancing the computer modelling to test a nuclear device successfully, and crafting the neutron initiators to ignite an atomic device. The Biden team, until the last quarter turn of a screw for a fully functional nuclear weapon is done, pretends to consider Iran a non-nuclear weapon state. For Israel, feigning ignorance of how far the Iranian nuclear project has progressed is not an option.
So, Israel has a choice, knowing that as long as the Supreme Leader and his henchmen, the Iranian Republican Guards, are in power, their unbending goal is to destroy Israel and kill as many Jews as possible. Will Israel accept the inevitable, a nuclear Iran?
The alternative is to hope that a defensive missile shield protects Israel and that a few nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles among thousands of conventional missiles in an overwhelming Iranian missile barrage will not evade the passive defense. Israel’s multi-layered missile shield, even in conjunction with America’s, could still fail to intercept at least 5% of the missiles. Does Israel want to play this Russian roulette with the jihadists in Tehran? It should be noted that the Biden administration should be commended for increasing American aid by $5.2 billion to the Iron Beam, Iron Dome, and David Sling anti-missile system this fall.
If Israel decides Iran is the head of the octopus that must be directly confronted, it could bring on a devastating war; but waiting for American help, which is unlikely ever to come, would increase the risk that Iran can fulfill its dream of killing seven million Jews, more than in the Holocaust, with a couple of million Palestinian Arabs as collateral damage.
A recent article in The Jerusalem Post highlighted two contradictory opinions. Maj-Gen. (res.) Itzhak Brik was “adamant that war with Iran now would lead to Israel’s destruction. Security expert Yair Ansbacher was convinced that war with Iran at this point is a must – to avoid Israel’s destruction. Brik warned, Iran is backed by Russia, China, and North Korea, and the US will avoid getting involved in a war that could develop into a world war. He advised building a strategic alliance with Western and moderate Arab nations that will form a deterrence balance against Iran and its partners. Trying to thwart the Islamic Republic’s nuclear capacity is futile. Ansbacher said the time is right to strike Iran before it makes its final nuclear breakthrough. If today the West has little success in taming the ayatollahs, it will have zero success when they obtain atomic weapons. Iran will provide a nuclear umbrella to terrorists across the globe.
If Israel decides to go it alone, the targets to destabilize the Iranian economy are the same as if America joined in, whether by cyber or military attacks. This includes the container port in Bandar Abbas, where 90% of the container shipments transit; the primary fossil fuel port on Kharg Island that supplies China with cheap oil; Iran’s drone and missile sites and production facilities; and most consequentially, its nuclear enrichment facilities, deeply embedded within mountains; and its clandestine weaponization sites.
There is little chance that an American administration will overtly help Israel. The best hope is behind-the-scenes intelligence allowing the US to claim plausible deniability. The more likely scenario is the United States slowing its supply lines as the Biden administration did in Israel’s war with Hamas, slow-tracking licenses for weapons and deliveries during Israel’s Gaza war.
Will the world be a better place if the Iranian people overthrow the current Islamic revolutionary regime in Tehran? In a word, yes, even considering the unknown risk of the law of unintended consequences. Suppose the US wants stability in the Middle East to turn to the more significant threat of an ascendant and belligerent China. In that case, the best path is to undermine and weaken the malign anti-American regime as soon as possible.
But is Iran a threat to America? Yes.
“The US intelligence community has assessed that Iran will threaten Americans – both directly and via proxy attacks – and that Tehran remains committed to developing networks inside the US,” according to the intelligence community’s 2022 Annual Threat Assessment, published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Iran has also placed death contracts on American government officials. On September 24, Blinken said, “we are intensely tracking” an ongoing threat by Iran against current and former US officials. “This is something we’ve been tracking very intensely for a long time, an ongoing threat by Iran against a number of senior officials, including former government officials.”
According to Josef Joffe, Distinguished Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institute, “The real problem is Tehran…America’s mightiest enemy in the Greater Middle East…The playbook is easy to read. Hit Israel, Washington’s only reliable ally, and wound the American giant it dares not take on directly. So, demoralize him to kick him off the Mideast chessboard.”
Israel does not have the luxury of waiting. Iran is determined to destroy Israel. Those who doubt it are fooling themselves. Iranian-directed wars of attrition over the years will demoralize the Jewish state, and Iran is betting on the fecklessness of the international community that doesn’t care about the survival of the Jewish state and would be more than happy to continue trading with Iran, even if it sent a nuclear device toward Tel Aviv.
America, based on its value-based foreign policy, its national security interests, and as a message to allies around the world that it supports its friends even when there are difficult choices, needs to stand firmly with Israel against Iran and stand with the Iranian people who yearn for freedom and a new government – and Iran’s return to the family of nations. ■
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-825508#google_vignette
----
Iran, Israel Have Formidable Militaries With Different Strengths
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh
October 24, 2024
As tensions between Israel and the Iranian government escalate, the conflict is moving beyond mere asymmetric warfare toward direct strikes on each other’s soil. This new phase of hostilities raises concerns about the military capabilities of both countries, as analysts and experts assess the strengths and weaknesses of their armed forces.
To understand the full scope of the potential confrontation, it is essential to recognize that any war between these two nations would not only devastate them, but could also draw in other regional and global players, including state and non-state actors. The strategic importance of both Israel and Iran makes this conflict a potential trigger for wider regional instability.
Military capabilities can be analyzed through several categories that reveal the operational readiness and strategic power of a nation. These categories provide a framework to evaluate how Israel and Iran compare.
A country’s defense budget serves as a crucial indicator of its military strength and priorities. It reflects the resources dedicated to developing and maintaining military assets, such as personnel, technology and weapons systems.
Israel’s defense budget is significantly larger than Iran’s, bolstered by substantial US military aid. Israel’s annual defense spending is currently $23.4 billion, with an additional $3.18 billion annually provided by the US as part of a decade-long agreement. This financial backing enables Israel to procure advanced weapons systems, such as the Iron Dome and F-35 stealth fighters, meaning it is most likely the technologically superior force.
Iran spends considerably less due to international sanctions and economic constraints. Its 2023 defense spending was reported to be $10.3 billion, although it might be higher due to undisclosed funds used for its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Iran compensates for its lower budget by relying on asymmetric tactics, such as using proxies and deploying missile forces capable of striking its regional adversaries.
Manpower is a vital component of military strength. In terms of active personnel, Israel maintains about 170,000 soldiers in its defense forces, with a reserve force that can quickly be mobilized, bringing the total potential military manpower to about 465,000. The Israeli military is highly trained, with mandatory military service ensuring a constant supply of well-prepared soldiers. However, Iran’s available manpower significantly surpasses Israel’s. It has an estimated 587,000 active personnel across its regular army, IRGC and paramilitary forces.
The IRGC, a powerful institution within Iran, also oversees the country’s regional proxy forces, allowing it to extend its military reach beyond its borders. In terms of force readiness, however, both countries are generally considered trained and equipped due to continuous engagements and modern training programs.
When it comes to weapons systems, Israel appears to enjoy a technological edge, particularly in terms of air power. It possesses 339 combat aircraft, including F-35s and F-16s, alongside various advanced drones, allowing it to maintain air superiority in the region. Israel also has cutting-edge missile defense systems, such as the Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow, which can intercept short- and medium-range missiles. Its logistical network is robust, ensuring rapid mobility and deployment of forces.
Iran compensates for its lack of air superiority with a vast arsenal of ballistic missiles, including the Shahab-3 and Fateh-110, which are capable of reaching targets across the Middle East. Iran also has a growing drone capability and relies heavily on its ability to deploy asymmetric warfare tactics. Its logistical capabilities, while not as advanced as Israel’s, are boosted by its network of regional proxies, particularly in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria.
Geographically, Iran has a strategic advantage due to its location along the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway through which a significant portion of the world’s oil supply passes. In the event of conflict, Iran could threaten or disrupt global oil supplies by blocking or attacking ships in this region. Israel, on the other hand, has a smaller geographical footprint, although its proximity to other countries allows it to rapidly project military power in the Middle East.
One of the key advantages for Iran is its ability to leverage regional proxies. Israel, meanwhile, benefits from its close alliances with the US, which guarantees it superior military technology and intelligence support.
When it comes to technical sophistication, Israel’s military is considered to be one of the most advanced in the world. Its intelligence services, cyber capabilities and precision-guided weaponry give it a qualitative edge in modern warfare. It is also regarded as one of the globe’s top countries in terms of missile defense technology, electronic warfare and intelligence gathering, supported by satellite technology. Meanwhile, Iran, although not on par with Israel’s advanced technologies, has made significant strides in developing its own indigenous defense technologies.
Iran’s cyberwarfare capabilities are growing and its missile technology is considered among the most advanced in the region. While lacking the sophistication of Israel’s military, Iran compensates with its sheer number of missiles and a capacity to disrupt its enemies through unconventional warfare.
Lastly, alliances and partnerships play a critical role in shaping military capabilities. Iran’s primary ally, Russia, has for years provided it with military equipment and political support. But Moscow’s involvement in Ukraine has somewhat constrained its ability to focus on the Middle East. Tehran also maintains ties with China, although this relationship appears less focused on military support. Israel, on the other hand, enjoys an unparalleled alliance with the US, which provides it with both military hardware and political backing. In the event of a conflict, American support for Israel could tip the balance in its favor, as seen in previous wars.
In conclusion, while a full-scale war between Israel and Iran would be devastating for these two countries and the broader region, their military capabilities reveal different strengths and weaknesses. Both remain formidable in their own right, but their strategies and military doctrines reflect very different approaches to warfare.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2576628
------
The US Approves Of All Of Israel’s Genocidal Methods
By Ramona Wadi
October 24, 2024
In April this year, the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which is known to have been involved in covert operations for regime change, delivered its report on Gaza to Congress. It concluded that Israel is deliberately blocking aid from reaching Palestinians in the enclave. So did the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, which called for freezing the Foreign Assistance Act which funds weapons purchases for Israel.
However, upon receiving the reports — one from within his own department, the other from an “independent agency that works closely” with his department — US Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated, “We do not currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of US humanitarian assistance.”
Meeting with Israeli President Isaac Herzog in Tel Aviv earlier this week, Blinken cautioned the occupation state that more needs to be done to address the humanitarian conditions in Gaza. According to spokesperson Matthew Miller, “The Secretary noted the imperative to restore sustained humanitarian aid to Gaza and reiterated the importance of ending the war in a way that secures the release of hostages and creates the conditions for broader regional stability.”
There is, of course, no such thing as sustained humanitarian aid during genocide. The aim of genocide is to annihilate a population, therefore to insist on humanitarian aid while a genocide is ongoing rather than calling for the genocide to stop is an aberration. Moreover, ending the war to release the hostages and create regional stability says nothing about what is to happen to the Palestinian people.
We must ask, therefore, if the Palestinians will continue to be exploited and killed in the name of humanitarian aid and “regional stability”? Is the US, like Israel, envisaging a Middle East without Palestinians, hence no clear mention of Palestinians and their fate in Miller’s statement?
Let us not forget that Israel is also leading the narrative pushing for war with Iran. With such grandiose colonial plans, including genocide and all-out war, what is the specific role of humanitarian aid?
I’ll tell you what it is. Humanitarian aid is designed as a temporary alleviation of suffering. So much so that its budget is inconsequential in comparison with the billions spent on arms and ammunition. With such a massive discrepancy, the international community – the relics of colonial powers – should be taken to task over devising flawed programmes which contribute to the kill toll of human beings.
Forcing Israel to stop its genocide against Palestinians so that humanitarian aid can start alleviating their suffering follows a coherent trajectory. Calling for Israel to allow humanitarian aid to reach Palestinians in Gaza while allowing the genocide to continue is merely another way of the US saying, “Feed Palestinians and kill them later”.
Back to Miller’s statement summarising Blinken’s comments and “sustained humanitarian aid”. Israel, don’t forget, has vowed to starve Palestinians and is actively doing so. Even USAID has admitted to knowing about Israel’s violations, which is astonishing given that it states on its website that it “plays an active and critical role in the promotion of US foreign policy interests.” Someone, either Blinken or USAID staffers, didn’t get the memo.
While no US agency can ever be trusted, and humanitarian aid is tangled-up with diplomacy and defence issues, the fact remains that Blinken ignored his own people’s conclusion about Israel’s deliberate deprivation of humanitarian aid for Palestinians, and he did so in order to keep supplying weapons for the genocide in Gaza. Former and current colonial powers now control us all with total disregard for the international laws and conventions that they created for their own protection.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241024-the-us-approves-of-all-of-israels-genocidal-methods/
----
AI As A Key Economic Driver For Saudi Arabia
Hamad S. Alshehab & Hassan M. Alzain
October 24, 2024
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is at the crossover of an economic transformation driven by innovations and technology advancement in artificial intelligence. As the Kingdom continues to diversify or shift from its previous oil dependency, AI offers a significant opportunity to create jobs, bolster productivity, and enhance overall economic output and gross domestic product growth. By 2030, AI is estimated to contribute 12 percent to Saudi Arabia’s GDP, highlighting the nation’s commitment to leveraging AI for sustainable economic development.
The Kingdom’s Vision 2030 framework focuses on reducing the nation’s reliance on oil through fostering technology-led industries with cutting-edge innovations. AI is vital and plays a significant role in this transition, especially by enhancing productivity in various sectors and facilitating the creation of a knowledge-based economy. A recent study by the ITU indicates that AI technologies are likely to contribute more than $13 trillion to the global economy by 2030, and Saudi Arabia has the potential to capture a giant share of this growth.
Recently, Saudi Arabia’s investments in digital infrastructure have given the Kingdom a stronger foundation for AI adoption. For example, World Bank reports indicate that Saudi Arabia’s digital economy projects, such as the National Strategy for Digital Transformation, are laying a solid foundation for the country to adopt cutting-edge technologies across its sectors.
The adoption of AI technologies presents a conducive environment to create jobs, especially in high-skilled sectors. AI’s cutting-edge technologies can foster the creation of new markets and services, which are critical in generating employment opportunities. A report by the IMF indicates that AI has great potential to create a positive effect on job creation, and this can be done through enhancing productivity and the automation of routine tasks.
Like never before, the adoption of AI in Saudi Arabia is likely to increase the demand for high-skilled workers in various fields. The country is focusing on training and education programs that aim at educating the workforce with the skills needed to ensure job creation and new opportunities. This is evident through the remarkable achievement of training more than 628,000 beginners in one year and offering specialized programs for about 7,625 experts in data and AI. The report by the World Economic Forum indicates that 75 percent of organizations across the world plan to adopt AI, and this is likely to create jobs, but also displacements. Despite the challenges that are likely to come with the adoption of AI, the Kingdom has the opportunity to mitigate them by reskilling its workforce for emerging roles in the modern world.
AI technologies are expected to enhance productivity in the country, through the automation of repetitive tasks, improving decision-making processes as well as optimizing supply chains. Research from the ITU says that AI is poised to boost global GDP by more than 16 percent by 2030. This is largely because of the implementation of automation and innovation. Thus, countries like Saudi Arabia are positioned to utilize AI in various sectors, including financial services, logistics and even manufacturing. For instance, the use of AI technologies in logistics has the potential to reduce costs, and at the same time, improve delivery time.
The government has been working proactively to create a conducive environment for new technologies such as AI. Programs such as the Saudi Data and AI Authority, and the National Strategy for AI, highlight the Kingdom’s commitment to take advantage of AI, and position itself to rank among the top 10 global leaders in data and AI by 2030. The country has created better grounds for international investments by fostering innovation, placing Saudi Arabia at the forefront of the global AI race, as evidenced by the $1.7 billion in total funds attracted by Saudi AI companies in 2023.
Whereas AI technologies present many opportunities for countries to foster their economic growth, some challenges cannot be overlooked. Thus, Saudi Arabia must address these challenges to utilize the full potential of AI. One of the critical challenges has been job displacement, especially in the low-skilled sectors. Although this might be the case, the IMF indicates that AI’s impact on job displacement is not entirely negative. For example, by implementing automation of routine tasks, AI allows the human workforce to focus on high-end activities, which can help countries increase productivity.
AI has already proved to be a major economic driver for countries like Saudi Arabia. As the Kingdom continues its journey toward economic diversification, AI technologies play a critical role. By creating new job opportunities, enhancing productivity and fostering innovation, AI is poised to increase the Kingdom’s GDP growth soon. However, to be a global leader in this revolutionary AI era, Saudi Arabia must implement the right policies to allow better investments for a knowledge-based economy.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2576667
-----
Gulf States' Power Play In Afghanistan
By Gökhan Ereli
OCT 25, 2024
We have entered a period where the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia, alongside Qatar, are taking center stage in relations with the Taliban. The UAE has recently sought to enhance its influence in Afghanistan by establishing direct ties with the Taliban, as seen in securing contracts for managing Afghan airports. Along with Saudi Arabia, the UAE was one of the three countries, alongside Pakistan, that recognized the Taliban regime from 1996 to 2001. The UAE’s close relations with the Taliban primarily reflect its broader objectives in regional politics and economic opportunities.
Meanwhile, Qatar, since Oct. 7, has been more focused on regional political developments centered on Gaza and Hamas, resulting in a foreign policy shift. This has made it both a preference and a necessity for the Taliban to strengthen ties with the other Gulf countries. Although actors like Russia and China have engaged in extensive contact through their representatives, the Taliban has not yet been officially recognized by any state. Nonetheless, the Taliban has recently begun diversifying its foreign policy, reinforcing its political engagements with other Gulf states such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia.
Although the developments between Israel and Gaza-based groups after Oct. 7 have largely occupied Qatar's foreign policy efforts, especially regarding the need for facilitating communication between Hamas and other groups with the international community, it may not be accurate to say that these events have directly weakened Qatar-Taliban relations. The Taliban’s desire to strengthen ties with Gulf actors like the UAE also stems from its own internal dynamics. While certain factions within the Taliban prefer closer relations with Doha, others reportedly advocate for stronger connections with Abu Dhabi. Considering these internal dynamics, the UAE’s steps to enhance relations with the Taliban, especially during a time when Qatar is more focused on Hamas and Israel, can be seen as a significant move.
UAE-Taliban partnership
The idea that establishing relations with the Taliban and gaining influence over the group holds significant value for Gulf countries in their relations with the U.S. seems plausible. Since August 2022, the U.S. has adopted a pragmatic engagement policy with the Taliban recognizing the need for dialogue. However, given the challenges of directly engaging with the Taliban, the U.S. has relied on key partners to maintain this engagement indirectly. In this context, countries like the UAE and Saudi Arabia have played important roles by gaining influence over the Taliban, thus shaping diplomatic matters. Washington’s approach allows these nations to position themselves as key regional interlocutors.
The August visit of the UAE's president, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed (MBZ) to meet Taliban Prime Minister Mullah Hassan Akhund, who was receiving medical treatment in the UAE, marks a critical point in the development of relations between the UAE and Afghanistan’s Taliban-led government. This visit highlights several key aspects of the UAE's approach to Afghanistan and underscores the broader geopolitical dynamics in the region. The visit primarily underscores the UAE’s strategic interest in deepening its ties with the Taliban, particularly as it seeks to play a more prominent role in Afghanistan's reconstruction and development. By securing contracts such as the management of Afghanistan’s international airports, the UAE has been actively engaging with the Taliban. MBZ's visit could further solidify the UAE’s position as a key player in Afghanistan’s future, reinforcing its role as a significant factor in the country’s post-conflict rebuilding efforts.
Secondly, this visit can be seen as part of the UAE's broader realpolitik strategy. The UAE is leveraging its economic power and diplomatic influence to carve out a role for itself in Afghanistan. By establishing direct ties with the Taliban leadership, the UAE positions itself as a critical ally for the Taliban, potentially paving the way for the future recognition of the internationally unrecognized Taliban government. Considering that the UAE had recognized the Taliban between 1996-2001 – despite the changes in the Taliban's structure, Middle Eastern politics and the UAE's foreign policy – this possibility seems even more plausible.
Furthermore, this visit is a pragmatic move aimed at safeguarding the UAE's regional security and economic interests. The UAE's approach reflects an understanding of the internal dynamics within the Taliban. MBZ, who has recently held meetings with figures like Sirajuddin Haqqani, may be creating a new role for the Taliban within the UAE’s foreign policy. By engaging with figures like Haqqani and others within the Taliban who may align more closely with its interests, the UAE positions itself as a counterbalance to Qatar's influence. Given Qatar's recent criticism of the Taliban, particularly on issues such as women's rights – criticisms that may have caused friction in their relations – the UAE's role becomes increasingly clear from the Taliban’s perspective.
The Iran dimension
The UAE’s relationship with the Taliban and its growing influence in Afghanistan can be interpreted through the lens of the Iran-Gulf balance of power. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, two actors facing similar threats from Iran while also competing with each other, have developed different strategies to ensure their national security. As is well known, the UAE is one of the countries in the normalization process with Israel, known as the Abraham Accords. In this context, Abu Dhabi has increasingly relied on the U.S. for security through its normalized relations with Tel Aviv. Meanwhile, U.S. pressure and encouragement for Riyadh to normalize relations with Israel have persisted, even after the Oct. 7 events. At this point, Riyadh has taken a markedly different approach by normalizing relations with Tehran, facilitated by Iraq and Oman, with China acting as a mediator.
Thus, while Riyadh seeks to remain outside the sphere of the Israel-Iran tension by normalizing with Tehran, the UAE’s regional policy appears to be shaped by the potential outcome of normalizing with Israel. Currently, the UAE is prominently increasing its influence in Afghanistan through strategic investments in infrastructure and transportation facilities. This geopolitical shift makes the potential UAE-Taliban rapprochement problematic for Iran’s security. In other words, under the current circumstances, the UAE’s focus on Afghanistan may serve the interests of both the U.S. and Israel and could be viewed as part of the broader strategy to encircle Iran.
The UAE's Afghanistan strategy
One of the most prominent examples of the UAE’s role in Afghanistan’s reconstruction is its management of key infrastructure projects. In 2022, the UAE signed a major contract to manage Afghanistan’s main international airports, including those in Kabul, Kandahar and Herat. This agreement underscores Abu Dhabi's strategic interest in controlling critical infrastructure in Afghanistan. Managing these airports has not only provided the UAE with significant economic leverage but has also positioned it as a central actor in Afghanistan’s logistical and security matters.
Additionally, the UAE has been working to bolster its strategy by encouraging Afghan businesspeople and investors, most of whom reside in the Emirates, to reinvest in Afghanistan. The remittances sent back by approximately 150,000 Afghans living and working in the UAE play a crucial role in Afghanistan’s economy, particularly in provinces like Khost. The UAE's access to this expatriate community can be viewed as part of a broader strategy to channel financial resources into Afghanistan’s reconstruction. Given the Taliban government's challenges with international sanctions and limited access to global financial systems, this effort is particularly significant.
Beyond economic investments, the UAE has also played an active role in providing humanitarian aid and supporting development projects in Afghanistan. The Emirates Red Crescent has been involved in various initiatives aimed at delivering health care, education and emergency relief to vulnerable populations in the country. This aid not only contributes to the UAE’s broader efforts to build soft power and influence in the region but also addresses the immediate humanitarian needs of the Afghan people.
From a diplomatic perspective, it can be said that the UAE’s relationship with the Taliban represents a cautiously developed connection that is becoming increasingly open to the public. The recent visit of MBZ to meet with Taliban Prime Minister Mullah Hassan Akhund symbolizes the UAE’s willingness to engage directly with the Taliban leadership. This engagement is not only about maintaining diplomatic ties but is also seen as a potential precursor to the formal recognition of the Taliban government. The UAE’s diplomatic maneuvers are closely watched by other regional actors, particularly Qatar, which has served as the primary mediator between the Taliban and the West.
Security is another critical area of the UAE’s presence in Afghanistan and its relationship with the Taliban. Through its management of Afghanistan’s airports and engagement with the Taliban’s security circles, the UAE positions itself as a key partner in regional security efforts. This relationship is particularly significant given the ongoing threats posed by groups like Daesh-Khorasan Province (Daesh-K), which continue to destabilize Afghanistan. The UAE’s investments in Afghanistan’s security infrastructure also reflect broader security concerns in the Gulf region.
The U.S. position
The U.S. remains a pivotal player in these dynamics. Despite claims of a cooling relationship, Qatar continues to serve as an important intermediary between the Taliban and the West, particularly the U.S. Washington has shown its reliance on Doha by previously operating its missions from there, especially concerning humanitarian aid and counterterrorism efforts. At the same time, the U.S. has adopted a pragmatic strategy in maintaining relations with other regional actors like the UAE, which has played a role in indirectly reshaping alliances.
In this regard, the UAE may view Qatar’s close ties with Hamas as an opportunity to position itself as a more neutral or pragmatic player in Afghanistan. By directly engaging with the Taliban and offering economic incentives, the UAE presents itself as a partner less entangled in the complex dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Middle Eastern politics. As Qatar increasingly focuses its resources and diplomatic attention on the Hamas-Israel conflict, the UAE could seize this opportunity to strengthen its ties with the Taliban, positioning itself as a more reliable and focused partner in the region.
dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/gulf-states-power-play-in-afghanistan
--------
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/israel-genocide-brics-turkiye-us-gulf-/d/133540
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism