The Pentagon on Wednesday <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-states-planning-to-send-14000-troops-to-middle-east-report-266277">denied a report</a> that the United States was weighing sending up to 14,000 more troops to the Middle East in the face of a perceived threat from Iran.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the possible deployment would include "dozens" more ships and double the number of troops added to the US force in the region since the beginning of this year, citing unnamed US officials.

The paper said President Donald Trump could make a decision on the troop boost as early as this month.

But the Pentagon disputed the accuracy of the report.

"To be clear, the reporting is wrong. The US&nbsp;is not considering sending 14,000 additional troops to the Middle East," spokeswoman Alyssa Farah tweeted.

The region has seen a series of attacks on shipping vessels and a drone and missile attack on Saudi oil installations in September blamed on Iran.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-envoy-to-rejoin-doha-talks-with-taliban-after-kabul-visit-state-department-266270">Washington</a> has already ratcheted up its military presence in the Gulf and expanded economic sanctions on Tehran, elevating tensions across the region.&nbsp;

In mid-November, the US aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln sailed through the Strait of Hormuz in a show of force aimed at reassuring allies worried about the Iran threat.

In October Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced that two fighter squadrons and additional missile defence batteries were being sent to Saudi Arabia, for a total of about 3,000 new troops.

Earlier Wednesday Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the country was willing to return to the negotiating table over its nuclear program if the United States first drops sanctions, which have hampered the country's economy and may have contributed to recent domestic turmoil sparked by fuel price hikes.

Speaking at a defence conference in Manama, Bahrain on November 23, General Kenneth McKenzie, commander of US Central Command, said the US does not have all the resources it needs to cover the Middle East region.

"There is a lot of water to cover. Simply put, we don't have sufficient resources to be where we want to be in the right numbers all the time," he told the annual Manama Dialogue on regional security.

But McKenzie rebuffed criticism that Washington has been disengaging from the region.

"We have a carrier in the theatre, we've reinforced Saudi Arabia," he said.

"So I'm not sure I would agree with the narrative of abandonment or a narrative of walking away."

"Clearly <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-willing-to-compromise-us-security-impeachment-hearing-chair-266274">the United States</a> has different global priorities and this is probably not the highest global priority, but I think it remains a very important thing for the United States," he added.

The Pentagon on Wednesday denied a report that the United States was weighing sending up to 14,000 more troops to the Middle East in the face of a perceived threat from Iran.

The Pentagon on Wednesday denied a report that the United States was weighing sending up to 14,000 more troops to the Middle East in the face of a perceived threat from Iran. The Wall Street Journal reported that the possible deployment would include "dozens" more ships and double the number of troops added to the US force in the region since the beginning of this year, citing unnamed US officials. The paper said President Donald Trump could make a decision on the troop boost as early as this month. But the Pentagon disputed the accuracy of the report. "To be clear, the reporting is wrong. The US is not considering sending 14,000 additional troops to the Middle East," spokeswoman Alyssa Farah tweeted. The region has seen a series of attacks on shipping vessels and a drone and missile attack on Saudi oil installations in September blamed on Iran. Washington has already ratcheted up its military presence in the Gulf and expanded economic sanctions on Tehran, elevating tensions across the region. In mid-November, the US aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln sailed through the Strait of Hormuz in a show of force aimed at reassuring allies worried about the Iran threat. In October Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced that two fighter squadrons and additional missile defence batteries were being sent to Saudi Arabia, for a total of about 3,000 new troops. Earlier Wednesday Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the country was willing to return to the negotiating table over its nuclear program if the United States first drops sanctions, which have hampered the country's economy and may have contributed to recent domestic turmoil sparked by fuel price hikes. Speaking at a defence conference in Manama, Bahrain on November 23, General Kenneth McKenzie, commander of US Central Command, said the US does not have all the resources it needs to cover the Middle East region. "There is a lot of water to cover. Simply put, we don't have sufficient resources to be where we want to be in the right numbers all the time," he told the annual Manama Dialogue on regional security. But McKenzie rebuffed criticism that Washington has been disengaging from the region. "We have a carrier in the theatre, we've reinforced Saudi Arabia," he said. "So I'm not sure I would agree with the narrative of abandonment or a narrative of walking away." "Clearly the United States has different global priorities and this is probably not the highest global priority, but I think it remains a very important thing for the United States," he added.

United States not mulling 14,000 more troops for Middle East: Pentagon

Japan is working on a plan to send about 270 seamen to the Middle East to guard ships supplying Japan under a law that allows military deployments for research and intelligence gathering, the Nikkei business daily said.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is considering a January visit to the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the paper added.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/five-afghans-killed-in-jalalabad-attack-japanese-doctor-wounded-266121">Japan</a> maintains friendly ties with both the United States and Iran, and has said it would not join any US&nbsp;coalition to protect merchant vessels in the region.

The Nikkei said the government would propose deploying one escort ship and a patrol aircraft from the Maritime Self-Defense Force on a one-year mission that could be renewed annually. It plans to finalise the plan by year-end, the Nikkei said.

Global commodity trading has been rocked this year by attacks on international merchant vessels that Japan's Western allies have blamed on Iran. Tehran denies involvement.

Tensions have heightened between Tehran and Washington since last year, when President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with six nations and re-imposed sanctions on the country, crippling its economy.

Japan, which has stopped buying oil from Iran because of US&nbsp;sanctions, is eager to see stability in the Middle East, where it gets the bulk of its oil imports.

Abe has tried unsuccessfully to ease tensions between the two countries. Iran has criticised US&nbsp;efforts to build an alliance to protect shipping in the Gulf, and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Japanese public broadcaster NHK this week after meeting with Abe that Tehran was opposed to any foreign forces in the region.

Iran has also proposed a visit to Japan by President Hassan Rouhani try to resolve Iran's nuclear impasse with Washington, Kyodo news reported.

Japan's pacifist constitution bans a standing military but allows self-defence forces. The prospect of deploying navy personnel to the region has sparked calls for caution from liberal media and other critics.

Japan is working on a plan to send about 270 seamen to the Middle East to guard ships supplying Japan under a law that allows military deployments for research and intelligence gathering, the Nikkei business daily said.

Japan is working on a plan to send about 270 seamen to the Middle East to guard ships supplying Japan under a law that allows military deployments for research and intelligence gathering, the Nikkei business daily said. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is considering a January visit to the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the paper added. Japan maintains friendly ties with both the United States and Iran, and has said it would not join any US coalition to protect merchant vessels in the region. The Nikkei said the government would propose deploying one escort ship and a patrol aircraft from the Maritime Self-Defense Force on a one-year mission that could be renewed annually. It plans to finalise the plan by year-end, the Nikkei said. Global commodity trading has been rocked this year by attacks on international merchant vessels that Japan's Western allies have blamed on Iran. Tehran denies involvement. Tensions have heightened between Tehran and Washington since last year, when President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with six nations and re-imposed sanctions on the country, crippling its economy. Japan, which has stopped buying oil from Iran because of US sanctions, is eager to see stability in the Middle East, where it gets the bulk of its oil imports. Abe has tried unsuccessfully to ease tensions between the two countries. Iran has criticised US efforts to build an alliance to protect shipping in the Gulf, and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Japanese public broadcaster NHK this week after meeting with Abe that Tehran was opposed to any foreign forces in the region. Iran has also proposed a visit to Japan by President Hassan Rouhani try to resolve Iran's nuclear impasse with Washington, Kyodo news reported. Japan's pacifist constitution bans a standing military but allows self-defence forces. The prospect of deploying navy personnel to the region has sparked calls for caution from liberal media and other critics.

Japan plans to send 270 sailors to Middle East to guard ships

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-envoy-to-rejoin-doha-talks-with-taliban-after-kabul-visit-state-department-266270">The United States</a> is weighing sending up to&nbsp;14,000&nbsp;more&nbsp;troops&nbsp;to the Middle East in the face of a perceived threat from Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.

The mulled deployment would include "dozens"&nbsp;more&nbsp;ships and double the number of&nbsp;troops&nbsp;added to the US force in the region since the beginning of this year, the Journal said, citing unnamed US officials.

It said President Donald Trump could make a decision on the troop boost as early as this month.

A Pentagon spokesperson declined to comment on the&nbsp;report&nbsp;to AFP.

The move would come after a series of attacks on shipping vessels and a drone and missile attack on Saudi oil installations in September blamed on Iran.

Washington has already ratcheted up its military presence in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/mending-gulf-fences-could-weaken-support-for-us-sanctions-against-iran-264123">the Gulf</a> and expanded economic sanctions on the country, elevating tensions across the region.&nbsp;

In mid-November the US aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln sailed through the Strait of Hormuz in a show of force aimed at reassuring allies worried about the Iran threat.

In October Defence Secretary Mark Esper announced that two fighter squadrons and additional missile defence batteries were being sent to Saudi Arabia, for a total of about 3,000&nbsp;new&nbsp;troops.

Earlier Wednesday Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the country was willing to return to the negotiating table over its nuclear program if the United States first drops sanctions, which have hampered the country's economy and may have contributed to recent domestic turmoil sparked by fuel price hikes.

Speaking at a defence conference in Manama, Bahrain on November 23, General Kenneth McKenzie, commander of US Central Command, said the US does not have all the resources it needs to cover the Middle East region.

"There is a lot of water to cover. Simply put, we don't have sufficient resources to be where we want to be in the right numbers all the time," he told the annual Manama Dialogue on regional security.

But McKenzie rebuffed criticism that Washington has been disengaging from the region.

"We have a carrier in the theatre, we've reinforced Saudi Arabia," he said.

"So I'm not sure I would agree with the narrative of abandonment or a narrative of walking away."

"Clearly <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-willing-to-compromise-us-security-impeachment-hearing-chair-266274">the United States</a> has different global priorities and this is probably not the highest global priority, but I think it remains a very important thing for the United States," he added.

The United States is weighing sending up to 14,000 more troops to the Middle East in the face of a perceived threat from Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.

The United States is weighing sending up to 14,000 more troops to the Middle East in the face of a perceived threat from Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday. The mulled deployment would include "dozens" more ships and double the number of troops added to the US force in the region since the beginning of this year, the Journal said, citing unnamed US officials. It said President Donald Trump could make a decision on the troop boost as early as this month. A Pentagon spokesperson declined to comment on the report to AFP. The move would come after a series of attacks on shipping vessels and a drone and missile attack on Saudi oil installations in September blamed on Iran. Washington has already ratcheted up its military presence in the Gulf and expanded economic sanctions on the country, elevating tensions across the region. In mid-November the US aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln sailed through the Strait of Hormuz in a show of force aimed at reassuring allies worried about the Iran threat. In October Defence Secretary Mark Esper announced that two fighter squadrons and additional missile defence batteries were being sent to Saudi Arabia, for a total of about 3,000 new troops. Earlier Wednesday Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the country was willing to return to the negotiating table over its nuclear program if the United States first drops sanctions, which have hampered the country's economy and may have contributed to recent domestic turmoil sparked by fuel price hikes. Speaking at a defence conference in Manama, Bahrain on November 23, General Kenneth McKenzie, commander of US Central Command, said the US does not have all the resources it needs to cover the Middle East region. "There is a lot of water to cover. Simply put, we don't have sufficient resources to be where we want to be in the right numbers all the time," he told the annual Manama Dialogue on regional security. But McKenzie rebuffed criticism that Washington has been disengaging from the region. "We have a carrier in the theatre, we've reinforced Saudi Arabia," he said. "So I'm not sure I would agree with the narrative of abandonment or a narrative of walking away." "Clearly the United States has different global priorities and this is probably not the highest global priority, but I think it remains a very important thing for the United States," he added.

United States planning to send 14,000 troops to Middle East: Report

A&nbsp;Saudi-led&nbsp;military&nbsp;coalition&nbsp;said Tuesday it will release&nbsp;200&nbsp;Yemeni&nbsp;rebels&nbsp;and permit some flights from the insurgent-held capital Sanaa, as efforts to end the nearly five-year conflict gain momentum.

The initiatives coincide with a lull in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/saudi-led-coalition-says-yemens-houthis-seize-ship-in-red-sea-263056">Huthi attacks</a> on Saudi Arabia and come after a senior official in Riyadh this month said it had an "open channel" with the Iran-aligned&nbsp;rebels.

Patients needing medical care will be allowed to be flown out of Sanaa airport, which has been closed to commercial flights since 2016,&nbsp;coalition&nbsp;spokesman Turki al-Maliki said in a statement released by the official Saudi Press Agency.

The&nbsp;coalition&nbsp;has decided "to release&nbsp;200&nbsp;prisoners of the Huthi militia" and will facilitate flights from Sanaa for "people in need of medical care" in cooperation with the World Health Organisation, the statement added.

The decision was hailed by the Huthis, with senior leader Mohammed Ali al-Huthi calling for a "mass reception" to welcome the released&nbsp;rebels. &nbsp;

"We welcome the&nbsp;coalition&nbsp;decision... (and) call for them to end torture and abuse until all detainees and prisoners are freed," al-Huthi, a senior figure in the&nbsp;rebels' political leadership, said on Twitter.

The&nbsp;Saudi-led&nbsp;coalition&nbsp;launched a military intervention in&nbsp;Yemen&nbsp;in 2015 in support of the country's internationally recognised government.&nbsp;

It reportedly hoped for a quick win against the&nbsp;Huthis, but instead waded into a quagmire that has cost it billions of dollars and sparked a humanitarian catastrophe that has claimed tens of thousands of lives.

Riyadh now appears buoyed by a power-sharing agreement it brokered earlier this month in a separate conflict between&nbsp;Yemen's internationally recognised government and southern separatists, which observers said could pave the way for a wider&nbsp;peace&nbsp;deal in the multi-faceted war.

Further raising hopes, a senior official in Riyadh subsequently said the Saudis have established an <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/houthis-deceptive-over-najran-attack-claims-saudi-led-coalition-252901">"open channel" with the Huthi&nbsp;rebels</a>.

"We don't close our doors with the Huthis," the official, who declined to be named, told reporters.

'Something is changing'

Yemen, in the grip of what the UN has termed the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/attacked-saudi-border-frontline-captured-troops-houthis-252644">world's worst humanitarian crisis</a>, is widely seen as a proxy battlefront between Sunni powerhouse Saudi Arabia and its Shiite rival Iran.

Tuesday's development "is positive proof that the Saudi-Huthi talks are real and having at least a limited tangible impact," Hussein Ibish, a scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, told AFP.

"This is more bad news for the&nbsp;rebels' Iranian backers."

The development follows a lull in recent weeks after a spike in rebel missile and drone attacks over the summer launched from Yemeni territory on Saudi cities.

Last Friday, UN envoy Martin Griffiths said the rate of&nbsp;coalition&nbsp;airstrikes had sharply fallen over the past two weeks, in an apparent sign that "something is changing in&nbsp;Yemen".

In a sign of the limits to the new mood, however, air raids on Monday by the&nbsp;Saudi-led&nbsp;coalition&nbsp;killed eight Huthi&nbsp;rebels&nbsp;near the key western port of Hodeidah, according to local officials.

Yemen's warring parties agreed under a deal brokered in Sweden last December to exchange 15,000 prisoners, but the accord has not been fully implemented.

The&nbsp;coalition&nbsp;freed seven Huthi prisoners in January, and the&nbsp;rebels&nbsp;released 290&nbsp;coalition&nbsp;fighters in September.

The Huthis hold Sanaa while the&nbsp;Saudi led-military&nbsp;coalition&nbsp;controls&nbsp;Yemen's maritime borders and airspace.

Last year, wounded&nbsp;rebels&nbsp;were flown out of Sanaa for treatment, in what was seen as a key step ahead of the December&nbsp;peace&nbsp;talks.

A Saudi-led military coalition said Tuesday it will release 200 Yemeni rebels and permit some flights from the insurgent-held capital Sanaa, as efforts to end the nearly five-year conflict gain momentum.

A Saudi-led military coalition said Tuesday it will release 200 Yemeni rebels and permit some flights from the insurgent-held capital Sanaa, as efforts to end the nearly five-year conflict gain momentum. The initiatives coincide with a lull in Huthi attacks on Saudi Arabia and come after a senior official in Riyadh this month said it had an "open channel" with the Iran-aligned rebels. Patients needing medical care will be allowed to be flown out of Sanaa airport, which has been closed to commercial flights since 2016, coalition spokesman Turki al-Maliki said in a statement released by the official Saudi Press Agency. The coalition has decided "to release 200 prisoners of the Huthi militia" and will facilitate flights from Sanaa for "people in need of medical care" in cooperation with the World Health Organisation, the statement added. The decision was hailed by the Huthis, with senior leader Mohammed Ali al-Huthi calling for a "mass reception" to welcome the released rebels. "We welcome the coalition decision... (and) call for them to end torture and abuse until all detainees and prisoners are freed," al-Huthi, a senior figure in the rebels' political leadership, said on Twitter. The Saudi-led coalition launched a military intervention in Yemen in 2015 in support of the country's internationally recognised government. It reportedly hoped for a quick win against the Huthis, but instead waded into a quagmire that has cost it billions of dollars and sparked a humanitarian catastrophe that has claimed tens of thousands of lives. Riyadh now appears buoyed by a power-sharing agreement it brokered earlier this month in a separate conflict between Yemen's internationally recognised government and southern separatists, which observers said could pave the way for a wider peace deal in the multi-faceted war. Further raising hopes, a senior official in Riyadh subsequently said the Saudis have established an "open channel" with the Huthi rebels. "We don't close our doors with the Huthis," the official, who declined to be named, told reporters. 'Something is changing' Yemen, in the grip of what the UN has termed the world's worst humanitarian crisis, is widely seen as a proxy battlefront between Sunni powerhouse Saudi Arabia and its Shiite rival Iran. Tuesday's development "is positive proof that the Saudi-Huthi talks are real and having at least a limited tangible impact," Hussein Ibish, a scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, told AFP. "This is more bad news for the rebels' Iranian backers." The development follows a lull in recent weeks after a spike in rebel missile and drone attacks over the summer launched from Yemeni territory on Saudi cities. Last Friday, UN envoy Martin Griffiths said the rate of coalition airstrikes had sharply fallen over the past two weeks, in an apparent sign that "something is changing in Yemen". In a sign of the limits to the new mood, however, air raids on Monday by the Saudi-led coalition killed eight Huthi rebels near the key western port of Hodeidah, according to local officials. Yemen's warring parties agreed under a deal brokered in Sweden last December to exchange 15,000 prisoners, but the accord has not been fully implemented. The coalition freed seven Huthi prisoners in January, and the rebels released 290 coalition fighters in September. The Huthis hold Sanaa while the Saudi led-military coalition controls Yemen's maritime borders and airspace. Last year, wounded rebels were flown out of Sanaa for treatment, in what was seen as a key step ahead of the December peace talks.

200 Yemen rebels to be freed amid peace push: Saudi-led coalition

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../were-in-final-throes-of-trade-deal-but-will-see- how-it-goes-in-hong-kong-trump-264769">China </a>on Wednesday denounced US policies in the Middle East as "selfish", as it blamed Washington for destabilising the fraught region where Beijing has stepped up investment in recent years.

While <a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../china-overtakes-united-states-in-number-of- diplomatic-missions-264784">US President Donald Trump</a> has decided to abruptly withdraw troops from northeast Syria and reimpose sweeping sanctions on Iran, Beijing,&nbsp;the world's top crude importer,&nbsp;has doubled down on its economic commitments in the oil-rich region.

"The United States, the world's only superpower and one with tremendous influence in the region, has pursued a selfish and unilateralist policy," said Chen Xiaodong, China's assistant foreign minister.

This policy "sides with the strong at the expense of the weak, which has been a prominent factor behind the security predicament of the region," said Chen, speaking at the two-day Middle East Security Forum in Beijing.

Since taking office, President Xi Jinping has overseen a concerted effort to expand Chinese influence in the Middle East and Africa, including the construction of the country's first military base in Arab League state Djibouti.

In July 2018, Xi pledged $20 billion in loans for economic development to Arab states, which have remained largely silent on Beijing's rounding up and detention of an estimated one million Uighurs and other mostly Muslim ethnic minorities in China's western Xinjiang region.

Beijing has also increased its involvement in neighbouring Muslim countries, such as the multi-billion dollar China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.

"We hope that China could play a bigger role in the political and economic security of the region," said Jawad Anani, former deputy prime minister of Jordan, in an opening speech.

Speakers echoed China's criticism of US actions in the Middle East, such as the Iraq War, and highlighted China's support for an independent Palestinian state.

Many blamed Washington's backing of Israel,&nbsp;including Trump's decision to recognise bitterly disputed Jerusalem as Israel's capital -- for disrupting the peace process.

"Both China and Russia have benefited from the anti-US sentiment in the Middle East because both the ruling elites and ordinary people hope to see an alternative to US hegemony," Ahmed Ould Teguedi, Mauritania's foreign affairs minister, said at the forum's opening ceremony.

The conference came as a report Wednesday said for the first time, China has more diplomatic missions around the world than the US.

China on Wednesday denounced US policies in the Middle East as "selfish", as it blamed Washington for destabilising the fraught region where Beijing has stepped up investment in recent years.

China on Wednesday denounced US policies in the Middle East as "selfish", as it blamed Washington for destabilising the fraught region where Beijing has stepped up investment in recent years. While US President Donald Trump has decided to abruptly withdraw troops from northeast Syria and reimpose sweeping sanctions on Iran, Beijing, the world's top crude importer, has doubled down on its economic commitments in the oil-rich region. "The United States, the world's only superpower and one with tremendous influence in the region, has pursued a selfish and unilateralist policy," said Chen Xiaodong, China's assistant foreign minister. This policy "sides with the strong at the expense of the weak, which has been a prominent factor behind the security predicament of the region," said Chen, speaking at the two-day Middle East Security Forum in Beijing. Since taking office, President Xi Jinping has overseen a concerted effort to expand Chinese influence in the Middle East and Africa, including the construction of the country's first military base in Arab League state Djibouti. In July 2018, Xi pledged $20 billion in loans for economic development to Arab states, which have remained largely silent on Beijing's rounding up and detention of an estimated one million Uighurs and other mostly Muslim ethnic minorities in China's western Xinjiang region. Beijing has also increased its involvement in neighbouring Muslim countries, such as the multi-billion dollar China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. "We hope that China could play a bigger role in the political and economic security of the region," said Jawad Anani, former deputy prime minister of Jordan, in an opening speech. Speakers echoed China's criticism of US actions in the Middle East, such as the Iraq War, and highlighted China's support for an independent Palestinian state. Many blamed Washington's backing of Israel, including Trump's decision to recognise bitterly disputed Jerusalem as Israel's capital -- for disrupting the peace process. "Both China and Russia have benefited from the anti-US sentiment in the Middle East because both the ruling elites and ordinary people hope to see an alternative to US hegemony," Ahmed Ould Teguedi, Mauritania's foreign affairs minister, said at the forum's opening ceremony. The conference came as a report Wednesday said for the first time, China has more diplomatic missions around the world than the US.

China slams 'selfish' US-Middle East policies

The Arab Spring phenomenon&nbsp;sparked on December 18, 2010, with a Tunisian fruit vendor Mohamed Bouazizi's self-immolation to protest against official corruption and indifference. The incident triggered unprecedentedly large anti-government protests in Tunisia which toppled long-established dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and set the Arab Spring rolling across a number of Arab countries, such as Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria.&nbsp;

The mass protestors called for a more representative state for greater equity and better governance. With the solitary exception of Tunisia itself(1), the outcome of the Arab Spring was disappointing in most cases. Successful toppling President Mohammed Hosni Mubarak in Egypt led to a new constitution and a general election which ushered in a Muslim Brotherhood government. However, the new inexperienced government’s radical and populist policies, as well as its incompetence, led to its overthrow and Egypt went back to a military rule.&nbsp;

Arab Spring triggered civil wars in Yemen, Libya and Syria(2), making these countries poster children of its worst-case scenarios and veritable cautionary examples. The Arab Spring in Bahrain waded into an extant Shia – Sunni divide on the island, precipitating military intervention by fellow GCC states to sustain the status quo. &nbsp;

Nine years on, the inconsequentiality and failure of the Arab Spring to achieve are widely acknowledged and the “old normal” of non-representative, despotic and corrupt regimes has been re-enforced. But then, 2019 produced a surprise: A fresh wave of youth-led Arab Spring in each of Algeria, Sudan, Lebanon and Iraq. After a relatively more persistent but less violent confrontation, these public outrages have so far succeeded in toppling the rulers in first three countries – even as their transition to sustainable democracy is still a work in progress. 
 
Iraq, the fourth, continues to be an outlier with escalating violence amidst angry, but mostly non-violent, youth and trigger happy security forces and militias claiming over 320 lives in the past month. However, given the contrast between huge oil revenues and widespread abject poverty(3), as well as, the proliferation of weapons and explosives, this figure should be considered as moderate. Although Iraqi President publicly declared that Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mehdi would resign “as soon as a successor can be found”, the political coalition backing him agreed to give him more time to “meet the popular demands.” &nbsp;

A comparative study of the “Arab Spring 2.0” – as it is being billed – with its predecessor is quite revealing. The popular wish-list of the protestors remains largely unchanged: Replacement of the extant leadership and total overhaul of the political system with more transparent and representative governance, greater trickle-down of wealth and jobs and less sectarianism and repression. Although the protestors are quite motivated and well-mobilised, their lack of hierarchy and chain of command complicate the endgame. On the other hand, the ruling elites in these countries have not lost their determination to hold on to power. This time, however, they pretend to be more open and participative and toned down the Hogra(4) and their visibility. They have also revved up the use and surveillance of social media. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
 
How is the Arab Spring 2.0 different? Firstly, both sides realise that it is a battle of attrition for the hearts and minds and it would be unrealistic to expect a quick and decisive breakthrough. Secondly, both sides have realised that the use of violent means is counterproductive. Both sides, therefore, feign a sense of injured innocence. Thirdly, the protestors have shunned all the traditional symbols of religious, sectarian, ideological nature and have not allowed infiltration by any anti-government elements. They have no political preferences or foreign paradigms to espouse.&nbsp;

Their demand for complete systemic overhaul may appear simplistic and utopian, but it avoids inner contradictions and friction, which can be exploited by the authorities. They have also managed to avoid any foreign affiliation, which is a kiss of death in a fairly xenophobic and Byzantine polity. &nbsp;Fourthly, as a tactic, the protestors have avoided frontal, set-piece confrontations with the authorities; Instead, they have learned to be mobile and obstruct the elite at its various eco-political choke points and symbols, such as highways, banks, ports and airports. The fifth big difference this time is the erosion of state’s capacity to make concessions: The previous Arab Spring took place in an era of high oil prices, giving the authorities more resources to make token concessions to ease popular penury. This time, the discredited State apparatus has not only lost its aura of invincibility but also the financial capacity to buy its way out of this quandary. &nbsp;

All bets are off as this uncharted confrontation between an irresistible force and an immovable object plays out. Eventually, a Sudan-type solution appears the most probable outcome. It would be recalled that after a chaotic and protracted confrontation with protestors, the military clique removed long-ruling President Oman Hassan Al-Bashir in April this year. After much shuffling of political cards, an impromptu association of Sudanese professionals and the new military dispensation negotiated an agreement to share power in a transitional period. IGAD, a regional body, led by Ethiopian Prime Minister facilitated this arrangement. It is quite ironical that after nearly a lost decade which has witnessed unprecedented strife, death and destruction, the antagonists are rewriting their respective rule-books to provide for a degree of non-violence and mutual accommodation. &nbsp;

This turn of Arab Spring 2.0 has two salient points for India too. Firstly, it is quite symbolic that as we mark the centenary of Jalianwala Bagh Massacre this year, Bapu’s message of non-violence finds relevance in the Arab world, a longstanding redoubt of “might is right” aphorism. Secondly, as experience in Sudan and elsewhere has demonstrated, the Arab Spring is essentially about the deficit of political institutions, which are either non-existent or weak or lacking in credibility. The various attempts to cover this flaw by fostering the personality cults are being rejected(5). &nbsp;

During the first Arab Spring, India was disinterested outsider, while our traditional penchant for non-interference in other’s domestic affairs is understandable, we are also a thriving democracy. Over the past seven decades, we have evolved a number of credible and effective political institutions suited for a multi-ethnic, tolerant society such as those affected by Arab Spring 2.0. This proven set of institutions in a typical 'Third World' setting is far more relevant to the needed politico-economic solutions than any other available model(6). Besides, India has better acceptability in the Arab world than most outsiders. All these attributes provide us with the capacity to hold the hands of these societies to help them make the right political choices. We need to step out of shadows this time and play a constructive role in ensuring that the Arab Spring 2.0 has a more positive and harmonious outcome. This could be the best tribute to Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of non-violent Satyagraha, as we mark his 150th birth anniversary. &nbsp;&nbsp;

<h6>&nbsp;1. Where a largely peaceful transition to democratic polity took place as was affirmed by the second general election last month 
&nbsp;2. &nbsp;Which are still raging with considerable foreign involvement. 
&nbsp;3. &nbsp;Although Iraq, OPEC’s second largest oil producer, is expected to earn $ 79 billion in oil revenue this year, 22% of its population lives below poverty line and a third of Iraqi youth are unemployed. 
4. &nbsp;“official arrogance” in Algerian Arabic dilect 
&nbsp;5. For instance, when the Lebanese demonstrators demand “all of them out”, they essentially want a technocrats-led government new institutions to replace all the current set of politicians who have played sectarian musical chairs for past three decades at public expense. 
&nbsp;6. For example, our expertise and experience in holding elections can be helpful in creating a credible and elegant exit from this confrontation.</h6>

 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.) 
 
&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

The Arab Spring phenomenon sparked on December 18, 2010, with a Tunisian fruit vendor Mohamed Bouazizi's self-immolation to protest against official corruption and indifference.

The Arab Spring phenomenon sparked on December 18, 2010, with a Tunisian fruit vendor Mohamed Bouazizi's self-immolation to protest against official corruption and indifference. The incident triggered unprecedentedly large anti-government protests in Tunisia which toppled long-established dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and set the Arab Spring rolling across a number of Arab countries, such as Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria. The mass protestors called for a more representative state for greater equity and better governance. With the solitary exception of Tunisia itself(1), the outcome of the Arab Spring was disappointing in most cases. Successful toppling President Mohammed Hosni Mubarak in Egypt led to a new constitution and a general election which ushered in a Muslim Brotherhood government. However, the new inexperienced government’s radical and populist policies, as well as its incompetence, led to its overthrow and Egypt went back to a military rule. Arab Spring triggered civil wars in Yemen, Libya and Syria(2), making these countries poster children of its worst-case scenarios and veritable cautionary examples. The Arab Spring in Bahrain waded into an extant Shia – Sunni divide on the island, precipitating military intervention by fellow GCC states to sustain the status quo. Nine years on, the inconsequentiality and failure of the Arab Spring to achieve are widely acknowledged and the “old normal” of non-representative, despotic and corrupt regimes has been re-enforced. But then, 2019 produced a surprise: A fresh wave of youth-led Arab Spring in each of Algeria, Sudan, Lebanon and Iraq. After a relatively more persistent but less violent confrontation, these public outrages have so far succeeded in toppling the rulers in first three countries – even as their transition to sustainable democracy is still a work in progress. Iraq, the fourth, continues to be an outlier with escalating violence amidst angry, but mostly non-violent, youth and trigger happy security forces and militias claiming over 320 lives in the past month. However, given the contrast between huge oil revenues and widespread abject poverty(3), as well as, the proliferation of weapons and explosives, this figure should be considered as moderate. Although Iraqi President publicly declared that Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mehdi would resign “as soon as a successor can be found”, the political coalition backing him agreed to give him more time to “meet the popular demands.” A comparative study of the “Arab Spring 2.0” – as it is being billed – with its predecessor is quite revealing. The popular wish-list of the protestors remains largely unchanged: Replacement of the extant leadership and total overhaul of the political system with more transparent and representative governance, greater trickle-down of wealth and jobs and less sectarianism and repression. Although the protestors are quite motivated and well-mobilised, their lack of hierarchy and chain of command complicate the endgame. On the other hand, the ruling elites in these countries have not lost their determination to hold on to power. This time, however, they pretend to be more open and participative and toned down the Hogra(4) and their visibility. They have also revved up the use and surveillance of social media. How is the Arab Spring 2.0 different? Firstly, both sides realise that it is a battle of attrition for the hearts and minds and it would be unrealistic to expect a quick and decisive breakthrough. Secondly, both sides have realised that the use of violent means is counterproductive. Both sides, therefore, feign a sense of injured innocence. Thirdly, the protestors have shunned all the traditional symbols of religious, sectarian, ideological nature and have not allowed infiltration by any anti-government elements. They have no political preferences or foreign paradigms to espouse. Their demand for complete systemic overhaul may appear simplistic and utopian, but it avoids inner contradictions and friction, which can be exploited by the authorities. They have also managed to avoid any foreign affiliation, which is a kiss of death in a fairly xenophobic and Byzantine polity. Fourthly, as a tactic, the protestors have avoided frontal, set-piece confrontations with the authorities; Instead, they have learned to be mobile and obstruct the elite at its various eco-political choke points and symbols, such as highways, banks, ports and airports. The fifth big difference this time is the erosion of state’s capacity to make concessions: The previous Arab Spring took place in an era of high oil prices, giving the authorities more resources to make token concessions to ease popular penury. This time, the discredited State apparatus has not only lost its aura of invincibility but also the financial capacity to buy its way out of this quandary. All bets are off as this uncharted confrontation between an irresistible force and an immovable object plays out. Eventually, a Sudan-type solution appears the most probable outcome. It would be recalled that after a chaotic and protracted confrontation with protestors, the military clique removed long-ruling President Oman Hassan Al-Bashir in April this year. After much shuffling of political cards, an impromptu association of Sudanese professionals and the new military dispensation negotiated an agreement to share power in a transitional period. IGAD, a regional body, led by Ethiopian Prime Minister facilitated this arrangement. It is quite ironical that after nearly a lost decade which has witnessed unprecedented strife, death and destruction, the antagonists are rewriting their respective rule-books to provide for a degree of non-violence and mutual accommodation. This turn of Arab Spring 2.0 has two salient points for India too. Firstly, it is quite symbolic that as we mark the centenary of Jalianwala Bagh Massacre this year, Bapu’s message of non-violence finds relevance in the Arab world, a longstanding redoubt of “might is right” aphorism. Secondly, as experience in Sudan and elsewhere has demonstrated, the Arab Spring is essentially about the deficit of political institutions, which are either non-existent or weak or lacking in credibility. The various attempts to cover this flaw by fostering the personality cults are being rejected(5). During the first Arab Spring, India was disinterested outsider, while our traditional penchant for non-interference in other’s domestic affairs is understandable, we are also a thriving democracy. Over the past seven decades, we have evolved a number of credible and effective political institutions suited for a multi-ethnic, tolerant society such as those affected by Arab Spring 2.0. This proven set of institutions in a typical 'Third World' setting is far more relevant to the needed politico-economic solutions than any other available model(6). Besides, India has better acceptability in the Arab world than most outsiders. All these attributes provide us with the capacity to hold the hands of these societies to help them make the right political choices. We need to step out of shadows this time and play a constructive role in ensuring that the Arab Spring 2.0 has a more positive and harmonious outcome. This could be the best tribute to Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of non-violent Satyagraha, as we mark his 150th birth anniversary. 1. Where a largely peaceful transition to democratic polity took place as was affirmed by the second general election last month 2. Which are still raging with considerable foreign involvement. 3. Although Iraq, OPEC’s second largest oil producer, is expected to earn $ 79 billion in oil revenue this year, 22% of its population lives below poverty line and a third of Iraqi youth are unemployed. 4. “official arrogance” in Algerian Arabic dilect 5. For instance, when the Lebanese demonstrators demand “all of them out”, they essentially want a technocrats-led government new institutions to replace all the current set of politicians who have played sectarian musical chairs for past three decades at public expense. 6. For example, our expertise and experience in holding elections can be helpful in creating a credible and elegant exit from this confrontation. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

From Arab Spring to Arab Satyagraha?

Mass anti-government protests in several Arab countries are turning into competitions to determine who has the longer breath, the protesters or the government.

In Algeria, Lebanon and Iraq, countries in which the leader was either forced to resign or has agreed to step down, authorities appear to be dragging their feet on handovers of power or agreed transitional power-sharing arrangements in the hope that protesters, determined to hold on to their street power until a political transition process is firmly in place, either lose their momentum or are racked by internal differences.

So far, protesters are holding their ground, having learnt the lesson that their achievements are likely to be rolled back if they vacate the street before having cemented an agreement on the rules of the transitional game and process.

Algerians remain on the streets, seven months after President Abdelaziz Bouteflika was forced to step down, in demand of a complete change of the political system.

Scores of recent arrests on charges that include “harming national unity” and “undermining the morale of the army” have failed to deter Algerians who refuse to accept the military’s proposed December 12 date for elections.

Lebanon enters its second months of protests with the government going through the motions but ultimately failing to respond to demands for a technocratic government, a new non-sectarian electoral law and early elections.

An effort to replace Prime Minister Saad Hariri with another member of the elite, Mohammad Safadi, a billionaire businessman and former finance minister, was rejected by the protesters.

"We are staying here. We don't know how long - maybe one or two months or one or two years. Maybe it will take 10 years to get the state we are dreaming of, but everything starts with a first step," said filmmaker Perla Joe Maaloula.

Weeks after agreeing to resign in response to popular pressure, Iraqi prime minister Adil Abdul Mehdi appears to be increasingly firm in his saddle.

Much like what prompted US President George H W Bush to first call in 1991 for a popular revolt against Saddam Hussein and then give the Iraqi strongman the tools to crush the uprising, Mehdi is holding on to power in the absence of a credible candidate acceptable to the political elite to replace him.

Mehdi’s position is strengthened by the fact that neither the United States nor Iran wants a power vacuum to emerge in Baghdad.

Backtracking on Mehdi’s resignation and refraining from appointing a prime minister who credibly holds out the promise of real change is likely to harden the battle lines between the protesters and the government.

The tugs of war highlight the pitfalls protesters and governments need to manoeuvre in what amounts to a complex game with governments seeking to pacify demonstrators by seemingly entertaining their demands yet plotting to maintain fundamental political structures that anti-government activists want to uproot.

The risk of a tug of war is that protests turn violent as happened in Hong Kong or in Lebanon where cars of parliamentarians were attacked as they drove this week towards the assembly.

Meeting protesters’ demands and aspirations that drive the demonstrations and figure across the Middle East and North Africa, irrespective of whether grievances have spilled into streets, is what makes economic and social reform tricky business for the region’s autocrats.

It is where what is needed for sustainable reforms bounces up against ever more repressive security states intent on exercising increasingly tight control.

Sustainable reform requires capable and effective institutions rather than bloated, bureaucratic job banks and decentralisation with greater authorities granted to municipalities and regions.

Altering social contracts by introducing or increasing taxes, reducing subsidies for basic goods and narrowing opportunities for government employment will have to be buffered by greater transparency that provides the public insight into how the government ensures that it benefits from the still-evolving new social contract.&nbsp;

To many protesters, Sudan has validated protesters’ resolve to retain street power until transitional arrangements are put in place.

It took five months after the toppling of President Omar al-Bashir and a short-lived security force crackdown in which some 100 people were killed before the military, the protesters and political groups agreed and put in place a transitional power-sharing process.

The process involved the creation of a sovereign council made up of civilians and military officers that is governing the country and managing its democratic transition.

Even so, transitional experiences have yet to prove their mettle. Protesters may have learnt lessons from the 2011 popular Arab revolts that toppled the leaders of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen.

Yet, this time round, protesters lack the broad-based international empathy that 2011 uprisings enjoyed and are up against more than domestic forces backed by conservative Gulf states.

Powers like Russia and China make no bones about their rejection of protest as an expression of popular political will.

So has Iran that has much at stake in Iraq and Lebanon, countries where anti-sectarian sentiment is strong among protesters, even if the Islamic republic was born in one of the 20th century’s epic popular revolts and is confronting protests of its own against fuel price hikes. 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

Mass anti-government protests in several Arab countries are turning into competitions to determine who has the longer breath, the protesters or the government. In Algeria, Lebanon and Iraq, countries in which the leader was either forced to resign or has agreed to step down, authorities appear to be dragging their feet on handovers of power or agreed transitional power-sharing arrangements in the hope that protesters, determined to hold on to their street power until a political transition process is firmly in place, either lose their momentum or are racked by internal differences.

Mass anti-government protests in several Arab countries are turning into competitions to determine who has the longer breath, the protesters or the government. In Algeria, Lebanon and Iraq, countries in which the leader was either forced to resign or has agreed to step down, authorities appear to be dragging their feet on handovers of power or agreed transitional power-sharing arrangements in the hope that protesters, determined to hold on to their street power until a political transition process is firmly in place, either lose their momentum or are racked by internal differences. So far, protesters are holding their ground, having learnt the lesson that their achievements are likely to be rolled back if they vacate the street before having cemented an agreement on the rules of the transitional game and process. Algerians remain on the streets, seven months after President Abdelaziz Bouteflika was forced to step down, in demand of a complete change of the political system. Scores of recent arrests on charges that include “harming national unity” and “undermining the morale of the army” have failed to deter Algerians who refuse to accept the military’s proposed December 12 date for elections. Lebanon enters its second months of protests with the government going through the motions but ultimately failing to respond to demands for a technocratic government, a new non-sectarian electoral law and early elections. An effort to replace Prime Minister Saad Hariri with another member of the elite, Mohammad Safadi, a billionaire businessman and former finance minister, was rejected by the protesters. "We are staying here. We don't know how long - maybe one or two months or one or two years. Maybe it will take 10 years to get the state we are dreaming of, but everything starts with a first step," said filmmaker Perla Joe Maaloula. Weeks after agreeing to resign in response to popular pressure, Iraqi prime minister Adil Abdul Mehdi appears to be increasingly firm in his saddle. Much like what prompted US President George H W Bush to first call in 1991 for a popular revolt against Saddam Hussein and then give the Iraqi strongman the tools to crush the uprising, Mehdi is holding on to power in the absence of a credible candidate acceptable to the political elite to replace him. Mehdi’s position is strengthened by the fact that neither the United States nor Iran wants a power vacuum to emerge in Baghdad. Backtracking on Mehdi’s resignation and refraining from appointing a prime minister who credibly holds out the promise of real change is likely to harden the battle lines between the protesters and the government. The tugs of war highlight the pitfalls protesters and governments need to manoeuvre in what amounts to a complex game with governments seeking to pacify demonstrators by seemingly entertaining their demands yet plotting to maintain fundamental political structures that anti-government activists want to uproot. The risk of a tug of war is that protests turn violent as happened in Hong Kong or in Lebanon where cars of parliamentarians were attacked as they drove this week towards the assembly. Meeting protesters’ demands and aspirations that drive the demonstrations and figure across the Middle East and North Africa, irrespective of whether grievances have spilled into streets, is what makes economic and social reform tricky business for the region’s autocrats. It is where what is needed for sustainable reforms bounces up against ever more repressive security states intent on exercising increasingly tight control. Sustainable reform requires capable and effective institutions rather than bloated, bureaucratic job banks and decentralisation with greater authorities granted to municipalities and regions. Altering social contracts by introducing or increasing taxes, reducing subsidies for basic goods and narrowing opportunities for government employment will have to be buffered by greater transparency that provides the public insight into how the government ensures that it benefits from the still-evolving new social contract. To many protesters, Sudan has validated protesters’ resolve to retain street power until transitional arrangements are put in place. It took five months after the toppling of President Omar al-Bashir and a short-lived security force crackdown in which some 100 people were killed before the military, the protesters and political groups agreed and put in place a transitional power-sharing process. The process involved the creation of a sovereign council made up of civilians and military officers that is governing the country and managing its democratic transition. Even so, transitional experiences have yet to prove their mettle. Protesters may have learnt lessons from the 2011 popular Arab revolts that toppled the leaders of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen. Yet, this time round, protesters lack the broad-based international empathy that 2011 uprisings enjoyed and are up against more than domestic forces backed by conservative Gulf states. Powers like Russia and China make no bones about their rejection of protest as an expression of popular political will. So has Iran that has much at stake in Iraq and Lebanon, countries where anti-sectarian sentiment is strong among protesters, even if the Islamic republic was born in one of the 20th century’s epic popular revolts and is confronting protests of its own against fuel price hikes. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Middle East protests: A tug of war over who has the longer breath

By Sukru Cildir

The relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran, both oil-rich states in the Middle East, has oscillated from co-operation to conflict throughout history. Alongside a range of factors that shape their rivalry including sectarianism and nationalism has been the politics of oil.

Oil is a strategic international commodity, and its use as a political tool is widespread. Its role in the Saudi-Iranian rivalry can’t be understood without unpicking the international context, and the power structures that govern the way countries interact with each other. At the heart of this is the dominance of the US over this international system.

The dynamics between the US, Iran and Saudi Arabia over oil were laid bare in September 2019, after a series of drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities. The attacks caused the suspension of 5.7m barrels per day (mbpd) of crude oil production, nearly half the Saudi output.

The Houthis, a Yemeni faction, claimed responsibility. However, American and Saudi government officials accused Iran of committing these attacks. In return, the Iranians blamed foreign forces in the region for the insecurity and told the US to leave the area.

While the Saudi-Iranian oil rivalry is ostensibly the business of these two countries, it has always had an international dimension, overshadowed by the US.

After the revolution

The 1979 Iranian revolution marked a turning point for the place oil played within the Saudi-Iranian relationship. Before then, both countries were important allies of the US, a position which brought with it political and economic benefits particularly to their oil industries. But the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran paved the way for a separation of paths.

While Saudi Arabia remained a staunch ally of the US, Iran adopted a revolutionary and anti-Western foreign policy, which prompted its isolation from an international system that was dominated by the US.

As a result, ever since 1979, the Iranian oil industry has been subject to American pressure, through a range of economic sanctions and embargoes, which has crippled Iranian oil production. Iran has been unable to reach the level of oil production of over six mbpd that it had in the pre-revolution years. Meanwhile, Saudi oil production reached over 12 mbpd in 2018.

This led to the Iranian oil industry being deprived of necessary foreign investment and technology transfer, and it has fallen behind Saudi Aramco, the kingdom’s state-owned oil company, and other regional competitors. Saudi Arabia has largely backed the US policy of isolating and sanctioning Iran, particularly the Iranian oil industry, which has, as I’ve argued elsewhere, contributed to the ongoing tensions in the Saudi-Iranian relationship.

As Saudi Aramaco prepares for an IPO in December that could make it the world’s biggest publicly listed company, Iran is desperate to revitalise its own outmoded oil industry. As Iranian oil minister Bijan Zanganeh admitted in early 2019, many of Iran’s ageing oil facilities are in fact “operating museums”.

The US continues to have such an influence on Middle Eastern oil politics because of the way it has successfully pushed its own international agenda since 1945. After World War II, the US cemented its dominance over an international system built on the basis of liberal and capitalist principles. While the US rewards its allies with economic and political benefits, it punishes its challengers through a range of political and economic measures, not least economic sanctions.

Oil became a strategic international commodity in the post-World War II period, and began to play a pivotal role in the way the US maintained its global dominance. To do this, the US aimed to open up and transnationalise oil-rich economies in the Global South such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, to both promote its national interests and solidify its privileged position within the current system.

Accordingly, the supply of Middle Eastern oil into international markets without disruption – and at a reasonable price – became an essential instrument for maintaining American dominance, even though the US didn’t need to import oil from the Middle East.

A world of US dominance

The political economist Susan Strange provided a theoretical framework back in 1987 to explain the structure of US dominance over the international system through four main dimensions: production, finance, security and knowledge. This is also a useful way to understand how the US shapes the international oil market – and the Saudi-Iranian rivalry.

By 2018, in the wake of a shale boom, the US became the largest oil-producing country in the world by reaching production of 15 mbpd. Financially, oil has been priced and traded in US dollars, in particular since the early 1970s when a series of negotiations and agreements linking the sale of oil to the US dollar were made between Saudi Arabia and the US. This has increased global demand for US dollars, and helped the US deal with its trade deficit and keep its interest rates low. It has also helped the US to monitor the petroleum trade by controlling global bank transfers.

The US also stands as a main security provider to oil-rich Gulf monarchies, with publicly acknowledged military bases in over 12 countries in the Middle East. Additionally, it has a supremacy over global knowledge, most obviously through its continued domination and control of the sector’s technological needs. By leading global innovation and technological development in the shale revolution, for example, and having the highest budget for research and development, the US largely controls global technology transfer. This has also deprived Iran of necessary technology, capital and know-how to modernise its ageing oil industry, constraining production.

Therefore, despite the fact that the Saudi-Iranian oil rivalry seems like a regional issue, the role of American power in a globalised world has been key to shaping this regional political competition over oil.

(Sukru Cildir is PhD Candidate, Lancaster University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="http://theconversation.com/how-saudi-iranian-oil-rivalry-has-been-shaped-by-american-power-124123">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

By Sukru Cildir The relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran, both oil-rich states in the Middle East, has oscillated from co-operation to conflict throughout history.

By Sukru Cildir The relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran, both oil-rich states in the Middle East, has oscillated from co-operation to conflict throughout history. Alongside a range of factors that shape their rivalry including sectarianism and nationalism has been the politics of oil. Oil is a strategic international commodity, and its use as a political tool is widespread. Its role in the Saudi-Iranian rivalry can’t be understood without unpicking the international context, and the power structures that govern the way countries interact with each other. At the heart of this is the dominance of the US over this international system. The dynamics between the US, Iran and Saudi Arabia over oil were laid bare in September 2019, after a series of drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities. The attacks caused the suspension of 5.7m barrels per day (mbpd) of crude oil production, nearly half the Saudi output. The Houthis, a Yemeni faction, claimed responsibility. However, American and Saudi government officials accused Iran of committing these attacks. In return, the Iranians blamed foreign forces in the region for the insecurity and told the US to leave the area. While the Saudi-Iranian oil rivalry is ostensibly the business of these two countries, it has always had an international dimension, overshadowed by the US. After the revolution The 1979 Iranian revolution marked a turning point for the place oil played within the Saudi-Iranian relationship. Before then, both countries were important allies of the US, a position which brought with it political and economic benefits particularly to their oil industries. But the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran paved the way for a separation of paths. While Saudi Arabia remained a staunch ally of the US, Iran adopted a revolutionary and anti-Western foreign policy, which prompted its isolation from an international system that was dominated by the US. As a result, ever since 1979, the Iranian oil industry has been subject to American pressure, through a range of economic sanctions and embargoes, which has crippled Iranian oil production. Iran has been unable to reach the level of oil production of over six mbpd that it had in the pre-revolution years. Meanwhile, Saudi oil production reached over 12 mbpd in 2018. This led to the Iranian oil industry being deprived of necessary foreign investment and technology transfer, and it has fallen behind Saudi Aramco, the kingdom’s state-owned oil company, and other regional competitors. Saudi Arabia has largely backed the US policy of isolating and sanctioning Iran, particularly the Iranian oil industry, which has, as I’ve argued elsewhere, contributed to the ongoing tensions in the Saudi-Iranian relationship. As Saudi Aramaco prepares for an IPO in December that could make it the world’s biggest publicly listed company, Iran is desperate to revitalise its own outmoded oil industry. As Iranian oil minister Bijan Zanganeh admitted in early 2019, many of Iran’s ageing oil facilities are in fact “operating museums”. The US continues to have such an influence on Middle Eastern oil politics because of the way it has successfully pushed its own international agenda since 1945. After World War II, the US cemented its dominance over an international system built on the basis of liberal and capitalist principles. While the US rewards its allies with economic and political benefits, it punishes its challengers through a range of political and economic measures, not least economic sanctions. Oil became a strategic international commodity in the post-World War II period, and began to play a pivotal role in the way the US maintained its global dominance. To do this, the US aimed to open up and transnationalise oil-rich economies in the Global South such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, to both promote its national interests and solidify its privileged position within the current system. Accordingly, the supply of Middle Eastern oil into international markets without disruption – and at a reasonable price – became an essential instrument for maintaining American dominance, even though the US didn’t need to import oil from the Middle East. A world of US dominance The political economist Susan Strange provided a theoretical framework back in 1987 to explain the structure of US dominance over the international system through four main dimensions: production, finance, security and knowledge. This is also a useful way to understand how the US shapes the international oil market – and the Saudi-Iranian rivalry. By 2018, in the wake of a shale boom, the US became the largest oil-producing country in the world by reaching production of 15 mbpd. Financially, oil has been priced and traded in US dollars, in particular since the early 1970s when a series of negotiations and agreements linking the sale of oil to the US dollar were made between Saudi Arabia and the US. This has increased global demand for US dollars, and helped the US deal with its trade deficit and keep its interest rates low. It has also helped the US to monitor the petroleum trade by controlling global bank transfers. The US also stands as a main security provider to oil-rich Gulf monarchies, with publicly acknowledged military bases in over 12 countries in the Middle East. Additionally, it has a supremacy over global knowledge, most obviously through its continued domination and control of the sector’s technological needs. By leading global innovation and technological development in the shale revolution, for example, and having the highest budget for research and development, the US largely controls global technology transfer. This has also deprived Iran of necessary technology, capital and know-how to modernise its ageing oil industry, constraining production. Therefore, despite the fact that the Saudi-Iranian oil rivalry seems like a regional issue, the role of American power in a globalised world has been key to shaping this regional political competition over oil. (Sukru Cildir is PhD Candidate, Lancaster University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

How Saudi-Iranian oil rivalry has been shaped by American power

&nbsp;Roula Khalaf will become the first woman to edit the&nbsp;Financial&nbsp;Times&nbsp;in its 131 year history after Lionel Barber, Britain's most senior&nbsp;financial&nbsp;journalist, said he would step down.

Barber said on Tuesday he would leave in January after 14 years as editor and 34 years at the Nikkei-owned newspaper, which had one million paying readers in 2019, with digital subscribers accounting for more than 75 per cent&nbsp;of total circulation.

Khalaf has served as deputy editor, foreign editor and Middle East editor during her more than two decades at the salmon-pink FT and in recent years has sought to increase diversity in the newsroom and attract more female readers.

"It's a great honour to be appointed editor of the FT, the greatest news organisation in the world. "I look forward to building on Lionel Barber's extraordinary achievements," said Khalaf, whose earlier writing for Forbes magazine had earned her a small role in Martin Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street.

Her article described the leading character Jordan Belfort as sounding like a twisted version of Robin Hood who takes from the rich and gives to himself and his merry band of brokers.

Khalaf, from Lebanon, will join Katharine Viner at the Guardian as one of the few women to edit major newspapers in Britain and one of few leading female editors in the world after Jill Abramson left the New York&nbsp;Times.

Before joining the FT in 1995, Khalaf worked at Forbes in New York and earned a master's at Columbia University and graduated from Syracuse University.

New Chapter

Tsuneo Kita, chairman of Japan's Nikkei which bought the FT from Pearson in 2015, said in a statement Khalaf was chosen for her sound judgment and integrity. "We look forward to working closely with her to deepen our global media alliance."

Nikkei's Kita described Barber as a strategic thinker and true internationalist, adding he was very sad to see him leave.

"However, both of us agree it is time to open a new chapter," he said.

During his time as editor Barber engineered a successful push into online subscription that protected the title as others battled an unprecedented collapse in advertising revenue, as well as managing the move to a new owner.

Roula Khalaf will become the first woman to edit the Financial Times in its 131 year history after Lionel Barber, Britain's most senior financial journalist, said he would step down.

Roula Khalaf will become the first woman to edit the Financial Times in its 131 year history after Lionel Barber, Britain's most senior financial journalist, said he would step down. Barber said on Tuesday he would leave in January after 14 years as editor and 34 years at the Nikkei-owned newspaper, which had one million paying readers in 2019, with digital subscribers accounting for more than 75 per cent of total circulation. Khalaf has served as deputy editor, foreign editor and Middle East editor during her more than two decades at the salmon-pink FT and in recent years has sought to increase diversity in the newsroom and attract more female readers. "It's a great honour to be appointed editor of the FT, the greatest news organisation in the world. "I look forward to building on Lionel Barber's extraordinary achievements," said Khalaf, whose earlier writing for Forbes magazine had earned her a small role in Martin Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street. Her article described the leading character Jordan Belfort as sounding like a twisted version of Robin Hood who takes from the rich and gives to himself and his merry band of brokers. Khalaf, from Lebanon, will join Katharine Viner at the Guardian as one of the few women to edit major newspapers in Britain and one of few leading female editors in the world after Jill Abramson left the New York Times. Before joining the FT in 1995, Khalaf worked at Forbes in New York and earned a master's at Columbia University and graduated from Syracuse University. New Chapter Tsuneo Kita, chairman of Japan's Nikkei which bought the FT from Pearson in 2015, said in a statement Khalaf was chosen for her sound judgment and integrity. "We look forward to working closely with her to deepen our global media alliance." Nikkei's Kita described Barber as a strategic thinker and true internationalist, adding he was very sad to see him leave. "However, both of us agree it is time to open a new chapter," he said. During his time as editor Barber engineered a successful push into online subscription that protected the title as others battled an unprecedented collapse in advertising revenue, as well as managing the move to a new owner.

Roula Khalaf becomes first female editor of Financial Times after Barber's resignation

A US-led naval coalition officially launched operations in Bahrain Thursday to protect shipping in the troubled waters of the Gulf, after a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/americas/us-will-respond-with-great-force-if-iran-attacks-interests-donald-trump-220247">string of attacks </a>that Washington and its allies blamed on Iran.

The coalition, aimed at warding off the perceived threat to the world's oil supply, has been in the making since June.

Iran, which has denied any responsibility for the mystery attacks, has put forward its own proposals for boosting Gulf security that pointedly excludes outside powers.

Bahrain, which hosts the US Navy's Fifth Fleet, joined the International Maritime Security Construct (IMSC) in August. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates followed suit in September.&nbsp;

Australia and Britain are the main Western countries to have agreed to send warships to escort Gulf shipping. The newest member, Albania, joined on Friday.&nbsp;

Vessels will be escorted through the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic chokepoint at the head of the Gulf and the main artery for the transport of Middle East oil.&nbsp;

Vice Admiral Jim Malloy, commander of US Naval Forces in the Middle East, said Operation Sentinel is a defensive measure aimed at protecting Gulf waters.&nbsp;

"While Sentinel's operational design is threat-based, it does not threaten," he said during a ceremony at the IMSC's command centre.&nbsp;

"We employ capable warships on patrol, but there is no offensive line of effort in this construct, other than a commitment to defend each other if attacked.

"Our commitment to the region isn't short-lived, it is enduring, and we will operate as part of Sentinel for as long as it's needed -- as long as the threat looms."

Most European governments have declined to participate in the naval coalition, fearful of undermining their efforts to save a landmark 2015 nuclear accord with Iran, which was badly weakened by Washington's withdrawal last year.

Animosity between Tehran and Washington has soared since President Donald Trump unilaterally abandoned the deal and reimposed crippling US sanctions.

On May 12, the UAE said four commercial oil tankers -- two Saudi, one Emirati and one Norwegian -- had been targeted by "acts of sabotage" in waters off its coast.

Washington and Riyadh blamed Tehran, which denied involvement.

A month later, the Kokuka Courageous was hit and around the same time another tanker in the area, the Norwegian-owned Front Altair, was damaged by three explosions, according to the Norwegian Maritime Authority.

They were transiting through the Strait of Hormuz towards the Indian Ocean.

Then on September 14, drone strikes targeted two key Saudi oil facilities onshore, causing catastrophic damage and temporarily knocking out half of the kingdom's oil production.

The attacks were claimed by Yemen's Huthi rebels who are battling a Saudi-led coalition, but Washington and Riyadh blamed Iran, saying the strikes were carried out with advanced missiles and drones.

A US-led naval coalition officially launched operations in Bahrain Thursday to protect shipping in the troubled waters of the Gulf, after a string of attacks that Washington and its allies blamed on Iran.

A US-led naval coalition officially launched operations in Bahrain Thursday to protect shipping in the troubled waters of the Gulf, after a string of attacks that Washington and its allies blamed on Iran. The coalition, aimed at warding off the perceived threat to the world's oil supply, has been in the making since June. Iran, which has denied any responsibility for the mystery attacks, has put forward its own proposals for boosting Gulf security that pointedly excludes outside powers. Bahrain, which hosts the US Navy's Fifth Fleet, joined the International Maritime Security Construct (IMSC) in August. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates followed suit in September. Australia and Britain are the main Western countries to have agreed to send warships to escort Gulf shipping. The newest member, Albania, joined on Friday. Vessels will be escorted through the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic chokepoint at the head of the Gulf and the main artery for the transport of Middle East oil. Vice Admiral Jim Malloy, commander of US Naval Forces in the Middle East, said Operation Sentinel is a defensive measure aimed at protecting Gulf waters. "While Sentinel's operational design is threat-based, it does not threaten," he said during a ceremony at the IMSC's command centre. "We employ capable warships on patrol, but there is no offensive line of effort in this construct, other than a commitment to defend each other if attacked. "Our commitment to the region isn't short-lived, it is enduring, and we will operate as part of Sentinel for as long as it's needed -- as long as the threat looms." Most European governments have declined to participate in the naval coalition, fearful of undermining their efforts to save a landmark 2015 nuclear accord with Iran, which was badly weakened by Washington's withdrawal last year. Animosity between Tehran and Washington has soared since President Donald Trump unilaterally abandoned the deal and reimposed crippling US sanctions. On May 12, the UAE said four commercial oil tankers -- two Saudi, one Emirati and one Norwegian -- had been targeted by "acts of sabotage" in waters off its coast. Washington and Riyadh blamed Tehran, which denied involvement. A month later, the Kokuka Courageous was hit and around the same time another tanker in the area, the Norwegian-owned Front Altair, was damaged by three explosions, according to the Norwegian Maritime Authority. They were transiting through the Strait of Hormuz towards the Indian Ocean. Then on September 14, drone strikes targeted two key Saudi oil facilities onshore, causing catastrophic damage and temporarily knocking out half of the kingdom's oil production. The attacks were claimed by Yemen's Huthi rebels who are battling a Saudi-led coalition, but Washington and Riyadh blamed Iran, saying the strikes were carried out with advanced missiles and drones.

US-led coalition launches operation to protect Gulf waters

Spanish tourists stabbed in Jordan's Jerash near Roman ruins

Global collaboration is the key to conducting counter-terrorism in the Middle East following the reported death of the leader of the Islamic State (IS) group, while finding a coordinated international approach to combating terrorism which avoids the errors made in previous policy decisions of Western countries is crucial to addressing the issue, according to a China Media Group (CMG) commentary published on Tuesday.

Collaboration is the key to counter-terrorism work in the Middle East

All concerned parties are looking at their respective national interests, and thus, the situation in West Asia is turning from bad to worse, says Retired Major General SB Asthana

Video Opinion: Maintaining stability in West Asia

Gold prices held steady on Thursday as weak United States retail sales data fanned concerns that the country's economy may be feeling the pinch of the long-drawn trade war with China, while palladium held close to a record high hit the previous day.

Spot gold&nbsp;inched 0.1 per cent&nbsp;higher to $1,490.37 per ounce as of 0044 GMT&nbsp;US gold futures&nbsp;rose 0.1 per cent&nbsp;to $1,495.60.

Asian shares were subdued as the soft US&nbsp;sales data pointed to signs that the US&nbsp;economy was beginning to show signs of weakness, and a global recession was looming.

US&nbsp;retail sales fell for the first time in seven months in September, suggesting that manufacturing-led weakness could be spreading to the broader economy, keeping the door open for the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates again later this month.

Investors awaited further news on the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-states-china-trade-mini-deal-being-papered-trump-256340">US-China trade front</a>. US&nbsp;Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Wednesday that trade negotiators are working on nailing down a phase 1 trade deal text for their presidents to sign next month.

Elsewhere, a European Union leaders' two-day summit in Brussels starting on Thursday will be dominated by last-gasp efforts to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/brexit-deal-at-hand-in-brussels-boris-johnson-struggles-to-win-support-at-home-256400">seal a deal on Britain's exit</a> from the bloc despite a raft of other pressing issues, from the crisis in the Middle East to the EU budget.

Investors have welcomed optimistic comments from key officials during last few days. British culture minister Nicky Morgan said late on Wednesday there is a good chance of a deal.

Indicative of sentiment, SPDR Gold Trust GLD, the world's largest gold-backed exchange-traded fund, said its holdings fell 0.16 per cent&nbsp;to 918.19 tonnes on Wednesday from 919.66 tonnes on Tuesday.

Palladium rose 0.2 per cent&nbsp;to $1,770.54 an ounce on Thursday after notching a fresh high of $1,779.23 on Wednesday.

Gold prices held steady on Thursday as weak United States retail sales data fanned concerns that the country's economy may be feeling the pinch of the long-drawn trade war with China, while palladium held close to a record high hit the previous day.

Gold prices held steady on Thursday as weak United States retail sales data fanned concerns that the country's economy may be feeling the pinch of the long-drawn trade war with China, while palladium held close to a record high hit the previous day. Spot gold inched 0.1 per cent higher to $1,490.37 per ounce as of 0044 GMT US gold futures rose 0.1 per cent to $1,495.60. Asian shares were subdued as the soft US sales data pointed to signs that the US economy was beginning to show signs of weakness, and a global recession was looming. US retail sales fell for the first time in seven months in September, suggesting that manufacturing-led weakness could be spreading to the broader economy, keeping the door open for the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates again later this month. Investors awaited further news on the US-China trade front. US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Wednesday that trade negotiators are working on nailing down a phase 1 trade deal text for their presidents to sign next month. Elsewhere, a European Union leaders' two-day summit in Brussels starting on Thursday will be dominated by last-gasp efforts to seal a deal on Britain's exit from the bloc despite a raft of other pressing issues, from the crisis in the Middle East to the EU budget. Investors have welcomed optimistic comments from key officials during last few days. British culture minister Nicky Morgan said late on Wednesday there is a good chance of a deal. Indicative of sentiment, SPDR Gold Trust GLD, the world's largest gold-backed exchange-traded fund, said its holdings fell 0.16 per cent to 918.19 tonnes on Wednesday from 919.66 tonnes on Tuesday. Palladium rose 0.2 per cent to $1,770.54 an ounce on Thursday after notching a fresh high of $1,779.23 on Wednesday.

Gold steady as disappointing US retail sales weigh on risk appetite

Turkey launched an offensive targeting Syrian Kurdish fighters last week after US troops allied to them pulled out.

Erdogan rejects US ceasefire call on Syria

By Haidar Khezri

Kurdish fighters under attack by Turkey have described President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops from northern Syria as a “stab in the back.”

Since the bombing began on October 9, Turkish military operations against the Syrian Democratic Forces in northern Syria, Washington’s staunchest and most effective allies in the war against the Islamic State, has killed at least 11 civilians and an unconfirmed number of Kurdish fighters, with estimates ranging from dozens to hundreds.

Kurdish fighters are key partners to the US in the Middle East. From 2003 to 2017, they helped overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein, battled al-Qaida and pushed the Islamic State out of northern Iraq and Syria.

Kurdish women have fought on the front lines in all these battles, as they have done since the 19th-century Kurdish commander Kara Fatma led an Ottoman battalion of 700 men and 43 women against the Russian Empire.

That was unusual for the period – but, then again, Kurdish women have long been exceptions in the mostly conservative Middle East.

Who are the Kurds?

Kurdistan, where I was born, is among the largest nations in the world without a state. Around 35 million Kurds inhabit a mountainous zone straddling Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Armenia.

The Kurds were first split up politically in the 17th century when their territory was divided between the Ottoman and Safavid empires. Back then, the Roman scholar Pietro Della Valle travelled to the region and was surprised to find “Kurdish women commuting freely without hijab.” He noted in his 1667 travelogue that “they engage with Kurdish men and foreigners without any problems.”

After World War I, a treaty between Britain and France, called the Sykes-Picot Agreement, drew arbitrary borders across the Middle East, creating colonial protectorate states. The partition again fragmented the Kurds, this time across four countries: modern-day Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria.

The Kurds have been fighting for their sovereignty ever since. In recent decades, they have succeeded in establishing autonomously governed regions within Iraq and Syria.

But in Iran and Turkey, the Kurds continue their armed struggle. Both countries to view this ethnic minority as a terrorist threat and legally repress Kurdish populations.

This setup has put Kurdistan – domestically a rather peaceable, prosperous place with significant oil reserves – squarely in the center of a geopolitical quagmire.

Until Trump’s recent turnaround, the US had backed the Kurds in Syria, Iraq and Iran, where they were critical to defeating the Islamic State and served as jailers to about 11,000 captured IS fighters.

But Turkey – a US ally – sees the armed Kurds in Syria as an extension of the rebel Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which has been fighting for Kurdish autonomy in Turkey since the 1980s.

In May 2018, over 250 people were killed when Turkey bombed the Kurdish-majority Syrian city of Afrin, which Turkish armed forces consider a “terrorist corridor.”

The feminists of the PKK

The Marxist-Leninist PKK, founded in 1978, may be an enemy of the Turkish state, but it is also one of the most feminist movements in the Middle East.

The group held its first congress on women’s rights in 1987, in which PKK co-founder Sakine Cansiz – who was assassinated in 2013 – proposed that its “liberation for all” rhetoric must include women’s liberation, too.

Today the party’s political agenda explicitly recognises religious minorities, dissidents and women as the crux of democracy.

In the autonomous Kurdish regions of Iraq and Syria, women have the same legal rights as men. Indeed, the Iraqi Kurdish regional government has a higher proportion of women than the United Kingdom – 30 per cent versus 20 per cent.

The charter of the semi-autonomous Syrian Federation of Kurdistan, founded in 2012, requires that women must hold a minimum of 40 per cent of all government posts. Every Kurdish Syrian public institution must also have two co-presidents, one male and one female.

Women also make up 30 per cent of Kurdish fighters deployed across the Middle East. More than 25,000 Kurdish women are deployed in Syria as the Women’s Protection Units, an all-female militia inspired by the KPP’s feminist liberation ideology.

In contrast, about 14 per cent of US military service members are women.

Female Kurdish troops rescued thousands of Yazidis trapped by the Islamic State on Iraq’s Mount Sinjar in 2014 and helped liberate the city of Raqqa from the Islamic State in 2017.

Equal in battle but not everywhere else

Despite the relative freedom of women in Kurdistan compared to elsewhere in the Middle East, Kurdish society is not entirely gender equal.

In 2014, only 12 of 250 judges in Iraqi Kurdistan were female, and just one of 21 government ministers was. Female genital mutilation, child marriage and honour killings – in which male family members murder women who are alleged to have disgraced their families – persist, particularly in rural areas of Kurdistan.

And, in my experience, feminist debates like equal pay for women and #MeToo aren’t yet a topic of conversation in Kurdistan.

Historically, too, it’s noteworthy that many famous female Kurdish leaders succeeded only because their empowerment did not challenge the male establishment.

During World War I, Lady Adela Khanum, leader of the Kurdish region of Halabja, saved the lives of numerous British army officers on the battlefield, earning her the nickname “Princess of the Brave.”

But she originally rose to power because she inherited the position when her husband died. While ruling Halabja from 1909 to 1924, she did not push a women’s rights agenda.

The hard labour of freedom

Kurdish women who were seen as threats to male authority have often been punished, sometimes with death.

That’s what happened to the very first woman to fight in the Kurdish army. Margaret George Malik quickly rose up among the all-male ranks in the 1960s to lead troops in the Kurdish war for independence from Iraq.

She was murdered in 1969 under mysterious circumstances. Some historians believe that Malik was killed by her lover because she rejected his marriage proposal. Others say she was assassinated by the Kurdish leadership, which feared her growing influence.

Either way, Malik’s murder speaks to the battles Kurdish women still fight today.

It’s meaningful that in the Kurdish language, the word for woman – “jin” – shares a root with the word for life: “jiyan.” And both jin and jiyan are related to the word “jan,” or labour pains.

In a region surrounded by threats – from Turkey’s attacks and Islamic State terrorism and patriarchy at home – the women of Kurdistan are fighting for their life and liberty. And the cost is hard, dangerous labour.

 
(Haidar Khezri is Assistant Professor, University of Central Florida)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the<a href="https://theconversation.com/kurds-targeted-in-turkish-attack-include-thousands-of-female-fighters-who-battled-islamic-state-125100"> original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

By Haidar Khezri Kurdish fighters under attack by Turkey have described President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops from northern Syria as a “stab in the back.

By Haidar Khezri Kurdish fighters under attack by Turkey have described President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops from northern Syria as a “stab in the back.” Since the bombing began on October 9, Turkish military operations against the Syrian Democratic Forces in northern Syria, Washington’s staunchest and most effective allies in the war against the Islamic State, has killed at least 11 civilians and an unconfirmed number of Kurdish fighters, with estimates ranging from dozens to hundreds. Kurdish fighters are key partners to the US in the Middle East. From 2003 to 2017, they helped overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein, battled al-Qaida and pushed the Islamic State out of northern Iraq and Syria. Kurdish women have fought on the front lines in all these battles, as they have done since the 19th-century Kurdish commander Kara Fatma led an Ottoman battalion of 700 men and 43 women against the Russian Empire. That was unusual for the period – but, then again, Kurdish women have long been exceptions in the mostly conservative Middle East. Who are the Kurds? Kurdistan, where I was born, is among the largest nations in the world without a state. Around 35 million Kurds inhabit a mountainous zone straddling Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Armenia. The Kurds were first split up politically in the 17th century when their territory was divided between the Ottoman and Safavid empires. Back then, the Roman scholar Pietro Della Valle travelled to the region and was surprised to find “Kurdish women commuting freely without hijab.” He noted in his 1667 travelogue that “they engage with Kurdish men and foreigners without any problems.” After World War I, a treaty between Britain and France, called the Sykes-Picot Agreement, drew arbitrary borders across the Middle East, creating colonial protectorate states. The partition again fragmented the Kurds, this time across four countries: modern-day Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. The Kurds have been fighting for their sovereignty ever since. In recent decades, they have succeeded in establishing autonomously governed regions within Iraq and Syria. But in Iran and Turkey, the Kurds continue their armed struggle. Both countries to view this ethnic minority as a terrorist threat and legally repress Kurdish populations. This setup has put Kurdistan – domestically a rather peaceable, prosperous place with significant oil reserves – squarely in the center of a geopolitical quagmire. Until Trump’s recent turnaround, the US had backed the Kurds in Syria, Iraq and Iran, where they were critical to defeating the Islamic State and served as jailers to about 11,000 captured IS fighters. But Turkey – a US ally – sees the armed Kurds in Syria as an extension of the rebel Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which has been fighting for Kurdish autonomy in Turkey since the 1980s. In May 2018, over 250 people were killed when Turkey bombed the Kurdish-majority Syrian city of Afrin, which Turkish armed forces consider a “terrorist corridor.” The feminists of the PKK The Marxist-Leninist PKK, founded in 1978, may be an enemy of the Turkish state, but it is also one of the most feminist movements in the Middle East. The group held its first congress on women’s rights in 1987, in which PKK co-founder Sakine Cansiz – who was assassinated in 2013 – proposed that its “liberation for all” rhetoric must include women’s liberation, too. Today the party’s political agenda explicitly recognises religious minorities, dissidents and women as the crux of democracy. In the autonomous Kurdish regions of Iraq and Syria, women have the same legal rights as men. Indeed, the Iraqi Kurdish regional government has a higher proportion of women than the United Kingdom – 30 per cent versus 20 per cent. The charter of the semi-autonomous Syrian Federation of Kurdistan, founded in 2012, requires that women must hold a minimum of 40 per cent of all government posts. Every Kurdish Syrian public institution must also have two co-presidents, one male and one female. Women also make up 30 per cent of Kurdish fighters deployed across the Middle East. More than 25,000 Kurdish women are deployed in Syria as the Women’s Protection Units, an all-female militia inspired by the KPP’s feminist liberation ideology. In contrast, about 14 per cent of US military service members are women. Female Kurdish troops rescued thousands of Yazidis trapped by the Islamic State on Iraq’s Mount Sinjar in 2014 and helped liberate the city of Raqqa from the Islamic State in 2017. Equal in battle but not everywhere else Despite the relative freedom of women in Kurdistan compared to elsewhere in the Middle East, Kurdish society is not entirely gender equal. In 2014, only 12 of 250 judges in Iraqi Kurdistan were female, and just one of 21 government ministers was. Female genital mutilation, child marriage and honour killings – in which male family members murder women who are alleged to have disgraced their families – persist, particularly in rural areas of Kurdistan. And, in my experience, feminist debates like equal pay for women and #MeToo aren’t yet a topic of conversation in Kurdistan. Historically, too, it’s noteworthy that many famous female Kurdish leaders succeeded only because their empowerment did not challenge the male establishment. During World War I, Lady Adela Khanum, leader of the Kurdish region of Halabja, saved the lives of numerous British army officers on the battlefield, earning her the nickname “Princess of the Brave.” But she originally rose to power because she inherited the position when her husband died. While ruling Halabja from 1909 to 1924, she did not push a women’s rights agenda. The hard labour of freedom Kurdish women who were seen as threats to male authority have often been punished, sometimes with death. That’s what happened to the very first woman to fight in the Kurdish army. Margaret George Malik quickly rose up among the all-male ranks in the 1960s to lead troops in the Kurdish war for independence from Iraq. She was murdered in 1969 under mysterious circumstances. Some historians believe that Malik was killed by her lover because she rejected his marriage proposal. Others say she was assassinated by the Kurdish leadership, which feared her growing influence. Either way, Malik’s murder speaks to the battles Kurdish women still fight today. It’s meaningful that in the Kurdish language, the word for woman – “jin” – shares a root with the word for life: “jiyan.” And both jin and jiyan are related to the word “jan,” or labour pains. In a region surrounded by threats – from Turkey’s attacks and Islamic State terrorism and patriarchy at home – the women of Kurdistan are fighting for their life and liberty. And the cost is hard, dangerous labour. (Haidar Khezri is Assistant Professor, University of Central Florida) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Kurdish women have been exceptions in mostly conservative Middle East

One of the major issues that define US President Donald Trump's time in the White House is - the looming shadow of Russia.

Did Russia install a yes-man at the White House? Is Trump deciding in favour of Kremlin?

This particular doubt seems more and more legitimate when one looks at US foreign policy in West Asia, especially Syria.

Because Russia has gained from strength to strength in the region since the Syrian crisis.&nbsp;

on WION edit, we will explore the changing political dynamics in West Asia.

Eight years ago, the US entered Syria without an invitation.

The stated mission was to fight the ISIS. First, the US supplied arms to the rebels of free Syria army. In 2014, the Pentagon even trained the rebels to fight ISIS.

But the real motive of the US was to gain influence in oil-rich Syria. That aspect came out in the open with the covert program 'Timber Sycamore'.

So what did this covert project aim to do?

Again, this is a weapons supply and training initiative. But the motto was to fight the Russian forces that backed the Bashar-al-Assad government 
. 
After Trump became president, this project was cancelled.

Now, Trump's sudden and dangerous decision to withdraw the US troops from Syria has pushed the country to the brink of a serious crisis.

Besides, the decision makes Russia the biggest power centre in the country. As we speak - Turkey is invading Syria and US president has threatened some 'friendly' sanctions on Ankara.

Yes, we are not living in the era of the cold war. But if this battle for influence in West Asia is viewed from a historical perspective, then right now, it looks like a game&nbsp;set and match for Moscow.

And it's not only Syria, Russia's influence in Iraq has also risen by leaps and bounds in the last few years.&nbsp;

Earlier this year, Iraq sought to improve co-operation with Moscow in 'all fields'.

Yes, the US still retains considerable hold over Iraq, but Russia is ahead in the battle for influence thanks to the backdoor entry in this power game through Iran.

And interestingly, the long arm of Russia extends to both Iran and Saudi Arabia - the arch-rivals.

The simple fact of the matter is - if there is a country that is inevitable for West Asia, that country is Russia.

And Putin uses this power in his well-crafted hegemony of the OPEC- the oil cartel.

Russia, without being a member of OPEC, controls the production levels and, as a consequence, prices. The last couple of OPEC meetings are a testimony to Russia's absolute dominance. The OPEC wasn't able to decide on production levels until Russia participated.

Besides controlling oil markets, Russia wants to dominate West Asia's defence market too.

In essence, Russia's president is the de-facto power centre in West Asia. And Vladimir Putin only has his American counterparts - Bush, Obama and now Trump to thank. 
 
 
(Disclaimer: WION Edit is the channel's take on the big events of the world)

One of the major issues that define US President Donald Trump's time in the White House is - the looming shadow of Russia. Did Russia install a yes-man at the White House?

One of the major issues that define US President Donald Trump's time in the White House is - the looming shadow of Russia. Did Russia install a yes-man at the White House? Is Trump deciding in favour of Kremlin? This particular doubt seems more and more legitimate when one looks at US foreign policy in West Asia, especially Syria. Because Russia has gained from strength to strength in the region since the Syrian crisis. on WION edit, we will explore the changing political dynamics in West Asia. Eight years ago, the US entered Syria without an invitation. The stated mission was to fight the ISIS. First, the US supplied arms to the rebels of free Syria army. In 2014, the Pentagon even trained the rebels to fight ISIS. But the real motive of the US was to gain influence in oil-rich Syria. That aspect came out in the open with the covert program 'Timber Sycamore'. So what did this covert project aim to do? Again, this is a weapons supply and training initiative. But the motto was to fight the Russian forces that backed the Bashar-al-Assad government . After Trump became president, this project was cancelled. Now, Trump's sudden and dangerous decision to withdraw the US troops from Syria has pushed the country to the brink of a serious crisis. Besides, the decision makes Russia the biggest power centre in the country. As we speak - Turkey is invading Syria and US president has threatened some 'friendly' sanctions on Ankara. Yes, we are not living in the era of the cold war. But if this battle for influence in West Asia is viewed from a historical perspective, then right now, it looks like a game set and match for Moscow. And it's not only Syria, Russia's influence in Iraq has also risen by leaps and bounds in the last few years. Earlier this year, Iraq sought to improve co-operation with Moscow in 'all fields'. Yes, the US still retains considerable hold over Iraq, but Russia is ahead in the battle for influence thanks to the backdoor entry in this power game through Iran. And interestingly, the long arm of Russia extends to both Iran and Saudi Arabia - the arch-rivals. The simple fact of the matter is - if there is a country that is inevitable for West Asia, that country is Russia. And Putin uses this power in his well-crafted hegemony of the OPEC- the oil cartel. Russia, without being a member of OPEC, controls the production levels and, as a consequence, prices. The last couple of OPEC meetings are a testimony to Russia's absolute dominance. The OPEC wasn't able to decide on production levels until Russia participated. Besides controlling oil markets, Russia wants to dominate West Asia's defence market too. In essence, Russia's president is the de-facto power centre in West Asia. And Vladimir Putin only has his American counterparts - Bush, Obama and now Trump to thank. (Disclaimer: WION Edit is the channel's take on the big events of the world)

WION Edit: Changing political dynamics in West Asia

Russian President Vladimir Putin visits Saudi Arabia on Monday for the first time in over a decade, seeking to capitalise on growing influence borne of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/day-5-of-turkeys-military-operation-in-syria-255702">military advances in Syria</a>, strong ties with regional rivals and cooperation on energy policy.

Moscow accrued power in the Middle East in 2015 by sending troops to Syria, where it and Iran have been key backers of President Bashar al-Assad amid civil war, while the United States pulled back.

On the eve of Putin's trip,<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pentagon-says-up-to-1000-us-troops-to-withdraw-from-northern-syria-255677"> US&nbsp;troops were evacuating</a> northern Syria as their erstwhile Kurdish allies struck a deal with Assad's Russian-backed army aimed at halting a Turkish offensive.

Russia has also strengthened ties with both Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia and Shi'ite Iran, which are locked in a decades-old contest for influence that veered towards open conflict after a recent spate of attacks on oil assets in the Gulf that Riyadh and Washington blame on Tehran. Iran denies the charges.

Tensions with Iran, which is locked in several proxy wars with Saudi Arabia including in Syria, have risen to new highs after Washington last year quit a 2015 international nuclear accord with Tehran and re-imposed sanctions.

Putin, accompanied on the trip by his energy minister and head of Russia's wealth fund, is due to hold talks with King Salman and de facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, with whom Putin says he has friendly relations.

The strengthened ties have seen non-OPEC Russia, once regarded as a rival in oil markets, join OPEC kingpin Saudi Arabia in forming an alliance known as OPEC+ to support crude prices by restraining output.

Ahead of the visit, Putin, who offered to provide Russian defense systems to the kingdom after <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/attacks-on-oil-facilities-unquestionably-sponsored-by-iran-saudi-arabia-250580">September&nbsp;14 attacks </a>on its oil facilities, said he could also play a positive role in easing tensions with Tehran as he had good ties with both sides.

Any progress on long-mulled Saudi plans to purchase the Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile systems would cause disquiet in Washington, which announced over the weekend it was sending around 3,000 troops and additional air defence systems to Saudi Arabia following last month's attack.

Asked about concerns Riyadh was cozying up to Moscow, Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir said he saw no contradiction.

"We don’t believe that having close ties with Russia has any negative impact on our relationship with the United States," he told reporters on Sunday. "We believe that we can have strategic and strong ties with the United States while we develop our ties with Russia."

Russian and Saudi flags lined the streets of Riyadh ahead of Putin's one-day visit, which includes a performance by Russia's Tchaikovsky Symphony Orchestra. Putin then travels to the United Arab Emirates.

In meetings with Saudi leaders, the Russian president will discuss the OPEC+ pact, which has seen production cut by 1.2 million barrels per day since January.

A forum will convene 300 Saudi and Russian CEOs. The two sides are expected to sign more than $2 billion of deals, including a joint investment by state oil giant Saudi Aramco and Russia’s RDIF sovereign wealth fund.

RDIF head Kirill Dmitriev said a number of Russian investors were interested in a planned initial public offering of Aramco, which could sell between 1 per cent&nbsp;and 2 per cent through a local listing as early as November ahead of a potential international offering.

Energy Minister Alexander Novak said Russia's Gazprom is interested in cooperating with Saudi firms on natural gas.

Moscow, the world’s largest wheat exporter, made some progress in accessing the Saudi and Middle Eastern markets when the kingdom agreed in August to relax specifications for wheat imports, opening the door to Black Sea imports.

Russian President Vladimir Putin visits Saudi Arabia on Monday for the first time in over a decade, seeking to capitalise on growing influence borne of military advances in Syria, strong ties with regional rivals and cooperation on energy policy.

Russian President Vladimir Putin visits Saudi Arabia on Monday for the first time in over a decade, seeking to capitalise on growing influence borne of military advances in Syria, strong ties with regional rivals and cooperation on energy policy. Moscow accrued power in the Middle East in 2015 by sending troops to Syria, where it and Iran have been key backers of President Bashar al-Assad amid civil war, while the United States pulled back. On the eve of Putin's trip, US troops were evacuating northern Syria as their erstwhile Kurdish allies struck a deal with Assad's Russian-backed army aimed at halting a Turkish offensive. Russia has also strengthened ties with both Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia and Shi'ite Iran, which are locked in a decades-old contest for influence that veered towards open conflict after a recent spate of attacks on oil assets in the Gulf that Riyadh and Washington blame on Tehran. Iran denies the charges. Tensions with Iran, which is locked in several proxy wars with Saudi Arabia including in Syria, have risen to new highs after Washington last year quit a 2015 international nuclear accord with Tehran and re-imposed sanctions. Putin, accompanied on the trip by his energy minister and head of Russia's wealth fund, is due to hold talks with King Salman and de facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, with whom Putin says he has friendly relations. The strengthened ties have seen non-OPEC Russia, once regarded as a rival in oil markets, join OPEC kingpin Saudi Arabia in forming an alliance known as OPEC+ to support crude prices by restraining output. Ahead of the visit, Putin, who offered to provide Russian defense systems to the kingdom after September 14 attacks on its oil facilities, said he could also play a positive role in easing tensions with Tehran as he had good ties with both sides. Any progress on long-mulled Saudi plans to purchase the Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile systems would cause disquiet in Washington, which announced over the weekend it was sending around 3,000 troops and additional air defence systems to Saudi Arabia following last month's attack. Asked about concerns Riyadh was cozying up to Moscow, Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir said he saw no contradiction. "We don’t believe that having close ties with Russia has any negative impact on our relationship with the United States," he told reporters on Sunday. "We believe that we can have strategic and strong ties with the United States while we develop our ties with Russia." Russian and Saudi flags lined the streets of Riyadh ahead of Putin's one-day visit, which includes a performance by Russia's Tchaikovsky Symphony Orchestra. Putin then travels to the United Arab Emirates. In meetings with Saudi leaders, the Russian president will discuss the OPEC+ pact, which has seen production cut by 1.2 million barrels per day since January. A forum will convene 300 Saudi and Russian CEOs. The two sides are expected to sign more than $2 billion of deals, including a joint investment by state oil giant Saudi Aramco and Russia’s RDIF sovereign wealth fund. RDIF head Kirill Dmitriev said a number of Russian investors were interested in a planned initial public offering of Aramco, which could sell between 1 per cent and 2 per cent through a local listing as early as November ahead of a potential international offering. Energy Minister Alexander Novak said Russia's Gazprom is interested in cooperating with Saudi firms on natural gas. Moscow, the world’s largest wheat exporter, made some progress in accessing the Saudi and Middle Eastern markets when the kingdom agreed in August to relax specifications for wheat imports, opening the door to Black Sea imports.

Saudi Arabia visit showcases Russian President Vladimir Putin's growing Middle East influence

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/donald-trump-decision-to-withdraw-troops-from-syria-opens-way-for-dangerous-middle-east-power-play-254749">United States President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that the US military becoming involved in the Middle East</a> was the "worst decision ever made" and that he was ensuring the safe return of troops.

Trump has faced a bipartisan storm of criticism since a surprise announcement by the White House on Sunday that Washington was pulling back 50 to 100 "special operators" from Syria's northern frontier.

"GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY! We went to war under a false &amp; now disproven premise, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. There were NONE!" the president tweeted in reference to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East. Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE.....
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1181905659568283648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 9, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The United States is estimated to have between 60,000 and 80,000 troops across the area covered by US Central Command, which includes Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

Trump bemoaned what he called the "eight trillion-dollar" bill for "fighting and policing" in the Middle East, and the thousands of US soldiers who had been killed or wounded in battle.

"Now we are slowly &amp; carefully bringing our great soldiers &amp; military home. Our focus is on the BIG PICTURE! THE USA IS GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!" Trump said.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
....IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY! We went to war under a false &amp; now disproven premise, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. There were NONE! Now we are slowly &amp; carefully bringing our great soldiers &amp; military home. Our focus is on the BIG PICTURE! THE USA IS GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1181905661300559872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 9, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Syria's Kurds called up civilians&nbsp;on Wednesday to defend against a Turkish assault feared to be imminent despite Trump's insistence the United States has not abandoned its Kurdish allies.

Turkey said on Tuesday that it would begin its long-threatened offensive "soon," after Trump gave what was widely seen as a green light at the weekend, ordering the pullback of US troops who had previously served as a buffer.

United States President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that the US military becoming involved in the Middle East was the "worst decision ever made" and that he was ensuring the safe return of troops.

United States President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that the US military becoming involved in the Middle East was the "worst decision ever made" and that he was ensuring the safe return of troops. Trump has faced a bipartisan storm of criticism since a surprise announcement by the White House on Sunday that Washington was pulling back 50 to 100 "special operators" from Syria's northern frontier. "GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY! We went to war under a false & now disproven premise, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. There were NONE!" the president tweeted in reference to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East. Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE..... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 9, 2019 × The United States is estimated to have between 60,000 and 80,000 troops across the area covered by US Central Command, which includes Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Trump bemoaned what he called the "eight trillion-dollar" bill for "fighting and policing" in the Middle East, and the thousands of US soldiers who had been killed or wounded in battle. "Now we are slowly & carefully bringing our great soldiers & military home. Our focus is on the BIG PICTURE! THE USA IS GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!" Trump said. ....IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY! We went to war under a false & now disproven premise, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. There were NONE! Now we are slowly & carefully bringing our great soldiers & military home. Our focus is on the BIG PICTURE! THE USA IS GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 9, 2019 × Syria's Kurds called up civilians on Wednesday to defend against a Turkish assault feared to be imminent despite Trump's insistence the United States has not abandoned its Kurdish allies. Turkey said on Tuesday that it would begin its long-threatened offensive "soon," after Trump gave what was widely seen as a green light at the weekend, ordering the pullback of US troops who had previously served as a buffer.

United States going into Middle East was 'worst decision ever', says Trump

By Tony Walker&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump’s precipitate announcement he was withdrawing American forces from northeast Syria to enable Turkey to assert its authority along the border risks wider regional bloodshed – and further destabilisation of one of the world’s most volatile corners.

If implemented against a furious pushback from his own side of politics, the Trump decision threatens a region-wide conflagration. These are the stakes.

Trump has given contradictory signals before on the same issue. It remains to be seen whether he gives ground again after what appears to have been a hasty, certainly ill-considered, decision following a phone conversation with Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Now under enormous stress from his own side, Trump is resorting to bombast. Leading the charge against the Trump decision is his close ally, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. He has threatened to introduce a Senate resolution opposing the administration’s decision, describing the move as a “stain on America’s honour”.

Like plucking a thread from a finely woven Turkish rug, the administration’s announcement effectively to abandon a Kurdish militia could lead to a complete unravelling of that part of the Middle East in which various forces have collided since the Syrian civil war broke out in March 2011.

America’s Kurdish allies, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) militia arm (known as the YPG), would be at the mercy of a Turkish thrust across the Syrian border into territory the Kurds now control.

Turkey has made no secret of its intention to create what it is calling “safe zones” up to 30 kilometres inside the border in northeast Syria. This would enable it to relocate tens of thousands of Syrian refugees among the 3.6 million on Turkish soil.

In the face of such a Turkish move, the YPG would be hard put to hold sway against both Turkey’s military and Islamic State fighters seeking to take advantage of militia weakness in the absence of US support on the ground and in the air.

The ABC reports that something like 70,000 members of Islamic State or their supporters are being held in camps in SDF-controlled territory. Around 60 people of Australian origin, including children, are in this situation.

Thousands of IS militants are being held in prison camps in SDF-controlled territory. These fighters have already sought to stage mass breakouts from prison facilities.

Turkey views the YPG militia as cross-border allies of Kurdish separatists – and it regards the Kurdish separatists as terrorists.

The situation along the Turkish-Syria border is, by any standards, an explosive mix.

At the same time, Syrian forces of Bashar al-Assad, backed by Iran and Russia, would inevitably be poised to take advantage of chaos and regain territory lost in the civil war. This is a highly destabilising scenario.

In other words, Trump’s announcement could hardly portend a more worrisome outcome in a part of the world riven by years of conflict.

The US announcement also sends a disturbing signal to the wider Middle East that the Trump administration is intent on pulling back from its commitments in an unstable region.

Confidence in American steadfastness is already precarious due to Trump’s repeated statement that America wants to remove itself from “endless” wars in the Middle East.

In a Twitter message early this week that amplified a White House announcement, Trump said it was time for the US to withdraw from “these ridiculous Endless Wars”.

Trump also attacked European allies over their failure to take back their nationals among IS fighters held in SDF-run detention centres in northeast Syria. Some 10,000 prisoners are being detained.

This is a situation ripe for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Vladimir Putin’s Russia. The latter is seeking to reassert itself in a region it regards as its own sphere of influence. Moscow’s support for Damascus is part of this regional power play.

These are telling moments. Signs of an apparent American lack of commitment might well encourage Iran and Russia, as well as Islamic militants such as IS and al-Qaeda. These groups have been biding their time.

None of America’s regional friends, including Gulf states and Israel, will draw any comfort at all from the Trump decision – if implemented – to head for the exit.

By any standards, this is a mess of Trump’s own making.

 
(Tony Walker is Adjunct Professor, School of Communications, La Trobe University) 
 
(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the<a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-decision-to-withdraw-troops-from-syria-opens-way-for-dangerous-middle-east-power-play-124784"> original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

By Tony Walker US President Donald Trump’s precipitate announcement he was withdrawing American forces from northeast Syria to enable Turkey to assert its authority along the border risks wider regional bloodshed – and further destabilisation of one of the world’s most volatile corners.

By Tony Walker US President Donald Trump’s precipitate announcement he was withdrawing American forces from northeast Syria to enable Turkey to assert its authority along the border risks wider regional bloodshed – and further destabilisation of one of the world’s most volatile corners. If implemented against a furious pushback from his own side of politics, the Trump decision threatens a region-wide conflagration. These are the stakes. Trump has given contradictory signals before on the same issue. It remains to be seen whether he gives ground again after what appears to have been a hasty, certainly ill-considered, decision following a phone conversation with Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Now under enormous stress from his own side, Trump is resorting to bombast. Leading the charge against the Trump decision is his close ally, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. He has threatened to introduce a Senate resolution opposing the administration’s decision, describing the move as a “stain on America’s honour”. Like plucking a thread from a finely woven Turkish rug, the administration’s announcement effectively to abandon a Kurdish militia could lead to a complete unravelling of that part of the Middle East in which various forces have collided since the Syrian civil war broke out in March 2011. America’s Kurdish allies, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) militia arm (known as the YPG), would be at the mercy of a Turkish thrust across the Syrian border into territory the Kurds now control. Turkey has made no secret of its intention to create what it is calling “safe zones” up to 30 kilometres inside the border in northeast Syria. This would enable it to relocate tens of thousands of Syrian refugees among the 3.6 million on Turkish soil. In the face of such a Turkish move, the YPG would be hard put to hold sway against both Turkey’s military and Islamic State fighters seeking to take advantage of militia weakness in the absence of US support on the ground and in the air. The ABC reports that something like 70,000 members of Islamic State or their supporters are being held in camps in SDF-controlled territory. Around 60 people of Australian origin, including children, are in this situation. Thousands of IS militants are being held in prison camps in SDF-controlled territory. These fighters have already sought to stage mass breakouts from prison facilities. Turkey views the YPG militia as cross-border allies of Kurdish separatists – and it regards the Kurdish separatists as terrorists. The situation along the Turkish-Syria border is, by any standards, an explosive mix. At the same time, Syrian forces of Bashar al-Assad, backed by Iran and Russia, would inevitably be poised to take advantage of chaos and regain territory lost in the civil war. This is a highly destabilising scenario. In other words, Trump’s announcement could hardly portend a more worrisome outcome in a part of the world riven by years of conflict. The US announcement also sends a disturbing signal to the wider Middle East that the Trump administration is intent on pulling back from its commitments in an unstable region. Confidence in American steadfastness is already precarious due to Trump’s repeated statement that America wants to remove itself from “endless” wars in the Middle East. In a Twitter message early this week that amplified a White House announcement, Trump said it was time for the US to withdraw from “these ridiculous Endless Wars”. Trump also attacked European allies over their failure to take back their nationals among IS fighters held in SDF-run detention centres in northeast Syria. Some 10,000 prisoners are being detained. This is a situation ripe for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Vladimir Putin’s Russia. The latter is seeking to reassert itself in a region it regards as its own sphere of influence. Moscow’s support for Damascus is part of this regional power play. These are telling moments. Signs of an apparent American lack of commitment might well encourage Iran and Russia, as well as Islamic militants such as IS and al-Qaeda. These groups have been biding their time. None of America’s regional friends, including Gulf states and Israel, will draw any comfort at all from the Trump decision – if implemented – to head for the exit. By any standards, this is a mess of Trump’s own making. (Tony Walker is Adjunct Professor, School of Communications, La Trobe University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Donald Trump decision to withdraw troops from Syria opens way for dangerous Middle East power play

India is likely to face heat in the near future due to various emerging fault lines in the Gulf. While Gulf managed to ensure stability amidst the Syrian crisis in particular and Arab Spring in general, recent events in the Gulf cast doubt on the long term stability of the region.&nbsp;

In this context, the September 14 Drone attacks, reportedly&nbsp;carried out by Iranian backed Houthi guerrilla, on&nbsp; Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq oil refinery and Khurais oil field - belonging to the state-owned Aramco - have sent ‘oil shock wave’ throughout the world.

The attacks disrupted the outflow of 5 per cent of global oil supply. While Saudi Arabia has repeatedly stated that this attack will not affect Saudi’s production of oil, however, it could not remove the feat that oil installation in Saudi Arabia, UAE and elsewhere is not free from external attacks.&nbsp;

This combines with other factors such as a series of attack on oil tankers belonging to different countries, UK-Iranian tension for seizing the private oil tanker caring the Iranian oil to Syria by UK, shooting down of US drone by the Iran, the traditional rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the continuous blockade of Qatar by the Quarter (Saudi Arabia, UAE, &nbsp;Egypt and Bahrain), the US sanction against Iran, and Yemen civil war with UAE-Saudi Arabia supporting the Yemini government in exile and Iranian backing the Houthis—all combined have made the region very vulnerable to the forces of destabilisation.&nbsp;

India is directly affected by such developments in the Gulf. India is the third-largest oil importer in the world and 83 per cent of its oil is imported from the Gulf despite its diversification of sources of hydrocarbon products. Of late, India has stopped buying oil from Iran under US pressure, which has made India more dependent on Saudi Arabia.&nbsp;

Besides, India is critically dependent on the flow of remittances from the region, which constitutes the largest share of total global remittances. Further stability in Gulf is important from the point of view of trade and investment, particularly with the UAE government. &nbsp;

Given the high-stake that India has in the stability of Gulf, the government of India&nbsp;must come up&nbsp;with a&nbsp;strategy to cope with the emerging crisis in the Gulf which may affect the uninterrupted supply of the oil or even soar the prices of  oil because of  above-enumerated reasons. Following the 1973 Oil Shock, which had disrupted the manufacturing industries of the West due to steep hike in the prices of oil  as well as the supply of oil for a few months, the West developed the capacity of storing oil for minimum six months. Earlier it was 23 days. Currently, India has a capacity to meet only about 12 days of the country’s crude oil requirement with storage facility for only 87 days.&nbsp;

Though in the event of the oil crisis, India may rely upon the USA and Nigeria, the quality of oil supplies by these countries are as good as that of Gulf apart from long-distance travel costs.  Given this situation, India needs to devise specific strategy including enhancing the storage capacity of hydrocarbon resources for at least 6 months, on par with advanced countries. &nbsp; 
 
&nbsp;(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

&nbsp;

India is likely to face heat in the near future due to various emerging fault lines in the Gulf. While Gulf managed to ensure stability amidst the Syrian crisis in particular and Arab Spring in general, recent events in the Gulf cast doubt on the long term stability of the region.

India is likely to face heat in the near future due to various emerging fault lines in the Gulf. While Gulf managed to ensure stability amidst the Syrian crisis in particular and Arab Spring in general, recent events in the Gulf cast doubt on the long term stability of the region. In this context, the September 14 Drone attacks, reportedly carried out by Iranian backed Houthi guerrilla, on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq oil refinery and Khurais oil field - belonging to the state-owned Aramco - have sent ‘oil shock wave’ throughout the world. The attacks disrupted the outflow of 5 per cent of global oil supply. While Saudi Arabia has repeatedly stated that this attack will not affect Saudi’s production of oil, however, it could not remove the feat that oil installation in Saudi Arabia, UAE and elsewhere is not free from external attacks. This combines with other factors such as a series of attack on oil tankers belonging to different countries, UK-Iranian tension for seizing the private oil tanker caring the Iranian oil to Syria by UK, shooting down of US drone by the Iran, the traditional rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the continuous blockade of Qatar by the Quarter (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Bahrain), the US sanction against Iran, and Yemen civil war with UAE-Saudi Arabia supporting the Yemini government in exile and Iranian backing the Houthis—all combined have made the region very vulnerable to the forces of destabilisation. India is directly affected by such developments in the Gulf. India is the third-largest oil importer in the world and 83 per cent of its oil is imported from the Gulf despite its diversification of sources of hydrocarbon products. Of late, India has stopped buying oil from Iran under US pressure, which has made India more dependent on Saudi Arabia. Besides, India is critically dependent on the flow of remittances from the region, which constitutes the largest share of total global remittances. Further stability in Gulf is important from the point of view of trade and investment, particularly with the UAE government.  Given the high-stake that India has in the stability of Gulf, the government of India must come up with a strategy to cope with the emerging crisis in the Gulf which may affect the uninterrupted supply of the oil or even soar the prices of  oil because of  above-enumerated reasons. Following the 1973 Oil Shock, which had disrupted the manufacturing industries of the West due to steep hike in the prices of oil  as well as the supply of oil for a few months, the West developed the capacity of storing oil for minimum six months. Earlier it was 23 days. Currently, India has a capacity to meet only about 12 days of the country’s crude oil requirement with storage facility for only 87 days. Though in the event of the oil crisis, India may rely upon the USA and Nigeria, the quality of oil supplies by these countries are as good as that of Gulf apart from long-distance travel costs.  Given this situation, India needs to devise specific strategy including enhancing the storage capacity of hydrocarbon resources for at least 6 months, on par with advanced countries.  (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

How does Gulf crisis affect India

Saudi and Iranian leaders are this week walking back from the brink, signalling that they want to avoid outright military confrontation and manage rather than resolve differences.

In fact, there is every reason to believe that neither Riyadh nor Tehran has a vested interest in a definitive solution of the Middle East and North Africa’s multiple problems.

The trick for men like Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is to find a controllable way of maintaining their potentially existential bitter rivalry without fighting what could be a devastating regional war.

To do so, both men appear to be making the right noises against the backdrop of an evolving US policy that is forcing Saudi Arabia to rethink its almost decade-long, often reckless and assertive go-it-alone foreign and defence policy and Iran to seek ways to level the playing field.

“The Anti-Iran Alliance is not just faltering, it’s crumbling. Bolton is gone; Bibi is going; MBZ has struck his deal with Iran; MBS is not far behind,” tweeted Council on Foreign Relations distinguished fellow and former US Middle East negotiator Martin S Indyk.

Indyk was referring to former US national security advisor John Bolton and embattled Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu while identifying United Arab Emirates crown prince Mohammed bin Zayed and his Saudi counterpart and namesake, Prince Mohammed, by their initials.

Signalling a change in tone, Saudi Arabia has gone quiet on its investigation into responsibility for last month's attacks on key Saudi oil facilities after earlier stopping just short of blaming Iran.

Prince Mohammed has, meanwhile, welcomed potential face-to-face talks between US President Donald J Trump and Rouhani, saying “absolutely... This is what we all ask for.”

Prince Mohammed’s remarks were tempered by Saudi minister of state for foreign affairs Adel al-Jubeir who spelled out the kingdom’s demands.

Without clarifying whether these were a pre-condition for talks or issues to be discussed, Al-Jubeir’s demands included “ending Iran’s involvement in the affairs of other countries; stopping support for terrorist organisations; abandoning the policy of destruction and sowing conflict; and freezing the plan to develop nuclear weapons and the ballistic-missile program.”

In response, Iran insisted that Saudi Arabia freeze its multibillion-dollar arms purchases from the United States, stop its intervention in Yemen and end discrimination against the Shiite Muslim minority in Saudi Arabia.

The chances of the two countries accepting the other’s conditions are virtually nil.

Nonetheless, Rouhani, with France, Iraq and Pakistan seeking to mediate, has kept the door open for talks with the United States which withdrew last year from the 2015 international agreement that curbs the Islamic republic's nuclear program and has since imposed harsh economic sanctions on Iran.

Addressing the Iranian cabinet this week, Rouhani termed a four-point plan put forward by French President Emmanuel Macron “acceptable.”

The plan calls for the United States to lift sanctions on Iran and allow it to freely export its oil and collect revenue in return for an Iranian commitment not to pursue nuclear weapons and help ensure Gulf security.

Macron’s proposal includes a $15 billion credit line that would enable Iran to export oil and would also restore the P5+1 framework of signatories of the nuclear accord, France, Britain, Russia, China, Germany and the US.

Like with Al Jubeir’s demands, the question is what comes first, the chicken or the egg.

Trump sees lifting of sanctions as the outcome of talks while Rouhani has insisted that sanctions be removed prior to negotiations.

To step up the pressure, Iran has been gradually breaching the terms of the accord and increasing tensions that bring the region closer to the brink of war in a bid to position negotiations as the only alternative.

Iranian oil minister Bijan Zanganeh put the changing mood on public display at a Russian energy conference chaired by President Vladimir Putin when he described his Saudi counterpart, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, a son of King Salman, the Saudi monarch, as “a friend.”

“Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman has been a friend for over 22 years,” Zanganeh said.

The two men were later seen holding hands together with Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) Mohammed Barkindo and speaking on the sidelines of the conference in the first such encounter since the attack on the oil facilities.

The new mood could over time, against the backdrop of mounting Gulf doubts about the reliability of the United States’ regional defence umbrella, make a Chinese-backed Russian proposal for a multilateral security architecture more attractive.

The Russian proposal is built on the notion that security in the Gulf would be better served by an architecture that downplays regional rivalries rather than accentuating them as part of the US umbrella that is rooted in the Saudi-Iranian divide and designed to protect the conservative Arab monarchies against the Islamic republic.

The Russian approach theoretically could accommodate the survival strategies of both the Iranian regime and the Saudi ruling family.

Upholding Iran’s revolutionary façade requires the existence of an imperialist foreign threat that also gives a lease on life to the vested economic interests of hardliners grouped around the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

Saudi Arabia, figuring that it needs at least six years to develop its natural gas potential to the degree that it can compete with Iran, home to the world’s second-largest reserves, may want to see an Iranian regime that is weakened and possibly destabilised, but not on the verge of collapse. 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Saudi and Iranian leaders are this week walking back from the brink, signalling that they want to avoid outright military confrontation and manage rather than resolve differences.

Saudi and Iranian leaders are this week walking back from the brink, signalling that they want to avoid outright military confrontation and manage rather than resolve differences. In fact, there is every reason to believe that neither Riyadh nor Tehran has a vested interest in a definitive solution of the Middle East and North Africa’s multiple problems. The trick for men like Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is to find a controllable way of maintaining their potentially existential bitter rivalry without fighting what could be a devastating regional war. To do so, both men appear to be making the right noises against the backdrop of an evolving US policy that is forcing Saudi Arabia to rethink its almost decade-long, often reckless and assertive go-it-alone foreign and defence policy and Iran to seek ways to level the playing field. “The Anti-Iran Alliance is not just faltering, it’s crumbling. Bolton is gone; Bibi is going; MBZ has struck his deal with Iran; MBS is not far behind,” tweeted Council on Foreign Relations distinguished fellow and former US Middle East negotiator Martin S Indyk. Indyk was referring to former US national security advisor John Bolton and embattled Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu while identifying United Arab Emirates crown prince Mohammed bin Zayed and his Saudi counterpart and namesake, Prince Mohammed, by their initials. Signalling a change in tone, Saudi Arabia has gone quiet on its investigation into responsibility for last month's attacks on key Saudi oil facilities after earlier stopping just short of blaming Iran. Prince Mohammed has, meanwhile, welcomed potential face-to-face talks between US President Donald J Trump and Rouhani, saying “absolutely... This is what we all ask for.” Prince Mohammed’s remarks were tempered by Saudi minister of state for foreign affairs Adel al-Jubeir who spelled out the kingdom’s demands. Without clarifying whether these were a pre-condition for talks or issues to be discussed, Al-Jubeir’s demands included “ending Iran’s involvement in the affairs of other countries; stopping support for terrorist organisations; abandoning the policy of destruction and sowing conflict; and freezing the plan to develop nuclear weapons and the ballistic-missile program.” In response, Iran insisted that Saudi Arabia freeze its multibillion-dollar arms purchases from the United States, stop its intervention in Yemen and end discrimination against the Shiite Muslim minority in Saudi Arabia. The chances of the two countries accepting the other’s conditions are virtually nil. Nonetheless, Rouhani, with France, Iraq and Pakistan seeking to mediate, has kept the door open for talks with the United States which withdrew last year from the 2015 international agreement that curbs the Islamic republic's nuclear program and has since imposed harsh economic sanctions on Iran. Addressing the Iranian cabinet this week, Rouhani termed a four-point plan put forward by French President Emmanuel Macron “acceptable.” The plan calls for the United States to lift sanctions on Iran and allow it to freely export its oil and collect revenue in return for an Iranian commitment not to pursue nuclear weapons and help ensure Gulf security. Macron’s proposal includes a $15 billion credit line that would enable Iran to export oil and would also restore the P5+1 framework of signatories of the nuclear accord, France, Britain, Russia, China, Germany and the US. Like with Al Jubeir’s demands, the question is what comes first, the chicken or the egg. Trump sees lifting of sanctions as the outcome of talks while Rouhani has insisted that sanctions be removed prior to negotiations. To step up the pressure, Iran has been gradually breaching the terms of the accord and increasing tensions that bring the region closer to the brink of war in a bid to position negotiations as the only alternative. Iranian oil minister Bijan Zanganeh put the changing mood on public display at a Russian energy conference chaired by President Vladimir Putin when he described his Saudi counterpart, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, a son of King Salman, the Saudi monarch, as “a friend.” “Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman has been a friend for over 22 years,” Zanganeh said. The two men were later seen holding hands together with Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) Mohammed Barkindo and speaking on the sidelines of the conference in the first such encounter since the attack on the oil facilities. The new mood could over time, against the backdrop of mounting Gulf doubts about the reliability of the United States’ regional defence umbrella, make a Chinese-backed Russian proposal for a multilateral security architecture more attractive. The Russian proposal is built on the notion that security in the Gulf would be better served by an architecture that downplays regional rivalries rather than accentuating them as part of the US umbrella that is rooted in the Saudi-Iranian divide and designed to protect the conservative Arab monarchies against the Islamic republic. The Russian approach theoretically could accommodate the survival strategies of both the Iranian regime and the Saudi ruling family. Upholding Iran’s revolutionary façade requires the existence of an imperialist foreign threat that also gives a lease on life to the vested economic interests of hardliners grouped around the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Saudi Arabia, figuring that it needs at least six years to develop its natural gas potential to the degree that it can compete with Iran, home to the world’s second-largest reserves, may want to see an Iranian regime that is weakened and possibly destabilised, but not on the verge of collapse. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Gulf straddles the edge of war and peace

Fears of a potential military conflict with Iran may have opened the door to a Saudi-Iranian dialogue against the backdrop of a rethink of US military logistics, involving at least a gradual partial relocation to the United States of command and control operations based in the Gulf for almost four decades.

The relocation does not necessarily signal a reduced US commitment to the defence of the strategic energy-rich region even if it comes amid Gulf suspicions that the United States is gradually withdrawing from the Middle East.

Nonetheless, the move, officially intended to reduce the vulnerability of US military assets to a potential Iranian strike without decreasing the United States’ operational capability, is bolstering a rethink in capitals across Eurasia, including Moscow, Beijing, Tokyo, New Delhi, Abu Dhabi and Riyadh about possible alternative, more collective and multilateral security arrangements in the Gulf.

The arrangements would involve the Gulf states, Russia, China, the US, the European Union and India as well as other stakeholders, a likely reference to Iran. By necessity, it would require a lowering of tension in the region and a degree of accommodation between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi urged Gulf states “To establish a platform for dialogue and consultation” in which countries from outside the region would play a role in maintaining security in the region."

Wang was speaking days after Iranian President Hassan Rouhani proposed a security arrangement that would be limited to countries in the region.

In a variation on the theme, Narayanappa Janardhan, a prominent Indian Gulf researcher at the United Arab Emirates’ Emirates Diplomatic Academy, suggested that a new regional security architecture should be Asian-led.

US President Donald J Trump’s transactional approach towards foreign and defence policies in which countries are expected to shoulder their fair burden and pay for US defense services coupled with the president’s long-standing assertion that China and others dependent on energy supplies from the Gulf are free-riding beneficiaries of the US defence umbrella and his withdrawal early in his presidency from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a regional trade pact, has sparked doubts across Asia about the wisdom of depending on the United States for energy security.

In a sense, the Gulf states and Asian nations are in a bind. The United States may no longer be reliable but despite the various calls for a new security arrangement few realistically see an alternative.

“Having just spent three days in Moscow, I’m convinced the Russians haven’t the faintest clue how to operate any architecture in the Gulf...let alone a security architecture,” tweeted Gulf scholar Michael Stephens.

Concern that military retaliation for last month’s attacks on two key Saudi oil facilities would spark a regional war has sparked a flurry of diplomatic activity and a search for non-military responses as the United States and Saudi Arabia point the finger of responsibility at Iran.

Iran has warned that military retaliation by the United States or the Kingdom would spark a war that would spread to the Gulf, including Iranian targeting of installations in the region.

Trump’s cautious reaction to the attacks coupled with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s stated preference for a non-military response constitutes the latest developments in recent months that have opened the door to the Chinese-backed Russian proposal for a collective security arrangement that would reduce US influence in the region.

Saudi and Iranian leaders, in a gleam of hope that the two countries may be inching towards one another, expressed an interest in resolving issues politically rather than militarily.

“The political and peaceful solution is much better than the military one,” Prince Mohammed told CBS News when asked about a possible military response to the attacks on the kingdom’s oil assets.

Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani responded saying: "The doors of Iran are open. A Saudi-Iranian dialogue can solve many of the region's security and political problems."

In a further hopeful development, Saudi Arabia was reported to be considering a partial ceasefire in Yemen. Earlier, the Houthis declared a unilateral halt to the fighting. Larijani said Iran was advising the Houthis to accept whatever ceasefire was on offer.

At the same time, Iraq suggested that it had established a backchannel between Riyadh and Tehran.

"The Saudis have conditions before the negotiations process starts and the same with Iranians. We have liaised these conditions to each side. It is not an easy task to get together two opposite sides in terms of their ideology, sect and their alliances in the region," said Abbas al-Hasnawi, an official in the office of Iraqi prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi.

"Saudi Arabia’s conditions are that Iran minimises its role in Yemen and Syria and stop supporting armed groups such as the Houthis. It also asks the Syrian regime to solve its problems with the Syrian opposition groups, and to write a constitution for Syria with all parties agreeing on it," the official said.

&nbsp;"If there will be a potential deal in the region that includes Yemen, Syria and Iraq, the Americans have no problem with that," Hasnawi added.

While there is every reason to be sceptical despite the noise that Saudi Arabia and Iran are anywhere near resolving their differences, talk of dialogue and calls for a Yemen ceasefire suggest that Iran’s strategy of strategic escalation may be producing results.

Iran moved earlier this year away from its initial strategic patience response to the US withdrawal from the 2015 international agreement curbing the Islamic republic’s nuclear program to a strategy of gradual escalation.

Escalation tactics include a step-by-step breaching of the agreement and a more aggressive asymmetric military posture involving the seizing of a British vessel that was released last week, alleged attacks on tankers off the coast of the UAE, and allegedly the attacks on the Saudi oil facilities.

 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Fears of a potential military conflict with Iran may have opened the door to a Saudi-Iranian dialogue against the backdrop of a rethink of US military logistics, involving at least a gradual partial relocation to the United States of command and control operations based in the Gulf for almost four decades.

Fears of a potential military conflict with Iran may have opened the door to a Saudi-Iranian dialogue against the backdrop of a rethink of US military logistics, involving at least a gradual partial relocation to the United States of command and control operations based in the Gulf for almost four decades. The relocation does not necessarily signal a reduced US commitment to the defence of the strategic energy-rich region even if it comes amid Gulf suspicions that the United States is gradually withdrawing from the Middle East. Nonetheless, the move, officially intended to reduce the vulnerability of US military assets to a potential Iranian strike without decreasing the United States’ operational capability, is bolstering a rethink in capitals across Eurasia, including Moscow, Beijing, Tokyo, New Delhi, Abu Dhabi and Riyadh about possible alternative, more collective and multilateral security arrangements in the Gulf. The arrangements would involve the Gulf states, Russia, China, the US, the European Union and India as well as other stakeholders, a likely reference to Iran. By necessity, it would require a lowering of tension in the region and a degree of accommodation between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi urged Gulf states “To establish a platform for dialogue and consultation” in which countries from outside the region would play a role in maintaining security in the region." Wang was speaking days after Iranian President Hassan Rouhani proposed a security arrangement that would be limited to countries in the region. In a variation on the theme, Narayanappa Janardhan, a prominent Indian Gulf researcher at the United Arab Emirates’ Emirates Diplomatic Academy, suggested that a new regional security architecture should be Asian-led. US President Donald J Trump’s transactional approach towards foreign and defence policies in which countries are expected to shoulder their fair burden and pay for US defense services coupled with the president’s long-standing assertion that China and others dependent on energy supplies from the Gulf are free-riding beneficiaries of the US defence umbrella and his withdrawal early in his presidency from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a regional trade pact, has sparked doubts across Asia about the wisdom of depending on the United States for energy security. In a sense, the Gulf states and Asian nations are in a bind. The United States may no longer be reliable but despite the various calls for a new security arrangement few realistically see an alternative. “Having just spent three days in Moscow, I’m convinced the Russians haven’t the faintest clue how to operate any architecture in the Gulf...let alone a security architecture,” tweeted Gulf scholar Michael Stephens. Concern that military retaliation for last month’s attacks on two key Saudi oil facilities would spark a regional war has sparked a flurry of diplomatic activity and a search for non-military responses as the United States and Saudi Arabia point the finger of responsibility at Iran. Iran has warned that military retaliation by the United States or the Kingdom would spark a war that would spread to the Gulf, including Iranian targeting of installations in the region. Trump’s cautious reaction to the attacks coupled with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s stated preference for a non-military response constitutes the latest developments in recent months that have opened the door to the Chinese-backed Russian proposal for a collective security arrangement that would reduce US influence in the region. Saudi and Iranian leaders, in a gleam of hope that the two countries may be inching towards one another, expressed an interest in resolving issues politically rather than militarily. “The political and peaceful solution is much better than the military one,” Prince Mohammed told CBS News when asked about a possible military response to the attacks on the kingdom’s oil assets. Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani responded saying: "The doors of Iran are open. A Saudi-Iranian dialogue can solve many of the region's security and political problems." In a further hopeful development, Saudi Arabia was reported to be considering a partial ceasefire in Yemen. Earlier, the Houthis declared a unilateral halt to the fighting. Larijani said Iran was advising the Houthis to accept whatever ceasefire was on offer. At the same time, Iraq suggested that it had established a backchannel between Riyadh and Tehran. "The Saudis have conditions before the negotiations process starts and the same with Iranians. We have liaised these conditions to each side. It is not an easy task to get together two opposite sides in terms of their ideology, sect and their alliances in the region," said Abbas al-Hasnawi, an official in the office of Iraqi prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi. "Saudi Arabia’s conditions are that Iran minimises its role in Yemen and Syria and stop supporting armed groups such as the Houthis. It also asks the Syrian regime to solve its problems with the Syrian opposition groups, and to write a constitution for Syria with all parties agreeing on it," the official said. "If there will be a potential deal in the region that includes Yemen, Syria and Iraq, the Americans have no problem with that," Hasnawi added. While there is every reason to be sceptical despite the noise that Saudi Arabia and Iran are anywhere near resolving their differences, talk of dialogue and calls for a Yemen ceasefire suggest that Iran’s strategy of strategic escalation may be producing results. Iran moved earlier this year away from its initial strategic patience response to the US withdrawal from the 2015 international agreement curbing the Islamic republic’s nuclear program to a strategy of gradual escalation. Escalation tactics include a step-by-step breaching of the agreement and a more aggressive asymmetric military posture involving the seizing of a British vessel that was released last week, alleged attacks on tankers off the coast of the UAE, and allegedly the attacks on the Saudi oil facilities. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Can Saudi Arabia and Iran get along?

Iran's statement that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/saudi-crown-prince-warns-of-escalation-with-iran-says-he-prefers-political-solution-252727">Saudi Arabia</a> sent messages to its president through other countries was "not accurate", Adel al-Jubeir, the kingdom's Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, has said.

Saudi Arabia blames Iran for an attack on two Saudi oil facilities on September&nbsp;14, a charge <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-vows-new-iran-sanctions-tehran-warns-us-against-attack-229649">Tehran</a> denies. On Monday, an Iranian government spokesman said Saudi Arabia had sent messages to Iran's president through the leaders of other countries but did not specify their content.

"What the Iranian speaker said about the kingdom sending messages to the Iranian regime is not accurate," Jubeir said on Twitter late on Tuesday.

"What happened was that sister country sought to calm the situation, and we told them that the position of the kingdom was to always seek security and stability in the region."

In an interview broadcast on Sunday, Saudi Arabia’s crown prince warned that oil prices could spike to "unimaginably high numbers" if the world did not come together to deter Iran, but said he preferred a political solution to a military one.

"We also told them that de-escalation should come from the party that is escalating and spreading chaos through hostile acts in the region," Jubeir added.

"We conveyed to them our position towards the Iranian regime that we always announce clearly in all venues, most recently at the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/un-general-assembly-2019-what-to-expect-at-the-74th-session-this-week-251385">United Nations General Assembly</a>," he said.

Iran's statement that Saudi Arabia sent messages to its president through other countries was "not accurate", Adel al-Jubeir, the kingdom's Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, has said.

Iran's statement that Saudi Arabia sent messages to its president through other countries was "not accurate", Adel al-Jubeir, the kingdom's Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, has said. Saudi Arabia blames Iran for an attack on two Saudi oil facilities on September 14, a charge Tehran denies. On Monday, an Iranian government spokesman said Saudi Arabia had sent messages to Iran's president through the leaders of other countries but did not specify their content. "What the Iranian speaker said about the kingdom sending messages to the Iranian regime is not accurate," Jubeir said on Twitter late on Tuesday. "What happened was that sister country sought to calm the situation, and we told them that the position of the kingdom was to always seek security and stability in the region." In an interview broadcast on Sunday, Saudi Arabia’s crown prince warned that oil prices could spike to "unimaginably high numbers" if the world did not come together to deter Iran, but said he preferred a political solution to a military one. "We also told them that de-escalation should come from the party that is escalating and spreading chaos through hostile acts in the region," Jubeir added. "We conveyed to them our position towards the Iranian regime that we always announce clearly in all venues, most recently at the United Nations General Assembly," he said.

Saudi says Iran's remark on messages to its President 'not accurate'

The son of murdered Saudi journalist Jamal <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/saudi-prince-says-khashoggi-murder-happened-under-my-watch-us-tv-252208">Khashogg</a>i, who has denied a financial settlement with the government, spoke out in defence of the kingdom Tuesday ahead of the first anniversary of the killing.

Khashoggi, a royal family insider turned critic&nbsp;was killed and dismembered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2, 2018, in an operation that reportedly involved 15 agents sent from Riyadh. His body was never found.

Eleven unidentified suspects have been on&nbsp;trial in Riyadh, with five of them facing the death penalty.

Salah Khashoggi said he had "full confidence" in the judicial system, and hit out at opponents he said were seeking to exploit the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/one-year-on-saudi-struggles-to-turn-page-on-khashoggi-murder-252688"> case.</a>

“A year has gone by since the passing of my beloved father. During this time, opponents and enemies in the East and West sought to exploit his case to undermine my country and leadership," he said in a tweet.

"I will not accept that his memory and case be taken advantage of to achieve that after his passing," said Salah, who resides in the kingdom.&nbsp;

"I have full confidence in the kingdom's judicial system and in its ability to serve justice to those behind this heinous crime," he said.

The Washington Post reported&nbsp;on April 1 that Khashoggi's children, including Salah, had received multimillion-dollar homes and were being paid thousands of dollars per month by authorities.&nbsp;

Both the CIA and a UN special envoy have directly linked de facto ruler Crown <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/saudi-crown-prince-warns-of-escalation-with-iran-says-he-prefers-political-solution-252782">Prince Mohammed bin Salman</a> to the murder, a charge the kingdom denies.&nbsp;

The son of murdered Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who has denied a financial settlement with the government, spoke out in defence of the kingdom Tuesday ahead of the first anniversary of the killing.

The son of murdered Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who has denied a financial settlement with the government, spoke out in defence of the kingdom Tuesday ahead of the first anniversary of the killing. Khashoggi, a royal family insider turned critic was killed and dismembered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2, 2018, in an operation that reportedly involved 15 agents sent from Riyadh. His body was never found. Eleven unidentified suspects have been on trial in Riyadh, with five of them facing the death penalty. Salah Khashoggi said he had "full confidence" in the judicial system, and hit out at opponents he said were seeking to exploit the case. “A year has gone by since the passing of my beloved father. During this time, opponents and enemies in the East and West sought to exploit his case to undermine my country and leadership," he said in a tweet. "I will not accept that his memory and case be taken advantage of to achieve that after his passing," said Salah, who resides in the kingdom. "I have full confidence in the kingdom's judicial system and in its ability to serve justice to those behind this heinous crime," he said. The Washington Post reported on April 1 that Khashoggi's children, including Salah, had received multimillion-dollar homes and were being paid thousands of dollars per month by authorities. Both the CIA and a UN special envoy have directly linked de facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to the murder, a charge the kingdom denies.

Khashoggi's son defends Saudi against critics 'exploiting' murder

Australia has lifted a temporary ban on the controversial live sheep exports, with the first ship due to depart for the Middle East this week with about 60,000 animals on board.

The live export trade has been under scrutiny since horrific footage of dead and dying heat-stressed sheep on vessels bound for the Middle East was released in April 2018, prompting a public outcry and forcing sweeping reforms to the industry.

Though the government resisted calls to outlaw the practice entirely, a review led to a temporary embargo on live exports during the northern-hemisphere summer from June to September this year.

Rural Export and Trading WA, an exporter, said that the ship is due to leave Fremantle, in Western Australia state, for Kuwait by Tuesday.

It is expected to be the first of many to depart in the coming months, much to the chagrin of animal welfare campaigners.

New guidelines introduced in 2018 required exporters to significantly increase cargo space for sheep and to ensure independent observers travel on all ships carrying live animals, with penalties for non-compliance including fines and jail time.

But activists argue that the measures will do little to mitigate the animals' heat stress and the trade should be further restricted.

The resumption of shipments was welcomed by the Australian Livestock Exporters' Council, which said the moratorium had meant "competitors have entered some of our markets."

Lifting the ban means "renewed stability and food security" for consumers, they argued.

Live sheep, goat and cattle exports are worth about $1.35 billion each year to Australia's economy, according to the lobby group.

Australia has lifted a temporary ban on the controversial live sheep exports, with the first ship due to depart for the Middle East this week with about 60,000 animals on board.

Australia has lifted a temporary ban on the controversial live sheep exports, with the first ship due to depart for the Middle East this week with about 60,000 animals on board. The live export trade has been under scrutiny since horrific footage of dead and dying heat-stressed sheep on vessels bound for the Middle East was released in April 2018, prompting a public outcry and forcing sweeping reforms to the industry. Though the government resisted calls to outlaw the practice entirely, a review led to a temporary embargo on live exports during the northern-hemisphere summer from June to September this year. Rural Export and Trading WA, an exporter, said that the ship is due to leave Fremantle, in Western Australia state, for Kuwait by Tuesday. It is expected to be the first of many to depart in the coming months, much to the chagrin of animal welfare campaigners. New guidelines introduced in 2018 required exporters to significantly increase cargo space for sheep and to ensure independent observers travel on all ships carrying live animals, with penalties for non-compliance including fines and jail time. But activists argue that the measures will do little to mitigate the animals' heat stress and the trade should be further restricted. The resumption of shipments was welcomed by the Australian Livestock Exporters' Council, which said the moratorium had meant "competitors have entered some of our markets." Lifting the ban means "renewed stability and food security" for consumers, they argued. Live sheep, goat and cattle exports are worth about $1.35 billion each year to Australia's economy, according to the lobby group.

Australia lifts temporary ban on live sheep exports

US President <a href="http://cms.wionews.com/world/trump-announces-new-us-sanctions-on-iran-central-bank-250885">Donald Trump</a> on Friday approved sending American troops to bolster Saudi Arabia's air and missile defences after the largest-ever attack on the kingdom`s oil facilities, which Washington has squarely blamed on Iran.

The Pentagon said the deployment would involve a moderate number of troops - not numbering thousands - and would be primarily defensive in nature. It also detailed plans to expedite delivery of military equipment to both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Reuters has previously reported that the Pentagon was considering sending anti-missile batteries, drones and more fighter jets. The United States is also considering keeping an aircraft carrier in the region indefinitely.

Watch: Saudi Arabia presents proof against Iran

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/wion-dispatch-saudi-arabia-presents-proof-against-iran-250651/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"In response to the kingdom`s request, the president has approved the deployment of US forces, which will be defensive in nature and primarily focussed on air and missile defence," US Defense Secretary Mark Esper said at a news briefing.

"We will also work to accelerate the delivery of military equipment to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the UAE to enhance their ability to defend themselves."

The Pentagon's late Friday announcement appeared to close the door to any imminent decision to wage retaliatory strikes against Iran following the attack, which rattled global markets and exposed major gaps in Saudi Arabia's air defences.

Trump said earlier on Friday that he believed his military restraint so far showed "strength," as he instead imposed another round of economic sanctions on Tehran.

"Because the easiest thing I could do, 'Okay, go ahead. Knock out 15 different major things in Iran.' ... But I’m not looking to do that if I can," Trump told reporters at the White House.

But the deployment could further aggravate Iran, which has responded to previous US troop deployments this year with apprehension. It denies responsibility for the attack on Saudi Arabia.

Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthi movement, which has been battling a Saudi-led military coalition that includes the UAE, has claimed responsibility for the strikes.

Did attack launch from Iran?

Relations between the United States and Iran have deteriorated sharply since Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear accord last year and reimposed sanctions on its oil exports.

For months, Iranian officials issued veiled threats, saying that if Tehran were blocked from exporting oil, other countries would not be able to do so either.

However, Iran has denied any role in a series of attacks in recent months, including bombings of tankers in the Gulf and strikes claimed by the Houthis.

US officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, have fingered southwest Iran as the staging ground for the attack, an assessment based at least in part on still-classified imagery showing Iran appearing to prepare an aerial strike.

They have dismissed Houthi claims that the attacks originated in Yemen.

One of the officials told Reuters the strike may have been authorized by Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The United States is wary of getting dragged into another conflict in the Middle East. It has troops positioned in Syria and Iraq, two countries where Iranian influence is strong and Iran-backed forces operate openly.

US officials fear Iran`s proxies might attempt to strike American troops there, something that could easily trigger a broader regional conflict.

Saudi Arabia has said it was attacked by a total of 25 drones and missiles, including Iranian Delta Wing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and "Ya Ali" cruise missiles.

US Marine General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said officials were still hammering out the best array of capabilities to defend Saudi Arabia, noting the difficulty combating a swarm of drones.

"No single system is going to be able to defend against a threat like that, but a layered system of defensive capabilities would mitigate the risk of swarms of drones or other attacks that may come from Iran," Dunford said.

US President Donald Trump on Friday approved sending American troops to bolster Saudi Arabia's air and missile defences after the largest-ever attack on the kingdom`s oil facilities, which Washington has squarely blamed on Iran.

US President Donald Trump on Friday approved sending American troops to bolster Saudi Arabia's air and missile defences after the largest-ever attack on the kingdom`s oil facilities, which Washington has squarely blamed on Iran. The Pentagon said the deployment would involve a moderate number of troops - not numbering thousands - and would be primarily defensive in nature. It also detailed plans to expedite delivery of military equipment to both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Reuters has previously reported that the Pentagon was considering sending anti-missile batteries, drones and more fighter jets. The United States is also considering keeping an aircraft carrier in the region indefinitely. Watch: Saudi Arabia presents proof against Iran "In response to the kingdom`s request, the president has approved the deployment of US forces, which will be defensive in nature and primarily focussed on air and missile defence," US Defense Secretary Mark Esper said at a news briefing. "We will also work to accelerate the delivery of military equipment to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the UAE to enhance their ability to defend themselves." The Pentagon's late Friday announcement appeared to close the door to any imminent decision to wage retaliatory strikes against Iran following the attack, which rattled global markets and exposed major gaps in Saudi Arabia's air defences. Trump said earlier on Friday that he believed his military restraint so far showed "strength," as he instead imposed another round of economic sanctions on Tehran. "Because the easiest thing I could do, 'Okay, go ahead. Knock out 15 different major things in Iran.' ... But I’m not looking to do that if I can," Trump told reporters at the White House. But the deployment could further aggravate Iran, which has responded to previous US troop deployments this year with apprehension. It denies responsibility for the attack on Saudi Arabia. Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthi movement, which has been battling a Saudi-led military coalition that includes the UAE, has claimed responsibility for the strikes. Did attack launch from Iran? Relations between the United States and Iran have deteriorated sharply since Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear accord last year and reimposed sanctions on its oil exports. For months, Iranian officials issued veiled threats, saying that if Tehran were blocked from exporting oil, other countries would not be able to do so either. However, Iran has denied any role in a series of attacks in recent months, including bombings of tankers in the Gulf and strikes claimed by the Houthis. US officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, have fingered southwest Iran as the staging ground for the attack, an assessment based at least in part on still-classified imagery showing Iran appearing to prepare an aerial strike. They have dismissed Houthi claims that the attacks originated in Yemen. One of the officials told Reuters the strike may have been authorized by Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The United States is wary of getting dragged into another conflict in the Middle East. It has troops positioned in Syria and Iraq, two countries where Iranian influence is strong and Iran-backed forces operate openly. US officials fear Iran`s proxies might attempt to strike American troops there, something that could easily trigger a broader regional conflict. Saudi Arabia has said it was attacked by a total of 25 drones and missiles, including Iranian Delta Wing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and "Ya Ali" cruise missiles. US Marine General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said officials were still hammering out the best array of capabilities to defend Saudi Arabia, noting the difficulty combating a swarm of drones. "No single system is going to be able to defend against a threat like that, but a layered system of defensive capabilities would mitigate the risk of swarms of drones or other attacks that may come from Iran," Dunford said.

Trump administration sending troops to bolster Saudi defences after attack

By Martin Beck

With no clear winner in September’s Israeli elections, both the incumbent prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his only serious contender, Benny Gantz, will now set about trying to form a governing coalition. Both are tarnished by the result.

Contrary to elections held in April when Netanyahu’s right-wing party, Likud, and Gantz’s centrist alliance, Kahol Lavan or “Blue and White”, were tied, this time Gantz is one seat ahead of Netanyahu, according to official results released after 90 per cent&nbsp;of the vote had been counted.

But Gantz’s 32 seats – three fewer than in April – plus those of his two centrist-left alliance partners (the Democratic Union and Labor-Gesher) add up to only 43. This is far from the 61 seats necessary to form a government backed by a majority of 120 deputies in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament.

Yet, Netanyahu’s bloc that consists of the two ultra-orthodox parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism, and the parties of the far-right Yamina alliance, add up to only 55 seats. To further complicate matters, the two groups that aren’t fully affiliated with one of the blocs are not political allies: the Joint List of mostly Arab parties gained 13 seats, while the right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu – the party headed by Netanyahu’s former ally Avigdor Lieberman – won nine seats.

As there is no Likud politician in sight who would be capable of subverting Netanyahu to form a national unity government, for the time being both Gantz and Netanyahu remain in the race for the premiership.

So what does this stalemate mean for the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and the Middle East region more widely?

The stakes for Palestinians 
​​​​​​​ 
Palestinians who have lived under Israeli occupation in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip since 1967 have the most at stake. Whatever government is formed, it will not only rule Israeli citizens who were eligible to vote but also those Palestinians living in the occupied territories who weren’t – something I’ve argued implies that Israel is not a democracy.

In another sense, the elections have little significance for the Palestinians living under occupation. The idea of withdrawing the Israeli army from Palestinian territories and accepting a sovereign and viable state of Palestine is as alien to Gantz as it is to Netanyahu.

Whether Israeli governments in the late 20th century seriously considered the possibility of a two-state solution remains debatable. Yet, so far in the 21st century, the game played by Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation has not been about negotiating “peace” in the form of untroubled relations between Israel and a Palestinian state. Rather, it’s been about pretend-negotiating peace – and avoiding blame for, predictably, failed rounds of talks.

Contrary to Gantz, Netanyahu announced he would annex major parts of the West Bank including all Jewish settlements and most of the Jordan Valley. However, as the West Bank has been ruled and colonised by Israel for half a century, its annexation would be little more than a symbolic policy and wouldn’t fundamentally change the situation on the ground.

In August, Gantz vowed to “pound Gaza” in the event of military confrontations. Under his premiership, Israel’s rule over the coastal strip might be implemented in an even more oppressive way than it has been so far this decade.

United against Iran 
 
With regards to wider regional policies, Gantz is in line with Netanyahu and they share a strong stand against Iran. In February, referring to Iran, Gantz said: “On my watch, there will be no appeasement.”

Gantz has also endorsed Israel’s policy of containing Iran’s Lebanese ally Hezbollah inside Lebanon and in Syria. Since 2013, Israel has frequently launched air strikes against Iranian-backed militia posts in Syria, whose activities are crucial for the Bashar al-Assad regime’s relentless fight for survival.

Until recently, the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Syria had not spilled beyond its borders. But by launching an attack with two drones in Beirut on August 25, Israel violated this tacit agreement. In the aftermath, despite some skirmishes and aggressive rhetoric, both Lebanon and Israel showed restraint. But similar incidents in future could lead to further escalation – something Netanyahu might welcome if he were hoping to make a mark early in another premiership.

Regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, US President Donald Trump’s so-called “deal of the century”, expected to be released shortly, probably won’t be more than the symbolic funeral of an idea – the two-state solution – that has been clinically dead for years. Much more intriguing is whether the plan might boost the ongoing normalisation of the Arab world’s relations with Israel and foster the tacit anti-Iranian alliance between Saudi Arabia and Israel in the making.

There is a lot at stake for Netanyahu now. Probably only a law granting Israel’s prime minister full immunity from prosecution could save Netanyahu from being indicted for corruption, and such a law will only pass if he manages to remain in power.

It remains to be seen in the coming days and weeks of coalition negotiations whether a tottering Netanyahu will win what is probably his last major political battle and stay in power against all the odds – and what role foreign policy towards the Middle East will play in his coalition-building strategy.

(Martin Beck is Professor, Centre for Contemporary Middle East Studies, University of Southern Denmark)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/israeli-election-has-no-clear-winner-what-political-deadlock-means-for-the-middle-east-123124">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Martin Beck With no clear winner in September’s Israeli elections, both the incumbent prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his only serious contender, Benny Gantz, will now set about trying to form a governing coalition.

By Martin Beck With no clear winner in September’s Israeli elections, both the incumbent prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his only serious contender, Benny Gantz, will now set about trying to form a governing coalition. Both are tarnished by the result. Contrary to elections held in April when Netanyahu’s right-wing party, Likud, and Gantz’s centrist alliance, Kahol Lavan or “Blue and White”, were tied, this time Gantz is one seat ahead of Netanyahu, according to official results released after 90 per cent of the vote had been counted. But Gantz’s 32 seats – three fewer than in April – plus those of his two centrist-left alliance partners (the Democratic Union and Labor-Gesher) add up to only 43. This is far from the 61 seats necessary to form a government backed by a majority of 120 deputies in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. Yet, Netanyahu’s bloc that consists of the two ultra-orthodox parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism, and the parties of the far-right Yamina alliance, add up to only 55 seats. To further complicate matters, the two groups that aren’t fully affiliated with one of the blocs are not political allies: the Joint List of mostly Arab parties gained 13 seats, while the right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu – the party headed by Netanyahu’s former ally Avigdor Lieberman – won nine seats. As there is no Likud politician in sight who would be capable of subverting Netanyahu to form a national unity government, for the time being both Gantz and Netanyahu remain in the race for the premiership. So what does this stalemate mean for the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and the Middle East region more widely? The stakes for Palestinians Palestinians who have lived under Israeli occupation in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip since 1967 have the most at stake. Whatever government is formed, it will not only rule Israeli citizens who were eligible to vote but also those Palestinians living in the occupied territories who weren’t – something I’ve argued implies that Israel is not a democracy. In another sense, the elections have little significance for the Palestinians living under occupation. The idea of withdrawing the Israeli army from Palestinian territories and accepting a sovereign and viable state of Palestine is as alien to Gantz as it is to Netanyahu. Whether Israeli governments in the late 20th century seriously considered the possibility of a two-state solution remains debatable. Yet, so far in the 21st century, the game played by Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation has not been about negotiating “peace” in the form of untroubled relations between Israel and a Palestinian state. Rather, it’s been about pretend-negotiating peace – and avoiding blame for, predictably, failed rounds of talks. Contrary to Gantz, Netanyahu announced he would annex major parts of the West Bank including all Jewish settlements and most of the Jordan Valley. However, as the West Bank has been ruled and colonised by Israel for half a century, its annexation would be little more than a symbolic policy and wouldn’t fundamentally change the situation on the ground. In August, Gantz vowed to “pound Gaza” in the event of military confrontations. Under his premiership, Israel’s rule over the coastal strip might be implemented in an even more oppressive way than it has been so far this decade. United against Iran With regards to wider regional policies, Gantz is in line with Netanyahu and they share a strong stand against Iran. In February, referring to Iran, Gantz said: “On my watch, there will be no appeasement.” Gantz has also endorsed Israel’s policy of containing Iran’s Lebanese ally Hezbollah inside Lebanon and in Syria. Since 2013, Israel has frequently launched air strikes against Iranian-backed militia posts in Syria, whose activities are crucial for the Bashar al-Assad regime’s relentless fight for survival. Until recently, the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Syria had not spilled beyond its borders. But by launching an attack with two drones in Beirut on August 25, Israel violated this tacit agreement. In the aftermath, despite some skirmishes and aggressive rhetoric, both Lebanon and Israel showed restraint. But similar incidents in future could lead to further escalation – something Netanyahu might welcome if he were hoping to make a mark early in another premiership. Regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, US President Donald Trump’s so-called “deal of the century”, expected to be released shortly, probably won’t be more than the symbolic funeral of an idea – the two-state solution – that has been clinically dead for years. Much more intriguing is whether the plan might boost the ongoing normalisation of the Arab world’s relations with Israel and foster the tacit anti-Iranian alliance between Saudi Arabia and Israel in the making. There is a lot at stake for Netanyahu now. Probably only a law granting Israel’s prime minister full immunity from prosecution could save Netanyahu from being indicted for corruption, and such a law will only pass if he manages to remain in power. It remains to be seen in the coming days and weeks of coalition negotiations whether a tottering Netanyahu will win what is probably his last major political battle and stay in power against all the odds – and what role foreign policy towards the Middle East will play in his coalition-building strategy. (Martin Beck is Professor, Centre for Contemporary Middle East Studies, University of Southern Denmark) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Israeli election has no clear winner – what political deadlock means for the Middle East

Neither Saudi Arabia nor the United States is rushing to retaliate for a brazen, allegedly Iranian attack that severely damaged two of the kingdom’s key oil facilities.

That is not to say that Saudi Arabia or the United States will not retaliate in what could prove to be a game-changer in the geopolitics of the Middle East.

Yet, reading the tea leaves of various US and Saudi statements lifts the veil on the constituent elements that could change the region’s dynamics.

They also shine a spotlight on the pressures on both countries and shifts in the US-Saudi relationship that could have long-lasting consequences.

With US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visiting the kingdom to coordinate what his office described as efforts to combat "Iranian aggression in the region," Saudi Arabia and the United States will be seeking to resolve multiple issues.

These include collecting sufficient evidence to convincingly apportion blame; calibrating a response that would be appropriate but not drag the United States and the Middle East into a war that few want; deciding who takes the lead in any military response and managing the long-term impact of that &nbsp;decision on Saudi-US relations and the US commitment to the region.

A careful reading of Saudi and US responses to the attacks so far suggests subtle differences between the two. They mask fundamental issues that have emerged in the aftermath of the attacks.

For starters, Pompeo and President Donald J Trump have explicitly pointed the finger at Iran as being directly responsible, while Saudi Arabia stopped short of blaming the Islamic republic, saying that its preliminary findings show that Iranian weapons were used in the attack. Iran has denied any involvement.

The discrepancy in the initial apportioning of blame raises the question whether Saudi Arabia is seeking to avoid being manoeuvred into a situation in which it would be forced to take the lead in retaliating against the Islamic republic with strikes against targets in Iran rather than Yemen.

Political scientist Austin Carson suggests that Saudi Arabia may have an interest in at least partially playing along with Iranian insistence that it was not responsible. “Allowing Iran’s role to remain ambiguous could reduce Saudi leaders’ need to appear strong. The Saudis are reportedly unconvinced by shared US intelligence that attempts to link the attacks to Iran’s territory. Some experts suggest this may reflect a more cautious approach to escalation,” Carson wrote in The Washington Post.

Saudi Arabia’s initial reluctance to unambiguously blame Iran may have a lot to do with Trump’s America First-driven response to the attacks that appeared to contradict the Carter Doctrine proclaimed in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter.

The doctrine, a cornerstone of the Saudi-US relationship, stated that the United States would use military force, if necessary, to defend its national interests in the Gulf.

Trump’s apparent weakening of the United States’ commitment to the defence of the kingdom, encapsulated in the doctrine, risks fundamentally altering the relationship, already troubled by Saudi conduct of the more than four-year-long war in Yemen and last year’s killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

Signalling a break with the Carter doctrine, Trump was quick to point out that the attacks were on Saudi Arabia, not on the United States, and suggested that it was for the Saudis to respond.

“I haven’t promised Saudis that. We have to sit down with the Saudis and work something out. That was an attack on Saudi Arabia, and that wasn’t an attack on us. But we would certainly help them,” Trump said without identifying what kind of support the US would be willing to provide.

Despite blustering that the United States was “locked and loaded,” Trump insisted that “We have a lot of options but I’m not looking at options right now.”

Trump’s response to a tweet by US Senator Lindsey Graham, a friend of the president who favours a US military strike against Iran, that "the measured response by President @realDonaldTrump…was clearly seen by the Iranian regime as a sign of weakness" was equally telling.

"No Lindsey, it was a sign of strength that some people just don't understand," Trump said.

Trump further called into question the nature of the US-Saudi defence relationship by declaring that “If we decide to do something, they’ll be very much involved, and that includes payment. And they understand that fully.”

The Saudi foreign ministry maintained, with the attacks casting doubt on the Saudi military’s ability to defend the kingdom’s oil assets and Trump seemingly putting the onus of a response on Saudi Arabia, that “The kingdom is capable of defending its land and people and responding forcefully to those attacks.” &nbsp;&nbsp;

Only indisputable evidence that the drones were launched from Iranian territory would incontrovertibly point the finger at Iran.

So far, the Saudis have stopped short of that while US officials have suggested that the drones were launched either from Iran or by pro-Iranian militias in southern Iraq.

Holding Iran responsible for the actions of a militia, whether in Iraq or Yemen, could prove more tricky given long-standing questions about the degree of control that Iran has over various groups that it supports, and particularly regarding the Houthis.

The argument could turn out to be a slippery slope given that by the same logic, the United States would be responsible for massive human casualties in the Yemen war resulting from Saudi use of American weaponry.

Military retaliation may not be immediate even if the United States and Saudi Arabia can produce convincing evidence that Iran was directly responsible.

"No knee jerk reactions to this - it's very systematic - what happens with patience is it prevents stupid moves," a US official said.

The United States is likely to attempt to first leverage that evidence in meetings on the sidelines of next week’s United Nations General Assembly to convince the international community, and particularly the Europeans, to drop opposition to last year’s US withdrawal from the international nuclear accord with Iran and the harsh economic sanctions that the Trump administration has since imposed on Iran.

Both the United States and Saudi Arabia will also want to use the opportunity of the UN gathering to try to ensure that the fallout of any military response is limited and does not escalate into a full-fledged war that could change the geopolitical map of the Middle East.

Said foreign policy analyst Steven A Cook: “How the Trump administration responds will indicate whether US elites still consider energy resources a core national interest and whether the United States truly is on its way out of the Middle East entirely, as so many in the region suspect.” 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

Neither Saudi Arabia nor the United States is rushing to retaliate for a brazen, allegedly Iranian attack that severely damaged two of the kingdom’s key oil facilities.

Neither Saudi Arabia nor the United States is rushing to retaliate for a brazen, allegedly Iranian attack that severely damaged two of the kingdom’s key oil facilities. That is not to say that Saudi Arabia or the United States will not retaliate in what could prove to be a game-changer in the geopolitics of the Middle East. Yet, reading the tea leaves of various US and Saudi statements lifts the veil on the constituent elements that could change the region’s dynamics. They also shine a spotlight on the pressures on both countries and shifts in the US-Saudi relationship that could have long-lasting consequences. With US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visiting the kingdom to coordinate what his office described as efforts to combat "Iranian aggression in the region," Saudi Arabia and the United States will be seeking to resolve multiple issues. These include collecting sufficient evidence to convincingly apportion blame; calibrating a response that would be appropriate but not drag the United States and the Middle East into a war that few want; deciding who takes the lead in any military response and managing the long-term impact of that decision on Saudi-US relations and the US commitment to the region. A careful reading of Saudi and US responses to the attacks so far suggests subtle differences between the two. They mask fundamental issues that have emerged in the aftermath of the attacks. For starters, Pompeo and President Donald J Trump have explicitly pointed the finger at Iran as being directly responsible, while Saudi Arabia stopped short of blaming the Islamic republic, saying that its preliminary findings show that Iranian weapons were used in the attack. Iran has denied any involvement. The discrepancy in the initial apportioning of blame raises the question whether Saudi Arabia is seeking to avoid being manoeuvred into a situation in which it would be forced to take the lead in retaliating against the Islamic republic with strikes against targets in Iran rather than Yemen. Political scientist Austin Carson suggests that Saudi Arabia may have an interest in at least partially playing along with Iranian insistence that it was not responsible. “Allowing Iran’s role to remain ambiguous could reduce Saudi leaders’ need to appear strong. The Saudis are reportedly unconvinced by shared US intelligence that attempts to link the attacks to Iran’s territory. Some experts suggest this may reflect a more cautious approach to escalation,” Carson wrote in The Washington Post. Saudi Arabia’s initial reluctance to unambiguously blame Iran may have a lot to do with Trump’s America First-driven response to the attacks that appeared to contradict the Carter Doctrine proclaimed in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter. The doctrine, a cornerstone of the Saudi-US relationship, stated that the United States would use military force, if necessary, to defend its national interests in the Gulf. Trump’s apparent weakening of the United States’ commitment to the defence of the kingdom, encapsulated in the doctrine, risks fundamentally altering the relationship, already troubled by Saudi conduct of the more than four-year-long war in Yemen and last year’s killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Signalling a break with the Carter doctrine, Trump was quick to point out that the attacks were on Saudi Arabia, not on the United States, and suggested that it was for the Saudis to respond. “I haven’t promised Saudis that. We have to sit down with the Saudis and work something out. That was an attack on Saudi Arabia, and that wasn’t an attack on us. But we would certainly help them,” Trump said without identifying what kind of support the US would be willing to provide. Despite blustering that the United States was “locked and loaded,” Trump insisted that “We have a lot of options but I’m not looking at options right now.” Trump’s response to a tweet by US Senator Lindsey Graham, a friend of the president who favours a US military strike against Iran, that "the measured response by President @realDonaldTrump…was clearly seen by the Iranian regime as a sign of weakness" was equally telling. "No Lindsey, it was a sign of strength that some people just don't understand," Trump said. Trump further called into question the nature of the US-Saudi defence relationship by declaring that “If we decide to do something, they’ll be very much involved, and that includes payment. And they understand that fully.” The Saudi foreign ministry maintained, with the attacks casting doubt on the Saudi military’s ability to defend the kingdom’s oil assets and Trump seemingly putting the onus of a response on Saudi Arabia, that “The kingdom is capable of defending its land and people and responding forcefully to those attacks.” Only indisputable evidence that the drones were launched from Iranian territory would incontrovertibly point the finger at Iran. So far, the Saudis have stopped short of that while US officials have suggested that the drones were launched either from Iran or by pro-Iranian militias in southern Iraq. Holding Iran responsible for the actions of a militia, whether in Iraq or Yemen, could prove more tricky given long-standing questions about the degree of control that Iran has over various groups that it supports, and particularly regarding the Houthis. The argument could turn out to be a slippery slope given that by the same logic, the United States would be responsible for massive human casualties in the Yemen war resulting from Saudi use of American weaponry. Military retaliation may not be immediate even if the United States and Saudi Arabia can produce convincing evidence that Iran was directly responsible. "No knee jerk reactions to this - it's very systematic - what happens with patience is it prevents stupid moves," a US official said. The United States is likely to attempt to first leverage that evidence in meetings on the sidelines of next week’s United Nations General Assembly to convince the international community, and particularly the Europeans, to drop opposition to last year’s US withdrawal from the international nuclear accord with Iran and the harsh economic sanctions that the Trump administration has since imposed on Iran. Both the United States and Saudi Arabia will also want to use the opportunity of the UN gathering to try to ensure that the fallout of any military response is limited and does not escalate into a full-fledged war that could change the geopolitical map of the Middle East. Said foreign policy analyst Steven A Cook: “How the Trump administration responds will indicate whether US elites still consider energy resources a core national interest and whether the United States truly is on its way out of the Middle East entirely, as so many in the region suspect.” (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Saudi oil attacks put US commitments to the test

Asian equities were mixed Wednesday, with attention turning to the Federal Reserve's key policy decision later in the day, while investors remain on alert for developments in the Middle East after the attack on Saudi oil facilities rocked markets.

News that Riyadh will get its two major installations back online earlier than expected sent crude prices tumbling Tuesday, and they fell further in Asia, though analysts said there was nervousness on trading floors about oil security in the future.

With fears of military retaliation against Iran -- who are accused of being behind the strikes -- low for now, focus is now on the Fed, which is expected to cut interest rates while its post-meeting statement will be closely followed for clues about future plans.

Global markets have spent most of this month rising on bets that central banks, led by the Fed, will move to a softer monetary policy to offset a slowdown in most economies exacerbated by the China-US trade war.

"A rate cut of 25 basis points is universally regarded as a done deal by global markets," said OANDA senior market analyst Jeffrey Halley.

"What will be closely watched is the press conference 30 minutes later, where we will gain more clarity as to whether the Fed has moved to an explicit easing bias.

"The likelihood of a shift from neutral to easing will be high as the (policy board) will not be able to ignore the storm cloud around the rest of the world that must eventually start raining on the United States."

Oxford Economics estimates the Fed will cut three more times this year, which would erase all its 2018 rate hikes.

The Fed has been forced to pump more than $100 billion into US financial markets owing to a tightening of liquidity that had seen short-term lending rates spike for companies.

Eyes on Pompeo

Equity traders shifted cautiously with Asian markets struggling for traction.

Hong Kong edged up 0.1 per cent after two days of steep losses that have been made worse by worries about long-running protests in the city. Shanghai was 0.4 per cent higher and Tokyo ended the morning 0.1 per cent higher.

Seoul added 0.4 percent and Taipei rose 0.3 percent but Sydney slipped 0.2 percent and Singapore fell 0.1 per cent, while Wellington and Manila were also down.

Dealers are being given some optimism by the fact the US and China are about to restart trade negotiations next month, with a delegation from Beijing reportedly visiting Washington this week for preparatory talks.

However, there are fresh worries about the impact on the already stuttering world economy from the Saudi oil attacks on Saturday.

While the resumption of output from the world's biggest exporter provided some much-needed relief, observers said long-term energy security is now a concern.

"Restoring production may placate global investors' immediate economic concerns, but that's only half the problem as the attacks exposed some significant vulnerabilities," said Stephen Innes at AxiTrader.

"None more so than just how inadequately prepared the markets are for disruptions of this magnitude which suggest that the supply risk premium could stick around well after production is restored."

Eyes are on US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who departed for Saudi Arabia Tuesday to discuss possible retaliation, while Vice President Mike Pence said: "As the president said, we don't want war with anybody but the United States is prepared."

A US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told AFP the White House has concluded the attack -- claimed by Huthi rebels in Yemen -- involved cruise missiles from Iran and that evidence would be presented at the UN General Assembly next week.

Asian equities were mixed Wednesday, with attention turning to the Federal Reserve's key policy decision later in the day, while investors remain on alert for developments in the Middle East after the attack on Saudi oil facilities rocked markets.

Asian equities were mixed Wednesday, with attention turning to the Federal Reserve's key policy decision later in the day, while investors remain on alert for developments in the Middle East after the attack on Saudi oil facilities rocked markets. News that Riyadh will get its two major installations back online earlier than expected sent crude prices tumbling Tuesday, and they fell further in Asia, though analysts said there was nervousness on trading floors about oil security in the future. With fears of military retaliation against Iran -- who are accused of being behind the strikes -- low for now, focus is now on the Fed, which is expected to cut interest rates while its post-meeting statement will be closely followed for clues about future plans. Global markets have spent most of this month rising on bets that central banks, led by the Fed, will move to a softer monetary policy to offset a slowdown in most economies exacerbated by the China-US trade war. "A rate cut of 25 basis points is universally regarded as a done deal by global markets," said OANDA senior market analyst Jeffrey Halley. "What will be closely watched is the press conference 30 minutes later, where we will gain more clarity as to whether the Fed has moved to an explicit easing bias. "The likelihood of a shift from neutral to easing will be high as the (policy board) will not be able to ignore the storm cloud around the rest of the world that must eventually start raining on the United States." Oxford Economics estimates the Fed will cut three more times this year, which would erase all its 2018 rate hikes. The Fed has been forced to pump more than $100 billion into US financial markets owing to a tightening of liquidity that had seen short-term lending rates spike for companies. Eyes on Pompeo Equity traders shifted cautiously with Asian markets struggling for traction. Hong Kong edged up 0.1 per cent after two days of steep losses that have been made worse by worries about long-running protests in the city. Shanghai was 0.4 per cent higher and Tokyo ended the morning 0.1 per cent higher. Seoul added 0.4 percent and Taipei rose 0.3 percent but Sydney slipped 0.2 percent and Singapore fell 0.1 per cent, while Wellington and Manila were also down. Dealers are being given some optimism by the fact the US and China are about to restart trade negotiations next month, with a delegation from Beijing reportedly visiting Washington this week for preparatory talks. However, there are fresh worries about the impact on the already stuttering world economy from the Saudi oil attacks on Saturday. While the resumption of output from the world's biggest exporter provided some much-needed relief, observers said long-term energy security is now a concern. "Restoring production may placate global investors' immediate economic concerns, but that's only half the problem as the attacks exposed some significant vulnerabilities," said Stephen Innes at AxiTrader. "None more so than just how inadequately prepared the markets are for disruptions of this magnitude which suggest that the supply risk premium could stick around well after production is restored." Eyes are on US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who departed for Saudi Arabia Tuesday to discuss possible retaliation, while Vice President Mike Pence said: "As the president said, we don't want war with anybody but the United States is prepared." A US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told AFP the White House has concluded the attack -- claimed by Huthi rebels in Yemen -- involved cruise missiles from Iran and that evidence would be presented at the UN General Assembly next week.

Asian markets mixed ahead of key Fed meeting, oil drops again

US President Donald Trump argued that the US doesn't need oil and gas from the Middle East.

Trump says U.S. does not need Middle East oil

middle-east-0

Middle East, News on Middle East, stories on Middle East, articles on Middle East, Middle East stories at Wion, Middle East news, Middle East latest news

middle east-0