#Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

ashitakaxsan · 1 year

Text

Manga and Anime In Iran

It’s something usual news about that the one,or the other anime gets official broadcast in India.It’s good that the products of hard working Japanese animators gets in many lands of the world..However I daresay that it’s been given too much of emphasis,about what anime gets in India.So let’s pay attention to a land severly misunderstood:Iran.

The following it’s accurately the column Answerman of Animenewsnetwork:

Will Anime Ever Come To My Country (Legally)? by Justin Sevakis, Aug 28th 2015

Vahid asks:

I'm from Iran, and I always read your answers on ANN. (Access to ANN is denied in Iran and i have to use proxy software to visit.) My country doesn't allow us to buy or sell anime and manga (because of Islamic issues, you know... naked girls, kissing, etc.), but there are many people here who watch anime and read manga. Just like other forbidden stuff in Iran (foreign music and movies) we have to illegally download them. It is so sad and annoying. Amazon and Ebay don't ship anything here because of US sanctions against Iran. Do you think someday it will be possible for us to have official anime and manga stuff? Does the anime and manga industry have any interest to be in Iran's market? Our currency is very weak against the US dollar. For example, most people earn only $300 per month. Does such a country with these difficulties have any reason to hope for involvement from the anime industry?

First of all, thank you for writing in. It's really, truly gratifying to know that even people in countries we've never anticipated read our site (and my column) and enjoy it. That really made my day. I'm printing your letter not just to answer your question, but also to show our other readers how tough it can REALLY be to be an anime fan when you're not lucky enough to live in a country that permits such things. Think you have it tough because you can't afford a premium Crunchyroll subscription, or a Blu-ray release isn't to your liking? THIS is worse. Way, way worse.

So anyway, to answer your question, I have to get a little bit into current politics, and to be honest I am not an expert in middle east policy or politics, so I'm going to tread very lightly here.

From what I can tell, there are three major things standing in the way of anime being freely and legally available in Iran. The first are the sanctions against the country. This not only makes it illegal for someone to export an anime disc or merchandise item to Iran from America, but from basically any country in the United Nations -- so that takes out the entire European Union, Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia, and nearly every other country with an organized anime industry of any size. Any attempt to do business with Iran in any way is basically a non-starter until those sanctions are lifted. The good news is that a recent nuclear non-proliferation treaty between Iran and the US that would significantly ease those sanctions has been reached, although whether or not it'll be enacted is currently a hot political debate. Regardless, tensions do seem to be easing a little bit, so there's some reason for hope here. When trade is possible, a country's economy tends to recover, and the value of its currency will slowly get back to a level at which it's possible to do business again. It'll take some time.

The second major barrier is the big national ban on international entertainment products that are in any way sexualized. This is a political issue in Iran with its government censoring what people can see, based on their interpretation of Islamic morals. As long as that's as strict as it currently is, there's simply no way for anime to get imported in any form without it getting cut down to nothing -- there's simply too much the current regime would find offensive. I'm not qualified to say whether there's any indication that the government will liberalize its censorship practices, but countries do change, and they do change fast. Not necessarily all censorship needs to be lifted before anime can find its way in, but internet filtering of mainstream anime websites like ANN, Crunchyroll and Daisuki needs to happen, if nothing else.

The last barrier is the speed of most people's internet connection. According to the data I've found, only Tehran has broadband connections over 2 Mbps, which are necessary for decent quality internet video. This is important, because physical media and merchandise can be confiscated and seized at the border, making any venture dealing with that stuff a non-starter. Legal streaming sites, however, can be operated overseas and simply grant access to Iranian customers. If internet censorship gets loosened up and bandwidth speeds improve just a little, suddenly it becomes possible to grant legal access to the entire nation. It will probably take some years and a lot of smart people to figure out how to make it work as a business, but it would be possible.

Those are a lot of very tough obstacles to overcome. They will take years, perhaps even a generation, to enact. But change can happen very fast. Huge chunks of Asia, from China to Vietnam to South Korea, opened up and transformed in a major way in the last few decades, and it's possible for Iran too. I want that for you, and I hope the politics of the world allow it to happen someday”.

Original Source:https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/answerman/2015-08-28/.92206

Below:Tourists visiting Naghshe Jahan Square in Isfahan https://blog.apochi.com/is-it-safe-to-travel-to-iran-in-2021/

My say:

Vahid asked a nice Question to to ANN Answerman,he got the Good Answer.this clearly gives us light on something we don’t hear about from usual media.The Iranian fans of manga and anime,people who got irritated with the sanctions policy.I just sense that the JCPOA was a win-win case,where it cut some slack to many Iranian fans of manga and anime.

Below:Iranian animators working at a studio of the Institute for Intellectual Development of Children and Young Adults – Kanoon. (Kanoon/Hamid Tavakkoli)

below:The Iranian vlogger,on Aparat MH12 Live( https://www.aparat.com/MH12Live ) talks about his favorite action anime:Sword Art Online Fatal Bullet.

An other Iranian vlogger https://www.aparat.com/Itzomi1234 discusses in her video about manga,particularly her favorite:Attack on Titan !

Below:The Iranian musician,fan of inuyasha,Ahmad Mohamadiyan performing Inuyasha’s lullaby,see https://www.aparat.com/v/tVplb

The iranian https://www.aparat.com/Bahar161382.Dolati. And what vital does it have? Inuyasha dearest,Kikyo https://www.aparat.com/v/GRvIT

The iranian website mentions the famous mangakas,including Eiichiro Oda,Takahashi Rumiko and Hajime Isayama! https://www.tarafdari.com/node/1770335:

https://vigiato.net/p/136206 :it’s all about Inuyasha:)

The following two iranian sites that mention-in good manner-Rumiko’s Maison Ikkoku:

https://aiofilm.top/anime/maison-ikkoku/

https://footofan.com/best-anime-college-setting/

Godai and Kyoko(Maison Ikkoku)

This is about Yashahime:https://www.cartonionline.com/fa/%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%BE%D8%B1%D8%B3/rumiko-takahashi-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C-%DA%A9%D8%A7%D9%88%D8%B1-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%82%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%AA%D9%86-%D8%B4%D8%AE%D8%B5%DB%8C%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C-yashahime-%D8%B1%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%85-%D9%85%DB%8C-%DA%A9%D9%86%D8%AF/

Isn’t wholesome finding out there many people in Iran fans of manga and anime?

Later what did ...?

But what later transpired gives off angry vibes.Because Donald Trump was elected president of US.This man disliked both JCPOA and Iran,he wanted to bring in a Win- Lose.He withdrew from JCPOA,he also brought in on sanctions on Iran,thus he just made life uneasy for many Iranian otakus,and for the Iranian Animators too.

All his attitude towards the people of Iran was Quite Belligerent,nasty.Well it backfired.He lost.

The Sanctions on Iran are still on.It’s outcome is so many Ιranian otakus can’t get legaly anime and manga merchandise,and many Iranian Animators can’t co work with their respectful Japanese peers too. Please see :https://www.tumblr.com/ashitakaxsan/703271300019421184/bad-news-about-iranian-animation?source=share

In fact Google Play has removed the apps Aparat,Filimo and Rubika, from its store over 6 years ago(due to the U.S. sanctions against Iran).Such unfair act won’t be forever.

Conclusion

“You can’t use vinegar as bait,you can use honey to get the honeybee”.Τhe honeybee of the case is Iran:)

Iran is civilized,tolerant ,with a fondness for the art of Animation,and the japanese culture.It really matters if JCPOA would be revived,cause it will give easiness for business and legal import of manga stuff in Iran. I want this to happen,and to blossom so nice that will lead the iranian ministry of culture grant a medal to Takahashi Rumiko,and to Hiromu Arakawa(creator of the current hit manga Arslan Senki) too.

1 note · View note

arcticdementor · 2 years

Photo

(link)

#erielle davidson #twitter #screenshot #max boot #foreign policy #iran #joint comprehensive plan of action

0 notes

india-times · 2 years

Text

Lawmakers say new Iran nuclear deal unlikely

Senators in both parties briefed recently by senior Biden administration officials on negotiations with Iran say they doubt Tehran will agree to any new deal to limit its development of nuclear weapons.

Lawmakers say the administration has an offer on the table, but that Iran is showing little willingness to reestablish the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which placed significant restrictions on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

Former President Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the 2015 deal, which was one of former President Obama’s biggest foreign policy accomplishments.

Biden officials said in January that they were on the cusp of restoring the agreement but cautioned at the time that it would be up to Tehran to accept it.

Four months later, Iran still hasn’t shown any serious interest in accepting the offer from the United States and its European allies, which means one of President Biden’s top foreign policy priorities remains in limbo.

“I’m not optimistic there will be such a deal. The administration believes that strategically it makes sense to keep the offer on the table, but I don’t see the pathway forward. That’s my own view,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) told The Hill.

Menendez said accepting a new accord is a divisive proposition within Iran’s political establishment, which is making it difficult to revive the agreement.

“I think there’s conflict inside Iran, so there’s no clear pathway forward,” he said.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said, “You just don’t know what the Iranians are thinking.”

“My guess is, at this stage, that it is unclear whether the Iranians want a deal or not. There’s some disagreements within Iran itself,” he said. “The U.S. has put forward a proposal. The ball is really in the Iranians’ court.”

A senior Republican senator on the Foreign Relations panel who attended the administration’s briefing Wednesday on the talks said the prospects of a deal are “not encouraging.”

And Sen. James Risch (Idaho), the senior Republican on Foreign Relations, said he didn’t know what was happening in the talks when they started but has now been brought up to date.

“I do know where the negotiations stand and they should’ve been over. They promised us it was going to end in February if there wasn’t a deal,” he said, referring to what some senators thought was an assurance by administration officials not to let the talks drag on without buy-in from Iran.

Several senators said there are signs that Iran doesn’t want to cooperate with Western allies by allowing oversight of its nuclear program.

Iran earlier this month turned off two surveillance cameras used by the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor one of its nuclear facilities.

The United States, Britain, Germany and France submitted a draft resolution to the U.N. earlier this month criticizing Iran for not explaining why trace amounts of uranium were found at undeclared nuclear sites.

One senator who requested anonymity to discuss the negotiations said Iran is making “an unreasonable demand” of the administration by asking it to waive the designation of its Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist organization as part of any new nuclear deal.

“The odds of them getting a deal without relinquishing on that is tiny,” the lawmaker said of Iran’s demand.

The Biden administration has so far refused the request.

The senator also cited the shutoff of U.N. monitoring cameras as troublesome.

“The administration has publicly said they’re still willing to negotiate to a JCPOA 2.0, but the actions taken by the Iranian regime make that harder and harder every day,” the lawmaker said. “I do not think a deal is imminent.”

Some foreign policy experts think Iran is less desperate for sanctions relief than it was during the Obama administration because it’s collecting substantial revenue through oil exports.

Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi said last month that his country’s oil exports have doubled since August.

Iran’s central bank reported in February that it had made $18.6 billion in oil sales during the first half of the Persian year, even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent embargo of Russian oil exports sent prices soaring.

Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute specializing in foreign policy and defense policy, said “the problem is the ball’s in Iran’s court.”

She said the administration has “given up a ton” in concessions to get Iran to agree to a new plan but so far without success.

“The Iranians haven’t shown any sign of shifting,” she said. “They’re exporting vast amounts of oil at this moment.”

“Plus they’re doing illicit business with the Russians, and that’s earning them some money,” she added. “From their perspective, the geopolitical circumstances are going to be advantageous to Iran and to their entire notion of a resistance economy. They’re going to be part of this network with China and Russia that will be able to do business together.”

The United States last month announced it would place sanctions on an oil smuggling network supported by senior Russian government officials and ones in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force.

Read more : https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3528366-lawmakers-say-new-iran-nuclear-deal-unlikely/

#BARACK OBAMA #BEN CARDIN #BOB MENENDEZ #DONALD TRUMP #IRAN #IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL #IRAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM #IRAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS #JCPOA #JOE BIDEN #JOINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF ACTION

0 notes

timesofocean · 2 years

Text

US targets companies selling Iranian petrochemicals in fresh sanctions

New Post has been published on https://www.timesofocean.com/u-s-targets-companies-selling-iranian-petrochemicals-in-sanctions/

US targets companies selling Iranian petrochemicals in fresh sanctions

Washington (The Times Groupe)- The United States has imposed fresh sanctions on Chinese and Emirati companies and a network of Iranian firms for helping export petrochemicals from Iran.

On June 16, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed penalties on two Hong Kong-based companies, three Iranian companies, and four UAE companies, as well as two Chinese and one Indian company.

The Treasury Department attributed the moves to negotiations to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

“The United States is seeking to achieve a mutual return to compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action through meaningful diplomacy,” said Brian Nelson, Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.

“Without a deal, we will continue to impose sanctions on Iran that limit the export of petroleum, petroleum products, and petrochemicals,” Nelson said.

In exchange for relief from U.S., European Union, and United Nations sanctions, Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program.

In 2018, then-U.S. president Donald Trump pulled out of the deal and restored U.S. sanctions, causing Iran to begin violating the restrictions. Efforts to revive the agreement have so far failed.

It was reported in March that a revised deal was close, but talks in Vienna abruptly stalled in April as Iran and Washington blamed each other for not taking the necessary political decisions to settle remaining issues.

There were disagreements over whether Washington would remove the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) from its list of designated foreign terrorist organizations.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has long denied attempting to secretly develop nuclear weapons. It claims its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes. Despite the collapse of the deal, Tehran has vastly expanded its nuclear work. iranian petrochemicals

#Brian Nelson #china-us relations #export petrochemicals from Iran #iran nuclear program #Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)#Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)#sanctions on Chinese and Emirati companies #Terrorism and Financial Intelligence #The Times Groupe #Times Of Ocean #U.S. president Donald Trump #U.S. Treasury Department #UAE companies #Unravel News #US Sanctions #us-india releations #us-uae relations #Politics

2 notes · View notes

myfunkybdaytv · 2 years

Text

Joe Biden questions delay over nuclear deal with Iran

Joe Biden questions delay over nuclear deal with Iran (more…)

View On WordPress

#Biden #Iran #Israeli Prime Minister #Joe Biden #Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement #Tehran #US and Iran #Yair Lapid

0 notes

opanas-opanasovych-opanasenko · 2 months

Text

Statement of the Intelligence Committee under the President of Ukraine

Source: https://t.me/SBUkr/11299 Dear Ukrainians and our international partners! Two years after Russia launched a full-scale war of aggression, Ukraine faced an objective threat to its existence as a state, as a nation, as a community of free and equal people. In conditions of deliberate distraction of the global public attention from the long and bloody Russian-Ukrainian war, the leadership of the aggressor country managed to implement a series of planned sabotage actions, special information operations and open provocations.

The main directions and goals of the enemy are the disruption of Ukrainian mobilization, the spread of disinformation about Ukraine's inability to win, the creation and distribution of fakes about "fatigue with Ukraine" among our partners and allies in the world. The global international goal of the Russians is to reduce the support of our country from the pro-Ukrainian coalition in the world.

The goal of the Russians inside Ukraine is to demoralize Ukrainians, to sow panic among the population, to drive a wedge between military personnel and civilians, to make everyone quarrel with everyone, including representatives of the country's political leadership and civil society.

Russian special services have extensive experience in conducting hybrid wars. They spend no less on information attacks against Ukraine than on a conventional war. As reported by the Intelligence Committee under the President of Ukraine, in November of last year, as part of the Maidan-3 special operation, Russia spent almost $250 million on spreading anti-Ukrainian sentiments on the Telegram platform alone. Instead, the total budget of the operation was an astronomical 1.5 billion dollars. This is the most expensive "action" of the Russian special services in history.

Special operation "Maidan - 3" will reach its climax in March-May 2024, during the coming weeks the enemy will make every effort to spread narratives destructive to world security and attempts to incite conflicts - both inside Ukraine and in other parts of the world where there is effective support of Ukraine.

The campaign methodology is traditional for Russian special services: to question the legitimacy of government decisions made in Ukraine after May 20, to spread panic and despair, to artificially oppose civilians and military, to induce quarreling between us and our allies, to spread all kinds of "conspiracy theories" in society. This is happening against the background of public statements of the Russian Federation about the creation of new types of super-weapons, which, according to the Russians, should ensure the technical superiority of the Russian Federation over the West for the next decade. It follows from this that opposition to the goals of the Russian Federation in Ukraine is dangerous for the world, and therefore the Russian Federation will push other countries to a direct dialogue regarding Ukraine without our participation.

Also, the Russians, through their own agents of influence in Ukraine and around the world, will bet on the organization of various protest actions, will deliberately discredit the process of exchanging prisoners of war.

According to the enemy's plan, the situation in our country will be shaken in the first half of June, and then, taking advantage of this, Ukraine will be inflicted with a military defeat in the East, and this is the key idea of their operation.

In view of the above circumstances, we appeal to Ukrainian society, our international partners and allies to strengthen joint resistance and comprehensive security measures, especially in the information space, in order to effectively counter global threats and challenges of a new global hybrid war. The war that the Russian Federation and its criminal allies are waging against the entire civilized world today. Our society needs unity. Glory to Ukraine!

#russia is a terrorist state #russia must burn #demilitarize russia #disarm russia #russia #tankies #marxism leninism #marxist leninist #russian psyop #russian imperialism #russian propaganda #psyops #fuck russia #russia ukraine crisis #russian invasion #russia ukraine conflict #russia ukraine war

2 notes · View notes

theculturedmarxist · 6 months

Text

U.S. foreign policy has set the country on a course destined to lead to a world of rivalry, strife and conflict into the foreseeable future. Washington has declared “war” on China, on Russia, on whomever partners with them.

That “war” is comprehensive — diplomatic, financial, commercial, technological, cultural, ideological. It implicitly fuses a presumed great power rivalry for dominance with a clash of civilizations: the U.S.-led West against the civilizational states of China, Russia and potentially India.

Direct military action is not explicitly included but armed clashes are not absolutely precluded. They can occur via proxies as in Ukraine. They can be sparked by Washington’s dedication to bolster Taiwan as an independent country.

A series of formal defense reviews confirm statements by the most senior U.S. officials and military commanders that such a conflict is likely within the decade. Plans for warfighting are well advanced. This feckless approach implicitly casts the Chinese foe as a modern-day Imperial Japan despite the catastrophic risks intrinsic to a war between nuclear powers.

The extremity of Washington’s overreaching, militarized strategy intended to solidify and extend its global dominance is evinced by the latest pronouncement of required war-fighting capabilities.

Recommendations just promulgated by the congressional bipartisan Strategic Posture Commission include developing and fielding “homeland integrated air and missile defenses that can deter and defeat coercive attacks by Russia and China, and determine the capabilities needed to stay ahead of the North Korean threat.”

They were endorsed by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley in his post-retirement interview where he proposed adding up to $1 trillion to the current defense budget in order to create the requisite capabilities.

President Joe Biden, in his weekend interview on 60 Minutes, reiterated the dominating outlook with buoyant optimism:

“We’re the United States of America, for God’s sake!; the most powerful nation in the history of the world.”

This is the same country whose war-fighting record since 1975 is one win, two draws and four losses — or five losses if we include Ukraine. (That tabulation excludes Granada which was a sort of scrimmage). Moreover, the U.S. stock of 155mm artillery ammunition is totally exhausted – as is that of its allies.

No Discussion

This historic strategic judgment is heavily freighted with the gravest implications for the security and well-being of the United States — and will shape global affairs in the 21st century.

Yet, it has been made in the total absence of serious debate in the country-at-large, in Congress, within the foreign policy community, in the media and — most astonishing — at the highest levels of the government as well.

The last lapse is evinced by the superficiality of the statements issued by Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Vice President Kamala Harris, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, Milley and their associates.

We have heard nothing in the way of a sober, rigorous explication of why and how China or Russian poses so manifest a threat as to dictate committing ourselves to an all-out confrontation.

Nor do we hear mention of alternative strategies, their pluses and minuses, nor are there candid expositions of the costs that will be incurred in their implementation. Most certainly, silence reigns as to what happens if this audacious, all-or-nothing strategy fails — in whole or in part.

The stunning rise of China along with the reemergence of Russia as a formidable power are developments apparent to attentive observers for quite some time.

For Russia, the landmark dates can be identified.

Russian Milestones

The first was Russian President Vladimir Putin’s speech to the Munich Security Conference in 2007. There, he made clear his rejection of the Western script that relegated Russia to a subordinate position in a world system organized according to principles and interests defined largely by the United States.

Whether fashioned as neo-liberal globalization or, practically speaking, American hegemony, it was unacceptable. Instead, Putin set forth the twin concepts of multipolarity and multilateralism. While emphasizing the sovereign status and legitimate interest of all states, his vision did not foresee conflict or implacable rivalry. Rather, it was envisaged demarcating international dealings as a collective enterprise that aimed at mutual gain based on mutual respect for each other’s identity and core interests.

Washington, though, interpreted it otherwise. In their minds, Putin had thrown a monkey wrench into the project of fashioning a globalized world overseen by the United States and its partners.

President George W. Bush’s administration made the judgment that an irksome Russia should be fenced-in and its influence curbed. That objective animated the campaign to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, the sponsorship of the doomed Georgian attack on disputed South Ossetia, on the attempt to block the building of a new gas pipeline from Russia to Germany and on setting strict terms for commercial exchanges.

It culminated in the 2014 Maidan coup in Kiev and the bolstering of Ukraine as a power that could keep Russia in its place. The rest of that story we know.

Then, the image of Putin as a diabolical Machiavellian who works relentlessly to cripple the U.S. was given a thick layer of varnish by the Russiagate charade — a scheme concocted by presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton and her allies in order to explain how she could lose an election against somebody who started the fall campaign with a personal unfavorable poll rating of 67 percent.

The Chinese Challenge

The confrontation with China is not marked by equally clear events or decision points. Designation of China as the challenger to the U.S. position as global supremo crystallized more gradually.

It was the Middle Kingdom’s growing strength in every dimension of national power and capacity that stirred first anxiety and then fear. This challenging rival had become a threat to the foundational belief in U.S. exceptionalism and superiority. Hence, an existential threat in the truest sense.

(“This town ain’t big enough for both of us!” is a familiar line to Americans for the way it punctuates showdowns in hundreds of Westerns. Now it has spilled into foreign policy as a neat summation of Washington’s attitude toward Beijing. Instead, how about inviting the other guy for a drink at the Long Branch and a long talk? Dutch treat.)

The string of disputes over this or that issue were symptoms rather than the cause of the antagonism mixed with dread that has led the U.S. to treat China as a mortal foe. When we look at the chronology of events, it becomes evident that the U.S. bill of indictment does not come close to justifying that conclusion.

The fashionable — now official — view is that it’s all China’s fault.

President Xi Jinping & Co supposedly spurned the opportunity to join the outward-looking community of liberal nations; they have grown increasingly repressive at home — thereby, disqualifying themselves from partnership with the democracies; they have been aggressive in pushing their territorial claims in the South China Sea; they have not composed their differences with neighbors, most importantly Japan; and they have deviated from the Western (i.e. American line) toward Iran while mediating a modus vivendi with Saudi Arabia.

Closer to home, China is accused of operating extensive spying networks in the United States designed to purloin valuable high technology; of systematically manipulating commercial dealings to their advantage; and they are extending their cultural influence in a porous American society.

In this bill of indictment no reference is made to dubious actions by the United States. Washington’s record as a global citizen is less than impeccable. Specifically in reference to China, it is Washington that made what are by far the most provocative moves.

Let’s recall the jailing of Huawei’s CFO in Vancouver at the Trump White House’s insistence on specious grounds (violation of Washington’s own illegal sanctions campaign against Iran) in order to thwart the company’s success in becoming a dominant player in the IT field. Former President Donald Trump himself admitted as much in stating that the United States might refrain from pursuing her prosecution were China ready to concede to his demands in the bilateral trade negotiations.

The ultimate provocation has been the series of steps in regard to Taiwan that signaled clearly Washington’s intention to prevent its integration into the PRC. Thereby, it crossed the most indelible of red lines — one that the United States itself had helped draw and had observed for half a century. It is tantamount to an Old Europe aristocrat slapping another in the face with his gloves in public. An unmistakable invitation to a duel that precludes negotiation, mediation or compromise.

Not Just a Rival

The United States finds it far easier to deal with manifest enemies, e.g. the U.S.S.R., than sharing the international stage with countries that match it in strength whatever degree of threat it poses to American national security.

The latter is far harder for Americans to handle — emotionally, intellectually, diplomatically.

Hence, the growing tendency to characterize China as not just a rival for global influence but as a menace. That results in a caricature of China’s ambitions and a downplaying of prospects for fostering a working relationship among rough equals.

An enormous amount of energy is being put into this delusional enterprise. The target is America itself. The project is a bizarre form of conversion therapy designed to substitute a confected version of reality for the irksome real thing.

Stunning evidence of this self-administered treatment is available on a routine basis in the pages of The New York Times. Every day we are treated to two or three long stories about what’s wrong with China, its trials and tribulations. No occurrence is too recondite or distant to be exempt from being used in an exaggerated diagnosis of social or political illness. The extremes to which the editors go in this re-education program is pathological.

The threat China presents is to an exalted self-image more than to any tangible interests. At its root, the problem is psychological.

By time that the Biden administration arrived in office, the scene had been set for the declaration of war and the taking of concrete steps in that direction. But it’s odd that such a momentous commitment should be made by such a lackluster team of individuals with a diminished, distracted president as its nominal head. That can be attributed to two factors.

First is the dogmatic worldview of the principals. Their outlook represents an absorption of Paul Wolfowitz’s notorious memo of 1992 laying out a manifold strategy for consolidating and extending U.S. world dominance in perpetuity.

Second is the neocon passion to shape other countries in the U.S. image. That blend was laced with a dash of old-fashioned Wilsonian idealism along with a drizzle of humanitarianism from the Responsibility to Protect movement (R2P).

[Related: Chris Hedges: R2P Caused Libya’s Nightmare]

This potent brew had become orthodoxy for nearly all of the U.S. foreign policy community. In addition, a rudimentary version has gained the adherence of the political class and has shaped the thinking of Congress to whatever extent its members do any thinking about external relations beyond habitual resort to convenient hackneyed slogans.

Alternative No. 1

Objectively speaking, alternatives did exist.

The first we might call inertial ad-hocism. Its features would have been the continued segmentation of the country’s external dealings into more-or-less discrete packets — geographical and functional.

The Middle East’s two sub-categories: Israel and the Gulf; the desultory “War On Terror” wherever; the aggressive promotion of neo-liberal globalization featuring the ensconcing of a heteroclite corporate/technocratic/political elite as guides and overseers; bilateral relations with new economic powers like India and Brazil to bring them into the neo-liberal orbit; business-as-usual with the rest of the Global South.

As for China and Russia, one would be treated as a formidable rival and the other as an overreaching nuisance to be stymied in places in Syria and Central Asia. Concrete steps to counteract the Chinese commercial and technological challenge would have been taken either unilaterally or in hard-nosed direct bargaining. Support for Taiwan would have increased but stopped short of ruffling Beijing’s feathers by calling into question the One-China Principle.

The foundational premise of this approach is that an ever-deepening neo-liberal system would pull China into its field as a politico-economic centrifugal magnet. Hence, by an incremental process a potential challenge to American-Western hegemony would be gradually neutralized, avoiding a direct confrontation.

Russia, for its part, could be treated more roughly: the post-2014 sanctions tightened, its approaches in Syria and on other matters rebuffed and the quiet build-up of Ukraine continued. This, in essence, was the tack taken by former President Barack Obama and Trump.

Today’s uniform assumption that a momentous battle with the Chinese is written in the stars, the culmination of a zero-sum rivalry for global dominance, is of relatively recent vintage.

Not so long ago, the consensus was that the most sensible strategy composed two elements.

The first was peaceful engagement emphasizing economic interdependence leading to China’s participation in a more-or-less orderly world system whose rules-of-the-road might have to undergo some modification but where power politics was restrained and contained.

(Regarding the restructuring of existing international organizations, the IMF stands out. Since its post-war founding, the United States has held veto power over any or all of its actions. It adamantly refuses to relinquish it despite the drastic shifts in the constellation of global financial and monetary power. Hence, the IMF serves as a de facto subsidiary of the State Department. This state of affairs soon will prove absolutely unacceptable to China and the BRICs.)

The second was a measure of military balancing to remove any temptation as might exist in Beijing for empire-building while reassuring neighbors. The open question focused on exactly where and how the balance should be struck.

That was the prevailing perspective until roughly the second Obama administration. These days, that approach has lost its place in the mainstream of foreign policy discourse. There is no fixed day or event, though, that marks the abrupt and sharp change of course.

This disjointed incremental line of approach has its advantages despite its leaning toward conflict. Paramount is that it avoids locking the United States into a position of implacable hostility vis a vis China. There is no embedded logic propelling us toward armed conflict. It implicitly leaves open the possibility of U.S. thinking moving in a more positive direction.

Whatever the odds of such an evolution occurring, and on the arrival in the White House of a president with the bold vision of a true statesman, such a development would not be excluded as it is by the current mobilization for generational “war.”

Alternative No. 2

There is another, radical alternative grounded on the belief that it is feasible to fashion a long-term strategy of nurturing ties of cooperation with Russia and China. Taking some form of partnership, it would be grounded on a mutual commitment to the maintenance of political stability and fashioning mechanisms for conflict avoidance. This is by no means as far fetched as first glance might suggest — in concept.

The idea of a great power concert comes to mind. However, we should envisage an arrangement quite different from the historic Concert of Europe that emerged at the Conference of Vienna in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars.

One, the objective would not be a buttressing of the status quo by the dual strategy of refraining from armed conflict among the underwriting states and suppressing revolutionary movements that could endanger existing monarchies. Its attendant features were the concentration of custodial power in the Big 5 co-managers of the system; the stifling of political reform across Europe; and the disregard of forces appearing outside their purview.

By contrast, a contemporary partnership among the major powers would presume a responsibility for taking the lead in designing a global system based on the mutually reinforcing tenets of openness, sovereign equality and the promotion of policies that deliver plus-sum outcomes.

Rather than rule by a directorate, international affairs would be structured by international institutions modified in terms of philosophy, multilateral decision-making and a measure of devolution that empowers regional bodies. There would be an established pattern of consultation among those governments whose economic weight and military capacity quite naturally should be expected to play an informal role in performing system maintenance functions and facilitating the involvement of other states. Legitimacy would be established through conduct and performance.

The drastic fall in respect for U.S. world leadership will facilitate that process — as the BRICs’ successes already demonstrate.

The crucial starting point for such a project is a meeting of the minds among Washington, Beijing and Moscow — accompanied by dialogue with New Delhi, Brasilia et al.

There is reason to believe that conditions, objectively speaking, have been conducive to an undertaking of this order for several years. However, it was never recognized in the West, much less seriously considered — an historic opportunity lost.

“The threat China presents is to an exalted self-image more than to any tangible interests. At its root, the problem is psychological.”

The most significant sufficient factor is the temper of Chinese and Russian leadership. Xi and Putin are rare leaders. They are sober, rational, intelligent, very well informed and capable of broad vision.

(China’s traditional goal always has been to exact deference from other countries while bolstering their own strength — not to impose an imperium on them. Much less do they share the American impulse to arrange the affairs of the entire world according to a universalization of their own unique civilization. Therein lies an opportunity to avoid a “war of transition.”

However, there is no American leader on the horizon who recognizes this overarching reality and who seems prepared to grasp the opportunity to “bend the arc of history.” Obama briefly toyed with the idea — before relapsing into the stale rhetoric of American exceptionalism: “We’re number One — you better believe it. Nobody else is even close!”)

While dedicated to securing their national interests, above all the well-being of their peoples, neither Xi nor Putin harbor imperial ambitions. And both have long tenures as heads of state. They have the political capital to invest in a project of this magnitude and prospective. Washington, unfortunately, has not had leaders of similar character and talents.

As for U.S. allies, no counsel of restraint can be expected from that quarter. Those loyal vassals have moved from being craven irrelevancies to active, if junior, partners in crime.

An Odious Spectacle

It is stomach-churning to observe the leaders of Europe lining up for slap-on-the-back meetings with Bibi Netanyahu in Tel Aviv while he inflicts atrocities on Gazans. Barely a word of concern for 2 million civilians, just the hurried dispatch of more weapons diverted from the Ukrainian killing fields. This odious spectacle was eclipsed by Biden’s disgraceful performance this week in Jerusalem.

Summit meetings by Bush, Obama, Trump or Biden always have concentrated on either small-bore issues or instruction on what their opposite number should be doing so as to conform to the U.S. view of the world. Both are wastes of precious time insofar as the imperative to foster a long-term, common global perspective is concerned.

The sensible approach to inaugurate a serious dialogue might be a president with statesmanlike qualities who sits down alone with Putin and Xi for an open-ended session and asks such questions as: “What do you want, President Putin/President XI? How do you see the world 20 years from now and your country’s place in it?”

Would they be prepared to expound an articulate response? Putin certainly would. That is exactly what he has been proposing since 2007 — on numerous occasions vocally or in his writings. Instead, he was stonewalled, and — since 2014 — treated as a menacing pariah to be defamed and personally insulted.

Here is Barack Obama’s take:

“The Russian President is a ‘physically unremarkable’ man, likened to ‘the tough, street-smart ward bosses who used to run the Chicago machine.”

This comment from Obama’s first volume of his published memoirs, The Promised Land, says more about his own inflated yet vulnerable ego than Putin’s character.

In fact, it was the Chicago machine along with money and encouragement from the Pritzker network that made Obama what he became.

Contrast: when Bismarck met Disraeli at the 1878 Berlin Conference — going so far as to invite him, a Jew, home twice for meals — he did not nag the British prime minister about trade restrictions on German exports of textiles and metallurgical goods or the systematic British abuse of tea plantation workers in Assam.

Nor did he comment on the man’s physique. Bismarck was a serious statesman, unlike the people in whose custody we place the security and well-being of our nations.

The upshot is that Putin and Xi seem puzzled by feckless Western counterparts who disregard the elementary precepts of diplomacy. That should be a concern as well — except by those who intend to conduct the U.S. “war” in a linear manner that pays little attention to the thinking of other parties.

The vitriol that is thrown at Putin with such vehemence by his Western counterparts is something of a puzzle. It is manifestly disproportionate to anything that he has done or said by any reasonable measure — even if one distorts the underlying story of Ukraine.

Obama’s condescension suggests an answer. At its core, their attitude reflects envy. Envy in the sense that he is subconsciously recognized as clearly superior in attributes of intelligence, knowledge of contemporary issues and history, articulateness, political savvy and – most certainly – diplomatic skill.

Try to imagine any U.S. leader emulating Putin’s performance in holding three-hour open Q & A sessions with citizens of all stripes — responding directly, in detail, coherently and with good grace. Biden? Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau? German Chancellor Olaf Scholz? British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak? French President Emmanual Macron? Ursula von der Leyen, president of the EU Commission? Estonia’s Prime Minister Kaja Kallis?

Even Obama, from whom we’d get canned sermons cast in high-minded language that distills into very little. That’s why the West’s political class assiduously avoids paying attention to Putin’s speeches and press conferences — out of sight, out of mind.

Act in reference to the make-believe cartoon instead of the real man.

The Ukraine Era

These days, in the Ukraine era, the rigid Washington consensus is that Vladimir Putin is the quintessential brutal dictator — power mad, ruthless and with only a tenuous grip on reality.

Indeed, it has become commonplace to equate him with Hitler — as done by such leading lights of the U.S. power elite as Hillary Clinton and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi along with “opinion makers” galore. Even 203 noble Nobels lend their collective brains and celebrity credentials to an “open letter” whose second sentence pairs Russia’s attack on Ukraine with Hitler’s assault on Poland in September 1939.

Sadly, the idea that those who make those decisions should bother to know what they are talking about is widely deemed as radical if not subversive.

In regard to Putin, there is absolutely no excuse for such painful ignorance. He has presented his views on how Russia visualizes its place in the world, relations with the West and the contours/rules of a desired international system more comprehensively, historically informed and coherently than has any national leader I know of. Shouted declarations “we’re No. 1 and always will be – you better believe it” (Obama) are not his style.

The point is that you may be troubled by his conclusions, question his sincerity, suspect hidden strands of thought, or denounce certain actions. However, doing so has no credibility unless one has engaged the man based on what is available — not on cartoon caricatures. So, too, should we recognize that Russia is not a one-man show, that it behooves us to consider the more complex reality that is Russian governance and politics.

President Xi of China has escaped the personal vilification thrown at Putin — so far. But Washington has made no greater effort to engage him in the sort of discourse about the future shape of Sino-American relations and the world system for which they are destined to be primary joint custodians.

Xi is more elusive than Putin. He is far less forthright, more guarded and embodies a political culture very different from that of the United States or Europe. Still, he is no dogmatic ideologue or power-mad imperialist. Cultural differences too easily can become an excuse for avoiding the study, the pondering and the exercise in strategic imagination that is called for.

Shaping the World Structure

The approach outlined above is worth the effort – and low costs that it entails. For it is the understandings among the three leaders (and their senior colleagues) that are of the utmost importance.

That is to say, agreed understandings as to how they view the shape and structure of world affairs, where their interests clash or converge, and how to meet the dual challenge of 1) handling those points of friction that may arise, and 2) working together to perform ‘system maintenance’ functions in both the economic and security realms.

At the moment, there is no chance that American leaders can muster the gumption, or have the vision, to set out on this course. Neither Biden and his team, nor their Republican rivals are up to it.

In truth, American leaders are psychologically and intellectually not capable of thinking seriously about the terms for sharing power with China, with Russia or with anybody else – and developing mechanisms for doing so over different timeframes.

Washington is too preoccupied with parsing the naval balance in East Asia to reflect on broad strategies. Its leaders are too complacent about the deep faults in our economic structures, and too wasteful in dissipating trillions on chimerical ventures aimed at exorcising a mythical enemy to position ourselves for a diplomatic undertaking of the sort that a self-centered America never before has faced.

A drive to revalidate its presumed virtue and singularity now impels what the U.S. does in the world. Hence, the calculated stress placed on slogans like “democracy versus autocracy.” That is a neat metaphor for the uneasy position in which Uncle Sam finds himself these days, proudly pronouncing enduring greatness from every lectern and altar in the land, pledging to uphold a standing as global No. 1 forever and ever.

But the U.S. is also constantly bumping its head against an unaccommodating reality. Instead of downsizing the monumental juggernaut or applying itself to a delicate raising of the arch, it makes repeated attempts to fit through in a vain effort to bend the world to fit its mythology. Invocation of the Concussion Protocol is in order — but nobody wants to admit that sobering truth.

This is close to a condition that approximates what the psychologists call “dissociation.” It is marked by an inability to see and to accept actualities as they are for deep-seated emotional reasons.

The tension generated for a nation so constituted when encountering objective reality does not force heightened self-awareness or a change in behavior if the dominant feature of that reality is the attitudes and expressed opinions of others who share the underlying delusions.

Michael Brenner is a professor of international affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. [email protected]

#us imperialism #us foreign policy #xi jinping #vladimir putin #russia #china #brics #american exceptionalism #multipolarity

4 notes · View notes

shirzan140102 · 1 year

Text

High-Priority Action Items RE: Iran

These policies/deals related to Iran are currently on the table that will be have an impact on our movement.

In the U.S.:

Say NO to HR100 - This measure would endorse the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), which IS NOT a good thing. If possible, tell your representative to withdraw support/vote against it. Again, we DO NOT want the MEK gaining power or legitimacy.

Say YES to HR589 MAHSA ACT - This would codify sanctions against high-ranking officials from the regime.

Say NO to JCPOA - Urge the Biden administration to keep the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) - a.k.a. the nuclear deal - dead. While I'm sure everyone would love for diplomacy to win at the end of the day, that is not the case here. Reviving the JCPOA would legitimize and strengthen the regime, which would undermine the people of Iran.

In the E.U. & U.K.:

Add the IRGC to Terrorist List - The EU Parliament is due to vote on adding Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (the IRGC) to their terrorist blacklist. The vote was already delayed for invalid procedural reasons, and it cannot be pushed back once again. They have to go through with it as soon as possible, so that any actions taken can have an effect and benefit the people of Iran. Similarly, the U.K. should be urged to also take this step to stand with the people of Iran.

Do Not Promote the MEK and Affiliated Organizations - Recent coverage from the U.K. and France have been promoting the MEK, which, again, is not a good thing. They must not be endorsed and empowered.

#free iran #freedom for iran #woman life freedom #women life freedom #iran protests #iran protests 2022 #iran protests 2023 #mahsa amini #human rights

15 notes · View notes

ummnews · 2 years

Text

EU: Borrell announces reopening of Iran nuclear deal negotiations

www.UMMnews.org 14 May 2022; MEMO: European Union (EU) foreign policy chief Josep Borrell announced on Friday that he had “reopened” negotiations on reviving the nuclear deal, which has been at a standstill for several years. “The negotiations were stalled, and now they have been reopened,” Borrell confirmed from Wangels in northern Germany, where he is attending a G7 foreign ministers…

View On WordPress

#Iran economic sanctions #Iran nuclear sanctions #Iran nuclear talks #JCPOA #Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action #US Sanctions #US-Iran Dispute

0 notes

mariacallous · 6 months

Text

As Hamas launched its blitz attack against Israel on Oct. 7, some observers were quick to suspect the Moscow-Tehran axis at work.

Russia, so the argument went, was deliberately and directly fueling conflict in the Holy Land to broaden its battlefield with the West. Others drew direct comparisons between Hamas’s vicious onslaught and Russia’s war against Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky argued that one was “a terrorist organization that attacked Israel” and the other “a terrorist state that attacked Ukraine.” (Many Palestinians have taken issue with this characterization.)

It is true that Moscow has long maintained close relations with Hamas, an Islamist group that controls Gaza and enjoys Iranian backing. The militant movement won Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006 and took over Gaza during the ensuing Palestinian civil war. Hamas has both political and military wings, and some Western states, such as Australia and New Zealand, have only declared the military wing—the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades—to be a terrorist organization. Others, such as the United States, have not made this distinction.

The Kremlin, for its part, has never declared either wing of Hamas to be a terrorist group. Rather, eager to carve out a niche in the Middle East peace process, Russian diplomats have tried to unify different Palestinian factions, including Hamas, into a single political force in order to restart the peace process and promote a two-state solution.

Hamas delegations have frequented Moscow, meeting with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov, who holds the Middle Eastern file at the foreign ministry. Russia consulted with Palestinian factions in Doha, Qatar, and Ramallah, in the West Bank, and hosted talks between them at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow, which I used to frequent as a visiting scholar. Those talks showed that Hamas is far from a Russian puppet: In one round of negotiations, held in Moscow in February 2019, the group’s leadership refused to sign a final statement brokered by the Russian hosts.

Over the years, some Russian-made weapons—such as anti-tank and shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles— have made their way into Gaza, likely via Iran. But so far, there is no clear evidence that Russia supported Hamas in planning or executing its surprise attack on Israel.

But that does not mean that Russia is a nonentity in this latest Israel-Hamas conflict. Since launching its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Moscow has dramatically deepened its cooperation with Iran. In return for Iranian combat drones and other military gear, Russia has stepped up its defense support for Tehran, including—as the United States fears—with assistance for its missile and space-launched vehicle programs. There has been a flurry of Iranian-Russian military engagement, including Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu’s tour of an arms exhibition in Tehran last month.

Once an eager mediator in the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program, Russia has also lost enthusiasm for seeing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action restored. After its invasion of Ukraine, Russia ceased to push for meaningful and timely progress in the nuclear talks, creating a de facto shield for Iran’s near-nuclear status.

In Syria, Russia and Iran have found common cause in harassing U.S. forces stationed in the northeast. Those troops—numbering about 900 at any given time—remain in Syria to prevent a resurgence of the Islamic State, support U.S.-backed Kurdish forces, and thwart Iranian and Russian ambitions in the country. According to classified documents leaked earlier this year, Russia, Iran, and Syria have established a “coordination center” to direct a concerted effort to drive the U.S. military out.

Russia has taken some steps to compensate for Iran’s empowerment, eagerly supporting normalization between Syria and several Arab states. On balance, however, Russia is enabling rather than constraining Tehran in the region. Even though there is no evidence to support the idea that Iran was intimately involved in planning Hamas’s attack, it has long provided logistical and military support to the militant movement, as well as to other proxy groups in its increasingly decentralized “axis of resistance.”

A new war in the Middle East suits Russian President Vladimir Putin. Moscow hopes to deflect Western attention and resources away from Ukraine by cultivating global pressure points and distractions.

In walking away from the Black Sea Grain Initiative (which had ensured the wartime export of Ukrainian grain) in July, Russia has caused disruptions to global grain supplies, creating concern around the globe and especially among African states. Moscow is also regularly stoking fears of nuclear escalation over the war in Ukraine, most recently insinuating that it might de-ratify the multilateral Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Lamenting that the United States (among a few other countries, such as China, Iran, and Israel) never ratified the treaty, Russia has signaled its desire to establish parity with Washington.

Renewed instability in the Middle East would likely distract Western states, chiefly the United States, from NATO’s eastern flank and could impose resource constraints on the provision of arms and ammunition to Ukraine. Should Israel-Saudi normalization—which Washington has worked toward tirelessly over recent months—become a casualty of the latest Israel-Hamas war, Moscow would score an additional win. Russia has regarded all regional diplomacy arising from the Abraham Accords as a U.S. project that sidelines Russia.

While Russia could extract benefits from an uptick in violence between Israel and Hamas, there is no evidence that it did play a role in directly instigating Hamas’s actions. Israel has not provided Kyiv with lethal weapons, reluctant to antagonize Russia—and Putin would like to keep it that way. Despite experiencing rough patches over the past year and a half, especially under Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid (who was in office briefly from July to December 2022), Russian-Israeli relations remain rich and robust. The two countries trade, coordinate their air forces’ activities in Syria, and enjoy extensive diaspora ties. Current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Putin have personal chemistry. Directly aiding and abetting Hamas’s vicious attack would threaten to undo all that.

Russia also needs to be careful what it wishes for. While it might temporarily profit from a renewed Western focus on the Middle East and the scuttling of Arab-Israeli normalization, Moscow most likely does not want to see Iran and Israel drift into full-scale war. Broader conflict would surely engulf not just Lebanon but also Syria, where Russian-controlled air and naval bases underpin Moscow’s power projection into the Eastern Mediterranean and Africa. With most of its active-duty military and hardware committed to Ukraine, Russia would not have the bandwidth to get involved in a bigger Middle Eastern conflagration.

Most importantly, Russia still values its ties with Israel and the Arab states, notwithstanding its growing alignment with Iran. Since Oct. 7, Moscow has been keen to pose as peace broker while blaming this latest Middle Eastern war on past mistakes made by the West. In an act of diplomatic showmanship, Russian officials have also busily liaised with and hosted Arab counterparts. Russia also presented a draft resolution on the war in the U.N. Security Council earlier this week. Backed by Palestine as well as several Arab and non-Western states, the text—which did not mention Hamas by name—failed to elicit majority support.

Russia has maneuvered itself into a difficult balancing act. It took Putin nearly 10 days to call Netanyahu to express condolences for the Oct. 7 attack. Russia has refrained from referring to the massacre as terrorism, breaking with past precedent, and Russian media coverage of the unfolding war has adopted a clear pro-Palestinian slant. By emphasizing the suffering of Palestinian civilians and distancing itself from Washington’s unequivocal support for Israel, Moscow is tapping into powerful grievances about Palestine across the Middle East and global south. Here, the Kremlin hopes for backing in its broader confrontation with the West.

Yet, for all its catering to pro-Palestinian sentiments, Russia does not want a break with Israel. And for all its professed common cause with Iran in challenging U.S. primacy, Russia does not seek to go all in with Tehran, either. Russian diplomacy under Putin has always tried—and continues to try—to balance between mutually antagonistic players in the Middle East, since this maximizes Russian gains. Navigating small fires, rather than a big regional war, while dealing with all sides is the playbook that suits Moscow best.

But Putin won’t be the one to set the future course of events. The United States has sent an aircraft carrier strike group to the Eastern Mediterranean and vowed unequivocal support for Israel. Should the fighting escalate and expand, with Washington coming down hard on Israel’s side, Russia would likely drift yet further into Iran’s orbit given the broader geopolitical backdrop of this new Middle Eastern war.

4 notes · View notes