English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest world news

Can Saud And Israel Drag Trump Into War With Iran?

Published

on

~By Saeed Naqvi

The New York Times Op-Ed page headline said it all:

“I Helped Sell the False Choice of War Once. It’s Happening Again.” The column written by Col. Lawrence Wilkerson appeared on February 5, 2018. The date is significant because exactly 15 years ago, on February 5, 2003, Colin Powell, former Secretary of State, spoke at the UN, making out a case for a pre emptive war with Iraq. Remember those satellite pictures, sinister vehicular movement, “confirming” the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in that blighted country.

Powell’s Chief of Staff who actually helped draft the speech was Lawrence Wilkerson, now a much chastened man. He learnt the hard way that both he and his boss Powell had been set on a Fool’s Errand by the Intelligence community. There were no WMD’s in Iraq.

The “war of choice” with Iraq “resulted in catastrophic losses for the region and the US-led coalition,that destabilized the entire Middle East”, he says.

Wilkerson, the perennial insider, then draws comparisons with the current mood in Washington.

“Just over a month ago, the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, said that the administration had ‘undeniable’ evidence that Iran was not complying with the Security Council Resolutions regarding its ballistic missile programme and Yemen. Just like Mr. Powell, Ms. Haley showed satellite images and other physical evidence available only to the US Intelligence community to prove her case.”

“It’s astonishing how similar that moment was to Powell’s 2003 presentation.”

For obvious reasons, in his New York Times article, Wilkerson is circumspect. He does not name Israel as driving President Trump’s policies. But speaking at National Press Club, he is much more unfettered and direct in answering the basic question: who is pushing America into a conflict with Iran?

“Avigdor Lieberman (Israeli Defence Minister) and Benjamin Netanyahu and their acolytes in this country (US), among whom I put Nikki Haley – they have determined that it would be best if American troops also participated in the overthrow of the Tehran regime.”

Wilkerson is full of admiration for the Israeli Defence Forces which could handle “anything Iran threw at it militarily”. Also, “Israel’s 200 nuclear weapons could decimate Iran”. Wilkerson then asks: “so, why this attempt to suck America into this conflict?” He puts it down to “crass opportunism” – “better to squander your ally’s blood and treasure than your own.”Can Saud And Israel Drag Trump Into War With Iran?

It is possible to argue that if Wilkerson went along with the exaggerations in 2003, what is the guarantee that he is not once again exaggerating present dangers?

There is nothing about the present White House that leaves one sanguine on any count. It would be rank bad form to compare the President of the United States with Caligula but folks are making that comparison to good effect. Caligula elevated his horse to a cabinet rank. Donald Trump has committed no such misdemeanor thus far. But no one can bet on the future.

While his buddies across the Atlantic are in convulsions over Putin dispensing nerve agents on the streets of Britain, Trump has made a quiet telephonic contact with the same Russian gent. No one can make out whether he is cooing or barking on the telephone line.

Washington’s current policy towards Iran, which carries Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner’s imprimatur, is quite transparent: leave it outside the regional order the US seeks to impose in West Asia (Middle East). And then defang Iran in every possible way, including military action.

This is the exact opposite of the order Barack Obama-John Kerry had sketched for the region.

The 2015 nuclear deal with Iran was signed within a certain conceptual framework. Pivot to Asia had acquired greater saliency in Obama’s scheme. China’s extraordinary rise required the US to pay greater attention to the Pacific region. This entailed that day to day supervision of West Asian affairs by the US would no longer be possible.

The US was not running away from its West Asian responsibilities. The legitimacy conferred on Iran after the nuclear deal made it a key player in the new West Asian balance of power which Washington was proposing. Other players in this arrangement would be Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar. But Saudi Arabia and Israel, sleeping in the same bed in Syria, were totally averse to having Iran as a player in the new West Asian balance. It was galling for the Israeli-Saudi duet when Russia with the help of Irancontrolled militias and Turkey’s switch in favour of Assad, turned the tide in Syria.

This is when Trump appeared in the White House, not quite Caligula incarnate but more or less there. As candidate he had told Jake Tapper of the CNN that billions of dollars had been given to groups in Syria who may well have been the Islamic State. “I think they were the Islamic state”, he said with certainty. The interview is available on youtube.

Instead of wasting money on questionable groups, Trump has fallen back on a strategy closest to his heart: making money. Towards this end he has American boots on the ground in Syria for which a prohibitive bill will be submitted to an embattled, Saudi King-to-be, running helter skelter between Yemen, Syria, Qatif and the occupants of Riyadh’s Ritz Carlton hotel.

Mohammad bin Salman is not a comforting sight to a Benjamin Netanyahu, on sixes and sevens with the noose of corruption allegations tightening around his neck. Meanwhile, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran axis continue to menace.

Might Trump, in search of some success, be pushed into a pre emptive war on Iran? Can he at a time that Putin is glaring at him, eye-ball to eye-ball? True, key appointments around him can only add to Trump’s recklessness and hawk of hawks Nikki Haley is not budging from her position.

If he goes down that route he should glance at the elementary data Wilkerson has furnished: Polls show at least 4 billion people think we’re (the US) the number one threat to their security in the world; think about that for a minute – “We’ve already done Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria. We’d just be seen as continuing trend if we embark on Iran”. Is this to be America’s lasting heritage?

Latest world news

Pakistan faces domestic backlash after India secures lower tariffs in US trade deal

India’s US trade agreement has sparked criticism in Pakistan after Islamabad ended up with higher tariffs despite sustained outreach to Washington.

Published

on

PM Shehbaz Sharif

India’s recently concluded trade agreement with the United States has triggered strong domestic criticism in Pakistan, where opposition leaders, journalists and commentators are questioning Islamabad’s diplomatic strategy after the country ended up with higher tariffs than India.

Under the agreement announced on February 2, US tariffs on Indian exports have been set at 18 per cent, while Pakistani goods will face a 19 per cent rate. The outcome has drawn sharp reactions in Pakistan, especially given what critics describe as sustained efforts by its leadership to engage Washington in recent months.

New Delhi, by contrast, is widely seen as having resisted pressure from US President Donald Trump and negotiated from a position of economic leverage rather than personal diplomacy.

Social media reactions highlight public anger

Following the announcement, Trump shared images related to India, including India Gate and a magazine cover featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi alongside himself, before confirming the revised tariff rate for Indian goods. The optics did not go unnoticed in Pakistan, where social media users questioned why India secured better terms without overt displays of political deference.

One widely circulated post by Pakistan-based X user Umar Ali used sharp language and imagery to criticise Pakistan’s approach, reflecting growing frustration among sections of the public over what they see as an unequal outcome despite extensive outreach efforts.

Opposition leaders question foreign policy approach

Former Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf minister Hammad Azhar described the outcome as a failure of strategy rather than circumstance. He argued that modern foreign policy depends on economic strength, market access and tariffs, not symbolic gestures or personal relationships, pointing to India’s recent trade agreements with both the US and the European Union as examples.

Other opposition figures echoed similar views, saying India negotiated with “strategic autonomy” while Pakistan relied too heavily on personal engagement with US leadership.

Journalists warn of economic consequences

Journalists in Pakistan also weighed in, warning that the tariff decision could deepen the country’s existing economic challenges. Concerns were raised about declining exports, falling foreign investment and reduced bargaining power on the global stage.

Commentator Imran Riaz Khan criticised what he termed a failed lobbying strategy, arguing that symbolic gestures cannot replace economic leverage in international negotiations. Digital creator Wajahat Khan similarly framed the outcome as a reflection of unequal negotiating positions, stating that India approached the talks as a partner, while Pakistan did not.

India’s trade deals expected to boost exports

India’s back-to-back trade agreements with the European Union and the United States are expected to provide a significant boost to exports. Estimates suggest these deals could add up to $150 billion in exports over the next decade, strengthening India’s economic standing and reinforcing its negotiating position in future global trade talks.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

New Delhi free to buy oil from any source, Russia says amid US deal claims

Russia has said India is free to purchase oil from any country, dismissing claims that New Delhi has agreed to stop buying Russian crude under a US trade deal.

Published

on

New Delhi free to buy oil from any source, Russia says amid US deal claims

Russia has said that India is free to purchase crude oil from any country, responding to claims by US President Donald Trump that New Delhi has agreed to stop buying Russian oil as part of a recent trade deal with Washington.

The Kremlin said Russia is not India’s only energy supplier and noted that India has long sourced crude oil from multiple countries. It added that there is nothing new in India’s efforts to diversify its oil imports.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that energy experts are well aware that India purchases oil and petroleum products from various global suppliers. He added that Moscow does not see any change in India’s approach to sourcing crude.

No official word from India on halting imports

A day earlier, Peskov said Russia has not received any official statement from India regarding the cessation of Russian oil purchases. Russia’s Foreign Ministry echoed the view, saying the hydrocarbon trade between the two countries remains mutually beneficial.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said India’s purchase of Russian hydrocarbons contributes to stability in the global energy market and that Moscow remains ready to continue close cooperation with New Delhi in the energy sector.

Russian media also noted that, unlike the US president, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has not made any public statement indicating an agreement to stop Russian oil imports.

India’s oil imports from Russia

India has continued to import Russian crude even after the US imposed tariffs on Indian goods. According to global trade data provider Kpler, India has been importing around 1.5 million barrels of Russian crude per day, making it the second-largest buyer of Russian oil and accounting for more than one-third of India’s total crude imports.

India buys about 88 per cent of its crude oil needs from overseas, with roughly one-third sourced from Russia. At its peak, imports from Russia crossed 2 million barrels per day, before falling to around 1.3 million barrels per day in December. The volume is expected to remain broadly stable in the near term.

However, imports declined further to about 1.1 million barrels per day in the first three weeks of January following higher tariffs imposed by the US, including levies linked to purchases of Russian energy.

Complete switch unlikely, experts say

Energy experts believe Indian refiners cannot fully replace Russian crude with American oil. Igor Yushkov of the National Energy Security Fund said US shale oil is lighter in grade, while Russian Urals crude is heavier and contains more sulphur.

He explained that replacing Russian oil would require blending different grades, increasing costs for refiners. He added that the US is unlikely to be able to supply the volume currently exported by Russia to India.

Yushkov also recalled that when Russia redirected its oil exports from Western markets to India in 2022, it reduced production by about one million barrels per day, contributing to a sharp rise in global oil prices and record fuel prices in the US.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

Moscow says no word from India on stopping Russian oil purchases

Russia says it has received no confirmation from India on stopping Russian oil purchases, despite Donald Trump’s claim that the move was part of a new India-US trade deal.

Published

on

Vladimir Putin

The Kremlin on Tuesday said it has not received any official communication from India regarding a halt in Russian oil purchases, following claims by US President Donald Trump that New Delhi had agreed to stop buying Russian crude as part of a trade agreement with Washington.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters that Moscow had not heard any confirmation from Indian authorities on the matter.

“So far, we haven’t heard any statements from New Delhi on this matter,” Peskov said, responding to Trump’s remarks linking reduced US tariffs on Indian goods to an alleged commitment by India to end Russian oil imports.

Russia stresses importance of ties with India

Peskov said Russia respects bilateral relations between India and the United States but underlined the strategic importance of ties between Moscow and New Delhi.

“We respect bilateral US-Indian relations,” he said, adding that Russia places equal importance on its strategic partnership with India.
“This is the most important thing for us, and we intend to further develop our bilateral relations with Delhi.”

What Trump claimed

Trump announced the India-US trade deal on Monday, stating that tariffs on Indian goods had been reduced from 50 per cent to 18 per cent. He claimed the reduction was linked to India agreeing to stop purchasing Russian oil.

According to Trump, India would instead buy more oil from the United States and potentially from Venezuela. He also suggested that the move would help bring an end to the war in Ukraine.

“He agreed to stop buying Russian oil and to buy much more from the United States and, potentially, Venezuela,” Trump said, referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

India’s reliance on Russian crude

India has emerged as one of the largest buyers of Russian crude since the start of the Ukraine conflict. It currently imports around 1.5 million barrels of Russian oil per day, accounting for more than one-third of its total oil imports, according to global trade data.

India is the second-largest purchaser of Russian crude globally. Even after earlier US tariff measures on Indian goods, New Delhi continued its Russian oil imports, citing energy security concerns.

The Indian government has consistently maintained that securing affordable energy supplies is critical, given the country’s heavy dependence on oil imports.

Shift in energy ties after Ukraine war

Historically, India’s relationship with Russia was centred more on defence cooperation than energy trade, with Russia supplying a majority of India’s military equipment while contributing only a small share of its oil imports.

After the invasion of Ukraine, India significantly increased purchases of discounted Russian oil. The move helped India boost energy supplies while providing Russia with much-needed revenue amid Western sanctions.

As recently as December 2025, Russian President Vladimir Putin said during a visit to New Delhi that Moscow was ready to ensure uninterrupted fuel supplies to India despite pressure from the United States.

Earlier US push for Indian energy imports

Trump had earlier said, following a meeting with Prime Minister Modi in February last year, that India would begin buying more American oil and natural gas. However, those discussions did not lead to a major shift in India’s energy sourcing.

Subsequent US tariff measures also failed to significantly alter India’s stance on Russian oil imports.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com