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

General Asim Munir reaffirms Pakistan’s hardline stance on Kashmir and Balochistan

In a speech abroad, General Asim Munir reignites Indo-Pak tensions by reiterating Pakistan’s claims on Kashmir and dismissing concerns about terrorism and separatist movements.

Published

on

In a provocative address to overseas Pakistanis, Pakistan Army Chief General Asim Munir has reiterated Islamabad’s uncompromising position on Kashmir, asserting that it remains Pakistan’s “jugular vein” and would never be forgotten. His remarks, delivered while addressing a gathering of Pakistanis abroad, are likely to provoke a strong diplomatic reaction from India.

General Munir described those residing overseas as Pakistan’s “ambassadors” and urged them to uphold what he called a “superior ideology and culture.” He framed his statements within the context of the two-nation theory, which served as the ideological foundation for the creation of Pakistan in 1947. Emphasising civilizational differences, he said, “Our forefathers thought that we are different from the Hindus in every aspect of life… our religions, our customs, traditions, thoughts and ambitions are different.”

The two-nation theory, championed by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, has long been a source of ideological division between India and Pakistan. It directly opposes the vision of a united India based on secular values and shared heritage.

Assertion on Kashmir and national identity

Referring to the ongoing dispute over Kashmir, General Munir said, “It was our jugular vein, it will be our jugular vein, we will not forget it.” He further added, “We will not leave our Kashmiri brothers in their heroic struggle,” framing the Kashmir issue as central to Pakistan’s national narrative and identity.

In a broader nationalist tone, General Munir urged Pakistanis to keep narrating the country’s creation story to future generations to maintain a strong bond with the nation.

Stance on terrorism and Balochistan separatism

Touching upon concerns related to terrorism and investment, the Pakistan Army chief dismissed doubts about the country’s stability, stating, “The 1.3 million-strong Indian Army, with all its wherewithal, if they cannot intimidate us, do you think these terrorists can subdue the armed forces of Pakistan?”

On the issue of Balochistan, where separatist movements have long challenged the central authority, Munir declared the province to be “Pakistan’s pride” and warned against any illusions of secession. “You won’t be able to take it in 10 generations,” he said, pledging that the military will decisively counter separatist groups.

Implications for India-Pakistan relations

The Indian Ministry of External Affairs is yet to issue an official response, but given the sharply worded statements, diplomatic engagement or condemnation is anticipated. General Munir’s comments underscore the enduring friction between the two nations and reinforce the Pakistan Army’s dominant role in shaping Islamabad’s foreign and domestic policies.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

China halts Boeing jet deliveries amid trade war with US

This halt in Boeing deliveries could have significant repercussions for both China’s aviation industry and the American aerospace sector.

Published

on

In a significant escalation of trade tensions between China and the United States, Beijing has directed its airlines to stop receiving aircraft from American aerospace manufacturer Boeing, according to a report released on Tuesday.

Additionally, Chinese authorities have ordered their carriers to cease purchasing aircraft-related equipment and components from U.S. companies.

This development, initially reported by Bloomberg News, comes amid rising tensions in the ongoing trade conflict between Washington and Beijing, which began following the introduction of “reciprocal tariffs” under former President Donald Trump.

Since Trump took office in January, the two largest economies in the world have engaged in a reciprocal trade war, with the U.S. imposing tariffs as high as 145 percent on certain Chinese imports.

In retaliation, Beijing has described Washington’s actions as illegal “bullying” and has implemented counter-tariffs of 125 percent on American goods, claiming that further tax increases would be futile.

The recent Chinese government order to suspend Boeing deliveries, affecting both state-owned and private airlines, is interpreted as part of China’s broader strategy to address the U.S. tariffs.

This halt in Boeing deliveries could have significant repercussions for both China’s aviation industry and the American aerospace sector.

On the same day, China emphasized its commitment to forging stronger trade relationships, with the foreign ministry stating its preference for cooperation over conflict. Lin Jian, a spokesperson for the foreign ministry, remarked during a briefing that China aims to “tear down walls” and foster connections instead of creating barriers.

Meanwhile, the World Trade Organization has cautioned that the intense trade dispute between the two nations could lead to an 80% reduction in goods shipments between them and could severely impact global economic growth.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

Barack Obama backs Harvard University after Trump freezes $2.3 billion funding, says attempt to stifle academic freedom

The demands also called for banning face coverings—viewed as targeting pro-Palestinian protesters—and dismantling the university’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, which the government criticized as fostering “simplistic racial stereotypes.”

Published

on

Former United States President Barack Obama on Tuesday lauded Harvard University for resisting the Trump administration’s decision to withhold $2.3 billion in federal funding after the institution rejected a series of White House demands. Calling Harvard’s stance a beacon for other colleges, Obama praised its commitment to academic freedom amid intensifying political pressure.

Harvard President Alan Garber firmly rebuffed the administration’s conditions, which included overhauling admissions to prioritize “merit-based” criteria, curbing student activism, auditing diversity initiatives, and derecognizing certain student groups. The demands also called for banning face coverings—viewed as targeting pro-Palestinian protesters—and dismantling the university’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, which the government criticized as fostering “simplistic racial stereotypes.”

“Harvard’s rejection of this heavy-handed attempt to undermine academic freedom sets a powerful example for higher education,” Obama wrote on X, commending the university for fostering “intellectual rigor, open debate, and mutual respect.”

The clash escalated after the Department of Education’s antisemitism task force accused Harvard of neglecting civil rights laws and fostering an “entitlement mindset” while failing to protect Jewish students amid campus disruptions.

The White House argued that elite universities, flush with federal funds, have tolerated unrest tied to pro-Palestinian protests since Israel’s war in Gaza began, with some demonstrations accused of endorsing Hamas—a group the US labels a terrorist organization following its October 7 attack on Israel.

Garber, in a defiant open letter, declared, “No government, regardless of party, has the right to dictate what private universities teach, who they admit or hire, or what research they pursue.” Hours later, the Trump administration froze $2.3 billion in funding, marking a dramatic escalation in its campaign to reshape higher education.

Harvard’s stand makes it the first major US university to openly challenge such federal directives, which also urged cooperation with immigration authorities and the withdrawal of support for student groups linked to violence or harassment. The university’s endowment, valued at over $50 billion, may cushion the financial blow, but the standoff signals deeper tensions over campus autonomy.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com