The Wall Street Journal exclusively and convincingly reported on Sunday that Iran helped plot the ongoing military attack against Israel “over several weeks.” The facts of the Journal’s report utterly undercut Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s assertion over the weekend that there is no direct evidence of Iranian complicity in Hamas’s attack on Israel.

His denial is no longer plausible. It should by now be clear that U.S. foreign policy toward Iran needs a thorough reassessment.

The current policy is based on wishful thinking and false assumptions about Iran’s long-term involvement with Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Iranian-directed attack on Israel is part of a global plan intended to undermine U.S. national security by diminishing our most important ally in the region and sending a chilling message to partners worldwide that America is stumbling in the geopolitical landscape.

Events should induce President Biden, the State Department and all U.S. agencies to abandon the conviction that Iran is reformable. Iran cannot be appeased with monetary gifts, sanctions relief or nuclear concessions. In fact, all of these gestures have been and are counterproductive. In fact, the carrot-and-stick approach used since 2009 has been an all-around failure.

Unbeknownst to most Americans, the Biden administration has chosen only to partially enforce American sanctions against Iran.  This has allowed Iran to prosper through oil shipments to China in the naive hope that this will make Iran more willing to pause development of nuclear weapons. You can connect the dots from U.S. sanctions largesse and relief to Iranian monetary support of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.

Not only must maximum sanctions be enforced, but America and the West need secondary sanctions against nations that circumvent them. Those who say that sanctions don’t work never tell you that we have not fully enforced them. They also make the mistake of using an impatient Western timeline to judge success.

As for U.S. policy concerning the Israeli situation in the south with Hamas, an American-designated terrorist organization, Biden’s initial unconditional rhetorical support must translate to long-term support of a sustained Israeli operation, particularly when the anti-Israel wing in Congress raises its voice to advocate for a ceasefire before Israel can accomplish its goals.

American goals should be aligned with Israel’s regarding Hamas and, more importantly, the Iranian puppet-masters behind it. President Barack Obama tried creating “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel, to endear ourselves to the Iranian dictatorship. The results of this experiment should by now be clear enough.

Unfortunately, educating a polarized America about the true nature of Hamas and why there is a war today is incredibly difficult. For example, a New York Times article referred to a “blockaded” Gaza without context, due to its editorial bent. When Israel left 100 percent of Gaza in 2005, the Palestinians could have chosen to become Hong Kong on the Mediterranean, with open borders and relations with Israel. Instead, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas chose terrorism and poverty.

That is why, for reference, the Times chooses not to educate readers with quotes from the Hamas Charter, a blatantly anti-Semitic document calling for the destruction of the Jewish state. From the beginning, The Times conflated Israeli civilian casualties with Palestinian terrorist totals, deliberately obscuring the facts of the conflict.

Can the administration swim against the tide, when the war becomes confusing and parties revert to their echo chambers? The truth is the first casualty of war, and already, parties are taking advantage of the fog of war to advance agendas.

Elliot Abrams’s advice in National Review offers a much better path. “It would be far better to see Republicans and Democrats realize and say the obvious: The world is a very dangerous place, and when our friends and allies are attacked, we will have their backs. That’s the message we want Hamas, Hezbollah, their backers in Iran, and their partners in Russia and China to receive.”

The only question now is whether Biden and Blinken can rise to the challenge, overcome partisan interests and entrenched thinking and reassess the U.S. relationship with Iran in a rational and fact-based manner.

Source : The Hill

The post Will the Iranian-Orchestrated Attack Against Israel Change Biden’s Iran Policy? appeared first on Policy Print.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is calling for new severe sanctions against Iran in response to attacks carried out by Hamas fighters against Israeli civilians over the weekend.   

U.S. deputy national security adviser Jonathan Finer said early Monday that Iran was “broadly complicit” in the Hamas attack on Israel over the weekend, and a spokesman for Hamas told the BBC Monday that Hamas had received support from Iran to conduct the attacks, which caught Israel Defense Forces off guard. 

McConnell, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published Monday afternoon, called on Western allies to “reimpose extensive multilateral sanctions on Tehran.”

Specifically, he called on the United States and allies to deny Iranian planes the right to fly over their territory and to “impound the shipping vessels Iran uses to circumvent sanctions.” 

He also urged the United States and its allies to close Iranian banks with access to the West and “cease the Iranian operations of European businesses.” 

The call for harsh new sanctions was one of four steps McConnell urged in response to the terror attacks outside the Gaza Strip that have claimed the lives of hundreds of Israelis.  

McConnell said the Biden administration and members of Congress need to call out Hamas and its supporters directly and stay away from neutral language urging “both sides” to de-escalate the situation.  

And he said the administration needs to move quickly to provide military aid and intelligence to Israel’s defense forces to “target and destroy” Hamas militants, whom he denounced as “savages” responsible for killing women, children and the elderly. 

He said the administration should stop trying to cut the defense budget and urged Congress to pass an emergency defense spending supplemental to assist Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan.  

And he said the United States should put more focus on the threat posed by Iran, which he called “the world’s most active state sponsor of terror.” 

“The world has once again seen the face of evil. Those blessed to live in the democratic West must understand that this barbarism, like that we have witnessed in Russia’s war against Ukraine, threatens all of us. And the civilized world must offer Israel more than rhetorical solidarity,” he wrote in the op-ed published Monday afternoon.  

He argued that political leaders and policymakers should “distinguish between the aggressor and the victim” and warned against “calls for ‘both sides’ to de-escalate.” 

“Israel deserves the time and space to defend itself,” he wrote.  

The Republican leader repeated his call for Congress to pass an emergency spending package, which House Republicans stripped out of a government funding stopgap last month. 

“Congress has the opportunity this fall to provide emergency appropriations to the Defense Department so that it can assist partners like Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan, as well as invest in our own military capabilities,” he wrote.  

He said such a package should “include significant replenishment funding,” which allows the United States to expand and modernize its own weapons inventories and provide funding to expand the production of artillery munitions, missiles and “other essential defense technologies.”

On the subject of Iran, McConnell argued that policymakers need to do more to “recognize the deepening partnership between Tehran and Moscow,” noting the armed drones Iran shipped to Russia to attack Ukraine.

“The West should reimpose extensive multilateral sanctions on Tehran and deny Iranian planes overflight rights. Impound the shipping vessels Iran uses to circumvent sanctions. Close Iranian banks with access to the West, and cease the Iranian operations of European businesses,” he wrote.

“Treat Iranian officials like pariahs and sink Iranian naval boats that threaten international shipping,” the GOP leader added.  

Source : The Hill

The post McConnell Calls for Allies to Impose New Severe Sanctions Against Iran appeared first on Policy Print.

Nasser Kanaani made the remarks in a post on his Twitter page in response to a Saturday statement by Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry, in which it said Azerbaijani citizens “are strongly recommended” not to visit Iran without necessity.

Kanaani emphasized that pursuing a neighbor-oriented policy based on mutual respect and good-neighborliness manners is Iran’s priority and on its agenda.

The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry said in its statement that “citizens of the Republic of Azerbaijan are strongly recommended not to visit the Islamic Republic of Iran without necessity, and those entering this country should remain as vigilant as possible.”

It also advised that Azerbaijani citizens currently in Iran should observe “the safety rules.”

The statement was issued after Azerbaijan sent on Friday a note of protest to the Iranian side in relation to the arrest of Azerbaijani citizen Farid Safarli, whom the Iranian authorities accuse of espionage.

Safarli, a university student based in Germany, arrived in Iran in early March. Since then, the contact with him has been lost.

Azerbaijan has demanded Iranian authorities determine his fate. 

The post Iran To Continue “Open Arms” Policy Toward Azerbaijanis appeared first on Policy Print.

An article in Tehran media says even if the nationwide protests had not occurred, the government of President Ebrahim Raisi would have faced serious problems.

The article by journalist Davoud Heshmati in Shargh said Raisi was too optimistic toward the loose coalition among conservative groups that formed his government and took over the parliament. In fact, popular protests may have delayed the activation of fault-lines within the government and preserved its unity. “The coalition was too fragile,” Heshmati wrote.

“Despite the delay, in its emergence, the political deadlock is quite visible. The government is incapable of making decisions and this makes next year’s developments interesting,” he said.

According to the author, “the Iranian society is alive, but Iranian politics is in coma.” The Iranian society is anything but “indifferent.” Everyone thought the youth were apolitical, but they managed to create a great movement in the streets even without a leadership and organization. What brought them together was the demands for freedom in choosing their lifestyle.

The protests that erupted last September after the death of a young woman in police custody over her ‘inadequate hijab’, was led by teenagers and young people, especially women.

Another issue Heshmati pointed out was that the Iranians had already lost hope in elections after former president Hassan Rouhani refused to or was unable to address the issue of democracy and representation and instead dedicated his efforts to resolving the nuclear issue with the West, only to be blocked by hardliners.

Source : Iran International

The post Even Without Protests, Iran’s Government Was Facing A Crisis appeared first on Policy Print.

On Thursday, a drone attack on a U.S. base in northeastern Syria served as the latest reminder that the United States remains at war in Syria and U.S. personnel are at risk. The drone attack, which U.S. intelligence swiftly concluded was of “Iranian origin,” killed one U.S. contractor and wounded six others, including five U.S. service members. In response, President Joe Biden ordered the U.S. military to carry out precision airstrikes against facilities belonging to groups affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, killing eight fighters. The tit-for-tat escalation continued into Friday morning, when “lots of rockets” were fired at a different U.S. base in Syria, this time in the southeast of the country, though no casualties were reported.

This is not the first time that U.S. personnel have been targeted in Syria—and it is unlikely to be the last. American soldiers have no shortage of enemies in the country and have faced regular attacks since they arrived more than seven years ago. What began as a U.S. regime change effort against the government of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has since morphed into an open-ended confrontation—where the official mission of suppressing the Islamic State has obscured U.S. efforts to counter Russia and Iran. These ambiguous objectives have ensured that the United States is no closer to leaving Syria than it was when it first put boots on the ground.

Americans in Syria are confronting real dangers. According to the Jewish Institute for National Security of America’s Iran Projectile Tracker, Iran-backed militias have targeted U.S. service members with at least seventy-two munitions since 2017 (not including this week’s attacks), with more than 90 percent of those occurring in the last two years. Notably, this data does not include attacks by the Syrian government or Russia-backed forces, including the infamous Wagner Group, which launched a daring, massive assault on about forty American commandos in 2018 that left 200 to 300 of the attackers dead. Nor does it account for the Russian military’s harassment of Americans in Syria. Just last week, the head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. Michael Kurilla, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Russian Air Force has increasingly been flying over the positions of U.S. troops in a “provocative” manner. This behavior has also occurred on the ground: Russian troops have rammed U.S. convoys and, as an inspector general report to Congress recently found, “increased their violations” of agreed-upon deconfliction arrangements.

The Biden administration has vowed to continue defending the 900 U.S. service members in Syria for as long as they remain in the country—an apparently indefinite timeframe. Despite Biden moving to end or drawdown the United States’ other “endless wars” in Afghanistan and Iraq, this policy has not been extended to Syria. Rather, Washington is ostensibly committed to fighting ISIS and pressuring the Assad regime, which continues to be squeezed by a robust, U.S.-directed sanctions regime.

Yet Washington is certainly aware that Damascus is not as isolated as it once was. Regional rapprochement with Syria is already in full swing; not only have the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Oman opened their doors to the Syrian government, but even Turkey and Saudi Arabia, once Assad’s fiercest enemies, are looking to reconcile.

Coming on the heels of a Chinese-brokered agreement that codified Saudi Arabia’s détente with Iran, the emerging Saudi-Syrian peace deal stands to further shift Middle Eastern geopolitics. If successful, Moscow’s assistance in restoring Riyadh and Damascus’ diplomatic ties after a decade of war will be a remarkable victory for another U.S. adversary—as well as for the entire region. In this regard, it will further impress upon regional elites that they have options beyond America to advance their political and security objectives.

Indeed, it is China and Russia—America’s so-called “great power competitors”—whose regional policies are now helping to stabilize the Middle East and support U.S. interests. China portrays itself as a friend to all and an enemy to none, allowing Beijing to position itself as an honest intermediary that can address the region’s problems in ways Washington cannot. Russia, too, is seen as a dependable partner—one that has stood by its Syrian ally through thick and thin—and an interlocutor that has proven its sensitivity to the needs of capitals as different as Damascus, Tel Aviv, Riyadh, and Tehran.

In contrast, the U.S. record is more troubled. It was the United States that invaded Iraq twenty years ago this week, unleashing chaos and violence across the region. It was also Washington that unilaterally blew up the international nuclear agreement with Iran—after the Obama administration had dragged its regional allies kicking and screaming to support the accord—setting Tehran on a glide path toward a nuclear weapons capability and increasing tensions in the Persian Gulf. The United States subsequently declined to defend Saudi Arabia and its Arab partners from Iran’s escalation in 2019 (ironically prompting Riyadh to later reconcile with Tehran), to say nothing of the fact that Washington has vacillated between pulling out of and leaning into the region across the last three presidential administrations.

Yet despite these doubts about U.S. reliability, and Washington’s concerns about perceived challenges from Russia and China, the United States must check its knee-jerk tendency to interpret all Russian and Chinese actions as coming at its expense. The Middle East is big enough for the United States, Russia, and China, especially since Beijing has a significant stake in regional stability so it can continue importing the region’s energy resources. The U.S. role in the region, as the UAE and Saudi Arabia continue to make clear, is not going away, but it is changing. Washington, therefore, needs to recognize that it should not and cannot try to do it all in the Middle East. Instead, it must reassess where its efforts can make the most positive difference, and where its most vital national interests truly lie.

Source: National Interest

The post Syria Attacks Epitomize America’s Troubled Middle East Policy appeared first on Policy Print.