|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Welcome to The Geopolity’s What We’re Watching (3W), our daily look at the interconnected worlds of Geopolitics, Economics and Energy. Curated from the world’s leading sources of information, our analysis and commentary is designed to help you make sense of the events driving the major developments in the world.
Our previous 3W analysis began with an update regarding Gaza, and we highlighted that despite the signing of agreements and the announcement of plans, the slaughter continues. Another example, we said, of Israel’s dominating influence over US policy when it comes to the Middle East. As we wrote, “The current Israeli strategy aims to occupy and annex the territories immediately surrounding it (Gaza, West Bank, Southern Lebanon, Golan Heights), formally subject the Arab states to Israel regional hegemony via the Abraham Accords, and weaken through war its ‘second ring’ neighbours Iran and Turkey to prevent them from ever threatening Israel’s regional hegemonic ambitions.” In the current situation, the US is simply an Israeli tool to achieve this.
On Wednesday, therefore, Israeli prime minister Netanyahu came out publicly saying that he does not agree to the latest US plan for Gaza, under which Hamas will disarm on condition that Israel leaves the Strip, even after receiving assurances that an Israeli pull-out would only happen after Hamas disarms, writes The South China Post. In addition to realizing from this the actual power dynamic between the US and Israel, the readers of 3W should also note that this means the US already broke its promises to Hamas under the most recent agreement. Because Hamas agreed to the US proposal on the condition that Israel would pull out first, or at least simultaneously. This confirms what we concluded from the whole affair last Tuesday, that it “makes blatantly obvious that negotiating with the US – Israel Alliance is absolutely, utterly pointless. Either the Alliance will lie and cheat, pretend to be a united front to get the opposing party to give into the Alliance demands, but once this is achieved, it will pretend to be a disunited alliance, with Israel breaking the agreement almost instantly, to give the US “plausible deniability”. Or Israel will simply force its will on the US”.
At 3W we have little doubt that Israel will get its way. The effort by the US Congress to move beyond financing the Israeli army, to integrating it into the US army, in the 3W view is further evidence that Israel is setting the agenda for US policymakers. The New York Times writes that the proposal would create an office in the Defense Department that would be legally required to facilitate cooperation between the US and Israel. The new office would further oversee the development of new weapons and technology, as well as the testing and rollout of new capabilities. Additional legislative proposals currently under discussion in the US include also integrating US and Israeli intelligence. In other words, 3W notes, the US is in the process of adopting legislation that would remove its option to choose is allies based on its interests. Under the proposed legislation, the US would no longer have an option as to whether or not to collaborate with Israel. It would be legally mandated to do so – even if US interests were to demand something different. This, 3W further notes, is the kind of stuff the European colonialists did in Africa when the colonies asked for independence. They left, but only after ensuring the political and economic systems of the newly independent were legally bound to their former colonial masters. Interestingly, Representative Marlin Stutzman, an Indiana Republican, who is one of the main “pushers” for the new legislation, launched his efforts after meetings with Israeli officials, including Israeli prime minister Netanyahu, who personally endorsed it, notes NYT.
The effort by the US Congress to move beyond financing the Israeli army, to integrating it into the US army, in the 3W view is further evidence that Israel is setting the agenda for US policymakers
The above explains why on the ground in Lebanon, developments are in accordance with Israel’s strategy as well. Nearly two years after a ceasefire agreement ended large-scale fighting, Israeli forces continue to destroy homes, farmland and public infrastructure in occupied Lebanese territory, writes Arab News. Israeli forces are not only using artillery and airstrikes but are also carrying out systematic controlled demolitions. “They plant explosives and blow up entire villages. Their argument is that this is to destroy Hezbollah infrastructure. But in reality they’re turning southern Lebanon into an uninhabitable buffer zone.” A Lebanese military source told Arab News that continuing demolitions are taking place while the US is pushing a ceasefire agreement under which Israel is supposed to withdraw from Lebanon. “All the Israeli violations indicate that Israel does not want residents to return to their villages,” the source said.
On Wednesday Israel further expanded its military operation to depopulate the south of Lebanon, ordering residents of Mansouri, near the coastal city of Tyre, to leave their homes, before proceeding with airstrikes, writes The National. Israeli attacks had already struck the Mansouri area before the displacement warning on Wednesday afternoon, while artillery shelling on the Zebqine Valley caused wildfires. The Israeli army issued a statement saying its operation was in response to a breach by Hezbollah of the ceasefire agreement, providing no details or evidence to support its claim. “From our experience, the Israelis don’t need anything to escalate. They can do it whenever they want,” a Lebanese official told The National. “They’ve been doing this since I don’t know when.”
“From our experience, the Israelis don’t need anything to escalate. They can do it whenever they want,” a Lebanese official told The National. “They’ve been doing this since I don’t know when.”
In this context Iran is negotiating with the US – Israel Alliance over the Strait of Hormuz. As to how we got to these negotiations, Reuters writes that after President Donald Trump threatened on July 28 to strike Iran’s energy network and infrastructure, Iran warned Gulf states that any new US attack on its territory would immediately trigger retaliation against critical energy infrastructure across the region. According to one Iranian official, Tehran’s warning made clear that any new US strike would be met with attacks on energy facilities, refineries, electricity grids, water infrastructure, transport networks and oil fields across the Gulf. The warning was delivered through a flurry of high-level diplomatic contacts. Two senior Iranian officials, two Gulf sources and a senior regional diplomat with knowledge of the discussions said Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi spoke with his Saudi, Turkish and Qatari counterparts, as well as Pakistan’s army chief. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman subsequently spoke with Trump, urging him to delay military action, return to negotiations, secure a ceasefire and pursue a diplomatic settlement, senior diplomat and Gulf sources said, which led to Trump backing down.
In the negotiations, while Trump is claiming Iran is talking to him, Iran says it is negotiating with Oman, and that the two countries are close to a deal on how to manage traffic through the Strait that is part of their territorial waters, writes The New York Times. “The geographic coordinates of the route envisioned by both sides have been agreed upon,” the spokesman for Iran’s foreign ministry, Esmail Baghaei, said. “If certain third parties do not obstruct the process, a joint statement by the two countries, containing the principal considerations and points of agreement, is currently in the final stages of review and drafting.” Under the agreement’s terms, vessels heading into the Persian Gulf would transit a channel controlled by Iran and close to its coast. Ships leaving the gulf would travel on a channel near Oman. Iranian officials have said that while there will be no tolls charged in the strait, the agreement includes a “service fee” to cover the environmental effect of the shipping, security for the cargo ships and tankers, and staffing. Revenues would be divided equally between Iran and Oman, Iranian officials said. But, adds NYT, a US official familiar with the negotiations said that the Iranian account was “not accurate,” and that any “temporary” routes established through the strait would not involve approvals or permissions by Iran and no tolls.
The Associated Press adds that the talks between Iran and Oman are based on the MOU between Iran and the US, which Iran interpreted – correctly in the 3W view – as giving it control over the Strait, at least for a 60-day interim period. 3W notes that the US claims this is not the meaning of the MOU. So, the Iranian position in the negotiation with Oman is not based on US directions or expectations.
In the 3W view, all this indicates that Iran is plotting its own, independent path in the negotiations, no longer allowing itself to be led by US established timelines and agenda points, as previously was the case. Iran now talks to whom it thinks it needs to talk to, and discusses the things it believes is important. Effectively sidelining the US.
This is why we at 3W believe a number of US “beliefs” regarding the current phase of negotiations are likely wrong. Among these, firstly, the US assumption that Iran and Oman will agree on something that is aligned to the US wish list, i.e. not include any tolls or fees. Secondly, the US assumption that Iran is discussing the Strait of Hormuz with Oman because that is what US wants it to prioritize, and that after this Iran will negotiate with the US on the nuclear subject.
If we at 3W are correct, then the outcome of the current negotiations will leave the US disappointed. And that will leave the US in its current quagmire, where its window of opportunity to escalate shrinks with time, while the costs of escalation grow.
The world can only hope that when the US realizes it is without leverage in negotiations with Iran, it does not follow the stupid advice from people such as James Stavridis, retired US navy admiral and former head of NATO. Writing for Bloomberg he claims that the Saudi’s can manage the Bab el Mandab implication of the US – Israel Alliance War on Iran by launching a naval operation in the Red Sea to force open the Bab. If the US navy had to withdraw from its effort to break open the Bab after 30 days of fighting with the Houthi’s during March 2025, why on earth would anyone think that Saudi Arabia, or even a coalition led by Saudi Arabia, can forcefully break it open? It is stupid thinking like that of James Stavridis that led to the current crisis, and anyone following his advice will just make matters worse for the world!